Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1996/07/23 "I declare ",nder penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chu!a V:sta in the Office of the City Cieri, "nd t,13< , ¡'>13led this Agenda/Notice on t:liJ Bulletin 3ùard at Tuesday, July 23, 1996 the Public sertees Bui'cHng aï17t Cit;t1ail on Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. DATED, 7!/o/,'1{p SIGNED 0 .I) :tH1" Public Services Building Rel!Ular Meeting of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Alevy _, Moot _. Padilla _. Rindone _. and Mayor Horton _. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Proclamations commending the Bonita Valley Girls, 16 years of age and under. All-Stars - California State Champs. Mayor Horton will present the proclamations. h. Proclamation commending Agent Susan Rodriguez for the 1996 Scottish Rites Officer of the Year Award. Mayor Horton will present the proclamation. c. Report from the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau (CONVIS) on their activities benefitting Chula Vista. d. Legislative Update by Assemblymember Denise Oucheny. e. Video tape of John Goss playing the National Anthem at a Padres game with 51.000 fans in attendance. ***** Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting. Because of the cost involved, there will be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However, final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office. ***** CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5 through 16) The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed tmder 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 Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) 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 Acting City Attorney stating that there were no reportable actions taken in Closed Session on 7/16/96. It is recommended that the letter be received and tiled. I Agenda -2- July 23, 1996 b. Letter of resignation from the Housing Advisory Commission· Robert C. Flaugher. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library. c. Letter of resignation from the Housing Advisory Commission - Thomas J. Massey, Jr. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library. 6. ORDINANCE 2685 AMENDING SECTION 2.05.010 OF TIlE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL UNCLASSIFIED CALIFORNIA BORDER ALLIANCE GROUP FULL·TIME POSITIONS (second readißl! and adootion) - This is to authorize the City to act as the Fiscal Agent for California Border Alliance Group (CBAG), extend funding for present CBAG staff and add two staff positions to the CBAG staff. Staff recommends Councit place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Chief of Police) 7. ORDINANCE 2683 ESTABLISHING THE OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION 18288, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND PROGRAM (second readim! and adootion) - On 5/14/96, Council established the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program which has two components: (a) a Reserve Fund fee to be paid by the developer/applicant, and (b) the Otay Ranch Property Tax Transfer Agreement with the County of San Diego. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Deputy City Manager Thomson and Director of Finance) 8. ORDINANCE 2686 AMENDING THE RANCHO DEL REY SPA ill SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICT MAP (second readim! and adootion) - The applicant, Rancho Del Rey Investments, L.P., has requested the amendments to the Rancho Del Rey Spa III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, General Development Plan, Planned Community ~istrict Regulations, Residential Design Guidelines, Water Conservation Plan and Air Quality Improvement Plan. The purpose of these amendments are to change the land use designation of parcel R-7 from Residential Specialty Housing (SP) to Single Family Detached (SFO) and Residential Ouplexrrownhomes (SF A). Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading adoption. (Director of Planning) 9. ORDINANCE 2680 ADOPTING THE PRE· ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SNMB, LTD., JEWELS OF CHARITY, AND STEVEN AND MARY BIRCH FOUNDATION (second readin. and adootion) - Staff recommends that Council not adopt the ordinance. (Deputy City Manager Krempl) 10.A. ORDINANCE 2687 ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND JEWELS OF CHARITY (first reading) - Staff recommends Council place the ordinances on first reading. (Deputy City Manager Krempl) B. ORDINANCE 2688 ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SNMB, LTD. (first readimÜ C. ORDINANCE 2689 ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND STEPHEN AND MARY BIRCH FOUNDATION (first readin.) ;:l Agenda -3- July 23, 1996 Ii. RESOLUTION 18374 APPROPRIATING $32,041.76 FROM UNANTICIPATED REVENUES INTO TIlE GENERAL FUND AND ACCOUNT 100-0150·5202 FOR PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES AND COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH MCA AMPHITHEATER LITIGATION In March of 1996, Judge McConnell awarded the City $32,041.76 to compensate for costs incurred in the preparation of the Administrative Record for the case of SNMB, L.P. v. the City of Chula Vista, MCA Concerts, Inc., et aI. This resolution allocates such amount to the various parties that incurred such costs. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Acting City Attomey) 4/5th's vote required. 12. RESOLUTION 18375 WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS EQUIPMENT FROMSPECIAL-T FIRE EQUIPMENT, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA - The fiscal year 1996/97 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget approved by Council includes funds for CIP Project Number PS148 for the purchase of upgrades to the Fire Department's existing Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) equipment originally manufactured by Mine Safety Appliance (MSA). To comply with state and federal regulations which mandate that individual SCBA component parts originate from the same manufacturer, and due to the fact that significant savings will be realized through trade-in of some existing MSA SCBA component parts, it is recommended that MSA and its associated distributor, Special-T Fire Equipment, be selected to supply the upgrades to the existing equipment. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Fire Chief) 13. RESOLUTION 18376 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TIlE "INSTALLATION OF CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF FOURTH A VENUE BETWEEN CIruLA VISTA ADULT SCHOOL AND ORANGE AVENUE (STM-302)" AND APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED ON INITIAL STUDY IS-94-11 - On 6/26/96, bids were received. The work to be done includes excavation and grading; removal and disposal of existing improvements; installation of asphalt concrete pavement; crushed aggregate base; P.C.C. curb, gutter, and sidewalks; driveway approaches; keystone retaining walls; street lighting; modification of traffic signals; traffic control; installation of new mailboxes; protection and restoration of existing improvements; and the construction of all appurtenances and other work as may be necessary to render the improvements complete and workable. Staff recommends approval of the resolution awarding the contract to Builders Staff Corporation. (Director of Public Works) 14. RESOLUTION 18377 RENEWING AGREEMENT WITH WOODW ARD-CL YDE CONSULTANTS FOR NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) DRY WEATHER DISCHARGE FIELD SCREENING AND ILLEGAL DISCHARGE DETECTION SERVICES ON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR TWELVE MONTHS (JULY 1, 1996 TO JUNE 30, 1997) . On 7/25/95, Council authorized the City to enter into an agreement with Woodward-Clyde Consultants for the performance of NPOES Dry Weather Discharge Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services during fiscal year 1995/96. The agreement included an option to extend the contract for an additional one· year term through the end of fiscal year 1996/97 at the same hourly rates/unit costs for a fee not-to-exceed $60,000. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) :5 Agenda -4- July 23. 1996 15.A. RESOLUTION 18378 ORDERING CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODlFlCATIONS TO TIlE ENGINEER'S REPORT IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 91-1 - Council established Assessment Districts 90-3, 91-1 and 94-1 and levied assessments on the EastLake Greens II development, pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, with the purpose of acquiring and financing infrastructure improvements serving that development. Final development of Eastlake Greens II is occurring. Changes in the proposed land use and savings in the final cost of the improvements acquired by AD 94-1 requires the Engineer's Reports for Ad 91-1 and 94-1 to be modified. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Public Works) B. RESOLUTION 18379 ORDERING CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODlFlCATIONS TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 94-1 16. RESOLUTION 18380 APPROVING CONTRACTS WITH TIlE SAN DIEGO CHAMBER ORCHESTRA AND SAN DIEGO FIREWORKS, INC., APPROVING THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT'S TIDELANDS ACTIVITY PERMIT FOR THE 1996 SYMPHONY POPS CONCERT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME - The City has the opportunity to host the San Diego Chamber Orchestra for a pops concert at Marina View Park on Sunday. 8/25/96. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * 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 Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. 17. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 69 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE BA YSHORE BIKE ROUTE PROPOSED WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE - CaItrans, in conjunction with local jurisdictions and the San Diego Unified Port District, plans to construct a 26 mile long, regional bicycle route that will traverse the perimeter of San Diego Bay with a portion in Chula Vista. Most of the route will be marked within the existing street right-of-way; but a portion, located within the Chula Vista coastal zone, is proposed to be constructed west of and adjacent to 1-5. Staff recommends the Duhlic hearinl! he continued to 8/6/96. (Director of Community Development) Continued from the meeting of 7/23/96. L/ Agenda -5- July 23, 1996 18. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-96-40; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A RECREATIONAL WATER PARK ON APPROXIMATELY 32.4 ACRES OF LAND IN THE OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK, PHASE n, WEST OF CASTLE PINES A VENUE IN THE IL-P (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL - PRECISE PLAN ZONE - mCE ENTERPRISES, INC. - Hice Enterprises. Inc. has submitted a proposal to construct and operate a water theme park on 32.4. acres located within the Otay Rio Business Park, Phase II. The project site is immediately west of the proposed MCA Amphitheater which is to be constructed on Phase I of the Business Park. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Community Development) A. RESOLUTION 18381 ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-96-21 AND RELATED DOCUMENTS, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , PCC-96-40, ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RECREATIONAL WATER PARK ON APPROXIMATELY 32.4 ACRES OF LAND IN THE OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK, PHASE II, WEST OF CASTLE PINES A VENUE IN THE LIMITED INDUSTRIAL (IL-P) ZONE B. RESOLUTION 18382 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH mCE ENTERPRISES, INC., FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A WATER PARK 19. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF CITY'S OPTION TO EXTEND THE DECISION REGARDING THE PRESENTLY DESIGNATED PERMANENT LffiRARY PARCEL IN THE EASTLAKE VICINITY - In 1993, Council approved an "Option Agreement for Interim Library Services and Facilities in EastLake." The Agreement specified that the City would decide within three years whether the site reserved in Village Center West would be needed as a permanent library site. There is a provision in the Agreement to extend this three year period by an additional two years. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Library Director) RESOLUTION 18383 EXERCISING THE CITY'S OPTION TO EXTEND, BY TWO YEARS, A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY WILL REQUIRE THE PRESENTLY DESIGNATED PERMANENT LffiRARY PARCEL AS THE ACTUAL LOCATION FOR A PERMANENT LffiRARY IN THE EASTLAKE VICINITY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject 11I(ltter within the CouncU'sjurisdiction that is!!Qf 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 address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" 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. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker. S- Agenda -6- July 23, 1996 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. ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the Council, striff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and striffrecommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes. 20. RESOLUTION 18384 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ONE OR MORE BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS AND OFFICIAL STATEMENTS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF ONE OR MORE PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $151,000,000 AND AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING RELATED MATTERS - On 5/21/96, Council authorized the issuance and sale of up to $151,000,000 principal amount of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds on behalf of San Diego Gas & Electric (SOG&E). Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Finance) 21. REPORT REVIEW OF DRAFT PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ORDINANCE REGARDING DEVELOPMENT PHASING AND MONITORING - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL INPUT AND DIRECTION - Given forthcoming additional Tentative Map approvals for Otay Ranch and other projects, it has become necessary to adopt methods by which the overall phasing of new development can be managed in concert with needed circulation improvements. so as to ensure threshold maintenance prior to construction of SR 125. Staff recommends Council accept the report and direct staff to fmalize the draft proposed amendments to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance and retum them for formal public hearing adoption by September 1996. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of 7/9/96. 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. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual. b Agenda -7- July 23, 1996 OTHER BUSINESS 22. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTCS) a. Scheduling of meetings. 23. MAYOR'S REPORTlS) a. Ratification of reappointment to the Housing Advisory Commission (Tenant) - Barbara A. Worth. b. Ratification of appointment to Youth Commission - David E. Taboada. 24. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Meeting will adjourn to <a closed session and thence to) the regular City Council Meeting on August 6, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting. ***** CLOSED SESSION Unless the C~ Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and de /berate on the {ollowing items of business which are permitted by law to be the su1ÿ"ect of a closed session discussion, and whic the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to est ¡¡~tect the interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to o[.en session, issue any reports of I action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to t e typical length of time taken up 'Y closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, rec.0rts M ~ action taken, and adjournment will not be videotr¡r.ed. Nevertheless, the report of final action ta en w' e recorded in the minutes which will be available in t e City Clerk's Office. 25. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 . SNMB, L.P. vs. the City of Chula Vista and MCA. 26. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 . ~ency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive anagement, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee ~anization: Chula Vista Emplorees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of En~neers CE), Police Officers Association (POA) and Intemallonal Association of Fire Fig ters (IAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 27. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION ***** 7 ---. July 18, 1996 TO: The Honorable Mayor and city co~nc FROM: John D. Goss, city Manage~ SUBJECT: city Council Meeting of July 23 19;; This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, July 23, 1996. Comments regarding the written Communications are as follows: 5a. This is a letter from the Interim city Attorney stating that there were no observed reportable actions taken by the City Council in Closed Session on July 16, 1996.· IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED. 5b. & 5c. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE RESIGNATIONS OF ROBERT FLAUGHER AND THOMAS MASSEY FROM THE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THE CITY CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING TO THE MADDY ACT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY. JDG:mab , \' i:5 - -----------~-,_._._,---- ~~~ =.d:__ ~ ~~~~ -.:...~-.... OlY OF CHUIA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Date: July 18, 1996 To: The Honorable Mayor and city council From: Ann Y. Moore, Acting City Attorney q.ry' , Re: Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session for the Meeting of 7/16/96 The city Council met in Closed Session to discuss Erxleben v. City of Chula Vista, Christopher v. City of Chula vista, West Coast Land Fund v. City of Chula vista and Fritsch v. city of Chula vista. The Acting city Attorney hereby reports to the best of my knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the Acting City Attorney participated, that there were no actions taken in the Closed Session of 7/16/96 which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. AYM: 19k c: \1 t \clossed. no s;--) 276 FOURTH AVENUE, CHULA VISTA· CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585·5612 rf/.; Po¡ -Car¡¡,mr rAio:)ded?4Ø q _____~__,.____.__~ __._~__._.~~______~__.___.__.__,._.__"._'_____ . '··..n .____._.________.,__~____________ , r'-¡ "ECEIVED .' ........ .' . '96 .n.15 A9:15 ROBERT C. FLAUGHER.:CI¡ JUlI, ¡oqS'¡ 521 ORANGE AVENUE L. i i _ SPACE 58 -.., c: ,I . ii "I " ~ ì _If MI\.IlA ~LA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91911 ,__,i..,~ 'j, ! _11...'$ eFFIC'------O July 3, 1996 The Honorable Shirley Horton Mayor of Chula vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Re: Resianation as Commissioner of Housina Advisorv Commission - Effective Julv 1. 1996 Dear Mayor Horton: This letter will serve as confirmation that as of July 1, 1996, I resign as commissioner of Housing Advisory Commission. Due to a stroke I suffered on June 25, 1996, my health no longer enables me to fulfill my position. I have sincerely enjoyed my position with the Housing Advisory Commission and am hopeful that one day can again serve the City of Chula vista under your leadership. Respectfully, ff?4 C $~~ Robert C. Flaugher RCF/sm .'M.'~¡r.~ ~'w,,,t¡,¡; ¡:,i,/': ,i" d' "Ú, ;M~ P', I~\ ii ..... I..;!.¡~.¡". ·,.'itI., ¡:fl"..' JJ;ÌI.." 'if ".ill ,9''\ t' "." I , .WV'fJd Ii II lioFi'1ì1 \;~,.VH'Ìig¡:ia_~"I"-¡I-'" IíI íilV¡j¡~;" C¿ -. ~ tv . _t;þ~ /'" ¡;-'7j;:ý~ 0~ t: 9) .~.__._----,_.,.'._--'-----~-~--'--'--' --.-. THOMAS ALONSO MASSEY ATTOH.~EY AT LAW Successful Settlements Fonncr LCDR. JAGC. USN and Trials Since 1974 rr~-"r;:-! í:"'¡ r,; ') If¡ n: ,--\J r,r¡ I 'I l \,j l, ¡,..,;\ Il'i ..-- .... --'·;'il , ' !í: J 3050 WEST AS.I Ii: ,!ill I 5 'ê'~ ".,;' , SUITE 1100 ..___J SAN DIEGO, CA 92 101·3403 1.--- July 10, 1996 . ~ =- ,.. þ ", ~ n Mayor Shirley Horton - ", Ut 276 4th Avenue < Chula vista, CA 91910 !~ '"Q f'1 (619) 691-5044 ,.. W ~ ,'t1·~., Dear Mayor Horton: It has been my honor to serve on the Chula vista Housing Commission and it has been both a rewarding and educational experience. I am particularly grateful to Juan Arroyo for his outstanding assistance to the commission and his help to me in understanding the complex issues brought before the commission. Unfortunately I have made a decision to relocate my primary residence to Lake Arrowhead. Accordingly, I can no longer serve on the commission as I will not be a resident of Chula vista. I therefore regretfully tender my resignation from the commission and again thank you and the Chula vista C'cty council for the opportunity to serve Chula vista. ~l Thomas J. a TJM/cjp CC: Juan Arroyo Chula vista Housing Dept. ~(\ (l..IY Counc.\ \TJM\May-Bort.Ree COj\¡\f~UNICA TIONS cc: ~Y~(') WRI1TEtl r Y-Vß? &:iy ISé -) .- , , 350 WE S T ^ S H . 5 U I TEl I 00 . SAN 0 lEG 0, C A L I FOR!\II ^ 92 I (} 1 . ((j I 9) 2:'J 1 - 2 30:3 . F A X ((j 1 !-)) 2:3:-3 -:H~ 4o:{ It ._~---~~---_.-_.- INFORMATION PACKET SCANNED AT FIRST READING .2. (, Y.5' OF THIS ORDINANCE ON: ORDINANCE NO. :JULY II::, Iqqlo AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~?\\O~ AMENDING SECTION 2.05.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL P-~O I" CODE TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL UNCLAS~ CALIFORNIA BORDER ALLIANCE GROUP FRt ME POSITIONS ~~çP~ SECTION I: That section 2.05.010 of the Chula vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.05.010 Unclassified positions established. In addition to those unclassified positions specifically delineated in section 500 of the Charter of the City, there are established the unclassified positions entitled deputy city manager, assistant to the city manager, deputy city clerk, assistant fire chief, assistant director of planning, assistant director of finance, assistant director of personnel, assistant director of building and housing, city engineer, director of management services and information services, redevelopment coordinator, housing coordinator, transit coordinator, assistant'director of community development, deputy director of public works/city engineer, public information coordinator, traffic engineer, deputy director of public works/operations, budget manager, revenue manager, assistant director of management services and information services, assistant library director, police captain, special planning projects manager, assistant to the Mayor and Council, border environmental business cluster manager and administrative assistant/office manager, ðflè California Border Alliance Group executive director, California Border Alliance Group analyst ðflè California Border Alliance Group secretary. California Border Alliance Group deputv executive director and California Border Alliance Group coordinator for operations lintell iqence policv. plans and Droaram. SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect upon its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by AnÇboorLJ, ì11kt.-c~ Richard Emerson, Chief of Interim City Police Attorney c: \or\205010 . t-j \ :.>-- -- -----, ------ ORDINANCE NO. ø2 (p r -> ~\O~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA S) 'è-'\P - VISTA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING THE ...\G, # OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND FEE ~Q\\'- ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTIO~l ~- WHICH ESTABLISHED THE OT CH RESERVE FUND PROGRAM// WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) approved by the Chula vista city Council and the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993, required that: "All City local services provided to the incorporated portions of otay Ranch, including direct and indirect costs, and including capital and operating costs, shall be covered by project revenues and project exactions. Shortfalls shall be covered through a specially designed fund established by the developer and through an agreement between the city of Chula vista and the County of San Diego;" and WHEREAS, the otay Ranch GDP also requires that: "A reserve fund program shall be established concurrent with the approval of the first SPA, to correct any annual operating deficiencies incurred by the applicable jurisdiction. The reserve fund program shall finance the cost of an annual review and updated fiscal impact analysis, and be the basis for any transfer of monies from the reserve fund...;" and . WHEREAS, the Chula vista City Council on May 14, 1996 adopted Resolution 18288 establishing the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program; and WHEREAS, Resolution 18288 specifies that the Reserve Fund Program shall consist of the following: (a) The developer and/or applicant shall pay a fee, adopted by ordinance by the city council, to pay for the financing of the cost of an annual review and updated fiscal impact analysis, as performed by the Fiscal Impact of New Development (FIND) Model. The FIND Model produces a representation of city and County fiscal impacts for any given year and throughout the otay Ranch Project's buildout period. (b) The property Tax Transfer Agreement, entered into with the County, by Resolution 18261, wherein the County has agreed to cover, subject to a number of contingencies, the potential city operating deficits from the Otay Ranch Project that the City might incur through FY 2016-17; and WHEREAS, Resolution 18288 specifies that the City Council may amend the Reserve Fund Program, from time to time, to include additional fees to cover any potential city deficits that may not be covered by the adopted Reserve Fund Program; and PACKET INFORMATI~~RST READING SCANNED ~~DINANCE ON: OF THIS ~ ..TU 1- I b I q q b 7 - / ? --' ". ~....~...,.,..._,._....~,.__ _._~__ __~_ "~.. ___.._._.u_o_'____n "".._..._ WHEREAS, Resolution 18288 specifies that failure to comply with the terms of the Reserve Fund Program shall be considered a violation of the GDP at which time the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals granted for the otay Ranch Project, including issuance of building permits; and WHEREAS, the otay Ranch Property Tax Transfer Agreement was approved by the city council on May 14, 1996 and by the county Board of Supervisors on May 15, 1996; and WHEREAS, said property Tax Transfer Agreement calls for the City and County to jointly undertake an annual fiscal impact analysis of the project area for twenty years commencing with FY 1997-98 and for the County to utilize a portion of its annual fiscal surplus to offset any residential operating deficits incurred by the City through FY 2016-17, subject to specified constraints; and WHEREAS, the affected property owners were notified of the proposed otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program prior to its being adopted by the city Council on May 14, 1996; and WHEREAS, the affected property owners have been notified of the July 9, 1996 public hearing on the proposed otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee; and . WHEREAS, information regarding the fee and the estimated costs required to provide the service for which the fee is to be levied, was made available at the City Clerk's office; and WHEREAS, Attachment 1 describes the calculation of the initial fee for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund; and WHEREAS, the city Council has determined, based upon the evidence presented at the July 9, 1996 public hearing, including but not limi ted to the various reports and other information received by the City Council in the course of its business, that imposition of the otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee on all developments within the otay Ranch General Development Plan for which building permits have not yet been issued is necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare, to ensure the effective implementation of the otay Ranch General Development Plan and is reasonably related to the development of the otay Ranch Project; and WHEREAS, the FIND Model projections indicate that the City's operating deficits result from residential development, not commercial or industrial, so the proposed fees for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund are proposed to be tied to residential units, both single family and multi-family, on the portions of the Otay Ranch covered by the otay Ranch Property Tax Transfer Agreement; and 2 7Y 7~c2 J! : ---I .- .~_.- ----- WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this proposed ordinance is exempt under the provisions of section 15061(b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: section 1. Territory to Which Fee is Applicable. The area of the City of Chula vista to which the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee herein established shall be applicable is the same as the "Affected Territory" defined in the Otay Ranch Property Tax Transfer Agreement adopted by the Chula vista city council on May 14, 1996, which is summarized as "Areas subject to 1996 otay Ranch Property Tax Agreement" on the attached Exhibit A. section 2. Purpose. By Resolution 18288, the City Council established the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program which is specified to include a fee paid by the developer and/or applicant. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee in accordance with Resolution 18288 and in accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. section 3. Establishment of Fee. An Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee ("Fee") to be expressed on a per residential dwelling unit basis, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for a residential development project within the Affected Territory. section 4. Determination of Dwelling units Each single family attached and detached dwelling unit shall be considered one dwelling unit for purposes of this Fee. Each multi-family attached and detached dwelling unit shall also be considered a dwelling unit for the purposes of this Fee. Commercial, industrial and other non-residential uses shall not be charged an otay Ranch Reserve Fund Fee. Section 5. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advance Payment prohibited. The Fee for each residential dwelling unit shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the tentative map or final map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit. The Fee shall be adjusted from time to time as the city determines appropriate. 3 ~ 73 c- \..j .._._~,.. Section 6. Amount of Fee. The Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $124.00 per dwelling unit for the first 1,500 dwelling units within the Affected Territory, and $26.09 per dwelling unit for the estimated remaining 16,867 dwelling units, after said first 1,500 dwelling units, within the Affected Territory. The calculation of the initial Fee for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund is shown in Attachment 1. The city Council intends to review the amount of this Fee annually or from time to time. The City council may, at such reviews, adjust the amount of this Fee as necessary to assure compliance with the purposes of this Fee as set forth herein, the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program and the otay Ranch General Development Plan. Adjustments to the above Fee may be made by resolution. section 7. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures. The proceeds collected from the imposition of this Fee and any interest earned thereon shall be deposited into a separate fund or account ("otay Ranch Reserve Fund" ) which is hereby created and such proceeds shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this ordinance. The Director of Finance is authorized to periodically make expenditures from the otay Ranch Reserve Fund for the purposes set forth herein. Expenditures from the otay Ranch Reserve Fund and any interest earned thereon shall be accounted for separately from o~her City accounts. Section 8. Revision and Refund of Fees. At such time as the City Council determines that this Fee is no longer required to be collected for the purposes set forth herein, the Fee shall be suspended. If the Fee is suspended as provided above, the Finance Director shall provide a report to the City Council summarizing the revenues and expenditures to date resulting from the Fee. If there are surplus funds available, the City Manager shall provide a recommendation to the city Council on the most fair and equitable disposition of any excess Fees that may have been collected. In the absence of an alternative determination of fairness by the city Council, a refund which divides the remaining unused balance by the residential units for each developer or applicant who has paid the Fee for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund shall be deemed a fair method. section 9. Findings. 4 ~ 7--:1 ¡b ------ . The city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby finds that the establishment of the Fee is necessary to protect the public safety and welfare, to ensure the effective implementation of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and is reasonably related to the development of the Otay Ranch Project, for the following reasons: A. The Otay Ranch GDP requires that a Reserve Fund Program be established to correct any annual "operating deficiencies" incurred by the City as a result of the development of the otay Ranch Project and to finance the cost of an annual review and analysis of the fiscal impact this Project is having on the city. B. The FIND Model produces a representation of the otay Ranch Project's fiscal impacts on the City and County for any given year to the buildout of such project. C. It is projected that the City's operating deficits will result from residential development, not commercial or industrial, so the proposed fees for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund are proposed to be tied to residential units, both single family and multi- family. D. The amount of the fee levied by this ordinance, to fund the FIND Analysis does not exceed the estimated cost of providing this service. It is anticipated that the FIND Analysis will be more costly for the first five years of the Otay Ranch Project. E. The collection of the Fee established by this ordinance at the time of the building permit is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the purposes described in Resolution 18288 and the Otay Ranch GDP. section 10. Fee Additional to Other Fees and Charges. The Fee established by this ordinance is in addition to the requirements imposed by other city laws, policies or regulations relating to the development of otay Ranch. section 11. Time Limit for Judicial Action. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within the time period as established by Government Code section 54995 after the effective date of this ordinance. section 12. Expiration of This Ordinance. This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect when the city Council determines that the Fees are no longer needed for the purposes stated herein. 5 y-- 70 n section 13. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective sixty (60) days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by ~ 11A~~ Jim Thomson Ann Moore Deputy City Manager Interim city Attorney M:\hoae\attorney\reserve.fee 6 þP ?--t J\/ ATTACHMENT 1 CALCULATION OF INITIAL FEE FOR OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND YEAR CITY COUNTY CONTRACT ANNUAL YEARS TOTAL COST COST COST COST COST 1 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $80,000 1 $ 80,000 2 15,000 15,000 10,000 40,000 1 40,000 3-20 10,000 10,000 2,000 22,000 18 396,000 21 10,000 0 2,000 12,000 1 12,000 22-35 6,000 0 1,000 7,000 14 98,000 TOTAL 35 $626,000 ALTERNATIVE APPROAtHES TO SPREADING THE COST: (B is Recommended) \. Cost If Spread Equally Over 18,367 Dwelling Units (OU) $626,000 I 18,367 = $34.08 Per OU B. Cost If l,t Five Year's Cost Spread Over l,t 1,500 DU's (Recommended Approach) $186,000 is Cost For l,t 5 Years 440,000 is Cost For Years 6-35 $186,000 I 1,500 = $124.00 Per DU For l,t 1,500 DU's $440,000 I 16,867 = $26.09 Per DU For Remaining 16,867 DU's ~?-? _...--....~..- OJ m r, II, >< '", ::T .. ~, -. '~I C'" -. ~' r-+ -r. I', I.: , '0 » J' t- , . . , --I L" , 0 , I ~ .... .... o. , . I : \ . ("" > I I Þ -. J I_- I , , I , , I 0 ..... 0 t__~ I ..... . . , 'f ' . , '"'. ,. N 1!" ~ '\ I I I , I , 1Þ , I 1/1 , . , I , . , - , I , I~¡I~ , ... , I m 0 »"tI.....» »"tI"'» , C') W ~z 0 CC ~ cø~ CQ'" cø.., m Õ c "" 0 COlD "" 0 CDID cn:;c 00 z ID"O ,¡o.", ID "0 en '" ,¡o. :¡ ID ID s::lII ID ID 011I c;-. ;:;::r c iQ 1~ .. (D< - '< 3~",1/I 3 ~..I/I '<C u: OI~ ...ii' ØI ... 111'< III C 111'< AI C 31/1 .~ '" :¡......tT :¡~.2: 3< i :¡ ....ø(þ- ""';:OlD 1/101 ~ Co >c"":J: :¡ ..ëñ" . >c",n Co = .. :¡.. 1/1 .. '" - .. n" 7-rr- 0 :ro ..,-- , - INFORMATIOt P/,CKET SCANNED AT FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE ON: :rUI- Ib ,q96 I ORDINANCE NO. .,.< ¿. Y ~ f\.~~ ~' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF~ULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE RANCHO DEL ~Y SPA III PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, A~'iAND USE DISTRICT MAPS S) ~ / I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the properties which are the subject matter of this ordinance are diagrammatically represented on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, and located within the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Planned Community Area of the City of Chula Vista ("Project Site"); and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on March 8, 1996, the Rancho Del Rey Partnership L.P. ("Developer") filed an application requesting amendments to the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Planned Community District Regulations (known as Document No. - on file with the office of the City Clerk) Land Use District Map and Land Use District designations of certain areas within the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Planned Community ("Project"). C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the Project Site has been in part the subject matter of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15993 ("Rancho Del Rey SPA III ") and Planned Community (p.C.) District Regulations previously approved by City Council Ordinance No. 2440 (Rancho . . Del Rey SPA III Planned Community District Regulations) on March 8, 1996. D. Planning Commission Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said project on June 26, 1996, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Community Distrièt Regulations and Land Use District Map amendments in accordance with the findings in the City Council Resolution. The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on June 26, 1996, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. 1 J I A .L 'J-I ,'. I ç'-. . -~.~ ---- E. City Council Record on Applications ) WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on July 16, 1996, on the Discretionary Approval Application, and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at which this ordinance was introduced for first reading on July 16, 1996, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved Resolution No. 18366 by which it imposed amendments on the Rancho Del Rey SPA m Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Rancho Del Rey SPA m General Development Plan, Rancho Del Rey SPA m Residential Design Guidelines, Rancho Del Rey SPA m Water Conservation Plan and Rancho Del Rey SPA m Air Quality Improvement Plan. II. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: A. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that no new supplemental ì EIR is necessary and has prepared an addendum to EIR-89-1O, Rancho Del Rey SPA m, which must be considered and recertified by the City Council prior to a decision on the project. B. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council does hereby find that in the exercise of their independent review and judgement, the addendum to EIR 89-10 in the form presented has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the state EIR guidelines and the Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopt same. C. FINDINGS FOR P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby fmds that the proposed amendment to the Rancho Del Rey SPA m Planned Community District Regulations Land Use Districts Plan are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and public necessity, convenience, the general welfare, and good zoning practice support the amendments. 2 J},9 ~ fJ~ --.- -- ---.--- .--,.----.---..---------- D. APPROVAL The City Council does hereby approve the Rancho Del Rey SPA III Planned Community District Regulation amendments, as represented in Exhibit _ on file with the City Clerk as Document No._, and the Land Use District Maps as shown on Exhibit D, on file with the City Clerk as Document No. III. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by G~ vj í1/~ Robert A. Leiter Ann Y. Moore, Interim City Attorney Director of Planning N: \lharcd\Juomey\PCM·9605.cco 3 ¿j,9J ~-3 1; h COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Items 9 and 10 Meeting Date 7/23/96 ITEM TITLE Ordinances 2680, :¿~'iJ7J 2688 and 2689 - Pre- Annexation Development Agreements between the city of Chula vista and SNMB, Jewels of Charity and Stephen and Mary Birch Foundation rV SUBMITTED BY: Deputy city Managerú? REVIEWED BY: City Manager It is recommended that these items be pulled from the agenda. Due to the changes being made to the Agreements, they need to be renoticed for a public hearing before the Planning commission as well as City Council. We are exploring the possibility of another joint hearing for the Commission and Council on Tuesday, August 6, 1996. If this occurs, the First Reading of the Ordinance would be on that date and the Second Reading on August 13, 1996. The annexation hearing would also be scheduled for August 13, 1996. f>¿.-/ I .' - -- ------- ~. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item NO~tfu d.037d.~3g I :t-~ßqeeting Date 7/2 /96 ITEM TITLE: Ordinances' / - Adopting Otay Ranch Pre- Annexation Development Agreements Between: A) Jewels of Charity and the City of Chula vista B) SNMB, Ltd., and the City of Chula Vista; C) stephen and Mary Birch Foundation and the city of Chula Vista; SUBMITTED BY: Deputy Ci~?er Kr~Pl{9('- REVIEWED BY: city Manage 4/5 Vote: Yes____ No ---1L On July 16, 1996, the Council continued for one week the second reading of the "Foundation" Agreement comprised of the Jewels of Charity, SNMB, and the Stephen and Mary Birch Foundation. Subsequent to the first reading of the Ordinance on June 25, 1996, the applicant requested that the Agreement be split into three separate agreements for each of the respective parties. Thus, the item is being returned to Council for a new first reading on July 23. Staff is still reviewing the documents and the implications of dividing the document and may also need to consult further with the applicant. We will forward to you a copy of the actual agreements and an explanation of any changes as soon as we can prior to Tuesday evening's Council meeting. /D -/ f1.B.e...- /~\ " CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM II /f371 MEETING DATE: 7/23/96 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Appropriating $32,041.76 from Unanticipated Revenues into the General Fund and Account 100- 0150-5202 for Payment of Legal Fees and Costs in Connection with MCA Amphitheater Litigation SUBMITTED BY: Acting City Attorne~~~V~ 4/5ths Vote: Yes-1LNo - Back in March of 1996, Judge McConnell awarded the City $32,041.76 to compensate the City for costs incurred in the preparation of the Administrative Record for the case of SNMB, L.P. v. the City of Chula Vista, MCA Concerts, Inc. , et al. Approximately $25,200 of these costs were incurred by Latham & Watkins on behalf of the City and MCA. Community Development Department and Planning Department staff for the City collectively contributed $6,831.26 of staff time and costs to the preparation of the Administrative Record. In addition, pursuant to an existing Joint Defense and Indemnification Agreement between the City and MCA, the City is entitled to retain up to $5,000 from the total amount in order to pay the City's own outside legal counsel, Tina Thomas, of Remy, Thomas and MOO~f who also provided some assistance in this matter. This action would allow the following payments to be made out of the $32,041.76 amount awarded by the court: -- $20,210.50 to City Attorney's Account No. 5202 (Latham & Watkins). -- $6,831.26 to the City's general fund. -- $5,000 to City Attorney's Account No. 5202 to be used to compensate Tina Thomas. Pursuant to the City's Joint Defense and Indemnification Agreement with MCA, the City is obligated to pay half of any amount owed to Tina Thomas in connection with this litigation. Ms. Thomas has billed the City for approximately $5,878 in" fees and costs to date. No material additional billings are expected. Any amounts remaining from MCA's $5,000 deposit shall be returned to MCA or paid to Latham & Watkins to offset any outstanding amounts owed to Latham & Watkins by MCA. BOARDS/COMMISSION ACTION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: $32,041.76 of unanticipated revenues would be allocated as set forth above. C:\A113\costs.mca I( -( ----.---- ---- RESOLUTION NO. /R31! RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $32,041.76 FROM UNANTICIPATED REVENUES INTO THE GENERAL FUND AND ACCOUNT 100-0150-5202 FOR PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES AND COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH MCA AMPHITHEATER LITIGATION WHEREAS, in March of 1996, Judge McConnell awarded the city $32,041.76 to compensate the city for costs incurred in the preparation of the Administrative Record for the case of SNMB, L.P. v. the City of Chula Vista, MCA Concerts, Inc. , et al. ¡ and WHEREAS, approximately $25,200 of these costs were incurred by Latham & Watkins on behalf of the city and MCA¡ and WHEREAS, Community Development Department and Planning Department staff for the city collectively contributed $6,831.26 of staff time and costs to the preparation of the Administrative Record; and WHEREAS, in addition, pursuant to an existing Joint Defense and Indemnification Agreement between the City and MCA, the city is entitled to retain up to $5,000 from the total amount in order to pay the City's own outside legal counsel, Tina Thomas, of Remy, Thomas and Moose, who also provided some assistance in this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby appropriate $32,041.76 from unanticipated revenues into the General Fund and Account 100-0150- 5202 for payment of legal fees and costs in connection with MCA Amphitheater Litigation as follows: -- $20,210.50 to City Attorney's Account No. 5202 (Latham & Watkins). -- $6,831.26 to the City's general fund. -- $5,000 to city Attorney's Account No. 100-0150-5202 to be used to compensate Tina Thomas. Presented and Approved as to form by ---"'! ~ ( ~ <C~~;:~ ~~ An~ Y. Mo~~e, Ac~ng Ci; Attorney -- - --J /I-d.- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: I d.. Meeting Date: 7/23/96 ITEM TITLE: Resolution 1 t 3 7 5 Waiving the Competitive Bid Process and Authorizing the Purchase of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus Equipment from Special-T Fire Equipment, San Bernardino, CA. SUBMITTED BY: Fire Chief9-ð;! ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ ./ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_Noll) The Fiscal Year 1996/97 Capital Improvement Program Budget approved by Council includes funds for CIP Project # PS148 for the purchase of upgrades to the Fire Department's existing Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) equipment originally manufactured by Mine Safety Appliance (MSA). To comply with State and Federal regulations which mandate that individual SCBA component parts originate from the same manufacturer, and due to the fact that significant savings will be realized through trade-in of some existing MSA SCBA component parts, it is recommended that MSA and its associated distributor, Special-T Fire Equipment be selected to supply the upgrades to the existing equipment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the competitive bid process be waived and that the SCBA equipment be purchased from Special-T Fire Equipment. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None DISCUSSION: In the Fiscal Year 1996/97 Budget process, Council approved CIP Project #PS148 and appropriated $66,000 for the upgrade of existing Fire Department Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) equipment. The upgrade project includes the trade-in of current equipment and the purchase of 86 SCBA masks, 39 SCBA harnesses and regulators with personal alarm devices, and an air-flow quantity testing unit. The new equipment includes the following features: · Mask-mounted, anti-fog regulators · High pressure, non-collapsible hose (smaller diameter) from bottle to regulator. · Larger mask for greater field of vision · Mask exhalation port for infection control · Integrated personal alarm device equipped with an automatic-arming feature. The Fire Department purchased SCBA equipment manufactured by Mine Safety Appliance (MSA) in the 1970's and since that time, Fire personnel have performed the periodic SCBA maintenance on, and have made various upgrades to the equipment. State and Federal regulations promulgate standards for this type of equipment and prohibit intermingling of SCBA component parts manufactured by different vendors. / d- ~/ " ----.---'-- ~-_.'.- ---.--..----- ._-_._.__._--~-~--_.- Item: Meeting Date: 7/23/96 Page: 2. As delineated above, the SCBA upgrade project is not a wholesale purchase of new equipment; the City has made an investment over the years in approximately 100 air cylinders which still can be used with the upgraded components, and would therefore significantly reduce the cost of updating the system if MSA equipment is purchased. Informal quotes were solicited from vendors (any non-MSA vendor also had to include new air cylinders) and ranged from $65,957 (Special-T) to $121,732. A comparison quote of $100,549.85 (without air cylinders) was received directly from the MSA factory. That quote did not provide for certain incentives that MSA's exclusive West Coast distributor, Specia/- T Fire Equipment, is making available to the City for the total price of $65,957. Specifically, Special-T has agreed to take the City's existing masks, hoses, harnesses, and regulators in trade and meet the following conditions: · City to receive new parts in direct exchange for inventory on-hand which will no longer be needed with the new equipment and can be restocked by Special- T; · MSA to provide any necessary hand tools at no additional cost to be used for the repair and maintenance of the equipment by Chula Vista SCBA maintenance personnel; · Masks and regulators to carry a 7-year warranty; · MSA to provide any necessary training and certifications to Chula Vista SCBA maintenance personnel; · MSA and Special-T to provide materials and assistance to fit-test Fire personnel. In light of the State and Federal restrictions on mixing component parts, the fact that significant savings will be realized through trade-in of current SCBA equipment, and following consultation with the City Attorney's Office and the Purchasing Agent, it is recommended that the competitive bid process be waived, and the contract be awarded to Special-T Fire Equipment in the amount of $65,957. FISCAL IMPACT CIP project PS148 was approved for funding from Residential Construction Tax funds in the amount of $66,000. 111e total project cost including tax will be $65,957, representing a savings of $43 from the original CIP appropriation. Although this equipment is different than that which has been previously in the City's inventory and under the City's maintenance care, the annual operational maintenance costs are not anticipated to vary from the current equipment. There is no impact to the General Fund. /;)--2- 1 "',1' .\ .--..---,-.------ í' ~ FT' FI ~ <: n n...n '" ." o::¡:¡ () a.o('OQ)-cV\ 3U1 Z 0 ~ ¡¡ 3è3È"~ 3~!¡ ~ .. ~¡;;Z ¡¡: J> ... ~..O Co 51 3!!1.~!J '" -. Z m c: en :. · £. ;=~Q) '_ ê == ª n ~ .. ~~"tJ -. ¡¡R! 30-.", 0 ~ ... ::;I . _.::;1 0 ~ ~ :s !!!. G> ~ 0 ,.. ." 3: ~-.. · ~. " ~ n, ~ ~ "" ~" - c. .. " ~ 5. .. !il "c g CI> ~ Þ ."g - m Õ " ~. -g '" 0 ¡¡; ¡¡; " 0 1 » ... i .J:J ~-. 9: r:: .... (C c "'- C ~ 9t m Iþ;:f¡ c q-::::::J~...... ·c..... ~ '" ~ !'.' z _. ::::I ~ ,.., 0 » .. J>! 'Õ ~CÐ wCO iir:r " c. 3 ~."" - '" ~ m 3 ." iir ." (II -\w¡:- Of/ '" :>I", !'.' S· c: g Ii> · ~ 3, õ' :r ; I'D ø CÐ ¡¡ m~ · ... ¡a: 5 ~ft - ~ Cf>_,.D n " f · "0 g ::r ~ ~ 3 S. 0 g, x ;¡¡ ã II ~ "'O"TI a CÐJo30'P 3~ ~ ~f I "0 '5 ~ It"3 >t ij .... ::::::J (tI f "'I ~ ~~ .[¡¡. ~¡ ~ ::J Q.""" .... 5i ~ i Q. - (I)'~"ro('O .b ¡ 3.-..J 0 Q)1!:~rga. ::rg ." i !!!. :T g 3 ". c. ¡¡; Õ 't:I ¡¡;' Z a.. ('0 "'C ~c3Q)õ"" ('0__ ~ ro C --.C'Þ3....o ~; » ,,:n - i3.""5I~0 c. z ~¡:þ g. <o=.".ª, ::J " £ ~ ~ ~.~ g ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ z G> 0"E a. :. .... œch ~~ ... d "::> S· 0 ¡¡, ¡¡ i " .., 3 -. 0 , ... ~ "3 :T--jtc.Q " » ~" :T ,,~a '" n ~'" ,.. ,.. _::::::J ('0 ~ moo (t) . c» CI> CI> :¡;""" "'. .. .,..~.~ n.., Q)'( ) ø s. õ ar--tj"(Q i-g ~o - a:;:3~~g ..... ." ~ ~ -ê 3 ('0 3! 3. g. ¡x ~ Ë sè ct. Q) Q) ß) c: '" ª .... ~ . fI) co ct. ~ ::;I en I ::;I' 0 :r § § 0 ·Q.cà ~ ::.~ 3 fQ cð ~ geñ § § ~\!: ~ CÐo- 0 oQ gg.::rQ) COo § § ... -@c - ;;::J::;ICllma. œ(II § § !!: !!: !!: 0 ::¡ ij' ~ ~ (¡' Q) íi ~ ::3 0 -ê ~ » to Q) ~ a. (tI CD C -. ,... ~ ~ ~ ¡:þ õ .... ~ ~. UI ~ Dr' ~j ~o ::Jii'ï .....3c3('O~3 CD~ r- Q) - Q) c:.... Q) ::J 2: g ~. ãï Õ Õ œ :: "'2. ;g- ('0 a. Q) Õ (II ~ ffi" 0 (Ð -cc~... O~ - (Ð......'O-cø gO ~g ~ <0 o .... 3 (I) ctI ... 3: ..... g- Q) -. c: Q) ~ 5' :>Ih~ m." :::::1:::::1'0'" Q (Ð_ ¡Co " it) a. 'i "i, S' c: c.: ~ 3 '" m:t ê' müJ!õø~ ;1 !!: !!: !!: !!: Zc: - :::::I ~ :::::I !!: !!: iiI> o ctIoCTmo~tif Ie 0 i3. - ,,'< '" i3.- o Q) Q) Q) ctI @ I» Uz '"C< ~ 0 - ~ c: _ -. _ :::::I g~ 3 Q!.. _. a. 0 2. 0 a. ." ~i~ tilt 3 ~,ªcrgcð ;:; f"J -C -... §3-o(6'"(\I· "'CD - ~» g ~~~H~ ~~ § § I ...~!!: § g¡ .. !l:m::c ¡c a. 0' o' c: ë.: '" :::11 ~ OJ .. ¡!jm C ; ?~ø(зQ.Í;:Þ § § § § .. g m C! r- ~ m,,"~ i'!:n: ,... ::! !! ¡¡ - ¡; .. .. n ~ '" i iI' - i 0 0 , i ::! - .. .. to .. .. 0 0 ::! - : g 0 0 ::! i ! :J-- :5 .. - 0 0 "L"~--' .. --,.._._," SPECIRL T FIRE S.B.. TEL:909-383-0148 Jul 12,96 11:35 No.OOl P.Ol - - SPECIAL TFIRE EQt.:IP~IE~T, I~é. QUOTATION CIIUIA VISTA FIRE DEPl' ì DATE 07/12/96 ATTN: CJ\PI' . MIKE HAR'IMAN FAXf: (619) 691-5057 ..J WE ARE P~EASED TO OUOTE AS FOUOWS, YOUR INOUIRY F.O.B. TERMS ESTIMATED SHIPPING DATE QESTINATIOO NE:l' 30 D!\YS 150 W)RKING DAYS FR(Jo REX: OF P.O. VLI.'\NI", I . U.'..M..·....'... ,'HII,' '''','I ... MSA 39 a-œtOl0-6M54-0 - WI'l1f: ULTRALIKE ~ REGUIA'roR . CARRIER " HARNESS ra;E aJP E Z !)(:fi HEADHARNESS INl'EX2RATED pASS $1,534.42 $59,842 28 493511 - ULTRA ELITE FJ\CEPIECE WI'lH: ra;E aJP E Z DON HEADHARNESS $ 223.25 $ 6,251 20 493511 - ULTRA ELITE FJ\CEPIECE WITH: N:)SE CUP E Z DCII1 HEADHARNESS 00 GE 1 813433 - J\CCU CHfX:K PORTABLE REGUIA'roR TESTER $3,800.00 $ 3,800 $69,893 'lWIDE IN 38 BMR - REGUIATOR, AUDI J\I.ARM, CARRIER" HARNESS $ 140.00 $ 5,320 86 BMR - ULTRA VUE FJ\CEPIECE $ 35.00 $ 3,010 1 486668 - TESTER II $ 350.00 $ 350 , , $61,213 'l2\X @ 7.75% $ 4,744 ,.. $65,957 ". ..eOVE PRICES ~OOD FOR ~ DAYS'" &~ .~A.~ r-' . AUTHORIZEO SIGNATU:¡ " . ... /d-.- ~ SPECIAL T FIRE EQUIPMENT o . 789 J;...ombardl Court ff20:Z, Santa Rosa, Cauromla 95407 1894 C(,1I1llntrCM1el Wul SUIIf! JO~ 21 S....N BrRN"'HDiNO, CA 924Qk :' 0...... 5815 Manzunita 1/6, CarmJchael, Califom!!\ 956f)!! (909) U:J.OI.., 'AX (')0') ·g"'·Ó148 -,' ----" ~ RESOLUTION NO. )<637..5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SELF- CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS EQUIPMENT FROM SPECIAL-T FIRE EQUIPMENT, SAN BERNARDINO, CA. WHEREAS, the fiscal year 1996/97 Capital Improvement Program Budget approved by Council includes funds for CIP Project IPS 148 for the purchase of upgrades to the Fire Department's existing Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) equipment originally manufactured by Mine Safety Appliance (MSA)¡ and WHEREAS, to comply with state and federal regulations which mandate that individual SCBA components parts originate from the same manufacturer, and due to the fact that significant savings will be realized through trade-in of some existing MSA components parts, it is recommended that MSA and its associated distributor, special-T Fire Equipment be selected to supply the upgrades to the existing equipment¡ and WHEREAS, Special-T has agreed to the following: · city shall receive credit for trade-in of existing equipment no longer needed by the City and that can be restocked by Special-To · MSA to provide any necessary hand tools at no additional cost to be used for the repair and maintenance of the equipment by Chula vista SCBA maintenance personnel. · MSA to provide any necessary training and certifications to Chula vista SCBA maintenance personnel. · Masks and regulators to carry a 7-year warranty. · MSA and Special-T to provide materials and assistance to fit-test Fire personnel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby resolve as follows: 1- The competitive bidding process is hereby waived in light of the unique circumstances in which state and federal regulations restrict mixing SCBA component parts, and because significant savings will be realized through trade-in of current SCBA equipment. /' /~-~ ., -- ~ 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the purchase of self-contained breathing apparatus and equipment from Special-T Fire Equipment, San Bernardino in the amount of $65,957 subject to an agreement between the parties in a form approved by the City Attorney, which contains terms and conditions as set forth herein. Presented by Approved as to form by James Hardiman, Fire Chief ~~O~City Attorney C:\rs\fire.bid )~/þ ._.~.. u__o·,_ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 1-3 Meeting Date 7/23/96 ITEM TITLE: Resolution I'ß '?>1 ~ Accepting bids and awarding contract for the "Installation of Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Improvements along the east side of Fourth Avenue between Chula Vista Adult School and Orange Avenue, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (STM-302)" and approving the Negative Declaration issued on Initial Study IS-94-11 SUHMITTED BY: Directre ofP"bl1o wre~ REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJl\, ~ /'7. (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ NoX) At 2:00 p.m. on June 26, 1996, in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works received bids for the "Installation of Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Improvements along the east side of Fourth Avenue between Chula Vista Adult School and Orange A venue, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (STM-302)." The work to be done includes excavation and grading, removal and disposal of existing improvements, installation of asphalt concrete pavement, crushed aggregate base, P. C. C. curb, gutter, and sidewalks, driveway approaches, keystone retaining walls, street lighting, modification of traffic signals, traffic control, installation of new mailboxes, protection and restoration of existing improvements, and the construction of all appurtenances and other work as may be necessary to render the above improvements complete and workable. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding the contract for the "Installation of Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Improvements along the east side of Fourth Avenue between Chula Vista Adult School and Orange A venue, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (STM-302)" to Builders Staff Corporation in the amount of $227,950.70 and approving the Negative Declaration issued on Initial Study IS-94-ll. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Funding for this project was budgeted during the FY 1995-96 and FY 1996-97 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget process. The installation of the improvements was required to provide a continuous pedestrian route between the Chula Vista Adult School and the South Chula Vista Library. These improvements would also serve the school children from Lauderbach Elementary School located at the northeast comer of Palomar Street and Fourth A venue. The scope of the project requires that the property owners be asked for gratis dedication of right-of-way. Where gratis 13~1 Page 2, Item Meeting Date 7/23/96 dedication was granted, the City would install said improvements. Where gratis dedication was denied, the City would install asphalt berm and sidewalk within the existing right-of-way. On May 28, 1996, staff presented a report to Council on the status of the design of the project and right-of-way solicitation. In the report, staff recommended that Council accept right-of-way from seventeen of the twenty property owners who had signed the right-of-way documents, granting the required right-of-way at no cost to the City, and Council by Resolution 18317 (Exhibit A) accepted the right-of-way and directed staff to complete the project. Since the approval of Resolution 18317, staff has been contacted by one of the remaining three property owners who had yet to grant the right-of-way, Mr. Gerald Lynn, and he indicated his intention to participate in the project. The design plans have been revised to include full improvements on his property within this project. Staff will continue to work with the two remaining property owners during the course of the construction of the project to construct their improvements, should they change their minds and grant the necessary right-of-way to the City. The project was advertised for bids for a period of three weeks and on the bid opening date, bids were received from nine contractors as follows: Contractor Bid Amount 1. Builders Staff Corporation - Cardiff by the Sea $227,950.70 2. Star Paving Corporation - San Diego 228,888.00 3. Basile Construction, Inc. - San Diego 327,564.26 4. West Coast Construction - Corona 340,030.00 5. Castello, Inc. - Escondido 346,661.00 , 6. Interwest Pacific, Ltd. - Solana Beach 389,410.95 7. Carolyn E. Scheidel - La Mesa 391,965.00 8. Excavating Engineers - Escondido 393,838.50 9. Marquez Constructors - Spring Valley 397,451. 75 The low bid by Builders Staff Corporation is below the Engineer's estimate of $297,889.50 by $69,938.80 or 23.5%. Staff received excellent bids for the proposed work. The Engineer's estimate was based on bids received for similar projects in the last several years. Staff has verified the contractor's license and references and determined that the contractor has the necessary experience and resources to complete the project. ("? ~d- '7 : ) -- -_..~ Page 3, Item Meeting Date 7/23/96 contractor's license and references and detennined that the contractor has the necessary experience and resources to complete the project. Disclosure Statement Attached is a copy of the contractor's disclosure statement (Exhibit B). Environmental Status The Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with the project and, therefore, recommends approval of the Negative Declaration issued on Initial Study IS-94-11 adopted on June 28,1995. A copy of the Negative Delcaration is available in the City Clerk's Office for Council viewing. Prevailing Wage Statement The source of funding for this project is Transportation Partnership and Transnet Funds. Contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this contract. No special minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending of the Notice to Contractors to various minority trade publications. Financial Statement FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount $227,950.70 B. Contingencies (Approximately 10%) 22,630.85 C. Staff Costs 19,500.00 D. San Diego Gas & Electric Modifications (City Cost) 30,980.00 E. Sweetwater Authority Modifications (City Cost) 19,250.00 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $320,311.55 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Fourth Avenue Sidewalk Improvement (STM302) $320,311.55 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $320,311.55 FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project was budgeted in FY 1995-96 CIP budget process with an additional appropriation in the FY 1996-97 budget. The project as budgeted will utilize Transportation /3/3 "/)!c' , Page 4, Item Meeting Date 7/23/96 Partnership and Transnet Funds. Upon completion of the project, only routine City maintenance, mainly sweeping will be required. Exhibit A - Council Resolution 18317 and agenda statement NOT SCANNED Exhibit B - Contractor Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED AC:sb 0735-10-STM302 M:\HOME\ENGlNEER\AGENDA \STM302.AC /3 ~! -7,,1 ".] ¡ "..~ --------...-..--.--.-....-- .. RESOLUTION No..1 ~:?J1i1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "INSTALLATION OF CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF FOURTH AVENUE BETWEEN CHULA VISTA ADULT SCHOOL AND ORANGE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (STM-302)" AND APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED ON INITIAL STUDY IS-94-11 WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on June 26, 1996, in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works received the following nine bids for the "Installation of Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Improvements along the east side of Fourth Avenue between Chula vista Adult School and Orange Avenue, in the city of Chula Vista, CA (STM-302): Contractor Bid Amount I. Builders Staff Corporation - Cardiff by the Sea $227,950.70 2. Star Paving Corporation - San Diego 288,888.00 3. Basile Construction, Inc. - San Diego 327,564.26 4. West Coast Construction - Corona 340,030.00 5. Castello, Inc. - Escondido 346,661.00 6. Interwest Pacific, Ltd. - Solana Beach 389,410.95 7. Carolyn E. Scheidel - La Mesa 391,365.00 8. Excavating Engineers - Escondido 393,838.50 9. Marquez Constructors - Spring Valley 397,451.75 WHEREAS, the low bid by Builders Staff Corporation is below the Engineer's estimate of $297,889.50 by $69,938.80 or 23.5% and staff has verified the contractor's license and references and determined that the contractor has the necessary experience and resources to complete the project; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with the project and, therefore, recommends approval of the Negative Declaration issued on Initial Study IS-94-11 adopted on June 28, 1995; and 1 13.--{ '7 .' WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is Transportation Partnership and Transnet Funds and contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this contract; and WHEREAS, no special minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents, however, disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending of the Notice to Contractors to various minority trade publications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby approve the Negative Declaration issued on Initial Study IS-94-11. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve and accept the bids and award the contract for the "Installation of Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Improvements along the east side of Fourth Avenue between Chula vista Adult School and Orange Avenue, in the City of Chula vista" to Builders Staff Corporation in the amount of $227,950.70. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract, approved as to form by the City Attorney, for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Lippitt, Director of (j/v-.. y\ YVU ~ John P. Ann Y. Moore, Acting City Public Works Attorney C:\t's\bids.4th 2 /3 /0 ¡ .._~ , 0135-10 5TH30-z.. f'J.HII3~ í A- I RESOLUTION NO. 18317 . ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DIRECTING STAFF TO COMPLETE DESIGN PLANS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF FOURTH AVENUE BETWEEN CHULA VISTA ADULT SCHOOL AND ORANGE AVENUE WHEREAS, during the FY 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program ICIPI budget process, Council approved funding for the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the east side of Fourth Avenue between Chula Vista Adult School and Orange Avenue (STM302); and WHEREAS, as approved, the property owners would be asked for gratis dedication of right-of-way; and WHEREAS, where gratis dedication was granted, the City would install said improvements at no cost to the property owner and where gratis dedication was denied, the City would install asphalt berm and sidewalk within the existing right-of-way; and WHEREAS, staff has worked with the area property owners during the past six months and obtained gratis dedication from 17 of the 20 property owners affected by the project. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept right-of-way from the following properties: PROPERTY IAPN) ADDRESS 1. 619-050-36 1089 Fourth Avenue 2. 619-050-64 1095-97 Fourth Avenue 3. 619-110-22 1183 Fourth Avenue 4. 619-110-12 1187-89 Fourth Avenue 5. 619-110-13 1191 Fourth Avenue 6. 619-110-14 1195 Fourth Avenue 7. 619-211-04 1211-13 Fourth Avenue 8. 619-211-22 1223 Fourth Avenue 9. 619-211-21 1225 Fourth Avenue 10. 619-211-20 1227-31 Fourth Avenue 11. 619-290-12 1323 Fourth Avenue 12. 619-290-16 1341 Fourth Avenue 13. 619-290-17 1345 Fourth Avenue 14. 619-290-19 1347-49 Fourth Avenue 15. 619-290-21 1353 Fourth Avenue 16. 619-290-44 1385 Fourth Avenue 17. 619-290-46 398 Quintard Street /3---7 . Resolution 18317 l I r'·~1.. Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is directed to complete design plans for the installation of curb. gutter. and sidewalk improvements. along the east side of Fourth Avenue between Chula Vista Adult School and Orange Avenue. Presented by G I ,J n P. Lippitt Bruce M. Boogaard blic Works Director City Attorney · · · 13/~ r____ r___ _ _~_____.___._.___._ , - _.;. \ I Resolution 18317 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 28th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Horton NA YES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None J£AbtJ~ Shirl Horton, Mayor ATTEST: ~r2 a.,zß.JdJ Beverly . Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 18317 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 28th day of May, 1996. Executed this 28th day of May, 1996. (~ -- ~ , " \ , . . COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item '" Meeting Date 5/28/96 ITEM TITLE: A. Report regarding the completion of design plans for the insta1lation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements, along the east side of Fourth Avenue between Chula Vista Adult School and Orange Avenue B. Resolution ,C¡ Ô \1 Accepting right-of-way and directing staff to complete design plans for the insta1lation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements, along the east .'" off"""" A~œ ""-' Cbw. T Sobool.... Onogo A_ SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wory REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No.x..> During the FY 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget process, Council approved funding for the insta1lation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the east side of Fourth Avenue between Chula Vista Adult School and Orange Avenue (S1M302). As approved, the property owners would be asked for gratis dedication of right-of-way. Where gratis dedication was granted, the City would install said improvements at no cost to the property owner. Where gratis dedication was denied, the City would insta1l asphalt berm and sidewalk within the existing right-of- way. Staff has worked with the area property owners during the past six months and obtained gratis dedication from 17 of the 20 property owners affected by the project (See Exhibit A). RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept staff's report and approvethe resolution accepting right-of-way and directing staff to complete design plans for the installation of concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements where right-of-way was dedicated and asphalt curb and sidewalk where right-of-way was refused along the east side of Fourth Avenue between Chula Vista Adult School and Orange Avenue. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: During the FY 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget process, Council approved funding for this project. The insta1lation of these improvements was required to provide a continuous pedestrian route between Chula Vista Adult School and the South Chula Vista Library. These improvements would also serve the school children from Lauderbach Elementary School located at the northwest comer of Palomar Street and Fourth Avenue. As approved in the budget I~-- ~'D ------- ---.-"---.- -.- - -.--.....- , . ~ I . Page 2, Item \ ~ Meeting Date 5/28/96 description, the property owners would be asked for gratis dedication of right-of-way. Where gratis dedication was granted, the City would insta1l said improvements at no cost to the property owner. Where gratis dedication was denied, the City would install asphalt berm and sidewalk within the existing right-of-way. In a letter dated September 11, 1995, staff invited all twenty property owners impacted by this project to Ii meeting to discuss the scope of the project and the impact it would have on their properties. Staff also invited the principal of Lauderbach Elementary School who had earlier indicated his interest in the project and offered his services in whatever capacity it was required. On September 20, 1995, staff met with nine of the property owners at Lauderbach Elementary School. This mecûng venue was chosen because of its proximity to the project and its neutrality in comparison to City offices. At this meeting, staff outlined the scope of work to be done, and infonned the property owners, that to construct these improvements, which would benefit them, their tenants, and the rest of the community, they would need to grant the westerly five feet of their property to the City at no cost, and in return the City would construct a monolithic Portland Cement Concrete (pCC) curb, gutter, and five foot wide sidewalk in front of their property at 37 feet off centerline, at no cost to them. We also imonned them that the ImIJIt of riaht-of-wllv was not mandatorv. For any property where the owner did not wish to grant the required easement, the City would construct an asphalt concrete (AC) berm and sidewalk within the right-of-way at 34 feet off centerline. The benn would be set at a three (3) feet offset to the rest of the improvements (Exhibits B & C). Most of the property owners in attendance were supportive of the project, although one property owner indicated a need for monetary compensation. Staff promised to meet with the property owners individually during the course of the design of the project, and solicitation of the right-of-way. Staff completed the design plans for the project assuming the construction of full improvements and in a letter dated February 20, 1996, we asked that the property owners to sign an easement agreement and a deed, and to return them to us prior to March 8, 1996. Subsequently, we have sent two other sets ofletters, each extending the time allowed to return the signed enabling documents necessary to facilitate the right-of-way dedication. To date, staff has met with all the property owners who requested a meeting prior to signing the easement documents, and those who needed further clarification on the scope of the project. We have received signed easement documents from seventeen of the twenty plc.perty owners involved in this project (see Exhibit D for Area Plat). It is staffs recommendation that Council accept the . easement documents received from the seventeen property owners and direct staff to proceed with the complcûon of the plans and specifications for this project. . Staffhas made a considerable effort in communicating with the ptoperty owners impacted by this project. The owners who have not signed their documents to date, have chosen not to participate due to a desire to get monetary compensation and/or considerable work on their pIoperty free of charge, {3/' J I , . ( . Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date !l128/96 even though we have clearly defined the project guidelines to them. Staff recommends that we proceed with the completion of the plans and advertising of the project since all those owners who wish to participate in the project have submitted their documents and the rest of the community are waiting for us to get started. As indicated above, the completed plans would provide for the construction of asphalt curb and sidewalk adjacent to those properties where right-of-way dedications was refused. All the property owners on the eastside of Fourth A venue impacted by the project have been notified of this meeting. Construction Schedule Upon adoption of this resolution and direction by Council, staff will proceed with the project as scheduled. The project is scheduled to be advertised for bids on June I, 1996 with bids received on June 26,1996. Award of the contract will be scheduled forJuly 16, 1996. Upon execution of the contract on August I, 1996, construction will begin on August 19, 1996 for a period of 90 working days ending on December 30, 1996. Thirty (30) working days will be allowed for utility relocation. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project was budgeted in FY 1995-96 CIP budget process. The total amount budgeted was $405,000. The current engineer's estimate for this project is $462,000. Staff has requested an additional appropriation of $57,000 in the FY 1996-97 CIP budget to cover the cost of additional improvements resulting from an increase in the scope of work. The area between Morehouse Street and Orange Avenue was not included in the original scope of the project because the buildings in that area were too close to improvements. However, during the course of the design of the improvements and meetings with the property owners, the owners indicated their intention to participate in the project, and upon further review by staff, the scope of the project was revised to include that portion of Fourth Avenue. The project, as budgeted, will utilize Transportation Partnerslúp and Transnet Funds. AC:sb File No: 0735-10-STM302 Exhibit A: List of Affected Property Owners Exhibit B: Roadway Cross-sections for areas granting right-of-way and areas without additional right-of-way Exhibit C: Roadway Cross-sections showing ultimate improvements Exhibit D: Area Plat M:IIIOME\ENOINEER\AŒNDAI411ISIDWLAC 13---'1 d- "- .. ( EXHIBIT "A" . LIST alP PROPERTY OWNERS WHO GRANTED THE RBOUIRwn RYaRT-OP-W1Y POR 'l'HI: CONSTRtJC'T:ION OlP IPOtJ'RTR Avmm:R YMPROVl!V1P.N'l'S .....-r II 1089 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1089 FOURTH AVENUE 619-050-36 -- 3955 E ROGERS ST LOS ANGELES, CA 90063 1097 FOURTH AVENUE 619-050-64 1183 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1183 FOURTH AVENUE 619-110-22 208 CHILDERS AVENUE FT WORTH, TEXAS 76126 1187 FOURTH AVENUE 619-110-12 1191 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1191 FOURTH AVENUE 619-110-13 1195 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1195 FOURTH AVENUE 619-110-14 405 HALSEY ST CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 1211 & 13 FOURTH AVENUE 619-211-04 13 12> -------..-.- ,_..,__.'. .._.·____._,_u._..,____.,.......,'._.._._._.._ . ( I , J_ - - J.. . 1223 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1223 FOURTH AVENUE 619-211-22 ~ ~- 1225 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1225 FOURTH AVENUE 619-211-21 -~IL 1227 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1227 FOURTH AVENUE 619-211-20 1323 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 132.3 FOURTH AVENUE 619-290-12 1329 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1329 FOURTH AVENUE 619-290-088 934 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1341 FOURTH AVENUE 619-290-16 1345 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1345 FOURTH AVENUE 619-290-17 1345 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1347 FOURTH AVENUE 619-290-19 (3-/~ ,."__ __ ___ ___._H ( ) . . -- I -.._~ 1353 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1353 FOURTH AVENUE 619-290-21 -- .-- .. - - 1385 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1385 FOURTH AVENUE 619-290-44 -.-. 1142 CAMINO REGALADO SAN DIEGO, CA 92154 398 QUINTARD ST 619-290-46 LiST OF PROPERTY OWNI:RS WHO DiD NOT QRANT '!'HE REOUiRED RI:mIT-OlP-WAY POR THE CONSTRUCTrON 011' POURTH AVENUE rMPROVEMENTS _0_- _ ___... ___.__ - - 28202 CABOT RD, #412 LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 1173 FOURTH AVENUE 619-110-10 ----- 1179 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1179 FOURTH AVENUE 619-110-21 ___.~.v _ __.__~_.~ ~ 1'391 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 1391 FOURTH AVENUE 619-290-45 M:\HOME\EHGIHEER\DESIGN\tTHROWG1.LST / / ~ /" /~ : l I . INSTALLATION OF CURB AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF FOURTH A VENUE FROM CHULA VISTA ADULT SCHOOL TO ORANGE A VENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA File #S1M302-4 LIST OF PROPERTIES REOUlRED TO GRANT RIGHT-OF.WAY NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS PROPERTY (APNI ADDRESS 1. 619-050-36 1089 Fourth Avenue 2. 619-050-64 1095-97 Fourth Avenue 3. 619-110-10 1173 Fourth Avenue 4. 619-110-21 1179 Fourth Avenue 5. 619-110-22 1183 Fourth Avenue 6. 619-110-12 1187-89 Fourth Avenue 7. 619-110-13 1191 Fourth Avenue 8. 619-110-14 1195 Fourth Avenue 9. 619-211-04 1211-13 Fourth Avenue 10. 619-211-22 1223 Fourth Avenue . 11. 619-211-21 1225 Fourth Avenue 12. 619-211-20 1227-31 Fourth Avenue 13. 619-290-12 1323 Fourth Avenue 14. 619-290-16 1341 Fourth Avenue 15. 619-290-17 1345 Fourth Avenue 16. 619-290-19 1347-49 Fourth Avenue 17. 619-290-21 1353 Fourth Avenue 18. 619-290-44 1385 Fourth Avenue 19. 619-290-45 1391 Fourth Avenue 20. 619-290-46 398 Quintard Street (M:\HOMElENGINEERIDESl0NI4111ROW.LST) 13---!Y - -,_.,.,--_.~,- I ~ ì : . . 11.1f__ 28,1995 4- .... STM~ - FOURTH A VEN1JJ: IMPROVEMENTS FROM CBULA VlSI'A ADULT BIGHT SCHOOL TO ORANGE AVENUE IN THE ClI'Y OF CBULA VlSI'A, C.UDrORNIA PROPERTY OWNER'S BRJEII'ING ATl'ENDANCE UST . \ N»Œ . V /3--- /1 - . ( - - .. - . EXHIBIT "B" I , . . ~ . t . VARIES , IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THIS , , SIDE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN A SUBSEQUENT PHASE J-J.L 1% - ADDmONAL IUGBT-OF-WAY AVAn.nLE ~ t VARIES , IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THIS , , SIDE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN A SUBSEQUENT PHASE .e/. 1% - ADDmONAL IUGBT-OF-WAY NOT AVAn ·ULE . . PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ALONG EAST SIDE .- Doner 'I'ITI.~ DRAWN BY: U.A. INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS , ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF FOURTH DATE: 4/01/94 AVENUE, BETWEEN CHULA VISTA ADULT SCHOOL AND ORANGE AVENUE ,--- . .,- . - ( . , . . EXHIBIT "C" . . . " t , , , , , -; ~.' s'¡' .ele .ele t% t% - - ..._~,., ¡,.·llP· 1..· J~..ø.. . PROPOSED ULTIMATE CROSS-SECTION . . 3/ . ~ DRAWN BY: IfrPA . INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS I ALONG nIB EASTERN SIDE OF FOURTH DATE: 4/08194 AVENUE. BETWEEN ~ VISTA ADULT SCHOOL AND ORANGE AVENUE ~ . \ \ " . . 2 .L!!HS :US .... JI \. I I I Eo-< ~ .... - .... ..... ~ - == HIMI 1AY 11Im l6-Ç601 I = 00 H-1JIJJ-619 t:I . ,nmSJGIIJI ~ t:I = N 1 ~d I ~~ I ~~ 1- ø = t:I t.i I; I 1 ~ ~a g:ì. 1 1 ?ë ~ ~ >- ! ~! A ~,. . t:I 0 ~ I foe E ro:1 ... 1 II ..._ Do. 0 D:~ -- ~ ~ ...§ .I 9 Z D. ~ g ~I !ë?ë ?ë~ ~ <I sa. .z Eo-< I D: I I ro:1 - I~: Do. Do.::I c::I r 'i' ¡: - == ~-~ ~I I !ë !ë~ >< d llKJMl ÅW HJOOS ~¡! 01 t:I t:I D. ~ Do. 1 I t:I ëi! ëi!! ~ '3 3JIIJ' 1AY IWIOOJ mn '" ~ I I I I , I aMJI) fIl œ-I!iO-619 i ,,~ I 1AY IWIOOJ 6zm I v JI'(I3 SJIOl 81-I!iO-619 I ~ I I --ill --- 13 /~ D . ( ) ~ : . C .LaaBS aas t\J - E-< J 1IBJMI 1W1mJ: - .-...... r::.::I r::.::I I = tI: I ' T 1DMI 9J11 tl-01l-619 ~ Z en ~ 1W HJBIW 1611 = ':I lID IIlSJI3:) [1-011-619 ~ ig I = ~E -' ~ ~B I ~¡;¡ ~>- ~ ~ 052 ~ 1E-<5:~ Q I Iir. 0 tH3 11 .l] HTBJn W ....-- cr z ø.-< : !ë >- >- en E-< 111M1111M11C1!D1tHœ $1 g :-:~ - NDIfM / m1 ø mMO OOJ :: ~ ø: I I ~ Q: Iir. 1ir.::I! - = 0 o~ tI: I e I 10 >< !ë !ë ø: r::.::I 11 \mI.lVd 111I HJ!IOO. Çtll r:J ¡;¡~ ~ø. , 'j ØM«XI NJO!IOB 9t-01l-&19 ~ ~ æ æ! ~ I~ ..-- I I I c!. ,,¡¡ I - I :¡; ~ -- U»= 0 Iir. :fW I ¡I I lØe . Ï~ I . ,I ·s - I - .... - ... ..... 1 .LaaBS aas 1'3/d-\ . { ) . .~ : I " ¡a:Jus aas t'j - ..,.¡¡¡ --- E-o ~ I I ~ c:I ~ J Þi ~ CJ) ~ $1 c:I i ... " ~. I :öi~ ~~ 8 III c:I t:I t; .~ x I ~Þo::I ~ ~ rg >- ~ ~i . t:I 0 ~ , --- lE-tÞo::l ~ * ~ 0 ø::!!3 ~ IZCI.< = ~ ...~ !i;~ ~rn E-o E. . fi - ø::IIÞo::I ~ , CI 110o 110o:1 - Þo::I 9 9 ~ == B= w " ~ fa !a ~ :>< ~i ~ t:I t:I CI. i~ t:I!i! !i!! !b~ ,5 !~ ...§ I I I " ,,~ I = --- t: p 0 1110o . IjItñ .. ~i a¡;~ Ii W =.¿. :~i 6~ *:öi¡¡ I I~~ ." .I .. iiõøo -.. --- ª - !::! 2 ¡a:Jus aas 13 r? ~CJ..- , . " ( ) . . I ............ ~ ¡ ..... ~ E-c ~ V JIIdJSIr 15 GIfJJII) Ii ..... ~ ~ I me 9HI6Z-6t9 I ~ <C == -:J1ITMIWÐ' 1Wm¡ Iii -~.s. c:I c:lOO Çt-Q6Z-619 :'...... 1'02 1'02 5 .f-< lIWH 1ft HJm SI[~ ~z 11 ØDIIIY wmII ÞI--Œl-619 z= 11 3IOfIY " c:lf;t;u 1\V fI1j Q 6ß'1 I . , '1 JHIrftlIlSRll It-Q6Z-&19 1'02 ~~a~ 11 SlSllVl \QVJ 11 3SIOOØ rLr ~ rn rn >0 P>OP \ 1'1'00 \QVJ IHI6Z-619 ~uE~E = If-< 1'02 j::¡ .....~ f-< ~~D:~D: I~ I Do Do ~ t;?;;?;;~?;; ~ 11 3SIXIIJØ ur 0 11 Y1D!MI U-O&Z-619 .. Iio. E-c , o:ISI:I\Wj !WI1m g~~ ~ - " D: I I; I a:¡ ~ t ~ Iio.Iio. Iio. - 1I3dI11 WIIIJ'i Iz-œZ-6~9 c:lOO~O == ~ I I I >< 111I I\1!IIIOJ 6t-lKl . Ø!!i:!i:f!i: ~ lII~NII(Jf ~ u~ u 61-Q6Z-619 ........:1..... UD:D:_D: , JI1m) , 1I'd lSJI1\V fI1j Q ÇK~ 1I-Q6Z-619 I I I I 11 R Jml1lS1SlWl' ')If IUIfIO. lKI I u~1 I 111 /I2YXnIS YlWISl'dl 9I-O&Z-6~9 ~ .. 1 0l3I\SN1XI 'J.Y IIJBOO. 6zn n X'd! Z3cm 118-Q6Z-619 "0 JI't1', 111I fI1j Q an T SJIM' lie ZI-O&Z-619 ~ I I -~ il i!! e_ -- ... - I _-wr --- I I I: J.1:lRS liS 13~d-3 . _.--._--_.._~--,- TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ,E"~¡'HßIT B You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions. on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following infonnation must be disclosed: ( 1. List the names nf all persons having a financial interest in the propeny which is the subject of the application or the COntract, e.g., owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. 6L>\~~ '!J1/Wf' ~. 2. If any person· identified pursuant to (1) above is a eotpOration or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10 % of the shares in the cotpOration or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. fU;,~ 0A.-- f-~~ 3. If any person· identified pursuant to (I) above is non-pro~t organization or a trust. list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. rJ frN~ ( 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any~mber of the City staff, Boards, Commissions. Committees, and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ No _ If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants. or independent Contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. N~ 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in ~ggregate, contributed more than $1.000 to a Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No _ If yes, state which Co '1 members(s): · · · (NOTE: Attached additio Date: 8(r£{% tuSS@u"- ~ . ~~ C·¡:;.O. ( Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant · ~ is defined as: "Any individual. firm. co-parmership. joint venture. associarion. social club. fraternal organizarion. corporation. estate, truSt, receiver. syndicate. tþis and any other counry, ciry or counrry, ciry municipaliry. district. or other polirical subdivision. or any other group or combinarion acring as a unit. t3 ~~ Ý 23 ,---- -~~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Ire~ Meeting Date ITEM TITLE: Resolution 10 8 377 Renewing the agreement with Woodward-Clyde Consultants or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Dry Weather Discharge Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services on the same terms and conditions for twelve months (July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997) SUBMITTED BY: Di=ofPublk w"'~ REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJ~ ~ ./7 (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ NoX) On July 25, 1995, the City Council passed Resolution No. 17977 authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with Woodward-Clyde Consultants for the performance of NPDES Dry Weather Discharge Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services during FY 1995-96. The agreement included an option to extend the contract for an additional one-year term through the end of FY 1996-97 at the same hourly rates/unit costs for a fee to be paid based on actual hours, but not-to-exceed a total of $60,000. Staifis satisfied with the services provided by Woodward-Clyde Consultants during FY 1995- 96 and recommends that the City extend the agreement for an additional one-year term through the end of FY 1996-97. Funding for the performance of these services during FY 1996-97 is included in the approved FY 1996-97 NPDES budget. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution renewing the agreement with Woodward- Clyde Consultants for NPDES Dry Weather Discharge Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services for the period July I, 1996 through June 30, 1997. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: A requirement of the City's NPDES Municipal Storm Water Discharge Permit is that all agencies annually conduct dry weather discharge field screening (effluent sampling, chemical analyses, and observation of physical conditions) at major outfalls during the dry weather season (May through October of each year) in order to detect illegal discharges to the storm water conveyance system and to identify, if possible, the sources of said illegal discharges. Due to the expertise and specialized equipment necessary to perform dry weather discharge field screening and illegal discharge detection services, it is necessary to retain an outside consultant. The agreement with Woodward-Clyde Consultants provides for the performance of said services at approximately fifty-five of the City's major outfalls. The City initially entered into an agreement with Woodward-Clyde Consultants in FY 1994-95 for the performance of these services, as approved by City Council Resolution No. 17617. In awarding the initial contract in FY 1994-95, staff determined that Woodward-Clyde was the most qualified firm of eight (8) proponents and that Woodward-Clyde submitted the lowest bid of the three top-ranked /~ ~J :-........ Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date consultants. The initial agreement included an option to extend the agreement for up to two one-year terms, but the hourly rates and unit costs were to be renegotiated in FY 1996-97. At the recommendation of the City Attorney's office, Engineering staff was able to renegotiate the contract in FY 1995-96 to guarantee,FY 1994-95 hourly rates and unit costs through the end ofFY 1996- 97. The FY 1995-96 agreement, approved by City Council Resolution No. 17977, allows for a one-year contract extension in FY 1996-97 at the City's sole discretion conditioned upon a determination by City staff that Consultant has satisfactorily performed the required services during FY 1995-96 and subsequent approval by the City Council. Staff is satisfied with Consultant's performance during FY 1995-96 and recommends that the agreement be extended through the end of FY 1996-97. By approving this resolution, the City will extend the agreement with Woodward-Clyde Consultants to perform Dry Weather Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services on a time and materials basis for a fee not-to-exceed $60,000 in FY 1996-97 at the FY 1994-95 unit rates. In FY 1994-95, Woodward-Clyde Consultants performed approximately 150 outfall inspections and detected suspected illegal discharges at five separate outfalls. In FY 1995-96, Woodward-Clyde Consultants performed approximately 180 outfall inspections and detected suspected illegal discharges at seven separate outfalls, three of which also had suspected illegal discharges in FY 1994-95. In the coming year, staff will be using the provisions under the NPDES to fine repeat offenders where the education program used with first time violators has not solved the problem. These discharges included industrial waste water, cleaning agents, concrete washout waste, oil and antifreeze, cooking oil/grease, pavement wash waters, and engine degreasing effluent. The sources of most of these discharges were identified and appropriate steps were taken by City staff to eliminate said discharges, where possible. When the specific source (i.e., a person, a business, or a parcel) could be identified, dischargers were informed that their discharges were illegal and were directed to discontinue said illegal discharges. When the specific source could not be identified, such as illegal automobile repair in the public right-of-way along Energy Way (adjacent to the automobile salvage yards), the Police Department was informed of the problem and will follow-up on complaints. Current and future public education and outreach efforts will help to reduce other discharges that could not be traced and probably originate from a variety of sources. The total cost for Woodward-Clyde Consultants' performance of dry weather discharge field screening and illegal discharge detection services was $47,601.76 in FY 1994-95 and approximately $51,000 in FY 1995-96 (final invoice has not yet been submitted by consultant). Failure to comply with any aspect of the City's NPDES Municipal Storm Water Discharge Permit could expose the City to up to $25,000 per day fines by the RWQCB, up to $50,000 per day by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and citizen lawsuits. FISCAL IMP ACT: The fee for these services for FY 1996-97 will not exceed $60,000. Funds to cover the cost of dry weather field screening and illegal discharge detection service costs have been progranuned as part of the City's Fiscal Year 1996-97 NPDES Program budget. This program is funded by the storm drain fee and not the general fund. The agreement with Woodward-Clyde Consultants may be canceled at any time by the City with thirty days written notice. KP Alkpa cc: File No. 0780-70-KYI81 JY-~ IM:\HOMEIENGINEERIAGENDA \WCC]Y97.113l I (I RESOLUTION NO.~j7 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITy OF CHULA VISTA RENEWING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS FOR NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) DRY WEATHER DISCHARGE FIELD SCREENING AND ILLEGAL DISCHARGE DETECTION SERVICES ON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR TWELVE MONTHS (JULY 1, 1996 TO JUNE 30, 1997) WHEREAS, a requirement of the city's NPDES Permit (Order No. 90-42) is that all agencies annually conduct dry weather discharge field screening (effluent sampling, chemical analyses, and observation of physical conditions) at major outfalls during the dry weather season (May through October of each year) in order to detect illegal discharges to the storm water conveyance system and to identify, if possible, the sources of said illegal discharges; and WHEREAS, due to the expertise and specialized equipment necessary to perform dry weather discharge field screening and illegal discharge detection services, it is necessary to retain an outside consultant; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1995, the City Council passed Resolution No. 17977 authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with Woodward-Clyde Consultants for the performance of said services; and WHEREAS, the agreement included an option to extend the agreement for an additional one-year term through the end of FY 1996-97 at the same hourly rates/unit costs for a fee not-to-exceed $60,000; and WHEREAS, staff is satisfied with the services provided by Woodward-Clyde Consultants during FY 1996-97 and recommends that the City extend the agreement for an additional one-year term through the end of FY 1996-97. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve renewing the Agreement between the City of Chula vista and Woodward-Clyde Consultants for national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Dry Weather Discharge Field Screening and Illegal Discharge Detection Services on the same terms and conditions for twelve months (July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997). Presented by Approved as to form by (lA..- ~ John P. Lippitt, Director of Ann Y. Moor~ Acting city Public Works Attorney C:\rs\woodward ) --( ~ 3 MEMORANDUM July 23, 1996 TO: Mayor and City Council VIA: City Manager (,¿:.-- ~ FROM: Director of pu~~ic Works ~ SUBJECT: Agenda Item #15. Assessment District Modifications Please PULL THIS ITEM FROM THE AGENDA and continue it to the meeting of August 6, 1996 . Due to a last minute issue raised between the property owners, it is necessary to revise the resolutions. The revised resolutions will be before Council on August 6. . . ~~~~ ~~ þ¿ RUt:- of:. ¡Q9t,. (!~~GG¡J tá ~6 ~. /5-¿) ;7) ,j ./ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item£ Meeting Date 7/23/96 ITEM TITLE: for· Resolution I S 31ß Ordering certain changes and modifications to the Engineer's Report in Assessment District No. 91-1. iì· Resolution I g '!J7 ~ Ordering certain changes and modifications to the Engineer's Report in Assessment District No. 94-1. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work REVIEWED BY: City Manage1:\ \')IJ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yesßo.x..) The City Council established Assessment Dis cts~, 91-1 and 94-1 and levied assessments on the Eastlake Greens II development, pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, with the purpose of acquiring and financing infrastructure improvements serving that development. Final development of Eastlake Greens II is occurring. Changes in the proposed land use and savings in the final cost of the improvements acquired by AD 94-1 requires the Engineer's Reports for AD 91-1 and 94-1 to be modified. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolutions ordering certain changes and modifications to the Engineer's Report in Assessment Districts No. 91-1 and 94-1. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: ¡ The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 is a financing mechanism which allows the financing of public infrastructure improvements through the issuance of assessment districts bonds, the repayment of which is made from assessment installments collected from the property owners with their property taxes. There is no direct cost to the City. The properties in the Greens II (see Exhibit "A ") are subject to assessments placed by the following assessment districts: Assessment District No. 90-3 (AD 90-3) funded the construction of major infrastructure serving the whole Eastlake Development (Greens, Trails, Woods, Vistas, Business Center II and OTC). Assessment District No. 91-1 (AD 91-J) levied only Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) assessments on the Eastlake Greens II properties and Parcel R-26 Assessment District No. 94-1 (AD 94- J) financed the construction of backbone facilities providing full service to the Greens II area and the improvement of a portion of Hunte Parkway and East Orange Avenue (TDIF facilities). The following table summarizes the existing districts: /<;:-/ ,]A '~ Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date 7/23/96 Assessment Improvements Area of District Funded Benefil 90-3 Non-TDIF Backbone Entire Eastlake Develop- Infrastructure ment 91-1 TDIF Improvements Greens II and Parcel R-26 94-1 a) Non-TDIF Backbone Greens II Infrastructure Greens II, Parcel R-26 b) TDIF Improvements and the Trails On December 12, 1995, the City Council approved amendments to the Eastlake II General Development Plan and the Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area. These approvals reflect changes in the land use (fewer dwelling units) from what was anticipated at the time of formation of the existing assessment districts (see Exhibit "B"). At the time AD 94-1 was established, all of the improvements were not completed, however, marketing of the homes in a portion of the development was already in process. As a result, the AD 94-1 assessments were based on estimated improvement costs. Those improvements have now been completed and the fInal costs have been determined. As a result of reductions in both the construction cost and incidental cost, the overall amount to be assessed to the district is being reduced from the $7,464,474 that was approved at the district formation to $5,299,954. Eastlake has requested that the City proceed to call bonds in the total amount of the savings ($2,164,520) and that the current assessments on the Greens II properties be modified to reflect the new conditions. The new assessments respread (see Exhibit "Cn) shows that the modified assessments on most of the properties would decrease. Only the assessments for parcel R-26 and the Trails would be higher. This increase is due to additional TDIF debt proposed to be allocated to those parcels as a result of the reduction of dwelling units in the Greens II. This is discussed in more detail below in the section "Proposed Modifications to the TDIF Assessments". In order to adjust the current assessments the City Council shall approve a "Changes and ModifIcations" to the Engineer's Reports for AD 91-1 and 94-1. The changes in land use do not affect the current AD 90-3 assessments. Therefore, no modification to this district is required. Pro.posed Modifications to the Non- TDIF Assessments Together, AD 90-3 and 94-1 funded the construction of all eligible non-TDIF improvements (streets, drainage, sewer, water, etc.) serving the Greens II. The methodology used during the formation of AD 94-1 to spread the non- TDIF assessment among the Greens II properties is based on the equalization principle that "same type of dwelling unit is receiving the same benefit from the infrastructure (funded by AD 90-3 and AD 94-1) and, therefore, the aggregate assessment (AD 90-3 + AD 94-1) shall be equal" . The amount of the debt placed by AD 90-3 on the Greens II remains the same. On the other hand, the final cost of the non TDIF improvements acquired by AD 94-1 ($3,355,381) is below the total non- TDIF assessment placed on the Greens II properties ($5,169,984). / S-- d- 1'/ I· , L..~ / Page 3, Item_ Meeting Date 7/23/96 The respread shows that the AD 90-3 assessments remain unchanged (see Exhibit "D" ) and that the new AD 94-1 assessments decreased (see Exhibit "E"). Consequently, the modified non- TDIF aggregate assessments (AD 90-3 + AD 94-1) for all the properties in the Greens II are smaller than the current assessments. The typical modified aggregate assessment for a single family detached (SFD)goes down from $5,962.36 to $5,611.37. In the case of a Single Family Attached (SFA) the assessment decreases from $4,859.32 to $4,573.27. ProDosed Modifications to T -DIF Assessments AD-91-1. The total amount ofTDIF debt placed by AD 91-1 remains the same. The reduction in the number of dwelling units in the Greens II resulted in more TDIF assessment being allocated to parcel R-26. The assessment on R-26 increases from $430,685.05 to $760,462.56 and the assessment on the Trails goes up from zero to $496,494.31 (see Exhibit "F"). All the other properties in the district reflect smaller assessments. AD 94-1. The final cost of the TDIF improvements acquired by AD 94-1 ($1,944,573) is below the original cost estimate ($2,294,490). The savings of $349,917 may be used to call bonds which would reduced the current debt on the property. Despite said reduction, the lesser number of dwelling units in the Greens II resulted in more TDIF assessment being allocated to the Trails. The assessment on the Trails goes up from $1,530,426.21 to $1,646,919.82 (see Exhibit "E). All the other properties in the district reflect smaller assessments. Staffhas estimated, in accordance with the Eastlake III General Development Plan, that the development of the Trails parcels located within ADs 94-1 and 91-1 may contain approximately 780 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs). Based on this, staff considers that the TDIF assessment for a total 484.38 EDUs proposed to be allocated by AD 94-1 and AD 91-1 to the Trails parcels is reasonable and recommends Council approval. The property owners of R-26 and the Trail parcels have submitted a consent and waiver form for the higher assessments. ComDliance with City Poliev The following procedure will be followed in order to ensure that all property meet the criteria set forth by Council: Lien Ratio: City policy establishes that the total lien placed on a property shall not exceed one-third (113) of the value of the property as determined by an independent appraiser retained by the City. Eastlake Development has submitted a Letter of Credit to maintain the lien ratio within City criteria. Maximum Tax: The combination of regular County taxes, Mello-Roos school taxes, and assessment installments shall not exceed the City maximum of 2% of the market value. The Third Amendment to the Acquisition agreement for AD 94-1 established the procedure to ensure compliance with the 2% maximum tax. This agreement requires Eastlake to include an escrow demand requiring the escrow agency to ensure that the 2% maximum tax is met prior to closing any house sale in the Greens II. In doing this, the escrow officer would use a "formula" approved by the City. In the event that the tax exceeds the 2% ceiling, Eastlake would have to buydown the assessments in the amount necessary to meet the City criteria. ¡S-3 , Page 4, Item_ Meeting Date 7/23/96 The Bond Counsel (Brown, Diven & Hentsehke) and the fmaneial consultant (Kadie-Jensen, Johnson and Bodnar) have reviewed the proposed "Changes and Modifications" to the Engineer's Reports for AD 94-1 and 91-1 and concur with staffrecornmendations. FISCAL IMPACT: Eastlake Development will pay all costs associated with the "Changes and Modifications" to AD94-1 and AD 91-1. The City will receive the benefit of full cost recovery for staff costs (estimated at $5,500) to be paid by Eastlake. Exhibits: A- Eastlake Greens II + Trails Map B- Greens II New Land Use C- Current and Modified Aggregate Assessments (AD 90-3+AD 91-1+AD 94-1) D- AD 90-3 Current and Modified Assessments E- AD 94-1 Current and Modified Assessments F- AD 91-1 Current and Modified Assessments WPC M:\home\engineerlagenda\report5.941 Ldt\A Y -095 IS- -f 1.1 .< ,.-- "- ,\ E')(.-H-\ ~ ,¡- A , \ ì . .. ~,(..S ~" . ,". .,..~. '. ..'~ . .. . . i ," ". ..- 1'-%.' "\. J . ..., , '. ..... ~fASTLAIŒ GREENS Aft....ð== ..a, clOdI I ", j ç; ~s: EXHIBIT B GREENS II - LANDUSE UNITS CURRENT NEW R-25 78 SFA 78 SFDC R-20 (City) 96 SFD 96 SFD R-20 (County) 13 SFD 13 SFD R-15 64 SFD 64 SFD R-3 (N) 51 SFD 51 SFD R-27 40 SFD 40 SFD R-18 58 SFD 54 SF DC R-12 101 SFD 92 SFD R-1 66 SFD 52 SFD R-10 (City) 196 SFD 134 SFD R-10 (County) 91 SFD 50 SFD R-16 109 SFA 109 SFDC R-6 70 SFD 76 SFD R-3 (S) 51 SFD 48 SFD R-4 130 SFD 114 SFD R-21 91 SFA 0 R-23 (County) 20 SFA 0 R-23 (City) 135 SF A 70 SFD TOTAL 1460 1141 / S --ft I " EXHIBIT C MODIFIED AGGREGATE ASSESSMENT (PER UNIT) AD90-3 + AD91-1 + AD94-1 ALL DISTRICTS TOTAL ASSMTS ALL DISTRICT ASSMTS/D UNIT Current Modified Current Modified R-25 $594,149.96 $563,063.12 $7.617.31 $7.218.76 R-20 (CITY) $923,369.02 $889,674.23 $9,618.43 $9.267.44 R-15 $615,579.35 $593,116.15 $9,613.43 $9,267.44 R-3 (N) $490.539.79 $472,639.43 $9,618.43 $9,267.44 Undeveloped Parcels (1) $9,366,427.99 $7,023,611.34 (SEE NOTE 2) R-10 (County) $960,924.72 $516,801.18 (SEE NOTE 3) R-20 (County) $137,274.96 $134,368.31 (SEE NOTE 3) Golf Course N/A R-26 (SEE NOTE 3) Church N/A Trails (SEE NOTE 3) (1) Includes R-27, R-18, R-12, R-1. R-10 (City), R-16, R-6. R-3 (S). R-4, R-21, R-23 (County), & R-23 (City). (2) Not Applicable. Currently the total assessment for all the undeveloped parcels is under one assessment number. The assessment per unit will be determined as subdivision maps are recorded. (3) Not applicable. The assessment per unit will be determined as final maps are recorded. /~-1 ""I) EXHIBIT D MODIFIED ASSESSMENT SPREAD - GREENS II AD90-3 UNIT TOTAL ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT/DU Current Modified Current Modified R-25 $147.512.14 $147.512.14 $1,891.18 $1,891.18 R-20 (CITY) $215,843.33 $215,843.33 $2,248.37 $2.248.37 R-15 $143,895.55 $143,895.55 $2,248.37 $2,248.37 R-3 (N) $108,418.61 $108,418.61 $2,125.86 $2.125.86 Undeveloped Parcels (1) $2,168,323.35 $2,168,323.35 (SEE NOTE 2) Golf Course $107.470.00 $107,470.00 N/A R-26 $134.001.00 $134,001.00 (SEE NOTE 3) Church $20,408.00 $20,408.00 N/A Trails $753,079.00 $753,079.00 (SEE NOTE 3) TOTAL $3,798,950.98 $3,798,950.98 (1) Includes R-20 (County), R-27, R-18, R-12, R-1, R-10 (City), R-10 (County), R-16, R-6, R-3 (S), R-4, R-21 , R-23 (County), & R-23 (City). (2) Not Applicable. Currently the total assessment for all the undeveloped parcels is under one assessment number. The assessment per unit will be determined as subdivision maps are recorded. (3) Not applicable. The assessment per unit will be determined as final maps are recorded. / S- -'6 /) -) EXHIBIT E MODIFIED ASSESSMENT SPREAD - GREENS II AD94-1 UNIT TOTAL ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT/DU Current Modified Current Modified R-25 $218,499.05 $196,186.78 $2,801.27 $2,515.22 R-20 (CITY) $356,542.97 $322,848.18 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 R-15 $237,695.32 $215,232.12 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 R-3 (N) $195,661.61 $177,761.25 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 Undeveloped Parcels (1) $3,615,056.05 $2,089,836.84 (SEE NOTE 2) R-10 (County) $960,924.72 $516,801.18 (SEE NOTE 3) R-20 (County) $137,274.96 $134,368.31 (SEE NOTE 3) Golf Course $0.00 $0.00 N/A R-26 $212,393.18 $0.00 (SEE NOTE 3) Church $0.00 $0.00 N/A Trails (SEE NOTE 3) TOTAL $7,464.474.07 $5,299,954.48 (1) Includes R-27, R-18. R-12. R-1. R-10 (City), R-16, R-6, R-3 (S), R-4, R-21 , R-23 (County). & R-23 (City). (2) Not Applicable. Currently the total assessment for all the undeveloped parcels is under one assessment number. The assessment per unit will be determined as subdivision maps are recorded. (3) Not applicable. The assessment per unit will be determined as final maps are recorded. /;---j EXHIBIT F MODIFIED ASSESSMENT SPREAD - GREENS II AD91-1 UNIT TOTAL ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT/DU Current Modified Current Modified R-25 $228,138.77 $219,364.20 (SEE NOTE 2) R-20 (CITY) $350,982.72 $350,982.72 R-15 $233,988.48 $233,988.48 R-3 (N) $186,459.57 $186,459.57 Undeveloped Parcels (1) $3,582,948.59 $2,765,451.34 Golf Course ~ R-26 Church $0.00 $0.00 Trails TOTAL $5,179,519.49 $5,179,519.49 (1) Includes R-20 (County), R-27. R-18, R-12, R-1, R-10 (City), R-10 (County), R-16. R-6. R-3 (S), R-4, R-21 , R-23 (County). & R-23 (City). (2) AD91-1 only funded TDIF facilities. The TDIF assessmentlEDU is $3,656.07 for all units (current & modified). / S- ~ /D RESOLUTION NO. /~.:1? r RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ORD~NG CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO 91-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, has previously adopted its Resolution of Intention and confirmed an assessment for certain works of improvement in a special assessment district, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; said special assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD, PHASE II) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"); and, WHEREAS, subsequent to the confirmation of the assessment and after the improvements were ordered, but during the pendency of these proceedings, it has been determined that certain parcels within Eastlake Greens Phase II commonly referred to as R1, R3(s), R6, R10, R12 and R18 are proposed to be developed with less equivalent dwelling units than were projected at the time the Assessment District was formed and, consequently, such parcels were assessed for more street improvements than now directly and specially benefit such parcels; and WHEREAS, the DIF credits to which such parcels are entitled as a result of the confirmed assessments levied against such parcels exceeds the number of dwelling units actually developed on such parcels; and WHEREAS, that properties commonly referred to as R26 and The Trails can utilize the excess DIF credits originally allocated to the above referenced parcels; and WHEREAS, it therefore appears to be in the best public interest to order certain changes and modifications to the proceedings, the Engineer's "Report", and certain individual assessments; and WHEREAS, the owners of those properties for which the assessments are proposed to be increased have both requested and consented to the proposed changes and modifications including the increase in the assessments on their properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. That it is hereby ordered that the changes be made as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A", and the assessment roll shall be modified and amended to reflect the modifications as set forth in said Exhibit "A", and the Engineer's "Report", assessment roll and diagram shall be modified where appropriate. /" J!/~.// /,/ ~) - SECTION 3. That said changes and modifications are hereby ordered pursuant to the provisions of Section 10352 of the Streets and Highways Code. Such changes and modifications will result in the increase in certain individual assessments, however, this City Council finds that the owners of such properties have both requested and consented to such changes and modifications including the increase in the assessments on their properties. SECTION 4. That said changes and modifications, as so ordered, are in the best interests of the property owners within the boundaries of the Assessment District and the assessment roll and Engineer's 'Report", as modified pursuant to Section 1. hereinabove, shall thereafter stand as the 'Report' for all subsequent proceedings relating to this Assessment District. SECTION 5. That no public hearing is required for these changes and modifications inasmuch as said modifications meet the intent and requirements of said Section 10352 of the Streets and Highways Code, and it is further hereby determined that said changes and modifications are in the best public interest and convenience for the Assessment District and the property owners affected thereby. Presented by Approved as to form by John R. Lippitt Ann Moore Director of Public Works Interim City Attorney /M/~ , -- ; . ~ , -)-- PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, the day of , 1996, by the following vote: YEAS: Councilm embers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilm em be rs: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a meeting thereof held on the day of ,1996. Executed this day of , 1996. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk IS/} :3 .-/ b L'J ----..--------.---.--..... EXHIBIT A CITY OF CHULA VISTA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 91-1 MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ROLL FUND NO. 6014-37 ASSESSMENTS ASSESSOR AS ASSESSMENTS PARCEL ITEM ORGINALL Y AS NUMBER NUMBER CONFIRMED MODIFIED R20/23(Co) 643-020-39 R26/Church 643-020-44 5026 $430,685.05 $760,462.56 Trails 643-030-04 R3(S)/R1 643-030-11 5040 $427,760.19 $365,607.00 Trails 643-030-14 $0.00 $496,494.31 ELG-S 643-030-15 5038 $3,155,195.22 $2,399,851.12 U27,U6,U4,U12&U R10 (Co) 643-070-04 R25- 14 643-100-01 5007 $40,947.99 $32,173.46 (*) 6 643-100-02 5008 $17,549.14 $17,549.14 4 643-100-03 5009 $11,699.42 $11,699.42 14 643-100-04 5010 $40,947.98 $40,947.98 5 643-100-05 5011 $14,624.28 $14,624.28 4 643-100-06 5012 $11,699.42 $11,699.42 5 643-100-07 5013 $14,624.28 $14,624.28 10 643-100-08 5014 $29,248.56 $29,248.56 6 643-100-09 5015 $17,549.14 $17,549.14 10 643-100-10 5016 $29,248.56 $29,248.56 R3(N) 643-110-01 5041 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-02 5042 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-03 5043 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-04 5044 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-05 5045 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-06 5046 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-07 5047 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-08 5048 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-09 5049 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-10 5050 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-11 5051 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-12 5052 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-13 5053 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-14 5054 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-15 5055 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-16 5056 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-17 5057 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-18 5058 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-19 5059 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 /M--' r - , Page 1 . , : 643-110-20 5060 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-21 5061 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-22 5062 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-23 5063 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-24 5064 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-25 5065 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-26 5066 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-27 5067 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-28 5068 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-29 5069 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-30 5070 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-31 5071 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-32 5072 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-33 5073 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-34 5074 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-35 5075 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-36 5076 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-37 5077 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-38 5078 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-39 5079 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-40 5080 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-41 5081 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-42 5082 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-43 5083 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-44 5084 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-45 5085 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-11 0-46 5086 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-47 5087 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-48 5088 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-49 5089 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-50 5090 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-110-51 5091 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 R20 (City) 643-130-01 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-02 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-03 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-04 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-05 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-06 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-07 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-08 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-09 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-10 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-11 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-12 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-13 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-14 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-15 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-16 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-17 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-18 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 Page 2 /M~ r¡ , 643-130-19 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-20 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-21 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-22 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-23 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-24 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-25 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-26 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-27 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-28 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-29 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-30 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-31 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-32 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-33 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-34 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-35 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-36 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-37 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-38 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-39 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-40 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-41 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-42 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-43 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-44 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-45 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-46 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-47 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-48 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-49 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-50 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-51 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-52 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-53 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-54 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-55 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-56 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-57 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-58 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-59 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-60 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-61 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-62 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-63 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-64 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-65 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-66 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-67 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-130-68 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 Page 3 ð/1 -- ¿, '1 ,--J - 643-131-01 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-02 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-03 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-04 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-05 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-06 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-07 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-08 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-09 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-10 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-11 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-12 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-13 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-14 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-15 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-16 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-17 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-18 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-19 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-20 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-21 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-22 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-23 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-24 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-25 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-131-28 $10,968.21 $10,968.21 R15 643-140-01 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-02 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-03 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-04 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-05 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-06 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-07 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-08 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-09 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-10 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-11 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-12 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-13 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-14 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-15 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-16 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-17 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-18 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-19 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-20 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-21 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-22 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-23 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-24 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 Page 4 /5Á -? '\ J 643-140-25 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-26 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-27 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-28 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-29 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-30 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-31 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-32 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-33 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-140-34 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-01 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-02 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-03 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-04 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-05 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-06 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-07 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-08 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-09 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-10 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-11 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-12 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-13 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-14 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-15 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-16 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-17 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-18 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-19 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-20 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-21 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-22 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-23 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-24 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-25 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-26 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-27 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-28 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-29 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 643-141-30 $3,656.07 $3,656.07 Golf Course $166,316.31 $166,316.31 TOTAL $5,179,526.31 $5,179,526.31 (*) The TDIF for 2.40 EDUs in APN 643-100-01 was paid in cash at final map. Page 5 /5Á --f5Y RESOLUTION NO. /J":1 ?~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING CERTAIN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO 94-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, has previously adopted its Resolution of Intention and confirmed an assessment for certain works of improvement in a special assessment district, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913', being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; said special assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 94-1 (EASTlAKE GREENS II) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District'); and, WHEREAS, subsequent to the confirmation of the assessment and after the improvements were ordered, but during the pendency of these proceedings, it has been determined that the cost of acquiring certain improvements financed by the Assessment District was less than the estimated cost of acquisition of such improvements as reflected in the Final Engineer's Report and upon which the assessments were based; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the confirmation of the assessment and after the improvements were ordered, but during the pendency of these proceedings, it has also been determined that certain parcels within Eastlake Greens Phase II commonly referred to as R10 and R20 are proposed to be developed with less equivalent dwelling units than were projected at the time the Assessment District was formed and, consequently, such parcels were assessed for more street improvements than now directly and specially benefit such parcels; and WHEREAS, the DIF credits to which such parcels are entitled as a result of the confirmed assessments levied against such parcels exceeds the number of dwelling units actually developed on such parcels; and WHEREAS, that properties commonly referred to as R26 and The Trails can utilize the excess DIF credits originally allocated to the above referenced parcels; and WHEREAS, it therefore appears to be in the best public interest to order certain changes and modifications to the proceedings, the Engineer's 'Report", and certain individual assessments; and WHEREAS, the owners of those properties for which the assessments are proposed to be increased have both requested and consented to the proposed changes and modifications including the increase in the assessments on their properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. !5ß--/ -- ---------.-"'..-- SECTION 2. That it is hereby ordered that the changes be made as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A", and the assessment roll shall be modified and amended to reflect the modifications as set forth in said Exhibit "A", and the Engineer's "Report", assessment roll and diagram shall be modified where appropriate. SECTION 3. That said changes and modifications are hereby ordered pursuant to the provisions of Section 10352 of the Streets and Highways Code. Such changes and modifications will result in the increase in certain individual assessments, however, this City Council finds that the owners of such properties have both requested and consented to such changes and modifications including the increase in the assessments on their properties. SECTION 4. That said changes and modifications, as so ordered, are in the best interests of the property owners within the boundaries of the Assessment District and the assessment roll and Engineer's "Report", as modified pursuant to Section 1. hereinabove, shall thereafter stand as the "Report" for all subsequent proceedings relating to this Assessment District. SECTION 5. That no public hearing is required for these changes and modifications inasmuch as said modifications meet the intent and requirements of said Section 10352 of the Streets and Highways Code, and it is further hereby determined that said changes and modifications are in the best public interest and convenience for the Assessment District and the property owners affected thereby. SECTION 6. That said changes and modifications as set forth in the previously referenced Exhibit "A" will cause a reduction in certain assessments. Inasmuch as said changes shall modify or eliminate certain improvements and thereby reduce the estimated benefits to be received from the modified or eliminated improvements for certain properties within the Assessment District, it is hereby ordered that the savings realized from the reduction in or elimination of the cost of such improvements shall be applied as a credit on the individual assessments pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 10427.1. SECTION 7. Monies, as appropriate, shall be transferred from the Improvement Fund to the Redemption Fund to call bonds as necessary to effectuate the appropriate credits against assessments as set forth in Section 6. hereinabove. Presented by Approved as to form by John R. Lippitt Ann Moore Director of Public Works Interim City Attorney /fß- .1- , b," PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, the day of , 1996, by the following vote: YEAS: Councilmem bers: NOES: Councilmem bers: ABSENT: Councilmem bers: ABSTAIN: Councilmem bers: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )55. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a meeting thereof held on the day of ,1996. Executed this day of , 1996. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk , JJß-J --- _... ._..__._-,.~_.__._._-----_...,--,. EXHIBIT A ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 94-1 ACQUISITION COST TOTAL ASSESSMENTS Current Modified CONSTRUCTION COST Streets, Grading, Landscaping, and Dry Utilities $1,804,343.00 $1,504,369.65 Water $382,345.00 $431,547.00 Sewer $177,750.00 $61,423.00 Storm Drain $1,214,605.00 $329,574.00 Reclaimed Water $158,950.00 $100,282.00 DIF Streets $1,639,338.00 $1,346,253.55 Subtotal construction cost $5,377,331.00 $3.773,449.20 Contingency (10%) $537,733.10 $210,998.11 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $5,915,064.10 $3,984,447.31 INCIDENTAL EXPENSES 1. Civil Engineering $275,262.00 $225,432.03 2. Soils Engineering $81,824.91 $71,664.48 3. Surveying $96.656.36 $65,217.11 4. Dry Utilities Engineering $15,501.00 $10,085.75 5. Landscaping Architect $36,606.00 $4,848.89 6. Public Agency (Project Mgmt & Assmt Eng) $78,000.00 $135,753.30 7. Plan Check & City Fees $86.621.00 $124.976.59 8. City bonds $32,967.00 $18,422.87 9. Bond Printing, Servicing & Registration $10,000.00 $10,000.00 10. Printing & Advertising $1,000.00 $1.000.00 11. Bond Counsel $39,586.00 $39,734.60 12. Assessment Consulting $10,000.00 $1,118.38 13. Financial Consultant $42,000.00 $54,005.00 14. OIF Project City Administration $36,065.00 $3.191.87 15. DIF Support $95,020.00 $95,020.00 Total Incidentals $937,109.27 $860,470.87 Plus Miscellaneous Acquisitions $157,700.00 $179.52 Less Developer Constribution ($114,511.00) ($114,511.00) Less Prepaid Assessments ($224.727.50) ($224.727.50) Subtotal Acquisition Expenses (Const + Incidental) $6,670.634.87 $4,505.859.20 COST OF ISSUANCE Reserve Fund $644,550.00 $644.550.00 Bond Discount $149,289.49 $149,289.49 Subtotal Cost of Issuance $793,839.49 $793,839.49 Balance to Assessment $7,464,474.36 $5.299.698.69 / 5/;J ~f ., ,.-,--", EXHIBIT A CITY OF CHULA VISTA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 94-1 MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ROLL FUND NO. 6014-41 ASSESSMENTS ASSESSOR AS ASSESSMENT PARCEL ITEM ORGINALL Y AS NUMBER NUMBER CONFIRMED MODIFIED R20123(Co) 643-020-39 3A $210,831.04 $134,368.31 R26/Church 643-020-44 5115 $212,393.18 $0.00 Trails 643-030-04 5116 $764,983.24 $1,188,628.40 R3(S)/R1 643-030-11 5108 $452,401.21 $315,942.40 Trails 643-030-14 5116 $765,442.97 $458,291.42 ELG-S 643-030-15 5109 $3,089,099.12 $1,773,894.59 U27,U6,U4,U12&U R10 (Co) 643-070-04 3B $960,924.72 $516,801.19 R25- 14 643-100-01 5007 $39,217.77 $35,213.08 6 643-100-02 5008 $16,807.62 $15,091.32 4 643-100-03 5009 $11,205.08 $10,060.88 14 643-100-04 5010 $39,217.78 $35,213.08 5 643-100-05 5011 $14,006.35 $12,576.10 4 643-100-06 5012 $11,205.08 $10,060.88 5 643-100-07 5013 $14,006.35 $12,576.10 10 643-100-08 5014 $28,012.70 $25,152.20 6 643-100-09 5015 $16,807.62 $15,091.32 10 643-100-10 5016 $28,012.70 $25,152.20 R3(N) 643-110-01 91 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-02 92 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-03 93 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-04 94 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-05 95 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-11 0-06 96 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-07 97 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-11 0-08 98 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-11 0-09 99 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-10 100 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-11 101 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-12 102 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-13 103 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-14 104 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-15 105 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-16 106 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-17 107 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-18 108 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-19 109 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 J;g-~ Page 1 ¿'- --...-...---....-, 643-110-20 110 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-21 111 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-22 112 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-23 113 $3,836.50 $3,485,51 643-110-24 114 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-25 115 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-11 0-26 116 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-27 117 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-28 118 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-29 119 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-30 120 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-31 121 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-11 0-32 122 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-33 123 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-34 124 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-35 125 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-36 126 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-37 127 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-38 128 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-39 129 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-40 130 $3,836.50 $3,485.51 643-110-41 131 $3,836.51 $3,485.51 643-110-42 132 $3,836.51 $3,485.51 643-110-43 133 $3,836.51 $3,485.51 643-110-44 134 $3,836.51 $3,485.51 643-110-45 135 $3,836.51 $3,485.51 643-11 0-46 136 $3,836.51 $3,485.51 643-110-47 137 $3,836.51 $3,485.51 643-110-48 138 $3,836.51 $3,485.51 643-110-49 139 $3,836.51 $3,485.51 643-110-50 140 $3,836.51 $3,485.51 643-110-51 141 $3,836.51 $3,485.51 R20 (City) 643-130-01 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-02 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-03 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-04 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-05 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-06 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-07 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-08 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-09 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-10 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-11 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-12 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-13 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-14 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-15 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-16 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-17 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-18 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 Page 2 )521 -t 643-130-19 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-20 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-21 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-22 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-23 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-24 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-25 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-26 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-27 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-28 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-29 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-30 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-31 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-32 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-33 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-34 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-35 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-36 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-37 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-38 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-39 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-40 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-41 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-42 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-43 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-44 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-45 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-46 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-47 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-48 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-49 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-50 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-51 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-52 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-53 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-54 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-55 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-56 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-57 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-58 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-59 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-60 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-61 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-62 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-63 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-64 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-65 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-66 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-67 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-130-68 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 Page 3 JS-jJ-) . . ..;..". (.' 643-131-01 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-02 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-03 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-04 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-05 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-06 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-07 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-08 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-09 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-10 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-11 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-12 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-13 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-14 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-15 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-16 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-17 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-18 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-19 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-20 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-21 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-22 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-23 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-24 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-25 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-131-28 $11,141.97 $10,089.00 R15 643-140-01 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-02 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-03 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-04 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-05 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-06 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-07 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-08 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-09 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-10 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-11 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-12 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-13 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-14 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-15 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-16 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-17 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-18 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-19 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-20 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-21 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-22 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-23 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-24 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 Page 4 /fß - Y ¡ ,~ -"------ 643-140-25 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-26 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-27 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-28 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-29 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-30 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-31 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-32 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-33 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-140-34 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-01 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-02 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-03 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-04 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-05 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-06 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-07 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-08 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-09 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-10 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-11 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-12 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-13 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-14 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-15 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-16 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-17 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-18 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-19 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-20 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-21 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-22 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-23 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-24 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-25 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-26 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-27 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-28 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-29 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 643-141-30 $3,713.99 $3,363.00 Golf Course TOTAL $7,464,474.54 $5,299,954.48 )~ß-7 Page 5 t' " ---.-..- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: & Meeting Date: 07/23/96 ITEM TITLE: Resolution l~?Æí) approving contracts with the San Diego Chamber Orchestra, and San Diego Fireworks, Inc., approving the San Diego Unified Port District's Tidelands Activity Permit for the 1996 Symphony Pops Concert, and authorizing the Mayor to execute same SUBMITTED BY: Di,_ of ",," Md Rf!1t...¥--- REVIEWED BY: City Manager J3. ~ ./' (4/Sths Vote: Yes..K.No_) The City has sponsored the San Diego Symphony Orchestra for a summer pops concert on the bayfront for a number of years. The Symphony is no longer a viable entity, but the City has the opportunity to host the San Diego Chamber Orchestra for a similar "pops" concert at Marina View Park on Sunday, August 25, 1996. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Resolution and authorize the Mayor to sign contracts with the San Diego Chamber Orchestra, San Diego Fireworks, and to sign the San Diego Unified Port District's Tidelands Activity Permit. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: The City has the opportunity to host the San Diego Chamber Orchestra for a pops concert at Marina View Park on Sunday, August 25, 1996. The San Diego Symphony Orchestra has performed this concert for a number of years in the past, and the Chamber Orchestra is anxious to fill the void caused by the demise of the Symphony organization. The Chamber Orchestra would perform for approximately 75 minutes on an outdoor stage located at the west end of Marina View Park. The theme of the concert would be "Ports of Call", and would feature popular music from around the world. A tentative program includes selections from "Phantom of the Opera", "My Fair Lady", "Evita", "Miss Saigon", "The King and I", and "West Side Story". The Chamber Orchestra would provide the stage, orchestra shell, and all necessary sound and lighting equipment for the concert. The Orchestra has agreed to work with San Diego Fireworks to coordinate a patriotic finale accompanied by a brief fireworks display. Free shuttle bus service would be provided by Chula Vista Transit to and from the concert site via designated public parking at the Bayfront and "H" Street trolley stations, and public parking would be available near the concert site if the Port approves a request to use vacant lots in the area for that purpose. Traffic and crowd control would be handled by regular duty police officers, and police reserve personnel, and promotion and advertising for the event would be handled by the City's Public Information Coordinator. Contracts with the San Diego Chamber Orchestra and San Diego Fireworks, Inc., are attached as (Attachment "A" and "B"). Since the event would be conducted on Port District property, the City would be required to complete the Port District's standard Tidelands Activity Permit, which includes indemnification language (Attachment "C"). IY,__-"m_-,,",aU·m·lJ.'J6I 1 /0---/ i7' I Item: Meeting Date: 07/23/96 It should be noted that the Port District Activity permit gives the Port Authority right to a 24-hour cancellation notice, which, if exercised, could terminate the activity. However, the contracts with the Chamber Orchestra and San Diego Fireworks provide flexibility in re-scheduling the event if necessary. Cancellation is highly unlikely, although a serious emergency in the area could result in such a cancellation. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding in the amount of $35,120 has been allocated in the approved FY 1996- 97 Community Promotions budget for support of San Diego Symphony Pops concert. Since the Symphony will not be performing, this funding is available for the Chamber concert. This funding includes all anticipated costs of the Chamber Orchestra contract, a fireworks finale, shuttle bus service, police services, promotions, generator rental, portable toilets, and various staff support services. Of this amount, staff has anticipated $24,000 as revenue reimbursable from the Port District, and designated it as such in the budget. The City has applied for Port District Financial Assistance in the amount of $22,500, which would offset the Chamber Orchestra's contractual costs. This means that the City is currently deficient $1,500 in revenue versus expenditures. It is conceivable that the Port District funding request could be denied, or approved at a level lower than requested; and subsequently, the difference between expenditures and revenue could increase. In addition, the Port District has amended their financial assistance request cycle, and the Port will not be making final funding decisions until sometime in August. The City may not know by August 25th, the date of the concert, if any reimbursable funding from the Port has been approved. In that case, the City would sustain the full or partial cost of the Chamber Orchestra contract. Attachments: "A" Contract with the San Diego Chamber Orchestra liB" Contract with San Diego Fireworks, Inc. "C" San Diego Unified Port District Tidelands Activity Permit "",_'"""U)·.........U·0 ·¡2. o1i 2 I ~ ~d- /" RESOLUTION NO. )ð'Jð'O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CONTRACTS WITH THE SAN DIEGO CHAMBER ORCHESTRA AND SAN DIEGO FIREWORKS, INC. , APPROVING THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT'S TIDELANDS ACTIVITY PERMIT FOR THE 1996 SYMPHONY POPS CONCERT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME WHEREAS, the City has sponsored the San Diego Symphony Orchestra for a summer pops concert on the bay front for a number of years; and WHEREAS, the Symphony is no longer a viable entity, but the City has the opportunity to host the San Diego Chamber Orchestra for a similar "pops" concert at Marina View Park on Sunday, August 25, 1996; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that Council adopt the r~solution authorizing the Mayor to execute contracts and permits with the San Diego Chamber Orchestra, San Diego Fireworks, Inc. and San Diego Unified Port District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve contracts with the San Diego Chamber Orchestra and San Diego Fireworks, Inc. for the 1996 symphony pops concert at Marina View Park on Sunday, August 25, 1996, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No. - BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council approves a Tidelands Activity Permit from the San Diego Unified Port District, which includes indemnification of the Port District, on file in the office of the city Clerk as Document No. . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council does hereby authorize the Mayor to execute said contracts and permit. Presented by Approved as to form by CÀ- ~~~ 0 Jess Valenzuela, Director of Ann Y. Moore, Acting city Parks and Recreation Attorney C:\rs\sy.phony J~/3~1 /_- u...... AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAN DIEGO CHAMBER ORCHESTRA AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TIllS AGREEMENT between the San Diego Chamber Orchestra, a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of California (herein called the "Orchestra"), and City of Chula Vista (herein called the "Presenter"). WITNESSETH: 1. ENGAGEMENT. In consideration of the mutual promises herein set forth, the Orchestra agrees to furnish and the Presenter agrees to hire the services of the San Diego Chamber Orchestra for one concert to be given on: Dav of Week Date Hour Sunday August 25, 1996 7:30 p.m. at: Name of Faeilitv Address Marina View Park 800 Marina Parkway Chula Vista Except as otherwise specifically agreed to in writing, the selection of the program, "Ports of Call", any soloists, and other artistic personnel for each concert shall be at the sole discretion of the Orchestra, and the mere consent of the Orchestra to furnish particular music or other matter of persons (including the conductor) shall not be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of this power. 2. PAYMENT. The Presenter shall pay to the Orchestra the amount .of $ 22,500 (Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred). Orchestra shall separately invoice Presenter for payment of contract fees. Payment for each concert shall be in lawful money of the United States on or before the day of the concert. On failure to pay, the total amount for all concerts shall then become due and owing. Time is of the essence to the provisions of this paragraph. 3. The ORCHESTRA shall provide: , SEE ADDENDUM A. PAGE 5 OF THIS CONTRACT /~~ , . , 4. FACILITIES. The Presenter shall provide at its expense the above named faeility(ies) at the time(s) indicated. When required by the Orchestra, the Presenter shall furnish, at its expense, one or two properly tuned concert grand pianos, as requested. The Presenter, at its expense, shall furnish for performances staff, security personnel and other like personnel, any licenses and permits required, programs, printed matter, advertising costs, and shall bear all other expenses in connection with the giving of the concert, to include: SEE ADDENDUM A. PAGE 5 OF THIS CONTRACT The Presenter, at its expense, shall provide the Orchestra for its library, Ten (10) copies of the program for each concert. 5. CREDITS, PROGRAM AND PUBLICITY. The Presenter agrees to display the name of the Orchestra, the conductor and any other principals in all advertising and printed programs in such form as may be prescribed by the Orchestra, and to print and distribute house programs tTom copy furnished by the Orchestra, said copy to be printed in its entirety as furnished. The Presenter agrees to promote the concert and to attempt to obtain an attendance in a number that the facility at which the performance will be held will reasonably accommodate. 6. RESTRICTION. The Presenter agrees that no eoncert(s) is(are) to be recorded, broadcast, televised or otherwise extended beyond the facility without the prior written consent of the Orchestra. In the event that the Orchestra wishes to have the coneert(s) recorded, broadcast, televised or otherwise extended beyond the facility, the Presenter agrees to make the facility available for the installation, operation and removal of all necessary equipment and facilities. All costs relative thereto shall be borne by the Orchestra. The Presenter shall not receive any fee, remuneration or compensation for any such extension of the coneert(s). 7. NO DISCRIMINATION. The Presenter agrees that admission to the facility shall be without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. 8. PROGRAM CHANGES. The Orchestra shall have the right, exercisable solely at its discretion, as represented by the judgment and decision of its administrative staff, to change the program of any concert at any time and for any reason, regardless of any advertisement, consent or promise of the Orchestra, whether contained in Paragraph One hereof or otherwise by removing trom the program any music or other matter to be presented and substituting therefor other music or matter, and by removing any person, including the Conductor of the concert, persons or group of persons, except the San Diego Chamber Orchestra itself, and either substituting therefor other person, persons or group of persons or none at all, and the Orchestra's performance of the program as so changed shall be deemed full performance of its engagement and obligations, whether under Paragraph One hereof or otherwise, for the concert which would have otherwise been performed. , 9. IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE. If the concert which is the subject matter of this agreement is prevented trom occurring for any reason which is beyond the control of either of the parties ("Intervening Force"), the duties of the parties herein specified including the duty of Orchestra to perform and the duty of Presenter to pay shall be suspended, each party to bear their own costs incurred in the preparation of the concert to the time of the Intervening Force. The deposit shall be forthwith N:~sCONT.96 2 /~~¿, returned. Then each of the parties shall agree to meet and confer for the purpose of rescheduling the performance or performances herein specified, and all reasonable effort will be made to reschedule the performance and to perform as herein specified. Upon reaching an agreement as to are-performance, the deposit shall be paid back to the Orchestra. 10. EXCUSE FROM PERFORMANCE. The Orchestra is not required to perform the concert or concerts as herein specified if the area, material and facilities as herein, or as required in Addendum A to be provided by Presenter have not been substantially provided. 11. NOTICE. Any notice which is provided to be given under the terms of this agreement must be in writing and may be given personally or by registered mail, directed to the San Diego Chamber Orchestra at P.O. Box 3333, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067, and to the Presenter at its address as set forth below. Either party may, by like notice, designate a different address for the serving of notices. 12. MODIFICATION. No modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and executed with the same formality as this Agreement. Failure of either party to insist in anyone or more instances upon strict performance of any of the terms and provisions on the other party's part to be performed, shall not be considered as a waiver or relinquishment of any such term or provision for the future, and the same shall continue in full force and effect. 13. HOLD HARMLESS/INSURANCE HOLD HARMLESS: Orchestra agrees to indemnifY and hold harmless the City ofChula Vista against and trom any and all damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons, including property and employees or agents of the City, trom any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of any kind or nature including worker's compensation claims, of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting trom or arising out of the negligent or intentional acts, errors or omissions of the Orchestra or any of its officers, agents or employees. Presenter agrees to indemnifY and hold harmless the Orchestra against and trom any and all damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons, including property and employees or agents of the Orchestra, trom any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of any kind or nature including worker's compensation claims, of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting trom or arising out of the negligent or intentional acts, errors or omissions of the Presenter or any of its officers, agents or employees. INSURANCE: Orchestra shall, throughout the duration of this Agreement maintain comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance covering all operations hereunder of Orchestra, its agents and employees including but not limited to premises and automobile, with minimum coverage of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) combined single limits. Evidence of such coverage, in the form of a Certificate of Insurance shall be submitted to the City Clerk at 276 Fourth Avenue. Said policy or policies shall provide thirty (30) day written notice to the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista of cancellation or material change. Presenter shall, throughout the duration of this Agreement maintain comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance covering all operations hereunder of Presenter, its ¡¡gents and employees including but not limited to premises and automobile, with minimum coverage of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) combined single limits. Evidence of such coverage, in the form of a Certificate of Insurance shall be submitted to the San Diego Chamber Orchestra at P.O. Box 3333, Rancho Santa Fe. Said policy or policies shall provide thirty (30) day written notice to the Orchestra of cancellation or material change. N:~~ICO,,",,96 3 /t~7 .. 14. ASSIGNMENT. Each of the parties to this agreement are required to perform personal services to the other party. Therefore, this agreement shall not be assigned by either party to any other person, firm, association, organization, or entity without the prior written consent of the other party, which written consent may be withheld for any purpose whatsoever in the sole discretion of the party whose consent is required. 15. CONSTRUCTION. This Agreement shall be construed, governed, and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of California, and is a California Contract. This Agreement represents the full understanding between the parties, and neither party shall be bound by any terms or undertakings other than those contained therein. IN WIlNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT THE DAY AND YEAR BELOW WRITTEN. PRESENTER'S NAME: THE SAN DIEGO CHAMBER ORCHESTRA CITY OF CHULA VISTA BY: BY: TITLE 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 91910 PRESENTER'S ADDRESS DATED: 19 - DATED: 19 - , )¡},--g N:~ICO)Iß'.96 4 '-"/""/ ' - ---------~-~"---- . ...~- Addendum to Contract: ADDENDUM "A" THE SAN DIEGO CHAMBER ORCHESTRA "Ports of Call" Outdoor Concert Program Presenter agrees to provide the following for outdoor concerts: 1. Four (4) properly supplied portable restrooms with sinks, 2 marked women and 2 marked men, for the exclusive use of the Orchestra members. 2. Access to Marina View Park throughout the day and evening, and ISO' x 70' smooth and level space adequate for set-up of concert shell. 3. Backstage security consisting of two (2) personnel beginning one hour prior to scheduled concert time and ending one hour after conclusion of concert. 4. Reserved parking areas for Orchestra musicians and personnel 5. Fireworks Display to accompany final musical selection Orchestra agrees to provide: 1. One (I) perfonnanee of approximately 75 minutes duration. 2. All equipment required to successfully produce an outdoor concert including but not limited to: a. Stage platfonn, backdrop and canopy/acoustical shell. b. Music stands and seating for the Orchestra. c. Overhead and stage lighting for the Orchestra. d. Sound system adequate for an outdoor facility with a seating capacity of up to 7,000. e. Electrical Generator and all related equipment and support service f. Production crew to set up, monitor, and remove Orchestra equipment. ACCEPTED BY: City of Chula Vista LOCAL PRESENTING ORGANIZATION SIGNA TORE DATED: 19 - TITLE , 5 /~-7 N:~RInc'Ipop5CONT.96 FIREWORKS DISPLAY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of July, 1996, by and between the city of Chula Vista, a California Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and San Diego Fireworks, Inc., a California Corporation, hereinafter called "contractor", is made with reference to the following facts: WIT N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, City desires to provide a fireworks display for its residents on August 25, 1996, to accompany the final musical number at the "Pops" concert, and Contractor desires to furnish the fireworks display to said city; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCOPE OF WORK. Contractor agrees to furnish to City, on August 25, 1996, at the west end of Marina View Park, in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, one (1) Fireworks Display ("Display") as set forth in Program "A", attached hereto as Exhibit "A", incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though set forth in full, including all required permitting fees, launch site security, and the services of one (1) licensed pyrotechnician to take charge of and fire the Display with sufficient helpers. The services and operations of Contractor are considered complete when the crew and equipment of Contractor depart the site. 2. CANCELLATION BY CONTRACTOR. In the event Contractor reasonably determines the weather conditions are unfavorable on the date set for the Display, City shall pay Contractor only the sum equal to ten percent (10%) of the contract price as a restocking fee for materials and as contribution to costs incurred by Contractor for technician fees, and permit and insurance costs. 3. CANCELLATION BY CITY. should City decide to cancel the Display, notice shall be given to Contractor no later than nine o'clock A.M. on the day of the Display. City shall pay Contractor only the sum equal to ten percent (10%) of the contract price as a restocking fee and as contribution to costs incurred by Contractor including, but not limited to, technicjan fees, and permit and insurance costs. N:\&HAAED\I'AAKSAEC\I'OP8I'W!IK,CNT 1 /¡þ~/(J I - -- - --.---.---.---.----.- 4. POSTPONEMENT. In the event of cancellation by Contractor as provided in Paragraph 2 herein, or cancellation by City as provided in paragraph 3 herein, City shall not be liable to pay Contractor ten percent (10%) of the contract price as a restocking fee if the City tenders to Contractor another date for the Display prior to 9:00 A.M. on the day of the Display. Contractor agrees to provide the Display at another date, mutually agreed to by the parties. 5. ASSUMPTION OF RISK FOR WEATHER RUINING EXHIBITS. city agrees to assume the risk of damage to any fireworks that are a part of the Display due to weather or other causes beyond the control of contractor, which may affect or damage such portion of said fireworks as must be placed in position and exposed a necessary time before the scheduled commencement of the Display. By assuming said risk, City agrees to pay for Contractor's cost of said destroyed or ruined fireworks, unless the city is otherwise obligated to pay the Contractor the compensation required by this agreement. 6. DISPLAY PROTECTION. Contractor shall arrange for and provide at their expense adequate police or security around the fireworks launch site to prevent the public from entering the areas designated solely by the Contractor for the firing of the display and fallout areas. Any vehicles or vessels or personal property within these areas shall be removed at the expense of Contractor. Any damage to personal property and injuries or death to persons remaining within these areas, and in areas affected by fallout from the display, shall be the sole responsibility and liability of Contractor. Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City against such claims as provided in paragraph eight (8) herein. 7. INSURANCE. Contractor, shall, throughout the duration of this Agreement, maintain the following insurance coverage: 7.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business automobile liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000, combined single limit, which names the City of Chula vista as additional insured and is primary to any insurance policy carried by the City. 7.2 Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in the amoun~ of $1,000,000. N: \ MiAI'IED\".....kSAECI'OI'SfWIIK.CNT 2 /t //1 All policies shall be issued by a carrier that has a Best's Rating of "A-", Class "V", or better or shall meet with the approval of the city's Risk Manager. Contractor shall provide, prior to commencement of the services required under this Agreement, certificates of insurance for the coverage required in this section, and, for Commercial General Liability Insurance, a policy endorsement for the city and Port as additional insured; a policy endorsement stating the Contractor's insurance is primary and a policy endorsement stating that the limits of insurance apply separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by the Contractor. Certificates of insurance must also state that each policy may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the city. The provisions of this section are intended to be of benefit only to the City, and not for the advantage or benefit of any third party. The City shall have the sole right to insist upon or waive their performance without liability to any third party. 8. HOLD HARMLESS. 8.1 city's Indemnity. City shall indemnify, defend and hold Contractor harmless and the property of Contractor from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, suits, injuries and liabilities arising from the death or injury to any person or from damage to or destruction of any property, which arises out of, or is caused by an act, omission, negligence or misconduct on the part of city or any of city's elected officials, officers, agents, servants, employees, contractors, guests, invitees or licensees. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any claim or liability arising by reason of the sole negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct of Contractor. 8.2 Contractor's Indemnity. Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and the property of City from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, suits, injuries and liabilities arising from the death or injury to any person or from damage to or destruction of any property, which arises out of or is caused by an act, omission, negligence or misconduct on the part of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, agents, servants, employees, contractors, guests, invitees or licensees. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any claim or liability arising by reason of H: \ atAIIED\ I"AIIKSllfCIPOP8fWRk.CNT 3 /¿ //~ the sole negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct of city. 9. COMPENSATION. City agrees to pay Contractor the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred ($2,500.00) dollars according to the following terms and conditions, due and payable as follows: Fifty (50%) percent deposit upon execution of this agreement, and the balance due ten (10) days after date of Display, plus one (1%) percent service charge on accounts over thirty (30) days past due. 10. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. This contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Should any legal action be brought to enforce or interpret the terms or provisions of this agreement, any court of competent jurisdiction located in the county of San Diego, California shall be proper venue for an action. If any legal action is brought to enforce or interpret the terms or provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which they may be entitled. 11. PARTIES INDEPENDENCE. It is further agreed that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as forming a partnership, the Parties hereto being severally responsible for their own separate debts and obligations, and neither Party shall be held responsible for any agreements not stipulated in this Agreement. 12. NOTICE TO PARTIES. Any Notice to Parties required under this Agreement to be given to either party may be given by deposition in the united States mail, postage prepaid, first class, a notice addressed to the following: City: City of Chula vista Attn: Beverly Authelet, City Clerk 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Contractor: San Diego Fireworks, Inc. P.O. Box 900186 San Diego, CA 92190 13. SUCCESSORS. The terms, conditions and payments of this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties themselves and on their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. N:\8t1AAEOI'AIIKSIIEC\I'OI'SFWIIK.CNT 4 )~ -);1 14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT All terms of this Agreement are in writing and may only be modified by written Agreement of the Parties hereto. Both Parties acknowledge they have received a copy of said written Agreement and agree to be bound by said terms of written agreement only. , N:\SHAIIEO\PARKSAEC\I"OPSFWFlK.CNT 5 /¡;-/~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto, by and through their duly authorized agents, have set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. City of Chula Vista, A Municipal Corporation. by: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly Authelet, City Clerk (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cl- '"ÝÌAA~9--- Q Ann Moore, Acting City Attorney San Diego Fireworks, Inc., a California Corporation By John Peluso Area Manager N:\miAltfO\'.....KSItEC\POPSfWAK.CNT 6 /b -'/~ #' _ ---- _ -.-.-..-- SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT TIDELAND ACTIVI1Y PERMIT PERMITTEE: City of (hula Vista USE OR ACTIVITY: Symphony Pops Concert . LOCATION FOR WHICH PERMIT ISSUED: Marina View Park EFFECTIVE DATES: Sunday, August 25, 1996 SECURITY DEPOSIT: N/A THIS PERMIT FOR TIDELAND USE IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS: 1. Permittee shall comply with all applicable laws, rule. and regulations of the District and other governmental entities. 2. PermIttee shall keep the property and all equipment used In connection with this permit In a clean, safe and sanitary manner and In good repair at all times. All or any portion of the security deposit shall be available unconditionally to the District for the purpose of cleaning or repairing damages to the property upon termination of this permit. 3. This permit may be cancelled by either party by the giving of twenty-four (24) hours notice In writing to the other party. Such cancellation shall be without liability of any nature. 4. This permit shall not be transferred or assigned. 5. Permittee shall defend, Indemnify, and hold harmless District, Ita officers and employees agaln.t all cause. of action, for JudicIal relief of any kind, for damage to property of any kind whatsoever, and to whomever hlon;lng, Including PermIttee, or Injury to or death of any person or persons,lncludlng employees of Permittee, resulting directly or Indirectly from activities In connection with the Issuance and performance of this permit or arising from the use of the property, facilities or services of District, Its officers or employee.. )¿, ~/¡, 6. Permittee shall maintain comprehensive public liability (covering operations, products and completed operations) and blanket contractual coverage Insurance throughout the term of this permit. The policies shall, as a minimum, provide the following forms of coverage: $1 Million combined single limit (A) Personal Injury and Bodily Injury: One Person $ One Occurrence $ (B) F'ioperty Damage $ Certificates of such Insurance, In a form satisfactory to the District, shall be flied with District's Community Relations Department. Insurance certificates flied pursuant to this permit shall contain a non-cancellatlon-wlthout-notice clause and shall provide that copies of cancellation notices shall be sent to the District. 7. The rights and privileges extended by this permit are non-exclusive. 8. Permittee shall not engage in any activity on property of the District other than the activity for which this permit is expressly issued. 9. Permittee shall be subject to and compiy with any special conditions attached hereto. 10. Permittee shall comply with all requirements and directives of the Port Director of District. 11. In the event of failure of Permittee to comply with any provision of this permit, this permit may, at the discretion of the Port Director, be terminated immediately. SAN DIEGO UNiFIED PORT DISTRICT Approved: Permittee hereby accepts this permit and agrees to comply with all the terms and conditions thereof. Permittee's signature Address: City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Department ')76 Fourth AVPnllP rhlll~ Vic::.trl r.A Q1Qln Telephone: 691-5071 Contact: John Gates II) Ii- -/7 - CHECKLIST FOR THE USE OF TIDELAND PROPERTY Date request received in CR Dept.: Please comDlete each Item below. ,. Sponsoring individual or group: City of Chula Vista 2. Address and telephone number of contact person: John Gates, Senior Recreation Supervisor City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Department 276 Fourth Ave. Chula vista, CA 91910 691-5071 3. What type of event is planned? Symphony Pops Concert 4. Where exactly on the bayfront? West end of Marina View Park 5. Day and date of event: Sunday, August 25, 1996 6. Time: Start 7:00 a.m. Finish 10:00 p.m. 7. Will traffic be affected? Traffic in the area will increase between 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. Chula Vista Police will coordinate traffic control e. How many persons expected to attend? 4,000 - 6,000 9. If large group, what security arrangements have been made? Chula Vista Police will coordinate crowd control , O. If commercial or catered event, do you have liability insurance coveragé1 N/A Please return this checklist (within 10 wor1<ing days) or your request for an event on Port tidelands will be canceled. 4/S13 It -/ ç: .. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item~ Meeting Date 8/6/96 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 69 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE BAYSHORE BIKE WAY PROPOSED WITHIN THE CHULA VISTA COASTAL ZONE SUBMITTED BY: C,mmo,", D,v",pm'~" L ,c., REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ ../' (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No lL) Council Referral No. NA Staff requests that this public hearing be continued to a date and time certain, that being Tuesday, August 6, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. The Coastal Commission and Caltrans staff have been advised of this rescheduling. IM;\home\commdev\buchan\bikeschd.113] (1-{ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item J% Meeting Date 07/23/96 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Conditional Use Permit PCC-96-40; request to construct and operate a Recreational Water Park on approximately 32.4 acres of land in the Otay Rio Business Park, Phase II, west of Castle Pines Avenue in the IL-P (Limited Industrial - Precise Plan) Zone - Hice Enterprises, Inc. Resolution /f5"J g- / Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration 15-96-21 and related documents, and granting a Conditional Use Permit, PCC-96-40, allowing the construction and operation of a recreational water park on approximately 32.4 acres of land in the Otay Rio Business Park, Phase II, west of Castle Pines Avenue in the Limited Industrial (IL-P) Zone Resolution /8'""3J'"~pproving an Agreement with Hice Enterprises, Inc., for the Development and Operation of a Water Park SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director C t; , Planning Director '1« - REVIEWED BY: City Manageg (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No..!...) BACKGROUND: Hice Enterprises, Inc., represented by Mr. George Hice (the "Applicant"), has submitted a proposal to construct and operate a water theme park on 32.4 acres located within the Otay Rio Business Park. Phase II. The project site is immediately west of the proposed MCA Amphitheater which is to be constructed on Phase I of the business Park. The Water Park will consist of approximately one dozen rides, changing and locker rooms, food service facilities and administrative offices. The Water Park site will also contain areas for picnics, volleyball and softball. Approximately 1,300 parking spaces will be provided. The project will require a conditional use permit to be developed in the Limited Industrial-Precise Plan (IL-P) land use zone. This project also requires the approval of an agreement between the applicant and the City for assistance to be provided by the City in return for payments based upon project revenues. An Initial Study, 15-96-21, was completed for this project which resulted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold the Public Hearing, adopt resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit PCC-96-40 for the construction and operation of a water theme park on the Otay Rio Business Park, Phase II, and adopt the resolution approving an agreement with Hice Enterprises, Inc. )Y// Page 2, Item _ Meeting Date 07/23/96 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Resource Conservation Commission considered this project at their meeting of June 24, 1996 and voted 6-0 to recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on 18-96-21 (Attachment 1). 2. The Design Review Committee considered this project on June 10, 24, and July 8, 1996. At the July 8 meeting, the DRC approved revised conditions for development of the Water Park which will be used to review more specific landscaping, building and grading plans as they are developed. The letter of conditions to the developer is attached as Attachment 2. 3. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of July 10. 1996 held the noticed public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration 18-96-21 and related CEQA documents, and grant a Conditional Use Permit for construction of the Water Park. (Draft Minutes and Resolution, Attachment 3) 4. On May 17, 1996, the Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee adopted a motion to send a letter to the City of Chula Vista encouraging the City to support the planning efforts along the Otay Valley Regional Park and to consider a condition that would require active recreational facilities developed as part of the Water Park to be made available to the general public without fee during the off season. Chula Vista staff made an second presentation on the status of the City's review of the Water Park on June 21. 1996 at which time the committee reiterated their desire to insure access to general recreational facilities when not in use. The project site is separated from the river by approximately 900 feet. The intervening parcel will eventually be developed. The applicant stated that requiring access to the recreational facilities without charge would be burdensome on the developer and difficult to integrate into the regional park. It should be noted that the developer does not want to allow outside use of his facilities by the general public due to potential liability and maintenance problems. The minutes of the May 17, Policy Committee are attached as Attachment 4. 5. The Economic Development Commission, at their meeting of July 3, 1996, voted 4-0-2 to endorse the Whitewater Water Park. The motion considered and passed was as follows: "Based on the economic merits of the proposed Whitewater Park, the EDC finds this project to be economically favorable to the City." The draft minutes ofthe EDC meeting are included as Attachment 5. DISCUSSION: The Water Park is to be located on Phase " of the Otay Rio Business Park (see locator map, Attachment 5). The MCA Amphitheater project is to developed on 72 acres of Phase I of the industrial park. The Phase" property, includes over 110 acres. Approximately 45 acres are steep slopes which are designated as open space in the Chula Vista General Plan and in the proposed M8CP. The remaining 65 acres are comprised of lower hills and flatland, and are developable. Unlike Phase I, no street or utility improvements have been completed on this property. /S>2 Page 3, Item _ Meeting Date 07/23/96 Th!! Water Park will be developed on the southerly 32.4 acres which contain some hills and lie at the base of the steep slopes thus providing a natural grade and backdrop for many of the slides. This area is currently zoned Light Industrial-Precise Plan (IL-P). Several years ago the City was interested in this property as a relocation site for its public works yard. The City is currently pursuing other alternatives. The City's Zoning Ordinance lists "amusement parks as an unclassified Use which should be discouraged in residential areas, but can be developed in commercial and industrial zones with a conditional use permit. Section 19.58.040 - Amusement and entertainment facilities - further states: "Amusement and entertainment facilities such as bowling alleys, dance halls, amusement parks and other similar recreational facilities shall be subject to the following development standards: A. All structures shall maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet from any residential zone; B. Ingress and egress from the site shall be designed so as to minimize traffic congestion and hazards; C. Adequate controls or measures shall be taken to prevent offensive noise and vibration from any indoor or outdoor activity onto adjacent properties or uses." In consideration of the conditions stated in the zoning ordinance, the Water Park can be considered at the proposed location which is further described below: Zoninq Land Use Project Site IL-P Vacant North IL-P and A8 Vacant South AS Open Space/Slope East IL-P Vacant (MCA site) West Residential Vacant (City of San Diego) PROJECT PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct and operate a water theme park containing aquatic attractions such as slides, a wave pool, "lazy river," as well as picnic areas, ball fields and volleyball courts. The facility will also include administrative offices, food service and a first aid station. The proposed water park has been compared to Raging Waters in San Dimas. In consideration of the recent approval of the MCA Amphitheater and Kobey's Swap Meet in the area and the ongoing planning for the Otay Valley Regional Park, the proposed water park is not out of character in this area. In addition, the Otay Ranch project planners are considering an extension of recreational land uses to the east of the amphitheater. The combination of the amphitheater, swap meet and water park in the same location is considered to be an asset to the community but raises concerns related to operations, ingress/egress, parking and scheduling of major events. /Y/3 I - __ - _______.___m.___"__ ..______ Page 4, Item _ Meeting Date 07/23/96 Operations: The water park will generally operate from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but may be open as late as 10:00 p.m. on nights when special events are scheduled. The conditional use permit will allow them to operate until 10:00 p.m. except on nights when there is an MCA concert. On those nights the water park will have to close early enough to avoid traffic conflicts. (See further discussion on this issue below.) The water park is seasonal operation. It will open four weeks prior to Memorial Day and operate weekends only. From Memorial Day through Labor Day, the park will be open every day. Following Labor Day, the park will again only be open on weekends for four additional weeks. Except for administration functions, the entire park will be closed in the off season. Ingress/Egress: When the MCNswap meet project was approved, Kobey's agreed to vacate the property in adequate time before a scheduled MCA event to avoid traffic congestion between shoppers and concert goers. In the same vein, the water park developer has agreed, and the CUP has been conditioned that the water park will close early enough before an amphitheater event to avoid traffic conflicts. This condition is to be implemented by requiring the developer to become a party to the Traffic Management Plan required as a condition to the Conditional Use Permit for the MCA Amphitheater. Parking: The water park will provide 1,300 parking spaces on site. The minimum required is 1.429 based upon a ratio of one car for every 3.5 patrons (similar to the amphitheater). Because the water park will be short approximately 139 parking spaces, the CUP is conditioned upon the applicant providing the additional spaces on the adjoining property which he will also own, or through a reciprocal agreement with the operators of the amphitheater who have preliminarily agreed to cooperate. AGREEMENT REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF WATER PARK The Applicant has requested assistance from the City in order to facilitate and reduce its cost of developing and operating the Project. In exchange for such assistance, the Applicant has offered the City a 2% share in certain project revenues and City access to the park during specified times for certain Parks and Recreation classes and public safety training. The following is a summary of the basic business terms for the agreement negotiated by staff with the Applicant on these issues ('Agreement'). (A substantially final draft of the Agreement is attached hereto. A final version, signed by the Applicant, is intended to be presented to the Council prior to its final consideration. City obliQations: 1. City shall use its best efforts to assist the Applicant with negotiations with other public agencies with the authority to impose impact fees on the project (e.g., City of San Diego, the governing School Districts, and the Otay Water District) in order to achieve reasonable reductions on such fees. The City is expressly not obligated to make any out-of-pocket contributions to reduce such fees [Section 1.1 of the Ag reement]. Note: The best example of the kind of fee at issue under this provision is the City of San Diego's Facilities Benefit Assessment. This fee, which the City of San Diego /?/f Page 5, Item _ Meeting Date 07/23/96 reserved the right to impose as a condition of the City of Chula Vista's annexation of the property in this area back in the mid-1980's, is approximately $30,000 per acre for commercial land uses and $10,000 per acre for industrial land uses. City staff was successful in negotiating the lower fee for the MCA amphitheater on the basis of seasonal use (and consequential lower traffic generation) from the project and is confident that it can provide similar value to the water park project. 2. City shall, at Its sole cost and expense, construct certain improvements to Otay Valley Road prior to commencement of Project operations [Section 1.2 of the Agreement]. Note: These improvements to Otay Valley Road are essentially complete. A similar commitment on the part of the City was also included In the MCA transaction with the proviso that MCA's deemed share of the cost of such improvements (approximately $500,000) would, in effect, be repaid by MCA to the City. through rent payments calculated as a percentage of tickets sales. 3. City staff shall calculate and present to City Council for future consideration a proposed adjustment in City development impact fees based upon the seasonal nature of the project and other factors. Applicant shall pay all applicable fees when due, regardless of the amount. However, In the event that Applicants project fees (including Impact and other processing and building permit fees) exceed $500,000, City's 2% share of Project revenues (discussed below) shall be reduced by the amount of such excess [Section 1.3 of the Agreement]. Note: This provision does not commit the City to reduce its fees below the customary amounts, but rather commits staff to propose an adjustment of fees for City Council consideration. City staff intends to apply the same formulas applied to the MCA project, where applicable, in the computation of traffic impact, sewer hookup and Development Impact fees which will be generated by this project based primarily upon seasonal usage of the site. Other factors to be considered include (a) the unique land use category of the project which falls outside the existing commercial or industrial categories, (b) the less than typical number of employees for the project, and (c) the public and quasi-public uses being proposed for the project (see below). 4. The City shall cooperate with Applicant in order to effectuate a reapportionment of the lien from Assessment District 90-2 (Otay Valley Road Improvements) away from non-developable portions of the property [Section 1.4 of the Agreement]. Note: City's obligation is subject to abiding by the applicable requirements of the Streets and Highways Code, and the City's Engineers report applicable to the Assessment District. /~r~ /' Page 6, Item _ Meeting Date 07/23/96 Developer's Obliaations. 1. Developer shall use its best efforts to develop the Project on the Project Site in substantial conformance with submitted plans and specifications [Section 2.1 of the Agreement]. 2. Developer shall pay the City each year an amount equal to 2% of gross cash receipts from certain Project revenues including (a) admissions fees, (b) parking fees, (c) equipment and locker rentals, (d) arcade games, and (e) any and all other sources of non-sales taxable income. City has audit rights which allow it to inspect Applicant's books and thereby verify the amount owed to City [Section 2.2 of the Agreement]. Revenues generated under this provision have been estimated by Applicant to be approximately $125.000 in year one. and grow to approximately $870,000 over the first five years. 3. City shall have access to the Project for Parks and Recreation programs and Police/Fire Department rescue/training exercises on Mondays through Fridays (a) throughout the day during the months of May and October, and (b) from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the months of normal Project operations [Section 2.3 of the Agreement]. City would not have to pay a rental fee, but would have to cover Applicant's out-of-pocket expenses related to City use which would not otherwise be incurred. The Applicant and City staff believe that this provision could be of tremendous mutual benefit providing the City with much needed facilities, particularly for Parks and Recreation department classes, and providing the Applicant with good public exposure for the park and an opportunity to provide a valuable community service. 4. Applicant shall indemnify City against any and all liabilities arising from City's approval of the Project and from Project operations. This provision is substantially similar to the blanket indemnity obtained from MCA in to protect the City from liabilities arising from that project. City staff is currently exploring whether or not the City can be further protected by third party insurance. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM City staff conducted an Initial Study (IS-96-21) of the project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. That study resulted in the identification of several potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: soil suitability. soil erosion, dust generation, runoff water quality, on-site traffic circulation, air quality and public utilities. However, it was determined that with the application of specific project mitigation measures, those impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Based on these conclusions, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued and distributed for public review between the dates of May 10 and June 10, 1996. That Mitigated Negative Declaration and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are included as Attachments 7 and 8. / 'if> ~ Page 7, Item _ Meeting Date 07/23/96 As a result of public review, the City received two letters of comment, both from the City of San Diego. Those letters and staffs letters responding to the comments are included as Attachment 9. No significant new environmental issues were raised in the comment letters and the response letters provide clarification that staff anticipates will satisfy the City of San Diego's concerns. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed water park will provide a number of financial benefits to the City including approximately $155,000 in annual tax and assessment revenue in the early years of operation as well as the generation of new full and part-time job opportunities. These are described below. Property Tax The estimated value of the water park after construction is $13 Million. The increase in property taxes over current tax revenue from the vacant land (assessed at $4 Million) will be approximately $15.000 at the City's normal tax share rate (this project is not in a redevelopment project area). Sales Tax Revenue Taxable sales from food and merchandize are projected to be $9.2 Million over the first six years of operation. At the City's 1 % share, the City would receive $92,000, or an average of $15,333 per year (in actuality, sales tax revenues will be lower in the earlier years and increase with anticipated market growth). City 's Share of Revenues Under AQreement for Development As discussed above, the City in consideration of City assistance ??? will also receive a percentage of certain revenues all non-taxable sales generated at the water park. These include admission, parking. tube rental. arcade games, locker rental. and all other non-sales taxable revenues (excluding corporate sponsorships). This revenue is projected to be approximately $125,000 in year one, and total $870,000 over the first five years of operation. Job Generation The water park will employ 15 full-time employees on a year round basis, and 250 part-time employees during the 120-day operating season. This equates to a local annual payroll of $1.3 Million. A study done by Grisham and Associates analyzed the indirect job generation that is projected by the development of a water park. The multiplier effect was projected to be one indirect job for each full- time direct job. Using this ratio, and assuming that the water park will generate the equivalent of 90 full-time jobs, indirect job generation is estimated at 90. It is anticipated that 112 jobs will be generated through the construction period. )~/? Page 8, Item _ Meeting Date 07/23/96 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resource Conservation Commission Minutes, June 24, 1996 NOT SCANNED 2. Design Review Committee Letter of Conditions to Developer NO! SCAl'~l'¡i.':' 3. Planning Commission Minutes (Draft), July 10, 1996 NOT S 4. Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee Minutes, May 17, 1996N CANNED 5. Economic Development Minutes, May 17,1996 OTSCANNED 6. Locator Map and Site Plans 7. Mitigated Negative Declaration rt""T' C:'''''ð '-',r-. \ 8. Mitigation Monitoring & Reportin . Ptogr¡jin"",i ,1: .!.;I 9. 1Þ...~,.._.., ~"""iA r-¡~T"":J Letters of Comment .I."';:;~J f. ;.:;~ i.·i! ~ ~t ' 10. Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED 11. Agreement for the Development of the Project 12. Juan Vargas Letter dated July 2, 1996 NOT SCANNED (FK) M:\HOME\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\07-23-96\WATERPK.113 (July 18, 1996 (4:52pm)] J /?---5 RESOLUTION NO..t-E-.-J?3 I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-96-21 AND RELATED DOCUMENTS, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-96- 40, ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RECREATIONAL WATER PARK ON APPROXIMATELY 32.4 ACRES OF LAND IN THE OTA Y RIO BUSINESS PARK, PHASE II, WEST OF CASTLE PINES A VENUE IN THE LIMITED INDUSTRIAL (IL-P) ZONE I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein, the Project consists of approximately 32.4 acres of land in what has commonly been known as the Otay Rio Business Park, Phase II, located west of Castle Pines Avenue ("Project Site"); and, B. Project Applicant WHEREAS, on May 16, 1996 a duly verified application for a conditional use permit (pCC-96-40) with respect to the Project Site was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by Hice Enterprises, Inc. ("Applicant"); and, C. Project Description; Application for Conditional Use Permit WHEREAS, Applicant requests permission to construct operate a recreational water park ("Project") on the Project Site; and, D. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the Project required preparation of an Initial Study, such study (IS-96-21) was prepared, and based on such study a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review; and E. Resource Conservation Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration based on IS-96-21 on June 24, 1996 and voted 6-0 to recommend its adoption; and, /~ H- ) Resolution No. Page #2 F. Planning Commission Record on Conditional Use Permit and Initial Study Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on July 10, 1996 and voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-96-2l and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in connection therewith, and approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-96-40 for the Project in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCC-96-40; and, G. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista July 23, 1996 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on July 10, 1996 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA "), thus requiring the preparation of Initial Study IS-96-2l, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS-96-2l, and the adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in connection therewith. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-96-21, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in connection therewith. V.' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as ¡f-ff-éJ-- Resolution No. Page #3 hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis, in addition to all other evidence in the record, that permits the stated findings to be made. A. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed Project is desirable in that it will provide a recreational facility not otherwise easily accessible to residents of Chula Vista. B. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The Project use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity based upon the evidence in IS-96-21 and as conditioned hereunder. The Project use is consistent with surrounding land uses, and adequate infrastructure is in place. The operation of the Project will be such that traffic going to or coming from the Project Site will be spread throughout the day and coordinated with surrounding land uses pursuant to a required Traffic Management Plan; thus the Project will not cause congested roadways. C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Conditional Use Permit PCC-96-40 is conditioned to require the Applicant to fulfill conditions and to comply with all the applicable regulations and standards specified in the Municipal Code for Unclassified Uses, including but not limited to, §§ 19.54.020.1.2 and 19.58.040.D. Further, this conditional use permit has been properly executed and duly adopted pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code for Unclassified Uses. The conditioning of PCC-96-40 is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed Project in that the conditions imposed are directly related to and are of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the project. D. That the granting of this conditional use pennit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The Project conforms to all elements of the General Plan and other adopted plans affecting the Project Site and therefore will not have an adverse impact thereon. Furthermore, the Project is proposed to be operated on a site already partially developed, with easy access to public facilities (water, sewer, public roadways etc.). VI. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT I&ff- ~ /} ¡ --.-"..----.......-......- Resolution No. Page #4 The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-96-40 subject to the following conditions whereby the Applicant shall: A. Develop and operate the Project pursuant to the application submitted therefor, unless otherwise modified by this approval, and consistent with the Project description set forth in IS-96-21. B. Process to completion Tentative Parcel Map No. 96-11, and comply with all conditions of approval related thereto or as related to any final map deriving from the processing of TPM-96-11. This Conditional Use Permit, PCC-96-40, shall not become effective until such time as TPM-96-11 or any final map related thereto is duly approved, recorded and implemented, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director of Planning. C. Prior to issuance of any building permit, submit a landscape plan which meets the requirement of the Landscape Manual for review and approval of the Director of Planning. Said landscape plan shall show enhanced landscaping, to the reasonable satisfaction of the City's Parks and Recreation Director along the interface with the open space area to the south. D. Provide a Water Management Plan per City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual requirements, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. E. Comply with, remain in compliance with and implement all conditions resulting from submittal of the Design Review application (DRC-96-41). Such conditions are incorporated herein by this reference. F. Comply with, remain in compliance with and implement all mitigation measures resulting from submittal of the Negative Declaration issued on Initial Study IS-96- 21 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program related thereto. Such measures are incorporated herein by this reference. G. Enter into and comply with the terms of a reciprocal parking agreement with the owner/operator of the MCA Amphitheater, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and the City Attorney. Said reciprocal parking agreement shall include Kobey's Swap Meet as a co-signer and the City of Chula Vista as a third party beneficiary with enforcement rights. All costs associated with implementation of this condition shall be paid by the Applicant. H. Prior to opening for operations, schedule a security survey with the Chula Vista Police Department, Crime Prevention Unit, and implement the suggestions of said survey in order to enhance security. Notwithstanding the implementation of the security survey, in the event crime and/or security becomes a problem, as indicated by increased crime reports filed with the Chula Vista Police Department related to the Project, Applicant shall retain, at Applicant's expense, a company who shall prepare a crime reduction/ security provision report for the operation /B-I1-~ \ r·" Resolution No. Page #5 of the Project, to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. Said report shall address issues specified by the Chief of Police, and shall include recommendations to enhance security and reduce crime. Said recommendations shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the Chief of Police. All costs associated with implementation of this condition shall be paid by the Applicant. 1. Comply with and implement all requirements of the Fire Marshal as related to conforming with the Uniform Fire Code and applicable Municipal Code requirements. J. Comply with and implement all requirements of the Director of the Building and Housing Department as related to conforming with the Uniform Building Code. K. Comply with and implement all provisions related to Title 24 (Part II), Disabled Access, to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Housing. L. Prior to opening for operations, pay all applicable fees to the Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District, or participate in alternative financing mechanisms, to the satisfaction of each respective school district. M. In consultation with the operators of the MCA Amphitheater, become a party to the Traffic Management Plan required pursuant to the approval of Conditional Use Permit PCC-95-47 and as required in the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS-96-21, and vacate the Project Site early enough before all amphitheater events so as not to cause conflicts in traffic movements or inadequate parking capacity in accordance with the Traffic Management Plan. All costs associated with implementation of this condition shall be paid by the Applicant. N. Enter into and comply with the terms of an Agreement with the City regarding the terms for development of the Project as approved. Said Development Agreement shall include, without limitation, provisions for sharing of Project revenues and developer indemnification of the City for Project operations. O. Pay all outstanding City assessments with respect to the Project Site upon acquisition thereof. P. Applicant/operator acknowledges that this Conditional Use Permit is being issued on the condition that: (1) the Project will be open no more than from May 1 to October 1 each year; (2) the maximum hours that the Project will be open to the public at large, subject to other time limitations contained herein, will be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and (3) the maximum capacity of the Project is five thousand (5,000) people at anyone time. If it is determined, based on reasonable evidence, that these parameters for Project operations are materially exceeded, the City shall have the right to add any and all appropriate conditions in order to ! g -ff.-/ <; , ~-,._.._-- Resolution No. Page #6 address the additional impacts generated thereby. Said conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, acquisition of additional parking areas by the Applicant, enhancement of public streets at Applicant's expense, signalization of intersections at Applicant's expense, and/or payment of impact fees; provided, however, that Applicant shall only be responsible for its fair share of the cost of such items. Q. Comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations, permits, City ordinances, standards, and policies except as otherwise provided in this Resolution. R. In the event that construction of the Project occurs concurrent with construction of the MCA Amphitheater, coordinate all aspects the construction of the Project with the construction of the MCA Amphitheater, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Building and Housing Department. S. In the event the Project opens for operations prior to the MCA Amphitheater, the city reserves its rights to impose additional or modified conditions of approval, especially as related to parking and ingress/egress. T. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. U. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. V. Violation of any of the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit shall be grounds for revocation, suspension and/or modification hereof, as determined by the City after giving Applicant/operator a reasonable opportunity to object to such proposed action. VII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL Applicant shall execute and have notarized the attached Agreement (Attachment "A") indicating that Applicant has read, understands and has agreed to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will implement same. VIII. INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS 18 fJ- /P : \;. "-"--- Resolution No. Page #7 Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby. Applicant/ operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing the Agreement of this Conditional Use Permit where indicated. Applicant's/ operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. IX. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination and file the same with the County Clerk. X. 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 and the permit shall be deemed to be 'automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by --- -/-, < Robert A. Leiter ~nn y.Moo! Director of Planning cti~ci!1torney -- / g ft -1 ~ Resolution No. EXHIBIT A Page #8 "Project Site" \ ~~ \./~ \ -~~- \~ \ __.--------í ./\ \, "L I ~~-- ------- ----- \.---' ----~ ~--- \ \ \ \ \ () i "1"1 I c¡ '* \ ,-,..---- q., <11 /) ..,/ \\ .-.---- ~ <;!. ....---. 'I ~ ~ ~..,..- '!\ 0 ~\ / ." --------/ - ............ ----- ~- ..- ._-_._~.~.=...... PROJECT ...--.:"~'" \ "'~â .;::..-::::: \ ~/~ LOCATION ;..--::" - \ ..---,/ . --:.-;::::.-:: ...----'" ........ -.. - ~~=-:::::---;...... ,- IBIJ-g / ¿;;::./ .. \ 'J - -~--_._- V· -----------.---------- - -, AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HICE ENTERPRISES, INC. RELATED TO THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PCC-96-40 The Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the Applicant has read, understands and agrees to the conditions contained in Resolution No. . and wül implement same to the satisfaction of the City. Upon execution, this document and a copy of Resolution No. shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the properly owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City Clerk. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirly days of recordation to the Planning Department shall indicate the properly owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Representative of Date Rice Enterprises, Inc. Attachment: Resolution No. ^ / g ß-~ ;¿;¡ , þ/ -~ ...._._..._._---_..--.~ RESOLUTION NO. ~¿?'~~~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH HICE ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A WATER PARK WHEREAS, on May 6, 1996 Developer entered into an option agreement with Otay Rio Business Park for the purchase of certain real property commonly known as Otay Rio Business Park Phase II, comprised of approximately 60 usable acres, located west of Castle pines Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, ("Property"); and WHEREAS, on or about May 6, 1996 Developer submitted to the city an application requesting design review/precise plan approval, and a conditional use permit for its proposed development and operation of a recreational water park ("Project") on a portion of the Property. The Project is more particularly described in the narrative and conceptual plans and specifications; and WHEREAS, the portion of the Property upon which the Project is proposed to be developed ("Project Site") is comprised of approximately 32.4 unimproved acres and Developer is currently processing with the city a Preliminary Parcel Map for the project which, among other things, upon its approval will accomplish the legal parcelization of the Project Site; and WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the development of the Project and to reduce the cost of the Project to the Developer, Developer has requested certain assistance from the City, which goes above and beyond what is customary for the city to provide in its review and processing of the Project; and WHEREAS, City has found and determined that the provision of such assistance, is in the best interests of the taxpayers and residents of the City, will promote the pUblic health, safety and welfare of such taxpayers and residents, and is in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations; and WHEREAS, City and Developer do not intend that this Agreement shall constitute a Development Agreement pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Article 2.5 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, concurrently herewith the City Council is (a) approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and related documents (IS-96-21) which identifies the subject Agreement as a discretionary approval thereby satisfying the requirem~nts of CEQA and (b) approving a Conditional Use Permit for the Project. 1 /~ß-/ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city council of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement with Hice Enterprises, Inc. for the Development and Operation of a Water Park, in substantially the form presented with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file on the office of the City Clerk as Document No. . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development N:\shared\attorney\waterpark.res 2 )~ß --;2 t--·· ') .1 Recording Requested by and when recorded return to: city Clerk City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 Documentary Transfer Tax $~ No transfer of property interest AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF WHITEWATER WATER PARK BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HICE ENTERPRISES, INC. Effective Date: , 1996 DRAFT July 18, 1996 )f50--3 AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF WHITEWATER WATER PARK This AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF WHITEWATER WATER PARK ("Agreement") is entered into effective as of July 23, 1996 ("Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation ("city"), and HICE ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation ("Developer") with reference to the following facts: RECITALS A. On May 6, 1996 Developer entered into an agreement with otay Rio Business Park II, and others for the purchase of certain real property commonly known. as Otay Rio Business Park Phase II, comprised of approximately 60 usable acres, located west of Castle pines Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, state of California, as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto ("Propertv"). B. On or about May 16, 1996 Developer submitted to the city an application requesting design review/precise plan approval, and a conditional use permit for its proposed development and operation of a recreational water park ("Proiect") on a portion of the Property. The Project is more particularly described in the narrative and conceptual plans and specifications attached hereto as Exhibit B. C. The portion of the Property upon which the Project is proposed to be developed ("Proiect Site") is comprised of approximately 32.4 unimproved acres, as more particularly described on Exhibit C attached hereto. Developer is currently processing with the city a Parcel Map for the Project which, among other things, upon its approval will accomplish the legal parcelization of the Project site. D. In order to facilitate the development of the Project and to reduce the cost of the Project to the Developer, Developer has requested certain assistance from the city, as more particularly set forth herein, which goes above and beyond what is customary for the city to provide in its review and processing of the Project. E. City has found and determined that city's provision of such assistance, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, is in the best interests of the taxpayers and residents of the City, will promote the public health, safety and welfare of such taxpayers and residents, and is in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 1 /oLJ-J/ J F. City and Developer do not intend that this Agreement shall constitute a Development Agreement pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Article 2.5 of the California Government Code. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Developer hereby agree as follows: 1. citv's Primary Obliqations. 1.1 Facilitate Reductions in Third Party Impact Fees. city shall participate in Developer's negotiations with all third party governmental agencies (collectively, "Third Party Aqencies") possessing authority to impose development impact fees against the Project, and to thereby work diligently to encourage the reduction of such fees (collectively, "Third Party Fees"). Third Party Agencies shall include, without limitation, the city of San Diego, the Chula vista Elementary School District, the Sweetwater union High School District, and the otay Water District. Developer acknowledges and agrees that City has demonstrated proficiency in obtaining reasonable reductions in Third party Fees for other city projects and that, therefore, City's agreement to perform such services on behalf of Developer is of significant value to Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall City be obligated to contribute City funds or to offset city fees, either on behalf of the applicable Third Party Agency or the Developer, in the performance of its obligations under this section. 1.2. Construction of Roadway Improvements. city shall, at its sole expense, construct improvements to Otay Valley Road to provide for the following: 1.2.1 Three westbound travel lanes and two eastbound travel lanes separated by a raised center median from the intersection of Nirvana Avenue to the point where the road curves to the south. At that point the improvements shall provide for four travel lanes, two northbound and two southbound. 1.2.2 Improvements to the bridge over the otay River to an ultimate width of 52 feet. The bridge and the approaches to the bridge shall be striped to accommodate one permanent travel lane in each direction, with a painted center median that would provide sufficient width to accommodate two additional lanes that can be used in a reversible operation. city shall cause such construction to be completed by the date falling fifteen days after the date on which the Project improvements being constructed by Developer have been completed 2 J~!J~ç ) .__~m~.._._.._ such that a certificate of occupancy would be issuable but for failure to complete such off-site road improvements. 1.2.3 The deadline for City's completion of the work described above shall be extended for such additional periods of time as city's performance is prevented or delayed due to strikes, lockouts, unavailability of materials, acts of governmental agencies or delays in the granting of governmental permits (other than acts or delays of City), acts of God, riots, civil insurrection, abnormal force of elements or any other similar event which is beyond the control of City or actual delays caused by the installation of Developer's improvements at or around the Project site; provided, however, that in no event shall any extension be deemed to have occurred unless city shall have given notice to Developer, within ten (10) days after the occurrence of the event, setting forth the facts giving rise to such extension. City shall give prompt written notice to Developer of the cessation of the event or condition giving rise to such delay. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "abnormal force of elements" shall include, without limitation, greater than fifteen (15) days per calendar year (pro-rated for portions of a calendar year) of rain delay. For purposes of this Agreement, unavailability of funds or other fiscal restraints encountered by City shall not constitute an event or condition that extends the deadline for city's completion of the work described above. 1.3 Reduction of and Cap on certain citv Fees. 1.3. 1 City staff agrees to calculate, and submit to city Council for its consideration, a set of proposed downward adjustments in the customary amounts for the following city fees: (a) the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee; (b) the Sewer Capacity Fee; the Traffic Signal Fee (collectively, "citv Impact Fees"). Such proposed downward adjustments in City Impact Fees for the Project shall be calculated in order to reasonably account for the unique seasonal nature of the Project, and other relevant unique elements thereof. 1.3. 2 city staff currently estimates that the staff recommended City Impact Fees, plus all other processing and permit fees for the Project, shall not exceed $500,000 ("Estimated Fee Amount"). In the event that the city Council approves city Impact Fees for the Project in excess of the Estimated Fee Amount, the City's Share of Project Revenues (as defined in section 2.2.1 hereof, below) that are payable to the city with respect to Project operations shall be reduced, but not below $0, by the amount of such excess. 1. 3.3 Developer shall pay all required City fees at the time they are customarily due in accordance with existing city policies. Notwithstanding the foregoing (a) if it is subsequently determined, based on the first fully operational year of metered 3 /ð[J/j flows, that the sewer capacity fees attributable to the Project exceed the amount previously paid, then Developer shall pay to the City, within 60 days of such determination, the additional amount owed, plus interest from the date the original amount was paid at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum; (b) if it is subsequently determined, based on metered flows, that the sewer capacity fees attributable to the Project are less than the amount previously paid, then City's Share of Project Revenues (as defined in section 2.2.1 hereof, below) generated after such determination shall be reduced, but not below $0, by an amount equal to the amount of such overpayment, plus interest from the date the original amount was paid to the date of such determination accruing at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. 1.4. Removal of Assessment Lien from Portions of the Propertv. Subject to the requirements of California Streets and Highways Code section 8740 et. seq., and consistent with the Final Engineer's Report for Assessment District 90-2 (Otay Valley Road Widening) ("Assessment District"), City agrees to cooperate with Developer in order to effectuate, concurrent with and conditioned upon Developer's parcelization of the Property, a reapportionment of the lien of the Assessment District away from non-developable, non-benefitted portions of the Property, and upon the Project site and other developable, benefitted portions of the Property. 2. Developer's primarv Obliqations. 2.1. Development of the Proiect. Developer shall use its best efforts to acquire the Property and develop the Project on the Project site. Except is specifically provided hereunder, all costs of such development shall be borne exclusively by the Developer. The Project shall be developed (a) in substantial conformance with the Project description, plans and specifications attached hereto as Exhibit B; (b) in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, policies and permits; and (c) in an expeditious manner. Developer's "best efforts" hereunder shall include, without limitation, the obligation to initiate and process to final consideration any and all governmental approvals that may be required by the city, and/or any and all other governing public agencies, for the development of the Project on the Project site (collectively, "Entitlements"). The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that by approving this Agreement the City is not granting or agreeing to grant in the future any Entitlements to the Project and, by law, the city reserves the right to exercise its discretion freely, and as a matter separate and distinct from this Agreement, with respect to any such Entitlements to come before the city. The city's failure to grant any Entitlement necessary for the Project shall not be considered an act of bad faith or default by the 4 /Õß-? Developer or the City under the terms of this Agreement. 2.2. city's Share of proiect Revenues. 2.2.1 For so long, and at such times, that a recreational water park is operated at the Project Site, Developer agrees to pay to City an amount equal to two percent (2%) of gross cash receipts from Project operations from (a) all paid admissions from ticket sales or entry fees; (b) parking fees; (c) tube or other equipment rentals; (d) arcade games; (e) locker rentals; and (f) any and all other cash receipts which are not subject to sales or use taxes (collectively, "Specified proiect Revenues") . Notwithstanding the foregoing, Specified Project Revenues shall exclude revenues derived from sponsorships. Specified Project Revenues shall be determined in strict accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. city's 2% share of Specified project Revenues shall be referred to hereunder as "citv's Share of proiect Revenues". 2.2.2 On or before December 31 of each calendar year during which the recreational water park is in operation for any portion thereof, Developer shall pay to the City the amount of city's Share of Project Revenues attributable to that calendar year. Said payment shall be accompanied by a written statement certified by a financial officer of Developer showing in reasonable detail the gross cash receipts derived from Project operations at the Project site for the preceding calendar year and the calculation of the City's Share of Project Revenues based thereon. In addition, Developer shall submit to city, on or before April 30, July 31 and October 31 of each calendar year, a report estimating the portion of the city's Share of project Revenues that will be payable to City with respect to the preceding calendar quarter. In the event Developer fails to pay to city City's share of Project Revenues by January 15th of the year following the year to which such revenues relate, in addition to the city's share of Project Revenues then due, Developer shall be obligated to pay a penalty equal to five percent (5%) of such amount plus interest on such amount at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum until paid. 2.2.3 Developer shall keep complete and accurate books of account and records from which Developer's gross cash receipts from Project operations can be determined. Developer shall keep for at least three years following the end of each calendar year all pertinent original books and records. 2.2.4 The acceptance by City of payments of the City's Share of Project Revenues shall be without prejudice to city's right to an examination of Developer's books and records maintained with respect to the calculation thereof in order to verify the amount of Developer's gross cash receipts from Project operations. At any reasonable time within three years after 5 /~ß-ð ..._"-- receipt of any statement furnished it by Developer, as provided in section 2.2.2, above, and upon ten (10) days' prior written notice to Developer, ci ty may cause a special audi t to be made of Developer's books and records relating to the calculation of the city's Share of Project Revenues for the period covered by such statement. Such audit shall be conducted during regular business hours and otherwise in such a manner as to avoid disruption of Developer's operations. Except as provided in section 2.2.5, below, the cost of such audit shall be paid by city. 2.2.5 If it shall be determined that there has been an error in the payment of the portion of the City's Share of Project Revenues, then a reconciling payment or credit shall be made. If it is determined that the error exceeds three percent (3%) of the Specified Project Revenues for the period covered by the audit, and if such error was to the disadvantage of City, then Developer shall also pay to City the cost of the audit. Each statement of City's Share of Project Revenues submitted by Developer shall become binding upon City three years after delivery thereof to City unless within such three years City shall cause such special audit to be commenced. 2.3 citv Access to the Proiect. 2.3.1. subj ect to the terms and conditions set forth below, Developer shall provide the City with reasonable access to the Project, Monday through Friday, (a) from 6:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m., during the four weeks preceding Memorial Day and the four weeks following Labor Day, (b) from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. during normal days of Project operation and (c) at such other times as Developer may specify, for purposes of conducting City Parks and Recreation Department sponsored swimming education and therapy programs, and city Police and Fire Department water related training and rescue programs. 2.3.2 city must notify Developer at least ten (10) days in advance of its desire to use the Project for the above- described purposes. Such notice shall include a description of the nature and scope of the city's intended activities and the expected number of participants. Promptly following receipt of such a request, Developer will notify City as to whether the Project is available on the requested date(s). The parties agree to reasonably cooperate to schedule such city access. Such cooperation shall include meeting from time to time to schedule multiple days of access for City Parks and Recreation program. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City expressly acknowledges and agrees that Developer shall at all times have the paramount right to use and schedule events at the Project. 2.3.3 City shall not be required to pay rent for its use of the Project as provided herein. However, City shall pay, or reimburse Developer on demand, for all out-of pocket costs 6 /Y.ß-j ! ,y X;.~· incurred by Developer, that would otherwise not be incurred, by Developer in connection with normal Project operations in connection with city's use of the Project. Developer agrees to cooperate with city in developing a good faith estimate of out-of- pocket costs likely to be incurred for each City use of the Project. 2.3.4 As a condition precedent to City access to and use of the Project as provided herein, City shall enter into an agreement with Developer which shall implement the terms of this section 2.3. Such agreement shall include provisions for City's indemnification of Developer against all risks and liabilities associated with City's use of the Project, including City's willful misconduct and negligence, and such other provisions as may be reasonably required by Developer and agreed to by City. 3. Indemnities: Insurance. 3.1 Developer agrees to indemnify, protect, defend (or, at city's reasonable request, pay for city's defense) and hold harmless city, its officers, agents, employees and representatives from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising directly or indirectly from (a) city's approval of this Agreement; (b) city's approval of any CEQA documents or Entitlements for the Project; (b) Developer's installation of the improvements required for the project, and (c) Developer's operation and maintenance of the project. 3.2 Notwi thstanding the foregoing, city shall indemnify, defend (or, at Developer's reasonable request, pay for Developer's defense) and hold Developer harmless from and against, and the Developer shall not be required to indemnify City against, claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses caused by (a) the willful misconduct or grossly negligent acts or omissions of city and/or its agents, employees or contractors in the exercise of City's rights or the performance of City's obligations under this Agreement, or (b) any breach or nonperformance by city of any of its covenants, obligations, representations or warranties under this Agreement, except in each case to the extent covered by insurance. 3.3 To the extent the City has an insurable interest, Developer shall name the City as an additional insured in any comprehensive general liability insurance policy purchased by Developer with respect to its operation of the Project. 4. Bindinq on Successors and Assiqns and the Propertv. All terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and 7 /8"LJ./ / {) , Ii assigns. In consideration of the benefit bestowed upon the project site by City's performance of its obligations hereunder, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall also be covenants, conditions and restrictions with respect to the Project site. Developer agrees to execute, have notarized and record in a form approved by City, any and all documents reasonably necessary in order to implement the terms of this section. 5. DisDute Resolution. In the event of a dispute or disagreement between City and Developer arising out of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement or otherwise affecting any party's rights or obligations hereunder, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve such dispute. If the dispute or disagreement is not settled within thirty (30) days of written notice by one party to the other of the existence of such a dispute or disagreement, the dispute or disagreement shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration shall take place in Chula Vista, California, or such other place in San Diego County as may be mutually agreed upon. The arbitrator shall be bound to the strict interpretation and observation of the terms of this Agreement. The successful party to the arbitrations shall be awarded all costs and attorneys' fees attributable to the arbitration and the controversy to which it relates. The party in whose favor an award is rendered may cause judgment on the award to be entered in any court having jurisdiction. 6. General Provisions. 6.1 Governina Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Each of the parties consents to the personal jurisdiction of the State of California. 6.2 CounterDarts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original hereof. 6.3 Third-Partv Beneficiaries. The provisions of this Agreement are solely for the benefit of, and are enforceable only by, Developer and City. No provision in this Agreement is intended to or may be deemed to create any rights in favor of third parties. 6.4 Aareement RelationshiD. Developer and City expressly acknowledge and agree that it is their intent and purpose that this Agreement be construed and interpreted as creating an Agreement arrangement between Developer and City, and that under no circumstances shall this transaction by construed as the creation of a partnership or joint venture, nor the imposition of any tax or assessment by City against or through Developer. S /ðß//1 :::> 6.5 Further Assurances. Developer and City hereby covenant that each will, at any time and from time to time upon request by the other party hereto execute and deliver such further documents and do such further acts as may be reasonably requested to fully effectuate the purpose of this Agreement. 6.6 Recordinq. At the request of either Developer or City, the parties will execute and acknowledge an original of this Agreement, and record the same in the Official Records of San Diego County, California. 6.7 ci tv Reserves Discretion. Notwi thstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the City reserves the right to exercise its police powers as a City in conformance with applicable law, and any such exercise shall not constitute a breach of its obligations hereunder. 6.8 Exhibi ts. Any exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and hereby incorporated herein by this reference. 6.9 Computation of Time Periods. Except as is otherwise provided in section 2.3.1 hereof, all periods of time referred to in this Agreement shall include all Saturdays, Sundays and state or national holidays, unless the period of time specifies business days, provided that if the date or last date to perform any act or give any notice or approval shall fall on a Saturday, Sunday or state or national holiday, such act or notice may be timely performed or given on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or state or national holiday. 6.10 Entire Aqreement. This Agreement, together with all exhibits attached hereto and other agreements expressly referred to herein, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, warranties and statements, oral or written, are superseded. 6.11 Headinqs. The captions and paragraph headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and are not intended to define, limit or affect the construction or interpretation of any term or provision hereof. 6.12 Modification. Waiver. No modification, waiver, amendment or discharge of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by both City and Developer. 6.13 Notice. Notice to either party shall be in writing and either personally delivered or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the party to be notified at the address specified herein. Any such notice shall be deemed received on the date of personal delivery to the party (or 9 /%,ß.-' /2- / I""" i I / -~_.._-_.._-, ...- such party's authorized representative) or three (3) business days a~ter deposit in the u.s. Mail, as the case may be. Citv Address for Notice: Developer Address for Notice: 276 Fourth Avenue Hice Enterprises Chula Vista, CA 91910 P. O. Box 270826 Attn: Community Development San Diego, Ca. 92198 Director and city Attorney Either party may change its address for notice by delivering written notice to the other party as provided herein. 6.14 Time. Time is of the essence of each provision of this Agreement. 6.15 Authoritv: Bindinq Aqreement. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer represents and warrants that he/she is duly authorized to execute and deliver, and has the power to execute and deliver, this Agreement on behalf of Developer, that the transaction contemplated hereby has been duly authorized by all requisite actions on the part of Developer, that no other consents of any party shall be necessary to the consummation hereof, that this Agreement does not violate any existing law or any existing or pending agreement to which Developer is subject, and that all the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid, legally binding obligations of and enforceable against the Developer in accordance with their terms. 6.16 Real Estate Commissions. city and Developer each represent to the other that it has engaged no broker, agent, or finder in connection with this Agreement. City and Developer shall each indemnify the other for any claims for real estate commissions, brokers' fees or finders' fees which are alleged to be due as a result of the acts of the indemnifying party. [NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE] 10 /!5ß-) J - - ---- ~ -- ._._--~- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY: CITY OF CHULA VISTA Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form by City Attorney DEVELOPER: HICE ENTERPRISES, INC. Ge'orge Hice, President N:\shared\attorney\waterpark.dda 11 /ðß-/( EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION [To be inserted in final form of agreement] A-l /ðß - /Þ /?J EXHIBIT B PROJECT DESCRIPTION [To be inserted in final form of agreement] B-1 )?J'[J ---/~ - - - - - -_._---_._-,._---~_.._--_._- EXHIBIT C PROJECT SITE [To be inserted in final form of agreement] C-l /~ß- /7 I'· , / ' uc& ~ ATr:;fENì ~ :MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 P.M. Conference Room #1 Mondav, June 24. 1996 Public Services Buildin¡¡; CALL MEETING TO ORDERlROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:37 P.M. by Chair Burrascano. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Also present: Commissioners Clark, Hall, Thomas, and Yamada. It was MSUC (HaIVClark) to excuse Commissioner Fisher as he is on vacation, vote 5-0, motion carried. It was MSUC (HaIVClark) to excuse Commissioner Yamada ITom the meeting of June 10, 1996, as he was moving; vote 5-0, motion carried. Also present: Frank Herrera, Ken Gangler, and Howard Greenson ròr the Otay Regional Park; Joe Monaco, Chris Betteriin, and Randy Mendioris, for the Chula Vista Water Park. [Commissioner Marquez arrived at 6:43 P.M. ] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Frank Herrera, Ken Gangler, and Howard Greenson presented a brief overview of the proposed Otay Valley Regional Park. The goal statement was handed out and the boundaries, legends, recreational areas, and trails systems were pointed out on the map. They explained that over 200 studies have been conducted over the past 10 years on the sensitive species and habitat and these were taken into consideration in the planning of the open space. It was pointed out that the Otay Ranch project has already dedicated about 400 acres of park land for recreational use. All the data has been compiled by Terry McIntyre Associates and will be incorporated for review through the MSCP. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Negative Declaration IS-96-21 - Chula Vista Water Park - Joe Monaco described the overall geophysical air quality and negative impacts on the project. Mr. Betterlin, representing the applicant and Mr. Mendioris, principal of project design, presented the delaiied inîonmuion on the project. lhe water park will operate apprmumately LW days of ti1e ye¡:, during '¡II' saw" ."ason as the adjacent ampruthealer and therefore, win flul have a negative impact during its schedule of operation. The park's traffic flow will utilize the same entrance roads as the amprutheater as well but with different driveways to its respective sites. The hours of operation were a concern for the RCC, but it is the full use of time under the CUP. There is no significant impact ITom traffic noise and the river is considered a buffer. Questions on the effects of air quality and water filtration system were answered and they assured that it does meet the stringent requirements of the health department. It was MSUC (Yamada/Hall) to accept the nútigated negative declaration; vote 6-0, motion carried. Commissioner Hall additionally commented to do a check for valley fever and other health concerns prior to excavation due to recent outbreaks. / - -~._._-_._.~-,.- Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 2. Review of Planning Commission Agenda for June 26, 1996 a. PCM-96-0S, Rancho del Rey SPA ill - public hearing; no action taken by RCC. b. PCS-96-06, Subdivision Map for Rancho del Rey SPA - public hearing; no action taken by RCC. OLD BUSINESS: a. Budget review - Commissioner Marquez reported to Council that there were no further funds available to cut from the current budget and from next year's budget. b. Summary of Activities - Mr. Reid presented a draft summary and will add the MSCP review to the document. c. It was MSUC (Clark/Hall) to elect Commissioner Burrascano as Chair, and Commissioner Marquez vice-chair; vote 6-0, motion carried. STAFF REPORT: Barbara Reid will fill in for Doug Reid for the next two meetings. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: None. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Marquez reported that Commissioner Fisher hArl ~~l1p.d to !'!otify Þ~r ofhj,~ ~~!~~c~. Hi~ è~!:~ '.'.re::-: n"jxed ~p ~ h: ha~ th~ '''!fang dat~ an cl1endar but now his ebs:::1!::e t~:~ meeting is due to vacation. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 8:40 P.M. Respectfully subßÚtted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES '1!3~ ~ Barbara Taylor ~ ~~~ ATTACHMENT 2 :-~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ CIlY OF CHUIA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 9, 1996 Mr. George Hice Hice Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 270826 San Diego, CA 92198 Subject: DRC-96-41 Dear Applicant: On July 8, 1996, the Design Review Committee considered the site plan and architecture for the proposal to construct an aquatic recreational facility on approximately 32.4 acres, to include water slides, wave pool, raft rides, arcades, restaurants, and associated site improvements, including parking, fencing and landscaping. The Committee, after hearing staffs presentation, by unanimous vote: 1. Received, considered and approved the Negative Declaration on Initial Study IS- 96-21. 2. Approved this project subject to the following conditions: a. This approval, as conditioned below, shall relate specifically only to the following features: 1) The entry building with promenade; 2) The kitchen/food service/concession building; 3) The perimeter fencing solution. b. The entry building and promenade shall be subject to the following conditions: 1) The promenade shall incorporate such features as staggered or undulating walkway, and use of color in banners awnings or additional signage. 3 276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 9191011619} 691-5101 ---------..-----------.. DRC-96-41 - 2 - July 9, 1996 2) Some feature such as a shade structure or trellis or other vertical element, shall be incorporated into the entry promenade. 3) A revised landscape concept plan for the promenade, making greater use of specimen trees and flowering plants and shrubs shall be submitted for staff review and approval, prior to completion of construction documents. 4) The fencing on both sides of the promenade shall be punctuated by masonry pilasters at intervals of no more than 40 ft. and at each change in direction of the fencing. 5) Security gates at the entry shall be detailed and submitted to staff for review and approval prior to submittal for building permits. 6) Colors and materials shall be specified and approved prior to building permit submittal. c. The kitchen/food service/concession building shall be subject to the following conditions: 1) Colors and materials selected for the kitchen building shall be specified and approved by staff prior to the building permit submittal stage. 2) All roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened by parapet walls. d. The perimeter fencing solution shall be subject to the following conditions: 1) The fencing along the east side of the recreational area, alongside the parking, shall be punctuated by masonry pilasters, no less than 40 ft. apart and no less than 2 ft. wide. The intersection of chain link with tube steel and all changes in fence direction shall be at a masonry pilaster, no less than 2 ft. square. 2) Chain link fencing around the perimeter shall be placed at least 12 inches inside the property line and at least a 1 ft. wide planter shall be shown around the perimeter. 3) A revised landscape plan shall be submitted showing a screening landscape solution for the chain link fence and incorporating vines and shrubs. This landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to completion of construction documents. 4 CITY OF CHULA VISTA -_._..-....._._-~- _.,--~._-,..- DRC-96-41 - 3 - July 9, 1996 e. Proposals for all other buildings and aquatic features of the facility shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to construction. Each feature shall be evaluated for compliance with the development standards contained in item B.i. below (and attached as a separate document, entitled 'Development Standards'). Any feature not complying in full with the Development Standards shall be presented to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. f. The three "speed slides" shown on the site plan as Item 9 shall be no taller than 25 ft. above grade at any point and shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. This submittal shall include a dimensioned front elevation of the feature in context with the hillside behind and a dimensioned section. g. Complete landscape and irrigation plans, in accordance with the City Landscape Manual, shall be submitted for review and approval at the building permit stage. h. Detailed, dimensioned plans of the parking lot shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. These plans shall be shown to comply with the zoning ordinance and shall be in accordance with the landscape manual. 1. The development not fully detailed in this proposal and not listed in items 2.a., b., c., d., e., f., g. and h. above shall be subject to the following Development Standards: 1) No structure supporting a slide, flume, stair, platform or other feature may project more than 15 ft. above fInished grade at any point. 2) No structure supporting a slide, flume or other feature may appear to project more than 3 ft. above fInished grade at any point, the intervening space being either screened or fIlled with landscaping materials or rock formations. 3) Enclosed tube-type slides which occur at an elevation of-19O feet above sea level or greater (20 ft. above the parking lot elevation), shall be intermittently screened from view by landscaping materials or rock formations. 4) No single artifIcial rock formation shall exceed a height of twelve feet above finished grade and no higher than 15 ft. above the wave pool caissons. S CITY OF CHULA VISTA "_""_."___.._w_".__. DRC-96-41 - 4- July 9, 1996 5) All slide, stair and platform support structures shall be of the wooden trestle type, unless evidence, by way of structural analysis, is provided, and staff determines that another support system is more feasible. 6) All interior shade structures shall be of wood and shall conform to previously-approved shade features. 7) All colors and materials used throughout shall conform to those already approved. 8) No slide or water feature shall be lighted, other than for safety or security reasons. You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. A completed appeal form, along with a deposit amount of $2,000 must be received by this office within 10 days of the date of this letter. Forms are available form the Planning Department. In the absence of said appeal, the decision of the Design Review Committee is fInal. Failure to use this permit within one year from the date of this letter shall cause the permit to become null and void unless a written request for an extension is received and granted prior to the expiration date. If you have any questions, please call me at 476-5334. Sincerely, ---. ~ ......-",,.ø< :.,.--' --' _-.--- .-. - , Ann Pedder Pease Design Review Coordinator/Assistant Planner cc: City Clerk Chris Bitterlin Randy Mendiorez, b CITY OF CHULA VISTA ..·m..._..'__~"_ .____,__.___._.,._____ ATTACHMENT 3 Excerot from Draft of Planning Commission Minutes of 7/10/96 ITEM 2. PUBUC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-96-40: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A RECREATIONAL WATER PARK ON APPROXIMATELY 32.5 ACRES OF LAND IN THE OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK, PHASE II, WEST OF CASTLE PINES AVENUE IN THE IL-P (UMITED INDUSTRIAL - PRECISE PLAN) ZONE - Hice Enterprises, Inc. Associate Planner Miller presented the 'Staff report, using slides to indicate the area and the location of the proposed water park in conjunction with the amphitheater. He noted that the original 114 acres would be divided through a tentative parcel map into three parcels, of which the two northerly parcels would be under the ownership of Hice Enterprises, the middle parcel would be the construction area, and the southerly parcel would remain under the ownership of the current owner and would remain an open space lot. Even though staff believed the project was slightly short in parking, because it would be constructed immediately adjacent to the amphitheater, staff felt any parking issues could be resolved through implementation of a reciprocal parking agreement. Regarding traffic, the applicant would be required to be party to a traffic management plan. Mr. Miller noted conditions N,O,P,R,S had been added to the draft resolution originally given to the Commissioners. He briefly explained those conditions. Mr. Miller stated that staff had concluded that the proposed water park is an appropriate, desirable land use for this location and that it will cause no adverse land use impacts, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Resolution PCC-96-40 recommending that the City Council approve the proposal in accordance with the revised City Council resolution. Commissioner Salas, regarding water park operation, asked if when the hours were changed to avoid conflict with a concert if it would present a marketing problem, when the people would be used to the park being open certain hours. How would they be notified if there was a conflict with the concert schedule and the water park would be closed? There may be people coming from far distances to use it. Associate Planner Miller deferred to the applicant, to be answered during the public hearing. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if there were any changes other than in conditions N,O,P,R,S. Mr. Miller stated there were some changes in the findings in light of some of the recent litigation regarding the amphitheater. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff to in the future provide a redlined copy of the changes. Commissioner Thomas, regarding the shared parking, questioned what would happen if the amphitheater was delayed and the water park went forward. Mr. Miller replied that the City had the option of requiring additional parking by the applicant. The additional parking could possibly go on the northern vacant parcel. He believed 150 to 200 additional parking spaces Î would meet the requirement. The parcel is not effected by the construction of the amphitheater. Commissioner Davis noted that the parking shortage was only 139 spaces. The water park had space for 1300 parking spaces. Mr. Miller stated that the amphitheater would draw up to 20,000 people in a very short time period, whereas the park would draw people throughout the day. Staff did not anticipate parking problems of the same magnitude that they would anticipate with the amphitheater. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Chuck Schrader, 440 "L" Street, Apt. I, CV, felt Chula Vista needed the revenue. Residents wanted more services with no tax increase. New large businesses would take away from the smaller businesses. A project such as the water park did not exist anywhere else in the area, and people would be willing to pay for it. This type of revenue could be taxed without people complaining, and is an ideal way of raising money for the City. Chris Bitterlin, Bitterlin Development Corp., 525 B Street, Ste D, SD, stated this project was family oriented, complimented the amphitheater operations, and would be an entertainment corridor for the citizens of Chula Vista in addition to the County of San Diego and beyond. He clarified that the season for the water park would be four weekends before Memorial Day, every day between Memorial Day and Labor Day, and four weekends after Labor Day--maybe slightly longer because of weather, but with an anticipated l20-day season. The water park would be a daytime use, with the amphitheater being almost exclusively a nighttime use. Answering Commissioner Salas, there is a condition in the Conditional Use Permit that the water park would close an hour and a half to two hours before an amphitheater event that would normally be scheduled for 8:00. Those days would be posted; it would not hurt marketing efforts. Most of the people utilizing the water park would arrive between 10 and 12 in the morning and depart between 3 and 5. On the rare occasions when the water park needed to stay open until 10 p.m., it would not be on amphitheater nights, and would only be for special events. Mr. Bitterlin pointed out that this was not sensitive habitat; it was disturbed industrial land. Traffic studies show that there would be an ADT count which would be 35% less traffic from the water park than from the same 32 acres developed as an industrial park, which was an approved use. Regarding noise, studies had shown that neither the Chula Vista nor San Diego noise ordinances would be violated. Mr. Bitterlin submitted and read a letter from Jay Marciano, President of MCA Concerts, who supported the project and believed it complimented the amphitheater operation and enhanced the area as an entertainment destination. The letter is on file in the Planning Department. He then turned the presentation over to Scott Farrell of Aquatic Design, who is the designer for the project. Scott Farrell, Aquatic Design, gave the background of their company, showing some slides of other facilities and noting the types of wave pools, continuous river, water slides, play 2? structures, landscaping, and rock structures. He noted the rock structure hid the mechanical room and wave caissons, and stated they would not exceed 12 feet in height. He also said that the area had its own lifeguards for protection. He noted that some parks added theming, and they copied rocks existing in the area to make it look as if it were part of the scenery. Regarding the speed slide, it would be a height of 62 feet-AS feet would be natural topography. The Design Review Committee conditioned the project to allow 25 feet above the existing grades to allow the top of the tower to start. The slides would be generally hidden using landscaping and natural topography, allowing the person who was sliding to be seen intennittently. Mr. Bitterlin returned to the podium to note that the project would create 15 full-time jobs year round and 250 part-time jobs; there was a commitment made by Hice Enterprises to give every opportunity to the citizens of Chula Vista, the students of the high schools and Southwestern College to work at the project. It would create 112 construction jobs, with sales tax projected to be over $200,000 over six years to Chula Vista. The site is delinquent in assessments and property taxes, which would be cured by the closing of the transaction. There would be a City assessment on every non-taxable dollar that came in on admissions, parking, and tube rentals which was projected to provide about $870,000 to the City over the next five years. He noted the different organizations and City commissions which were in support of the project. Commissioner Thomas asked if the attendance and economic numbers on Figure 4 were referring to the first phase, or if it was at build-out. Mr. Bitterlin answered that the 300,000 was the projected attendance for year 1 with the development of all but two or three rides. George Hice, 12961 Robleda Cove, SD, the developer stated that the numbers were based on a feasibility study. New rides would be added each year which would decrease the queuing time. Chair Tarantino asked if there would be in-out privileges. Mr. Bitterlin answered affinnatively. Commissioner Thomas was concerned with the aesthetics of the water park with some of the slides not being built. He asked if there would be open space in between the ones which were built. Mr. Hice stated that the landscape would be included and the design would show a complete build·out. They would use 24" box trees in the locations of the new slides, so that when it came time to build the new slides, they would not have to take out trees. The side of the hill would fully landscaped when the park opened. Scott Farrell noted that all infrastructure would be included, and it would be landscaped, graded, etc. and ready for the slide to be installed. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if the rock backgrounds would have the same type of material as shown in the slides. Mr. Farrell said the rock work varied greatly. It would be a high quality rock work, but would be done through requests of proposals. 9 Commissioner Tuchscher questioned regarding the 12' height limitation of the rock formation. Mr. Farrell stated they were asking for 13'6" because that is the height of the wave chambers in the back. Commissioner Tuchscher clarified that the applicant's proposal was 13'6"; it was not a limitation that the DRC put upon them. Assistant Planning Director Lee stated that the project was still in a sketch form, not in a solid building form. The DRC was trying to give the applicant the go-ahead with enough latitude and parameters set so they could come back to the DRC with specifics when they were ready. Commissioner Tuchscher believed they should be given the option of doing more if they needed to and should not be limited. Associate Planner Miller noted that in the letter resulting from the DRC meeting, it said "no single artificial rock formation shall exceed a height of 12' above finished grade and no higher than 15' above the wave pool caissons." Mr. Miller felt they had given a certain amount of latitude. Commissioner Tuchscher wished to see the applicant have as much latitude as possible, with no limit to the height. Commissioner Tuchscher noted that the slides showed a bridge with a waterfall over a river. He asked if that was envisioned for this park. Mr. Farrell stated they did envision using that type of thing to help with subtle theming in the park. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if they had a theme in mind at this time. Mr. Farrell replied that at this time they envisioned heavy timbers and white water coming down the rock formations. Commissioner Tuchscher felt the heavy theme was a big plus and urged them to use the theme as heavily as they deemed appropriate. Commissioner Salas, regarding the hours of operation, assumed that an event where they were open until 10 p.m. would be something out of the ordinary, such as a private party. Mr. Hice answered negatively. At the outside, the hours would be 10 to 10, with normal closing hours between 6 and 7, depending upon the response of the people in the park. If there was a weekend night that there was an event like a "girls night out" or a "guys night out", they would then stay open until 10 o'clock. Those schedulings would not coincide with an MCA Universal event, because they would be given MCA's schedule 120 days prior to opening. Commissioner Salas asked if MCA's usual performance was about 20 performances per season. Mr. Bitterlin replied that a real good season was 50 nights, projecting 30 to 35 in the early years. Commissioner Salas noted the special events would be something like a grad night. Would there be a point in time when there would be a conflict between MCA and the water park? Mr. Hice said the MCA could go as high as 60 days, but their season was actually running spring, summer and fall, so it would be more spread out. Mr. Hice saw no problem. /6 Commissioner Salas asked about the new condition "H" regarding the security survey. With MCA, there had been much concern about undesirables and she thought the water slide might attract teenagers, etc. She asked if they were going to take a survey of what the crime activity was before they opened. Mr. Hice stated they had already met with the Police Department and had given them statistics from existing water parks in Southern California with respect to crime. The biggest instance of crime was employee theft. At the water park, with bathing suits, the people do not have much room to hide anything. They also check all parcels at the front gate. There was a problem in the parking lot as far as cars and breaking in, but the Police Department suggested they put in "birds nests" in the parking lot from which their security people could observe. Commissioner Salas noted that MCA was going to use off-duty police departments and asked if the water park was doing the same. Mr. Bitterlin stated they would use the police to the extent possible, but the other alternative was private security forces. Mr. Miller clarified that the intent of the security survey was that, once the facility was constructed, the Police Department would come out and look at the actual security facilities and make suggestions as to how security could be improved. Commissioner Thomas agreed with Commissioner Tuchscher that the applicant should be encouraged to make a presentation back to the DRC for design review to be given more freedom, as long as it included the rocks and the waterfall. He also agreed it should be a theme park. He noted that at the Oasis, the wave pool was hard to walk on and a person could be cut. He wanted to make sure that would not happen here. Mr. Hice stated the Oasis park was one of the older parks. He noted that they roughen up the sidewalks to keep the children from slipping, but the pool surfaces are smooth. Chair Tarantino said his experience with gangs was that they were very modest and would be unwilling to remove the clothing in order to enter the water park. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about the insurance aspect. Mr. Miller replied that there was an indemnification as far as the City's concerned. The water park may have their own private insurance. City Attorney Googins stated that the indemnification provision recommended by staff was substantially similar to the indemnification obtained from MCA. The City did not require insurance or the naming of the City as an additional insured. Walt Fisher, P.O. Box 3666, CV 91909, thought this was an opportunity for the City to move forward and make the community a unique place to live. He felt the MCA and Otay Valley Regional Park in addition to the water park was an opportunity to create a family-oriented recreational destination which would be a great benefit to the community and the region, impacting the City economically and in reputation and note. He urged rapid approval. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. /1 MS (Davis/Thomas) to approve of Conditional Use Permit PCC-96-40. Commissioner Davis stated she was very excited about the project and thought it would be great for the community. Commissioner Salas supported the project and felt it was a wonderful compliment to MCA and would be of extreme benefit to the City. Commissioner Tuchscher commented that the action of the EDC should be reflected in the staff report when it goes to the City Council. He also did not see the height restriction issue mentioned in the conditions. He asked how that was handled. Mr. Miller replied that the height issue would be addressed through Design Review and not through the conditional use permit, as the conditional use permit dealt with the land use specifically. Commissioner Tuchscher asked staff, the City Attorney, and the maker of the motion if it would be appropriate to add that this body was not in favor of any height restriction on decorative, architectural, landscape, or theme-oriented elements. Attorney Googins stated to the extent that it was a subject within the purview of the Design Review Committee and not the Planning Commission--the Planning Commission is not advisory to the Design Review Committee--he recommended that it not be included in the Planning Commission recommendation, but could be transmitted informally to them. Assistant Planning Director Lee felt if the applicant came back with a design that was in excess of that particular height limit, he did not see the Design Review Committee as not being receptive. They were trying to set some parameters with the information that was available, and once there were more final design elements, the DRC would be able to respond to that. He did not see that as an issue, and would make sure the Planning design review staff responsible understood the Commission's concerns and direction. Commissioner Tuchscher responded that he felt setting a limit with the information they had was arbitrary, and--to clarify the process--if the applicant were to bring forward the final designs and went to DRC, and height became an issue, it could be appealed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lee answered affirmatively. Mr. Tuchscher encouraged the applicant to file the appeal if they had a problem with that issue. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Ray and Willett excused) /:J- RESOLUTION NO. PCC-96-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-96-21 AND GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RECREATIONAL WATER PARK ON APPROXIMATELY 32.5 ACRES OF LAND IN THE OTAY RIO BUSINESS PARK, PHASE II, WEST OF CASTLE PINES A VENUE IN THE UMITED INDUSTRIAL (IL-P) ZONE WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on May 16, 1996 by Hice Enterprises, Inc.; and WHEREAS, said application requested permission to construct and operate a recreational water park on approximately 32.5 acres of land in the Otay Rio Business Park, Phase II, west of Castle Pines Avenue in the IL-P (Limited Industrial - Precise Plan) Zone (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, an initial study of the environmental impacts of the Project (IS-96-21) was prepared in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, based on the fmdings and detenninations of IS-96-21, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Project and made available for public review in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the conditional use permit application for the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was' given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 20 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely July 10, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, at such hearing the Commission received and considered testimony on the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in connection therewith; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-96-21 and approve a conditional use permit for the Project based upon the fmdings and subject to the tenns and conditions set forth in the draft City Council Resolution attached hereto. (m:\home\planning\martin\waterprk\9640pc.res) /3 -------- ----" BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day 10th day of July, 1996 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Frank Tarantino, Chair Nancy Ripley, Secretary (m:\home\planning\martin\waterprk\9640pc.res) I~ - . ATTACHMENT 4 Otay Valley Regional Park Potlc:y Committee Citizen Advlsol'Y Committee (701..AJ' Pt. ..~^,e.. MUTl~C) Minutes (temporal')' pending a hearing ot the whole tape) May 17, 1996 TIle teguJadrcb schedlded meeting of the Otay Valley Re¡ional Park PoIiCI Comllliueo was caI1cd to 0 by çbair Sill Diego City CouDciImIlß luan Varps at 2.:1 p.m.... &be Monl8omery-Waller Rccacatloa Cearer. San Diego County SupoMsor aie, Cox was pn:seut, providing .~' while Clula Vista Ma)'Ol'Shlr1ey Horton was absent. Cidren Advisory Chair Dr. c: Hanson was unable: to COJM:I1c: a q\lOnllD of one dœea mcmbcra. CAC Members Present Starr Members Present Fred B~ (le/\ early) Maroue Espc:rançe, San Diego ColUlty Val Guerra Howard Orcenslein, San Dlc:go City George Hanson Frank Herrera-A, Chula VIaui. City ADen JOI1CS (Ief\ early) Patricia McCoy CAC Members kc:uaed Steve Palma John Hammond Tom = (OthelWise unknown) Vema Yolanda Ramos Ruth Scbne¡"~r Paul Slayton Reports ~enda item .. e San Diego Gas &: Eleetrlc Coml~ PipeUne 2000 Projcc:t Manlier Mike HaJð. Pat Dames 11\ . DIIWl dc:acrlbed 1M ~Jf:iiOl1 ollbc new ftltural gL'I P= southward toward IDd Ihroutu the OIay River . PIwe.. will start in luly from ako to OIay. Some ~ acres 0 mitigalÎDJ1 from Soo&B win be directed to U.S. Pish &: Wildlife: outSide: the focused planning area of 1he OIay VaI1~ Regional P1uk. Start Report OVRP Draft Concept Plan Frank Herrera-A reporied on tile OVRP ~t Plan SlllUS~g be hoped that wpm one through tiw would be complel8 by the of May and s concluded by July. .' Items 1. East Otay Mesa ReylOnal Fireann Tralnin~aclUty Continued from the: April 9, 1996, CAe meetiq~. w the IUOng CAe ð;scussion 1'Cgi.stercd disapproval of a compJeled dcçision IU uild the Bast OIaI Meaa Regional Firearm TraJuing Facility being presented by die COWIL)' iDcompatib 0 wjlb a piuk. Maœue Esperance reviewed the: ~M;"g activiLy. Site said the adjaoont Herral10 propertY which possibly would he: P by the county wu within the Cocused pllIII1U\8 area for the park. allbough &be &un ranaes weœ outside iL George Hanson recalled the CAe emphasis on (I) the: II )propriatcncsa oC the faciliLy for Ihe 11I:& and (2) the IaIcneas in the: planning proce.'I.' far notifying the two p8rlt committe(!s. Vema Quinn asked why a $4 million II'8ining facili~ was needed for machine guns whœ Sill Diego aL)' had one and officers didn't regular y 11M: macbÍlle guns. Greg Cox replied that the county sheriffs were being squecZ<:d OUt of their current facility and Lbe county needed both an outdoors arms /S · facility and some classrooms. Additionally, be said. he recognized that ooncept plan a~va1 was vilal. but Ihc gun ~ site was proximate to bolh prisons in the n ghborhood and COOIOIUUlt with thett pu~. Z. Chul. Vilta Water Park Fred Kassman, RedevelopmCllt Management CoordinaIOC f(J' Chula Vista. described !he plans of Whitwater Waterpllk.Inc., to build a Wiler ceo.lCœd amusement facili1y in the area aoudl of \he auy Riva-, adjacent to and wcat of tile proposed MCA amphltbealer. Onœ again CAC _beta had I'CIId of 1bc park in tho p&'CI$S, but beard aotbiD& about it §rior to receiving thoIr meet~aa=du carUerln the WeeIc, Paul Stayum poIDted out. lay ton wondered aloud why two or threo mouths of IIdY8l1CO plll1lling had DOt œaehed the OVRP. Kassman cmpbaslr.ed acli~ tcereation \lIeS wiIhin the Watu Pa/t's .tttactiona, including playing 6clds that cou14 bo usod for lucaI.po~ps. Kassman suesse4 the flexibility ot the ~ pcoœa with & JU118 10 _¡gn committee as a p1Icc for people in Chula ta to ur tbe.Ir IU~r,:tiOlll. T=~:\ua said that awta Viua =nlees 10 !he part committee such as hlm_ were em about proliferation ofbu" . g planned by Chula V1SIa on both sides of the liver out or ~hway 80S. He pointed out1bat tho Wat« Puk cncroad1ed westward lIonS tho aouth side 0 tile river III1d the c:uncat auto park on the aonh side of the river bad been fOUled for C1I.p"nR;on eastward ~ the city. He &aid the obvious aault wu a boldeneck in the river park. to~ within Ch Vista, ~ to make two parks witb ICIDt room tor h\IJIWI trails, alone wildlüc conidota. e suggcsœd the 0tJtC0I1IC <:QUId wc1l bec;onIe a 'iWIIIthii:' end or the part and a poor west end of the park with etbniç social co~ fore he rcqUC8ted both unphitbeater and water park huilderA be as to place tbeIt developments as far back from the river as possible and Chula VISta staff actively seck ~âon of property IICross tho river development or at least dedare a moratoriUID on It. g Cox and Juan ~ II the policy c;ommlt1cC, vat8d \he (uUowing leUcr bo sent Quia Vista Immediately. . SNarga.q, 2-0 vote.) . "To Rnd a letter to the City ot Chili. Vista IS they consider tJùs pr~lIIlr they would take Into coDSideratioD the plannina effort of the Otay IIIley Re¡lonlll Park to acbine the maxlmum extent that the goa" of the park are protected and that If there ate to be açd.. rec:reaUon facllldes that are pUt in as part 01 this project that eoDSlderation be cty.. to allowing . pereealage of the usage to be .yailable to the plleral public: without marge." I.tem S. Ul.date on Lower Olay Lake Padr. acqulaJdoD, continued I'rom the March 1 , 1996, Joint PC an CAC meet1n~ AJ:t1 19, 1996, CAC meeting. Greg Cox discussed tbc Lower Ola)' Lake acq 'don. He said the counLy wanlS 10 keep the price for the exchange II low II possible &0 that money eaniw'ked for the onetime county rlWilily could be used to lix. up the park once roacquited. Items 6 and 7. CAC Membership ..d AttendallCe. Greg Cox said he was lntcrcstcd in rcœmmcndaùons for ~w CUIIIIty members and that in addition he would seek 10 keep a fuU complement of filled county sealll. Tom Pasqua said Southwestern CoUege eould aiiIl be a meeling sile, preferable at times when classroom use WII low, if a site ehange could boost membership. Item 8. OVRP Tours Howard Greenstein was designated 1996 OVRP tour coordinator. The following LOurs WClC scheduled: 1) Trails botwecll the Chula Vista AulO Park and HeritagelOtay Valley Road on /0 ATTACHMENT 5 MINUTES DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Wednesday, July 3, 1996 Business Resource Center, Room 1631 12:00 NOON Southwestern Colleg¡, 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners: Chair Ty Compton; Vice Chair Chuck Peter; Members Martin Calvo, Patty Davis, Len Moore, Chuck Peter, Thomas Rodrigo [12:25], William Tuchscher [12:25] Ex-Officiis: Marcia Boruta, John Munch, Mary Wylie Staff: . Daniel Rofoli, Jeri Gulbransen ABSENT: Commissioners: Edward Martija (excused), Don Read (unexcused) Ex-Officiis: Brene Patrick (excused), Art Sellgren (excused) 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES r~11~'rmt!_1§:ln~J!~jmI~¡mjijm~§f¡M¡æ\'~¡:¡111119¡'!j.H!!»ä.ji@;H¡tR11f¡¡¡g1!!Y9.I!!Jmtm~jij~¡m!I!!'!Mij!M!ilm¡~ 3. NEW BUSINESS a. Demonstration at Southwestern College Business Resource Center b. -Discussion of the Economic Impacts of the Proposed Chula Vista Waterpark º,IlltJl§§mg'9jìI~~!¥Hm¡!n!fiiítª,!ªltl~ì§!!¡(.¡j~'§¡~1 - lï11111_6Wt'llIfIlIIIIIlIJI.111li11111111I1i\W c. Annual Summary of Activities /~ Dr) !"~ ~..:,. ~.- . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - PAGE 2 July 3, 1996 d. Election of New Chair 111'~JK14§..l¡tê¡_~!~;~l~l~ijI\.W¡g!!j!tl:lrW1¡¡¡m!!i!f~'1!¡m!¡~~{t!:tmt~¡¡M~(I1~WB!{~q 11''I,pm!tWiî)¡Jªfí§jj1!1fi!Dlfi~1'''m!m.ig¡!#ît!JW¡MfšlI11~!Mf¡¡[i~tj!!M!1,_$'¡Êe!,¥ij~[¡¡¡¡£fil¡Mm¥ìj~î 4. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion of letter to Council regarding Downtown Priority Project l'II_1I11111Ir~\lI.I'.fllllfBilll"'III·!!i!î9ijîf MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND b. Update regarding Business Assistance referral information at City Finance Department/Business License counter per EDC recommendation c. Development Fees - Please brinq copv of Master Fee Schedule provided in the June packet 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS . No motions. 6. MEMBERS' COMMENTS No motions. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS No motions. ADJOURNMENT to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday. August 7.1996, at 12 noon in the Public Services Building, Conference Rooms 2 and 3. Mary Donnelly, Recording Secretary [(MO) c:\wpS1\document\edc\96-97\7-3-96.min] Ie¿ - - ATTACHMENT 6 ( ~ . CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY OF SAN DIE 0 II PROJECf LOCATION CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~. George Hlce . PIOIECI' DBCIIII'IION: C9 . Whltftllller Canpn Water Park DESIGN REVIEW & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT Otay Rio 1..1_ Park R.quest: ~I for an ztualic rwadonal faålity on ADWS$' PhaSe II = 32. _ thatwil include waler slides, - pool SCALE: FI.f NUM8ER: ride. arcades. -'auranll.'..-f,ðOnII and appurtenant NORTH No Scale DRC-96-A1 & PCC-96-AO Iocilities in the ·L zone. T9 - I . I ~~ L , Q § I .Q æ ).. _ "\.0. - _,. . . ;! .. Ior",\ ... 0 0 I I I I .. 3nN3/\V' S3Nld.31J.SV':). -.- I t -.--. ',' . '-_0__.- I . I I I I I . . I k~ °5' ª~ ~'5 fj/ I ¡ r¿,~ €V : I ~ Ò I I " 'K : . i : I . ø . ." , OJ I ~-_._~ ®- \ ~-_._-- I -: ---- Figure 3 REDUCED PLOT PLAN (See full-sized Plot Plan) ;}o I --~--_._._--".. - ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I @ ® ~ .~& ® I \ I USE AREA DETAIL Figure 4 ~ (See full-sized Plot Plan) ð! ..,.'- .~....."=U""~_~ - - - n n n U· LEGEND n CD ENTRY" PAVIL.ION I TICKETING @. CONTINUOU& RIVER ~ LOCXERS I RE&TROOMS @ KIDDIE F'OOI. n @ RETAIL @ 8C& PL.AY&TFaJc:TURE @ ARCADE @ GROUF' PICNIC AREA n ~ FOOD 6EFMCES @ PARKING n @ I'IIEMOTE RE&~ ® DROF' OFf' AREA \ ® TUeE RENTAL& .' . @ f'ROI ENADE P @ 61X TUeE FUNES @. Tl-lREE TUM FL\.t1E& CFlJTURE) - B1.ACX I-IOLE @ THREE 6I"EED SL.IDE& ~. Tl-lREE DROF' OUT kIDE& CFIJTURE) n @ 61X eoDY FL\.t1E& @. Tl-lREE eoDY FL\.t1E6 CFIJTURE) P ® FAMIL. Y FL\.t1E (FUTURE) @. RJTURE ATTARACTION& @ WAVE F'OOl.. o DELIVERY P @ MECl-lANICAL ROOM @. 61-1ADE STFaJc:TURE (TrP) @ eACX OF I-IOUðE I ADMINISTRATION @. "-£>' FENCe ø @ FIRE LANE @ FUTURE klDE ø - ~:~ - - ~ .. % 1---::--....· Q /,~ LEGEND"TO USE AREA DETAIL Figure 4 p ;J:J-- .' / ~..- __,___, , , , , , , , I 'i'. .1 il; :i.. \'§!C, 'r j, ~' \ I ~( : I t·:i :j\ ' P' , ,~ I i- ~ ¡ I ¡ ¡; ili \ (q !: : , ~ ~ " I· ~ i I ^. , I ..... ¡¡ ~ I, I I~ - J' . ~ ..... . fie , " I " ," , " , '.\ " j, .. \. \"1 ....h .'t' ~,' II_I... . ',." . . :i~ , I '/ <II' ; 'I'll" ¡ ¡ , ¡ .' A' ',1,1 _!. ,~ '~\ ? \,\. )~:, ',: ,¿~-) '." - .'\ ' ',' ;,-, S ,- f 0 , I , ø~Q . i ~ , ...¡þ.'--.....t."< 3 ! L ~ cJI~-< ~ It) ie , - --..-...-...... ~ ~I -- ....... -- ~ - ..- wtlTlW"TUWA1'IM"AIIIC --- - ~~ - -..-- --- - CtU.A 'MY'" CALIIOfØA ----- - - -- -- - -" -~-~-_.- - 11 II I I@ , · I 1'- ,. · ¡ pi II , ,I·¡hi! 'II I ~i I III i II I II ~ ~III !il!i I I ¡I. II t I r' ,','. ' I"·! '..." .,. I, I u ~l~, 1111111111 III i 11111 Ii II! f¡1!:U!i! I \I Ii g d: ! I! I I ! Ii!! ¡¡¡il ~ @I H\J ¡tiI1IJJI"'o ~ !! !ì! ~ill! !Iilllll i i! aU. ¡iiil II~! .~ ilii "" . ., . . _ ., nt I.. Ii, 111¡Hb~I"Ip'!I 1.,11 IIÇ··I, !¡'mIIr.II ' I I fi 'I M . " ,~ I: " ~ ~ L Ü I " b~!!;ill¡!¡ì!¡I!¡!IIIS!!n¡ìlì!ibl¡I;~!1 ~ II j: ~ ~ Ii! jl ~ t I 6 !I ~ !I II iI¡- ¡p '¡Id ",I,! ,1:11I1'! ¡.- I HI! I' ,- . ! . , . . Ii ,¡ 5 5 ~ II ! 1iJllil.¡î1l~1~~-" f. ~ ¡ II N ¡,Iii! ", I ~ .~.~Ià~~~¡!~~~~~~~~~ a: . ,. .., II .1.lhanml .'.' ,.. ..t. , . , !m efi 1:1 « « .,....eCl e.G.Q.~~ Z a.. a:: -~I I a:1L~ w «- ~~ð I 3: -1 - -w;5 + Zü(/ Oa:5 >-«« ZIL «- üW a:> ~~' «z 3: W l- ) I- 3: ~ --"- -- ........-.- ATTACHMENT 8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program WHITEW ATER WATER PARK MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or responsible agency that approves a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects". The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency for the Whitewater Water Park project. A MND was prepared for this project which addressed potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommended mitigation measures to reduce identified significant impacts below a level of significance. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. The City of Chula Vista will adopt this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) after considering the MND and if approval of the project occurs. The proposed Whitewater Water Park may result in adverse impacts in the event of substantial alterations to the proposed project description. A monitoring and reporting program would prevent adverse impacts by insuring that the proposed project is developed in substantial conformance with the project description and design features used to conduct the analysis for this EIR. ROLES AND RESPONSmILITIES The MMRP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project, including final design, grading, construction, and operations of the Whitewater Water Park. The City of Chula Vista has primary enforcement role for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) will provide fmal approval for the completion of the implementation of mitigation measures. The ERC will appoint a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) who will be responsible for the actual monitoring of the implementation of the mitigation measures. The MCC will interface with the ERC, the City Engineer, the City Landscape Architect, the Construction Supervisor, and the Construction Inspector(s), all who have some responsibility for the implementation of the mitigation measures. --- Whitewater Water Park d~ City of Chula Vista Mitigation Monitoring and Reporring Program MMRP-I July 1996 I)i Iii Iii ii z Ii ii) I.i I.i Ii) ii Iii) ......... )i i!....)) ii V>=i i)i))) ~iiii OO:!ii .. .. .. ~ ~..JI{~..·...~ii ~ .~ I ~ ·r I ~ .~ ~ QO 0 ! .~ 0 e .5 !!. 0 ! .~ i = .~i.~.~~~ .~._~u .~.~~J> It ··········ii u > ,¡¡ Q U > ,¡¡ Q U > ,¡¡ ¡;;¡ ÞÐ) = / ....,<c::' ~ '"õ ~ '! .,8 = i)i~i.!f." ~~.!f" ~I·!f·,,~~·g OJ .0 a ] i! .8 ~ ] i! .0 i! 'ë jj Øi:i.i æ.~..8. ....~"æ æ. ~æ-ëi 8.~ 'g ,ii,]") Ii . . ~i ~ ~ - I:.Ð .S! .S! 5 ~i ~ ~ ¡ ~ ".9 Iii i) i i .~i.~ "'" ,i/" i!!' ~"ø 6 !ri)i'~ .- _.~" ::!:i'~i Ii ~ ~ æ ~ ~ =i ~ii i~~·!f·ë¡~.M·~ ~1!<.š~"Q ~¡.~~.8 &\ii .. '8!·~,,:gli'" NF.!IIi]:d 8!8°~ __ = .c: ill Co) .:1 ~ a at ã .....! .. u ~iil)))iii t: ~ "Q .i .~ ~ I ~ .~ ~ .~ ~. ].~ t·g 1 i .~ ,ii) ~=.i·e.gii';; ¡Ii u¡ÍÏ ¡¡ Uu ¡¡ ~ ~ '¡¡:i li)~·gB1J§§.å¡~ ·;¡~·[1!"Q.8 'O·~].~ð·i! li)ii &1] ;:-]j''''''"Qi!" ~ u B~'" ~1.~.ž u 8. V"c>:;;> C'II 2 u e = .~ -a oS I') I)i ~.~ j .~ ~ ~ 'f ~ .i :¡¡¡ -r i .ã U I ,; h .p' ¡ il e~së "'''''8 .¡¡",~...~ iii'¡¡ !" " ')t ~ 8..~..; ~ ¡.~ II ;;.~ ~ S $'i i'~ ~ ~ i 1 pi /i '¡¡.!f.5u.g~ .5~1i ,g0¡¡;;;' '~8. 8SM"~ i) ]1.g~~il~~1 ~t~f~.~·!f .~]iâi!~ i) ~"Q ~ ~ ~.g 1! B ¡ So ~ i ~:.. ~l1 ,s.~ R t I ¡¡ ii N ~ iiii iiii i~i!ii _ ~ ~ i'i )) d-G ---..-..---,..-,.--->-,--------..- .... '1: ... = ! ~ ] ~;¡ :g ~'C! 1:1 u . u U . u = "õ tj.n "õ ~ ~ ,!:!. ~ ð'>IH .j;' .~ 'Ii' ë- u>¡¡;¡Q Q ~ ~ ~ 0 0 s i !3''' HH ~ ·8 ~.~ .s 1:: ø...!:: C) ø;. ø..,!:: Oø;, i .~ .~ > > i ~ ~ t t ~ .. .!3' ·Ë .S ] ]. = t:> t:> .. ·a 'Sž·~ ~.~ i.ëj~ g~ ¡.§ ~5~s~I~§~·d!3'~1s.11~ :å i~~~ 8.ê!'j·~ i t~ I S z¡: Q 'Þ &. ~ .~ .2 ~ ;¡.... .,g~ I ¡¡; ...e¡ ~ = uc: .~:Z:~.~8. 'b if;'õ "0' ~. = ~ ~UQ~~],-z.:!§ I! ° Q.·8 ~ .¡;: ~ i:I.ì; = i I! ~ = 1 ¡¡ ,;;.s !3'.r¡ .- ... 'õ ~ c.8;«I...uBU i !!:¡B¡:~i-§·~~ëfl) ]~ 1"õ~~t~ =B II§~·~I >8 B o,....u _ u .- ~-s£g"'iI:~~1!~~:;:!! ~£JJj~I~~11It~~IIJ~j .. .- ~'¡.ë=ä~~. ~~B8:~ )1 _ ...] I! U 8 u ~ .!!... U = ...... i1!o !.S·~ P~"lSË-s¡9 "'1q'''õ~ ·=-r ~ ij 'ª g ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ d ~=. ~ ~aj 1= . M ~ B ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ I = H i~ ~ "õ ~ . i 8 0'" = =- ! ä .... 2;':;:IfI)¡.. .!:: .gs-a ~.~~;~.~~~ -P.U~u.lrf1~ o О ~ >'õ¡;;¡ u< l~ ii u·~ i!1].~ §~S ~ ~~1 iæ i ~=~1u¡9~~~ 1 - uuo1 ~ i ] I I ~~ t.~ S¡¡·8-s·~~i"õz. ]~i.~ ~~~~~ll~~J~I~!lljill ~'[¡1ffi·t~ð¡~8~~i <~~-S <!!< ...1i8.~~~ UU'~ ... on ~ ~ ;;;( _ _ ____._.____..,,_~_.___..___...u >i ii ii ii ..~. i « ii ii ~i< ..... '1:S J ~.. ~¡.; ~1 ¡;] ~¡;] ~1 ¡;] ~1 ¡; ] ~¡;] ~¡;'; ~~ = ... c!!1·.·....·.o ð .ct t u .ct u 'c U } U .ct I! U 'C} U 'C I! ð 'C ~ at ~ ¡¡ ~ ~ ~ ¡¡ iii ~ ¡¡ E ~ ¡¡ ~ ¡¡!! ~ ~ ~ " ~¡¡¡.s .~ ~"'... ~"'.s ¡¡.~ ~¡¡¡.s . ~¡¡¡.s 0 ",.s 8. ~¡¡¡.~ ~ III ûd'o!!æo!! û:;!o!! û:;!!æ û>!o!!J! û>! S:;!.! û>,1 Q« ~ Q ....... .... .... ~ >. ... êJ ... !5 ... s It ..... 0 0 II ~ .8 13 " ." " ." ..i .!J' ¡¡¡ ~.!J'.~ .!J' ¡¡¡ U 8. ·!J'''Ë .!J''¡~ .!J't] ~ -.. 0 "'r;¡"CIE 0 "'~'ee o:=~ o=j 0 i ~.>i g LÆ.f g ;bðð g~8 g~8 g 8 8.i ~ '1:S C ':: iI: !J 5 § S (U '" u ',cc= '.0= '.CIe= .. .. U 0 CJ 0 U 0 ~ !!' > .. > " ." " ." ~ ·1 = ._ ~.s ~ "" u .C ') ~ Jj 0 ¡¡ ~ ~ .2</8 '" g ¡;: 8.t 8.~ 8. .- = .......... ~ '!2 ~ 13 8 y u y - . ." . ~ C '!2 U . ~ ~ . C J ~ 8 ~< < .¡;¡ ~ ~ :i! ;,: .. ... IE ... ~ .!J' ~ :!J Jj 11 .g .~ .~ .8 .fI -II å·]5 .0 ¡¡ "'" <.8 :8 ~ "'~ ~.e ªiE~ ...2 ë"c g.-;¡3·"g ~u =<i ~ .J!! .~ ~ ~ 1 j ." ~ .~ 0 ... . '" ;;¡ ;; ¡¡¡ U a .~ .~ .a .~ !5 c II ]"c '~""3 .1!~ -." ~ë c~ - UU8'!OU'~ . ~ ~ ...... 0 B oUë$ ·;ic="Oo... ¡ >i.~ ~ 'u .~ : ~ ~ I .S [ ~ 1 P ~ :¡¡ .S u ~ .~ I }.¡ 0 .~ H .¡ .!fI :,- ~ ft Õ ~ 'ii ~ 8 '" ~.~ g u ... ~ ... :s "CI IS III... :>.~"'..... 5: ~> ~~ ~I:: ~':,~.~ ·ë-h"'¡¡;~.8 ~ ~ 1iiU ~.8~ ~~ §~~ -=.<- - ~..2 H ~ 'Ë -'~ _~ SuB ... ..e tIO iI: >. 5 :i 'II'¡ -a .8 Iii ~t .¡¡ ~::j!~. 8.~~i~n ~i1 ~H .d1:;~H' is Fi ! ~ H I g ~ I j ~ æ J 8': ~ t n ~ t!..;:.; ru ~ .¡ ; ~ -i ,1< ~~ ~.¡ i~iit ]~iir~~ !Îi~ '~~H Ud~H.d ,< -a¡; -as u".~ < l5:u<."u·u ]8..~ ·;·¡¡.·-s ~~:;;ë.-aì1~~ [< I!~ .ª~ ~i."g< ~:i'<·!!1i·!J'i ,¡¡~j! ::¡B'~8 <,,8:;.§·~...¡;¡-s 1'::::::::': 0 U ;0. U 2 «I :E U U ~ U ... ':¡¡ c::I li>i 01ii .:!.. Ii; ~"'::¡ ¡:;::¡::¡:!!> 8 ::::«»::, ' . , , ci _ ~ »>:::' IØ .... OCI 0\ _ _ _ '070; i~l\Il", '" '" '" oô oô oô :::1':: >æ11 M ~ ~ M V) V) V) < . .... >< ;;7 'is' '" = ~ ] p . ] P '3 tlÐa ! U . ~ ð .!! ~ U . [ ~ u '6 I! .~ '61!~g o g ~ . .j;'."'.!f .j;'. '!flr Þ~.i ~ U>IJJ U>IJJC\ u:> ~ Q = ~ ~ ~ t 0 0 0 BP'·" ~U·~ .~U·~ : - '" ê æ f= u :e. . Æ 0. æ.", Æ æ ~ ~ 0 u .. :Q ~ 8- &! 'C ~ ~ ] u u ¡; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 : 15 ~ ~ ~ ·C £ £ £ s ·a ~ u ~ Þ = ~ = ø 0 .. ã g :¡ d § ... ~.8·~ u þU ¡.;. == 8i'~oS'8~t!~~'* ,g;-š~.š i:ð;§ = _ BU:;:¡OO! 000 II -aB BìI~ii ; :..§ ~ 8'1.8·~ '6 ð ~ h ~ B Š'~ 1! 8 ~ '6 ~ ÞII œ ;::I 6) æ u Þ OS. t: ,0 = - ... .. ~ .. ~ ilr~E'~~f~8'~ ~!U~~ ·tn·u 8~8",·goll-a-·g I!. ..E~ .8u~-a o - - =0 c: ;.;¡ ~i!r~Á~tl~EJ ~i!'~8~¡ Uè'~. J~ B ~ rB~' .8 ~'" ~~l'ë.~.~ i~ ~u I ~ u ",,~ ~ e . g" . II e . 11"~·e 0 § 8.h :=] ...~. .B B B"'· ~ i:.e ãj ::,.€' ô U i:.ei!"'>C\ . .jg.01ì:: ~ ~n ~ U.!f~.g.~ ~ § ~H~ Ë:l~·g ê :¡OQu e~a~:'t>u ....c.Uo -< 0>8- ~ :t :d - - - 00 00 00 :;-Cf ----~..-....__...- THIS PACE BlÃNK j-f) , ATTACHMENI..L COMMUNITY OEVElOPMUH O¡PARTYfNT šÁN DIEGO .'13~ CITYOPERATIONSBUIWING . 1222JolrslAvenue ~ M.S.501 . ¡San Diego, California 92101.... .._- OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 236-6460 June 7, 1996 Joseph Monaco Environmental Projects Manager Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chu1a Vista, CA 91910 SUBJECT: Traffic Review of the Whitewater Waterpark Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Monaco: Thank you for the opportunity to review the traffic analysis (dated April 17, 1996 and revised May 9, 1996) for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for. the Whitewater Waterpark. The subject project, in addition to the MCA Amphitheater, the Open Air Market and the Material Recovery Facility will have significant impacts to the intersection of Otay Mesa Road and Heritage Road. The study area should include and analyze this intersection with two scenarios; existing traffic with the project only traffic and existing traffic with the adjacent cumulative project traffic. The project should pay its fair share of the improvements required for the intersection. If you have any questions, please contact Linda Marabian at 236-6896. Sincerely, CÂ- þ-t-wl- Ann French Senior Traffic Engineer AF:ljm cc: Paul Hellman, Environmental Analysis section Steve Thomas, city of Chula vista c:water ~ ,1:. %; , ¥ ~ ~ DIVERSITY BRINGS US All TOGETHER ~(~ :~~-~ ~~;f~ CllY OF CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT June 24, 1996 Ms. Ann French Senior Traffic Engineer City of San Diego Development Services Department 1222 First Avenue, M.S. 501 San Diego, CA 92101 SUBJECT: Response to Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Whitewater Water Park Dear Ms. French: Thank you for your comments regarding the referenced document. The traffic study conducted as a part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that a total of 350 project ADT would travel through the intersection at Otay Mesa Road and Heritage Road, with only 35 of those trips reaching the intersection at peak hour. Project-related traffic in and of itself is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the intersection. As you may know, the project site is subject to a City of San Diego Facilities Benefit Assessment District (FBA). The purpose of the FBA is to finance the construction of public capital improvements to mitigate impacts from development projects. It is anticipated that fees paid to the City of San Diego as a result of project development will compensate for the project's contribution to cumulative traffic impacts upon the affected intersection. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 691-5016 with any questions regarding the referenced project, or this response. Sincerely, {7k7 ~- Joseph Monaco, AICP Environmental Projects Manager 3)-- 276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691·5047 _ _ _ '_..____ .._~u.__~...._·.___ THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CENTER . 1222 First Avenue· M.S. 501 . San D~.Çg.Iifurnia 92101 COMMUNITY DEVElOPMENI I' . DEPAR¡~(ENT OFFICE OF . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES .. ., . 1996 DEPARTMENT . .i.~ ,13 236-6460 June 7, J.996 Mr. Joseph Monaco Community Development Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 919J.0 SUBJECT: LETTER OF COMMENT ON THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED WHITEWATER WATERPARK Dear Mr. Monaco: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Whitewater Waterpark. The Environmental Analysis Section of the City of San Diego Development Services Department offers the following comments on the adequacy of the Draft MND: Noise .. The Draft MND does not clearly establish the insignificance of traffic noise #1. impacts on existing and planned residential development in proximity to the project site and Otay Valley Road. On page 74 of the Draft MND, it is stated that existing homes north of Otay Valley Road have higher adjacent traffic volumes, including trucks from industrial uses, activities at the auto center, and possibly the I-80S "hum," and, therefore, project impacts near noise- sensitive uses would be substantially masked by the existing baseline. At approximately J.O P.M., when a substantial number of patrons can be expected to exit the waterpark, it is doubtful that project-generated traffic noise from the parking lot and along Otay Valley Road would be substantially masked by baseline noise conditions'. . Evidence supporting this conclusion should be provided. On page 74 of the Draft MND, the discussion of ~raffic noise calculations at three locations near Otay Valley Road is not clear. It is stated that project .. traffic noise was artificially weighted for its evening and/or post 10:00 P.M. contribution to generate a worst-case assessment; however, the specific time /f2. period analyzed and the number of vehicles estimated to exit the site during this period are not specified. It is stated that existing traffic noise conditions were calculated using baseline ADT, but it is not specified how traffic volumes were estimated for the analysis period. The sources and parameters of the estimates utilized in this comparison should be clearly specified; otherwise, conclusions based on the analysis are neither meaningful nor valid. Substantial increases in traffic levels along Otay Valley Road near avian #3 habitats (including gnatcatchers) is discussed on page 74; however, no further analysis or discussion of this potential impact is provided. ~ 33 ¥¥o DIVERSITY MINGS US All TOGfTHfR ..,¡""~~ Page 2 Bioloqical Resources Potential impacts to sensitive avian species are identified in the noise section of the Draft MND. Aside from a Great Horne.d Owl mapped to the north of the project site, no detailed discussion or mapping of biological resources present #3 in the inunediate project area vicinity is provided in either the noise or biological resources sections of the Draft MND. The biological resources section should include a discussion of the types of avian species, and other wildlife species, present in the immediate project area vicinity.. Furthermore, potential edge effects should be addressed under "Indirect Impacts· in the biological resources section. Transportation/Circulation On page 36 of the Draft MND, it is stated that the Otay Valley Road/Otay Rio Road intersection will be signalized. However, no mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install this signal, or to provide its fair share contribution to #4 offset the cost of this signal, is proposed. The Draft MND does not specify whether or not signal warrants are met at this intersection due to the proposed project only. If the signalization of this intersection is assumed to be the responsibility of another project(s), no allowance is made for the possibility that this project (s) may not be developed or that the proposed waterpark may be in operation prior to the installation of this signal_ Any significant impacts of the proposed project associated with this intersection, either independently or cumulatively, should be identified. If it is determined that the proposed project would result in, or contribute to, the need to signalize this intersection, appropriate mitigation should be required. This concludes the conunents of the Environmental Analysis Section of the City of San Diego on the Draft MND. Please provide us with a copy of the Final MND, including responses to commënts. Please contact Paul Hellman, Associate Planner, at (619) 235-5789 if you have any questions or need ~dditional information. Sincerely, .. ¿~~.f.f!:L~ Principal Planner '. ~ :rf ~(~ =~-~ ~....-¡:--~ ~- - -- CIlY OF CHUIA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT June 24, 1996 Mr. Lawrence C. Monserate Principal Planner City of San Diego Development Services Department 1222 First Avenue, M.S. 501 San Diego, CA 92101 SUBJECT: Response to Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Whitewater Water Park Dear Mr. Monserate: Thank you for your comments regarding the referenced document. The following is a response to the concerns raised in your letter of June 7, 1996. A copy of that letter with numerical references for each of the issues raised is attached. Responses are keyed to the numerical references. #1. Approximately 25% of total project ADT are anticipated to depart the Water Park between 7 p.m. and park closure (10 p.m.). This represents a total of 780 trips using the maximum park attendance of 5,000 patrons. For the purposes of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, sensitive noise receptors are considered to be residential uses, as all other uses in the affected area are industrial. The only residences within 1,500 feet of Otay Valley Road that would have the potential to be affected by project-related traffic noise are those that are also within 1,000 feet or less of I-80S. Empirical noise measurements taken in September, 1995 between the hours of 8:00 and 11:00 p.m. ., within this area of potential impact indicated average ambient noise levels at approximately 53 dB. Based on the limited number of project-related vehicles traveling Otay Valley Road during noise sensitive periods and the relatively high ambient volumes during that same period, noise impacts to affected residential areas are anticipated to be less than significant. #2. Traffic noise impacts are identified in the noise section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on page 74. Project noise impacts at peak hour traffic volumes are estimated to raise ambient noise levels 0.2 dB(A) at less than 50 feet from the centerline of Otay Valley Road in the closest vicinity to sensitive habitats (Table 18, page 75). This minor increase is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts to avian species in the vicinity of Otay Valley Road. 3~ 276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5047 ,- _ .--..,-.-..-.-.---....-----.,...,-- Mr. Lawrence C. Monserate June 24, 1996 Page 2 #3 The closest sensitive habitat to the project site is over 0.5 miles to the north. Based on the scope and nature of the proposed project, analysis of impacts within a half mile is considered to be adequate. No significant biological resources were found in the half mile surrounding the project site. Because of the distance to sensitive biological resources from the project and related activities, no significant edge effects are' anticipated. Please also note that the area between the project boundary and the nearest sensitive habitat has been graded for industrial use or has long been disturbed by agricultural activities, as mentioned in the biology section of the subject document. #4 The proposed sigual at Otay Rio Road and Otay Valley Road is made necessary by, and is a condition of the MCA Amphitheater project. The Water Park project in and of itself. would not warrant a signal at that location, and is therefore not proposed to be conditioned as such. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 691-5016 with any questions regarding the referenced project, or this response. Sincerely, {7»~ - Joseph Monaco, AICP Environmental Projects Manager .' ?Y& CITY OF CHULA VISTA ATTACHMENT 10 { r I THE (;.. Y OF CHUl.Ä VISTA DISCLOSURE S'1...1'EMENT You arc required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign eontrihulions, on all maller!\ which will require discretionary aelion on the part of the City Council, Planning Commi55ion, and all olher official bodies. The following informalion must be disclosed: I. Ust the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applican~ ?,ntraetor, subcontractor, material supplier. ~/26 tS' H/C!-G tJ¿,L/ j4- U.JC= ---¡du.hJ.~.¿¡Ç;¿) 2. If any person" Identified pursuant It) (I) above is a corpora lion or partnership,list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the sharcs in the corporation or owning any partnership intercsl in thc partnership. 3. If any person" idcntified pursuant 10 (I) above ¡,_ non-profil organization or a trust, lis I the names of any person serving as director of thc non.profit organization or as trUSlce or bencftc:iary or trustor of the trusl. 4. Have you had morc than $250 worth of busincss transacted with any member of thc Cily staff, Boards, Commissions. Commillcc.., and Council within Ihc past Iwclvc months? Yes_ No_ If yes, plcasc indicate person(s): S. Please idcnlify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to rcprcscnt you before the City in Ihis mailer. ßI7T~/¡J 6. Have you and/or your officcrs or agcnts, in the aggregate, contribuled more than $1,000 to a Couneilmembtr In tbe current or preceding election period? Yes_ Nog If yes, state wbiçh Couneilmembtr(s): · · · (NOTE: Atladl addllioaaJ .... · 110- .'Y) · · · ¡ I... I t::;L .J Date: .f)-I c./- 9 c:. I v " " . Signature of contr&;t0yappllcant (;6:J£!6 (Ç" ¡-tlch " ;r Print or Iype name of c:ontractor/lppllcant " fm!!!! illkfi,U:d tIS, .....,1)' ùtdi,,""øl. Ii"'.. cø·"""u:nItip. joiIII-. tlSJt>Cilu2 _iIII club. frøm"" twpIoWuiØl&. cCll H><lUion. ........ _ recâ-.1 Iftdic1J#, INs "'III "'I)' _ C""'''Y. cily """ C""'~'. city """,ictpQl;/)'. dillrico. Øt Ølhcr ptJIitirallldlJitVilJll, Øt ....,. ØIiu:r IT""P Øt __ «tùtc .. ø IIIIÚ. . THIS 'ACE B1ÄNK ß-C( . - -- - - _.__...~---_._.._~ ___ ATTACHMENT 11 Recording Requested by and when recorded return to: city Clerk city of Chula vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula vista, Ca. 91910 Documentary Transfer Tax $~ No transfer of property interest AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF WHITEWATER WATER PARK BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HICE ENTERPRISES, INC. Effective Date: , 1996 DRAFT July 18, 1996 , fr1 AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF WHITEWATER WATER PARK This AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF WHITEWATER WATER PARK ("Agreement") is entered into effective as of July 23, 1996 ("Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation ("city"), and HICE ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation ("Developer") with reference to the following facts: RECITALS A. On May 6, 1996 Developer entered into an agreement with otay Rio Business Park II, and others for the purchase of certain real property commonly known. as otay Rio Business Park Phase II, comprised of approximately 60 usable acres, located west of Castle pines Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto ("Procertv"). B. On or about May 16, 1996 Developer submitted to the City an application requesting design review/precise plan approval, and a conditional use permit for its proposed development and operation of a recreational water park ("Pro;ect") on a portion of the Property. The Project is more particularly described in the narrative and conceptual plans and specifications attached hereto as Exhibit B. c. The portion of the Property upon which the Project is proposed to be developed ("Pro;ect Site") is comprised of approximately 32.4 unimproved acres, as more particularly described on Exhibit C attached hereto. Developer is currently processing with the City a Parcel Map for the Project which, among other things, upon its approval will accomplish the legal parcelization of the Project site. D. In order to facilitate the development of the Project and to reduce the cost of the Project to the Developer, Developer has requested certain assistance from the city, as more particularly set forth herein, which goes above and beyond what is customary for the City to provide in its review and processing of the Project. E. city has found and determined that city's provision of such assistance, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, is in the best interests of the taxpayers and residents of the city, will promote the public health, safety and welfare of such taxpayers and residents, and is in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. , 1 4° F. ci ty and Developer do not intend that this Agreement shall constitute a Development Agreement pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Article 2.5 of the California Government Code. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Developer hereby agree as follows: 1. citv's primarv Obliaations. 1.1 Facilitate Reductions in Third Party Impact Fees. City shall participate in Developer's negotiations with all third party governmental agencies (collectively, "Third Partv Aqencies") possessing authority to impose development impact fees against the project, and to thereby work diligently to encourage the reduction of such fees (collectively, "Third Party Fees"). Third Party Agencies shall include, without limitation, the city of San Diego, the Chula vista Elementary School District, the Sweetwater Union High School District, and the otay Water District. Developer acknowledges and agrees that city has demonstrated proficiency in obtaining reasonable reductions in Third Party Fees for other city projects and that, therefore, city's agreement to perform such services on behalf of Developer is of significant value to Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall city be obligated to contribute City funds or to offset City fees, either on behalf of the applicable Third Party Agency or the Developer, in the performance of its obligations under this Section. 1.2. Construction of Roadwav Improvements. city shall, at its sole expense, construct improvements to otay Valley Road to provide for the following: 1.2.1 Three westbound travel lanes and two eastbound travel lanes separated by a raised center median from the intersection of Nirvana Avenue to the point where the road curves to the south. At that point the improvements shall provide for four travel lanes, two northbound and two southbound. 1.2.2 Improvements to the bridge over the Otay River to an ultimate width of 52 feet. The bridge and the approaches to the bridge shall be striped to accommodate one permanent travel lane in each direction, with a painted center median that would provide sufficient width to accommodate two additional lanes that can be used in a reversible operation. City shall cause such construction to be completed by the date falling fifteen days after the date on which the Project improvements being constructed by Developer have been completed 2 41 such that a certificate of occupancy would be issuable but for failure to complete such off-site road improvements. 1. 2.3 The deadline for City's completion of the work described above shall be extended for such additional periods of time as city's performance is prevented or delayed due to strikes, lockouts, unavailability of materials, acts of governmental agencies or delays in the granting of governmental permits (other than acts or delays of City), acts of God, riots, civil insurrection, abnormal force of elements or any other similar event which is beyond the control of City or actual delays caused by the installation of Developer's improvements at or around the Project site; provided, however, that in no event shall any extension be deemed to have occurred unless City shall have given notice to Developer, within ten (10) days after the occurrence of the event, setting forth the facts giving rise to such extension. city shall give prompt written notice to Developer of the cessation of the event or condition giving rise to such delay. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "abnormal force of elements" shall include, without limitation, greater than fifteen (15) days per calendar year (pro-rated for portions of a calendar year) of rain delay. For purposes of this Agreement, unavailability of funds or other fiscal restraints encountered by City shall not constitute an event or condition that extends the deadline for City's completion of the work described above. 1.3 Reduction of and CaD on Certain citv Fees. 1.3.1 city staff agrees to calculate, and submit to City Council for its consideration, a set of proposed downward adjustments in the customary amounts for the following city fees: (a) the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee; (b) the Sewer Capacity Fee; the Traffic Signal Fee (collectively, "citv ImDact Fees"). Such proposed downward adjustments in city Impact Fees for the Project shall be calculated in order to reasonably account for the unique seasonal nature of the Project, and other relevant unique elements thereof. 1.3.2 city staff currently estimates that the staff recommended city Impact Fees, plus all other processing and permit fees for the Project, shall not exceed $500,000 ("Estimated Fee Amount"). In the event that the city Council approves city Impact Fees for the Project in excess of the Estimated Fee Amount, the ci ty' s Share of proj ect Revenues (as def ined in section 2. 2 . 1 hereof, below) that are payable to the City with respect to Project operations shall be reduced, but not below $0, by the amount of such excess. 1.3.3 Developer shall pay all required Çi ty fees at the time they are customarily due in accordance with existing City policies. Notwithstanding the foregoing (a) if it is subsequently determined, based on the first fully operational year of metered 3 ~~ --- --- -_._.~--_._._--- . flows, that the sewer capacity fees attributable to the Project exceed the amount previously paid, then Developer shall pay to the City, within 60 days of such determination, the additional amount owed, plus interest from the date the original amount was paid at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum; (b) if it is subsequently determined, based on metered flows, that the sewer capacity fees attributable to the Project are less than the amount previously paid, then City's Share of Project Revenues (as defined in Section 2.2.1 hereof, below) generated after such determination shall be reduced, but not below $0, by an amount equal to the amount of such overpayment, plus interest from the date the original amount was paid to the date of such determination accruing at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. 1.4. Removal of Assessment Lien from Portions of the Propertv. Subject to the requirements of California Streets and Highways Code Section 8740 et. seq., and consistent with the Final Engineer's Report for Assessment District 90-2 (otay Valley Road Widening) ("Assessment District"), City agrees to cooperate with Developer in order to effectuate, concurrent with and conditioned upon Developer's parcelization of the Property, a reapportionment of the lien of the Assessment District away from non-developable, non-benefitted portions of the Property, and upon the Project site and other developable, benefitted portions of the Property. 2. Developer's primarv Obliqations. 2.1. Development of the Proiect. Developer shall use its best efforts to acquire the Property and develop the Project on the Project site. Except is specifically provided hereunder, all costs of such development shall be borne exclusively by the Developer. The Project shall be developed (a) in substantial conformance with the Project description, plans and specifications attached hereto as Exhibit B; (b) in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, policies and permits; and (c) in an expeditious manner. Developer's "best efforts" hereunder shall include, without limitation, the obligation to initiate and process to final consideration any and all governmental approvals that may be required by the city, and/or any and all other governing public agencies, for the development of the Project on the Project site (collectively, "Entitlements"). The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that by approving this Agreement the City is not granting or agreeing to grant in the future any Entitlements to the Project and, by law, the city reserves the right to exercise its discretion freely, and as a matter separate and distinct from this Agreement, with respect to any such Entitlements to come before the City. The city's failure to grant any Entitlement necessary for 'the Project shall not be considered an act of bad faith or default by the 4 43 Developer or the city under the terms of this Agreement. 2.2. citv's Share of proiect Revenues. 2.2.1 For so long, and at such times, that a recreational water park is operated at the Project Site, Developer agrees to pay to City an amount equal to two percent (2%) of gross cash receipts from Project operations from (a) all paid admissions from ticket sales or entry fees; (b) parking fees; (c) tube or other equipment rentals; (d) arcade games; (e) locker rentals; and (f) any and all other cash receipts which are not subject to sales or use taxes (collectively, "Specified Proiect Revenues"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Specified Project Revenues shall exclude revenues derived from sponsorships. Specified Project Revenues shall be determined in strict accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. City's 2% share of Specified Project Revenues shall be referred to hereunder as "citv's Share of proiect Revenues". 2.2.2 On or before December 31 of each calendar year during which the recreational water park is in operation for any portion thereof, Developer shall pay to the City the amount of city's Share of Project Revenues attributable to that calendar year. Said payment shall be accompanied by a written statement certified by a financial officer of Developer showing in reasonable detail the gross cash receipts derived from Project operations at the Project site for the preceding calendar year and the calculation of the City's Share of Project Revenues based thereon. In addition, Developer shall submit to City, on or before April 30, July 31 and October 31 of each calendar year, a report estimating the portion of the city's Share of Project Revenues that will be payable to City with respect to the preceding calendar quarter. In the event Developer fails to pay to City City's share of Project Revenues by January 15th of the year following the year to which such revenues relate, in addition to the city's share of Project Revenues then due, Developer shall be obligated to pay a penalty equal to five percent (5%) of such amount plus interest on such amount at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum until paid. 2.2.3 Developer shall keep complete and accurate books of account and records from which Developer's gross cash receipts from Project operations can be determined. Developer shall keep for at least three years following the end of each calendar year all pertinent original books and records. 2.2.4 The acceptance by City of payments of the City's Share of Project Revenues shall be without prejudice to City's right to an examination of Developer's books and records maintained with respect to the calculation thereof 1n order to verify the amount of Developer's gross cash receipts from Project operations. At any reasonable time within three years after 5 tff receipt of any statement furnished it by Developer, as provided in section 2.2.2, above, and upon ten (10) days' prior written notice to Developer, ci ty may cause a special audi t to be made of Developer's books and records relating to the calculation of the City's Share of Project Revenues for the period covered by such statement. Such audit shall be conducted during regular business hours and otherwise in such a manner as to avoid disruption of Developer's operations. Except as provided in section 2.2.5, below, the cost of such audit shall be paid by City. 2.2.5 If it shall be determined that there has been an error in the payment of the portion of the city's Share of Project Revenues, then a reconciling payment or credit shall be made. If it is determined that the error exceeds three percent (3%) of the specified Project Revenues for the period covered by the audit, and if such error was to the disadvantage of city, then Developer shall also pay to City the cost of the audit. Each statement of City's Share of Project Revenues submitted by Developer shall become binding upon City three years after delivery thereof to City unless within such three years city shall cause such special audit to be commenced. 2.3 citv Access to the Proiect. 2 . 3 . l. Subj ect to the terms and conditions set forth below, Developer shall provide the City with reasonable access to the Project, Monday through Friday, (a) from 6:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m., during the four weeks preceding Memorial Day and the four weeks following Labor Day, (b) from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. during normal days of Project operation and (c) at such other times as Developer may specify, for purposes of conducting City Parks and Recreation Department sponsored swimming education and therapy programs, and City Police and Fire Department water related training and rescue programs. 2.3.2 City must notify Developer at least ten (10) days in advance of its desire to use the Project for the above- described purposes. Such notice shall include a description of the nature and scope of the city's intended activities and the expected number of participants. Promptly following receipt of such a request, Developer will notify City as to whether the Project is available on the requested date(s). The parties agree to reasonably cooperate to schedule such City access. Such cooperation shall include meeting from time to time to schedule multiple days of access for city Parks and Recreation program. Notwi thstanding the foregoing, ci ty expressly acknowledges and agrees that Developer shall at all times have the paramount right to use and schedule events at the Project. 2.3.3 city shall not be required to pay rent for its use of the Project as provided herein. However, city shall pay, or reimburse Developer on demand, for all out-of pocket costs 6 4~ incurred by Developer, that would otherwise not be incurred, by Developer in connection with normal Project operations in connection with City's use of the Project. Developer agrees to cooperate with City in developing a good faith estimate of out-of- pocket costs likely to be incurred for each city use of the Project. 2.3.4 As a condition precedent to City access to and use of the Project as provided herein, City shall enter into an agreement with Developer which shall implement the terms of this section 2.3. Such agreement shall include provisions for city's indemnification of Developer against all risks and liabilities associated with City's use of the Project, including City's willful misconduct and negligence, and such other provisions as may be reasonably required by Developer and agreed to by city. 3. Indemnities: Insurance. 3.1 Developer agrees to indemnify, protect, defend (or, at city's reasonable request, pay for city's defense) and hold harmless city, its officers, agents, employees and representatives from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising directly or indirectly from (a) City's approval of this Agreement; (b) City's approval of any CEQA documents or Entitlements for the project; (b) Developer's installation of the improvements required for the Project, and (c) Developer's operation and maintenance of the Project. 3.2 Notwi thstanding the foregoing, City shall indemnify, defend (or, at Developer's reasonable request, pay for Developer's defense) and hold Developer harmless from and against, and the Developer shall not be required to indemnify City against, claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses caused by (a) the willful misconduct or grossly negligent acts or omissions of city and/or its agents, employees or contractors in the exercise of City's rights or the performance of City's obligations under this Agreement, or (b) any breach or nonperformance by City of any of its covenants, obligations, representations or warranties under this Agreement, except in each case to the extent covered by insurance. 3.3 To the extent the city has an insurable interest, Developer sha 11 name the City as an additional insured in any comprehensive general liability insurance policy purchased by Developer with respect to its operation of the Project. 4. Bindinq on Successors and Assiqns and the Property. All terms of this Agreement shall be binding'upon, inure to the benef it of, and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and 7 4(P __.'.·_'.'___.."~._._'__m assigns. In consideration of the benefit bestowed upon the Project site by City's performance of its obligations hereunder, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall also be covenants, conditions and restrictions with respect to the Project site. Developer agrees to execute, have notarized and record in a form approved by city, any and all documents reasonably necessary in order to implement the terms of this section. 5. Dispute Resolution. In the event of a dispute or disagreement between City and Developer arising out of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement or otherwise affecting any party's rights or obligations hereunder, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve such dispute. If the dispute or disagreement is not settled within thirty (30) days of written notice by one party to the other of the existence of such a dispute or disagreement, the dispute or disagreement shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration shall take place in Chula vista, California, or such other place in San Diego County as may be mutually agreed upon. The arbitrator shall be bound to the strict interpretation and observation of the terms of this Agreement. The successful party to the arbitrations shall be awarded all costs and attorneys' fees attributable to the arbitration and the controversy to which it relates. The party in whose favor an award is rendered may cause judgment on the award to be entered in any court having jurisdiction. 6. General Provisions. 6.1 Governina Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California. Each of the parties consents to the personal jurisdiction of the State of california. 6.2 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original hereof. 6.3 Third-partv Beneficiaries. The provisions of this Agreement are solely for the benefit of, and are enforceable only by, Developer and city. No provision in this Agreement is intended to or may be deemed to create any rights in favor of third parties. 6.4 Aareement Relationship. Developer and City expressly acknowledge and agree that it is their intent and purpose that this Agreement be construed and interpreted as creating an Agreement arrangement between Developer and City, and that under no circumstances shall this transaction by construed as the creation of a partnership or joint venture, nor the imposition of any tax or assessment by City against or through Developer. S 41 6.5 Further Assurances. Developer and city hereby covenant that each will, at any time and from time to time upon request by the other party hereto execute and deliver such further documents and do such further acts as may be reasonably requested to fully effectuate the purpose of this Agreement. 6.6 Recordina. At the request of either Developer or City, the parties will execute and acknowledge an original of this Agreement, and record the same in the Official Records of San Diego County, California. 6.7 citv Reserves Discretion. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the City reserves the right to exercise its police powers as a City in conformance with applicable law, and. any such exercise shall not constitute a breach of its obligations hereunder. 6.8 Exhibits. Any exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and hereby incorporated herein by this reference. 6.9 Computation of Time Periods. Except as is otherwise provided in section 2.3.1 hereof, all periods of time referred to in this Agreement shall include all Saturdays, Sundays and state or national holidays, unless the period of time specifies business days, provided that if the date or last date to perform any act or give any notice or approval shall fall on a saturday, sunday or state or national holiday, such act or notice may be timely performed or given on the next succeeding day which is not a saturday, Sunday or state or national holiday. 6.10 Entire Aareement. This Agreement, together with all exhibits attached hereto and other agreements expressly referred to herein, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, warranties and statements, oral or written, are superseded. 6.11 Headinas. The captions and paragraph headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and are not intended to define, limit or affect the construction or interpretation of any term or provision hereof. 6.12 Modification. Waiver. No modification, waiver, amendment or discharge of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by both City and Developer. 6.13 Notice. Notice to either party shall be in writing and either personally delivered or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the party to be notified at the address specified herein. Any such notice shall be deemed received on the date of personal delivery to the party (or 9 qe¿; such party's authorized representative) or three (3) business days a~ter deposit in the u.s. Mail, as the case may be. citv Address for Notice: Developer Address for Notice: 276 Fourth Avenue Hice Enterprises Chula Vista, CA 91910 P. O. Box 270826 Attn: community Development San Diego, Ca. 92198 Director and City Attorney Either party may change its address for notice by delivering written notice to the other party as provided herein. 6.14 Time. Time is of the essence of each provision of this Agreement. 6.15 Authoritv: Bindinq Aqreement. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer represents and warrants that he/she is duly authorized to execute and deliver, and has the power to execute and deliver, this Agreement on behalf of Developer, that the transaction contemplated hereby has been duly authorized by all requisite actions on the part of Developer, that no other consents of any party shall be necessary to the consummation hereof, that this Agreement does not violate any existing law or any existing or pending agreement to which Developer is subject, and that all the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid, legally binding obligations of and enforceable against the Developer in accordance with their terms. 6.16 Real Estate Commissions. city and Developer each represent to the other that it has engaged no broker, agent, or finder in connection with this Agreement. city and Developer shall each indemnify the other for any claims for real estate commissions, brokers' fees or finders' fees which are alleged to be due as a result of the acts of the indemnifying party. [NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE] , 104cr ."~. __._m__. ,_··m___._____ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY: CITY OF CHULA VISTA Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form by city Attorney DEVELOPER: HICE ENTERPRISES, INC. Ge'orge Hice, President N:\8hared\attorney\waterpark.dda , 11 I//{) ..__..~_....._-"._.._-_.- EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION [To be inserted in final form of agreement] A-l ~! '-----'---'-..'.--."---- EXHIBIT B PROJECT DESCRIPTION [To be inserted in final form of agreement] , B-1 5J-- ". ~...-"- ATTACHMENT 12 ---\ '-coMtil"iíiÿ,\t\ltL OFMft¡ 1 , "!)[PI,RWFNl Jl.' 5_ \ -' THE CITY OF ---------..- -'- .-.-.-.-.,.- SAN DIEGO July 2, 1996 JUAN VARGAS COUNCILMEMBER EIGHTH DISTRICT Chris Salomone, Director Community Development Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Salomone: Re: Chula Vista Water Park I would like to take this opportunity to thank your staff, particularly Mr. Fred Kassman, for the recent updates provided to the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Policy Committee and its Citizen Advisory Committee (CAe) regarding the proposed Chula Vista Water Park. On behalf of the members of both the Policy Committee and the CAC, I request that as the City of Chula Vista considers this proposal, that it take into consideration our planning efforts for the Otay Valley Regional Park to ensure that the goals of the park are protected to the maximum extent possible. Although the proposed commercial recreation use is compatible with the goals of the OVRP and consistent with the draft OVRP Concept Plan, we also request that consideration be given to allowing a percentage of the usage of active recreation, such as softball and volleyball, be available to the general public without charge. We also recommend that a portion of the project site be provided as a buffer area to the river and include a trail corridor which would serve as a link between the future park trails proposed for both the east and west sides of the project site. The Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee urges you to plan and design the Chula Vista Water Park consistent with the park goals. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of our recommendations. I=- u~ AN VARGAS Councilmember Eighth District ~ -k, ,"- cc: John Goss, ChuJa Vista City Manager -. -12 Dr. George Hanson, Chairperson, OVRP Citizen Advisory Committee 53 , ¥ ~ © bcc: OVRP Joint Staff DIVERSITY City Administration Building . 202 C Street . San Diego, California 92101 . (619) 236-6688 BRINGS US ALL TOGETHER @Prinl<!d<mm:ycl.dpa"", -~ ____~____.__,__.,..______r_-_~__ .........'--...:..:J-;;O-...... .~~ ~_._- ... . ------ ---- ~ þ-aJA-P-of, ~\ø 111 'I Fuller Ford 560 AUTO PARK DRIVE . CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 . '1"9\ 656-2500 1-&00·e:l6-:l93' œuuu -.. r 3uly 23, 1996 ! The Honorable Shirley Horton I ~ 2;¡Ioq" 1.,0 C . .,n Ma.yor i ¡ CIty of Chula Vista COL!~~[:IL OFF iCES ¡ 276 Fourth Avenue CI!J~I, VIS)I, CA I . Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mayor Horton, As President of the Chula Vista Auto Park representing Fuller Ford, Fuller Honda, Fuller Kla, Fuller Auto Lease and Mike Farguson Chevrolet-Geo I want you and the City Council to know that we strongly support the proposed water park in the Otay Valley location. We have met wi th the developer and are very Impressed with all aspects of this project. I will not try to enumerate all the many benefits that th it¡ project presents to the Ci ty and to thls area in part! cul ar. I am sure that this has already been adequately addressed_ Suffice it to say that it is a unique and rare opportunity to acquire a civic asset such as this wi th virtually no nega t i ve impacts and almost universal support. I strongly urge a ·yes" vote to approve this project. Sinoerely , a fYltÙ,k /!Jíul63~ jb~ PfoulJ /) .iJ~ "'~ Southwestern College ~------ -------" - Governing Board : ...---.-. ~.-'-- "..--- Augie Sareno G Gordon Browning. D.M.D 22·"" Jerry J. Griffith 1\R ,'0' ~ Maria Neves-Perman c Judy Schulenberg L=". ..... Joseph M. Conte . . '" -~-_...-_. Superintendent ¡President July 18, 1996 Mayor Shirley Horton and City Council Members Chula Vista City Council 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mayor and Council Members: This letter is in support of the proposed White Water Waterpark planned for the Otay Valley area. Southwestern College has a student population of approximately 17,000. These students are trained in more than 60 business, career and technical field areas and the majority of these students seek employment to cover tuition, books and living costs among other needs. With the development of the Waterpark, the economic impact for the City ofChula Vista and surrounding areas will have a positive effect with the revenue generated, but also, and most important to us in education, will be the employment picture for our students. Our goal at Southwestern is to bridge education with community employers who are looking for enthusiastic, professional, skilled students to fill the potential employment opportunities. This infusion benefits everyone and allows students to give back to the community who have supported their educational efforts. Bitterlin-Brice Development have met with our Career Placement office to discuss and develop a partnership for job recruitment, which initially, would be for seasonal positions. However, with the wide variety of entertainrnent projected, additional job opportunities will unfold. With this partnership and the mutual benefits derived for all, we wish to reaffirm. our support for the posposed White wa~. Si ~tÅ . Jos ph M. Conte, Su erintendentlPresident 900 Otay Lakes Road. Chula VIsta. CA 91910. (619) 421-6700 FAX (619) 4B2-6323 . Southwestem Community College District - -,.~-- ~ ~~of, ì Recording Requested by and when recorded return to: city Clerk city of Cbula vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula vista, Ca. 91910 Documentary Transfer Tax $~ No transfer of property interest AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF WHITEWATER WATER PARK BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HICE ENTERPRISES, INC. Effective Date: July 23, 1996 -_._-----~..__._---_._.- AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF WHITEWATER WATER PARK This AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF WHITEWATER WATER PARK ("Agreement") is entered into effective as of July 23, 1996 ("Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation ("city") , and HICE ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation ("Developer") with reference to the following facts: RECITALS A. On May 6, 1996 Developer entered into an agreement with Otay Rio Business Park II, and others for the purchase of certain real property commonly known as otay Rio Business Park Phase II, comprised of approximately 60 usable acres, located west of Castle pines Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, state of California, as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto ("Propertv") . B. On or about May 16, 1996 Developer submitted to the city an application requesting design review/precise plan approval, and a conditional use permit for its proposed development and operation of a recreational water park ("Proiect") on a portion of the Property. The Project is more particularly described in the narrative and conceptual plans and specifications attached hereto as Exhibit B. C. The portion of the Property upon which the proj ect is proposed to be developed ("proiect site") is comprised of approximately 32.4 unimproved acres, as more particularly described on Exhibit C attached hereto. Developer is currently processing with the City a Parcel Map for the Project which, among other things, upon its approval will accomplish the legal parcelization of the Project site. O. In order to facilitate the development of the Project and to reduce the cost of the Project to the Developer, Developer has requested certain assistance from the City, as more particularly set forth herein, which goes above and beyond what is customary for the city to provide in its review and processing of the Project. E. city has found and determined that City's provision of such assistance, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, is in the best interests of the taxpayers and residents of the City, will promote the public health, safety and welfare of such taxpayers and residents, and is in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. --- -------_.~.__.~~..__. F. ci ty and Developer do not intend that this Agreement shall constitute a Development Agreement pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Article 2.5 of the California Government Code. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, city and Developer hereby agree as follows: 1. citv's primarv Obliaations. 1.1 Facilitate Reductions in Third Partv Impact Fees. City shall participate in Developer's negotiations with all third party governmental agencies (collectively, "Third Partv Aaencies") possessing authority to impose development impact fees against the Project, and to thereby work diligently to encourage the reduction of such fees (collectively, "Third Partv Fees"). Third Party Agencies shall include, without limitation, the city of San Diego, the Chula vista Elementary School District, the Sweetwater Union High School District, and the otay Water District. Developer acknowledges and agrees that city has demonstrated proficiency in obtaining reasonable reductions in Third Party Fees for other City projects and that, therefore, city's agreement to perform such services on behalf of Developer is of significant value to Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall City be obligated to contribute city funds or to offset City fees, either on behalf of the applicable Third Party Agency or the Developer, in the performance of its obligations under this Section. 1.2. Construction of Roadwav Improvements. city shall, at its sole expense, construct improvements to Otay Valley Road to provide for the following: 1.2.1 Three westbound travel lanes and two eastbound travel lanes separated by a raised center median from the intersection of Nirvana Avenue to the point where the road curves to the south. At that point the improvements shall provide for four travel lanes, two northbound and two southbound. 1.2.2 Improvements to the bridge over the Otay River to an ultimate width of 52 feet. The bridge and the approaches to the bridge shall be striped to accommodate one permanent travel lane in each direction, with a painted center median that would provide sufficient width to accommodate two additional lanes that can be used in a reversible operation. City shall cause such construction to be completed by the date falling fifteen days after the date on which the Project improvements being constructed by Developer have been completed 2 .--...--,..-----.---.-.-.... such that a certificate of occupancy would be issuable but for failure to complete such off-site road improvements. 1.2.3 The deadline for city's completion of the work described above shall be extended for such additional periods of time as city's performance is prevented or delayed due to strikes, lockouts, unavailability of materials, acts of governmental agencies or delays in the granting of governmental permits (other than acts or delays of city), acts of God, riots, civil insurrection, abnormal force of elements or any other similar event which is beyond the control of City or actual delays caused by the installation of Developer's improvements at or around the Project Site; provided, however, that in no event shall any extension be deemed to have occurred unless city shall have given notice to Developer, within ten (10) days after the occurrence of the event, setting forth the facts giving rise to such extension. City shall give prompt written notice to Developer of the cessation of the event or condition giving rise to such delay. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "abnormal force of elements" shall include, without limitation, greater than fifteen (15) days per calendar year (pro-rated for portions of a calendar year) of rain delay. For purposes of this Agreement, unavailability of funds or other fiscal restraints encountered by City shall not constitute an ev.ent or condition that extends the deadline for City's completion of the work described above. 1.3 Reduction of and Cap on certain citv Fees. 1. 3.1 City staff agrees to calculate, and submit to city Council for its consideration, a set of proposed downward adjustments in the customary amounts for the following city fees: (a) the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee; (b) the Sewer Capacity Fee; and (c) the Traffic Signal Fee (collectively, "~ Impact Fees"). Such proposed downward adjustments in city Impact Fees for the Project shall be calculated in order to reasonably account for the unique seasonal nature of the Project, and other relevant unique elements thereof. 1. 3.2 city staff currently estimates that the staff recommended City Impact Fees, plus all other city processing and permit fees for the Project, shall not exceed $500,000 ("Estimated Fee Amount"). In the event that the city Council approves City Impact Fees for the Project which, in addition to other City processing and permit fees, exceed the Estimated Fee Amount, the ci ty' s Share of proj ect Revenues (as def ined in Section 2.2. 1 hereof, below) that are payable to the City with respect to Project operations shall be reduced, but not below $0, by the amount of such excess. 1.3.3 Developer shall pay all required City fees at the time they are customarily due in accordance with existing City policies. Notwithstanding the foregoing (a) if it is subsequently 3 ---- -.--..--.... determined, based on the first fully operational year of metered flows, that the sewer capacity fees attributable to the Project exceed the amount previously paid, then Developer shall pay to the City, within 60 days of such determination, the additional amount owed, plus interest from the date the original amount was paid at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum; (b) if it is subsequently determined, based on metered flows, that the sewer capacity fees attributable to the Project are less than the amount previously paid, then City's Share of Project Revenues (as defined in section 2.2.1 hereof, below) generated after such determination shall be reduced, but not below $0, by an amount equal to the amount of such overpayment, plus interest, from the date the original amount was paid to the date of such determination, accruing at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. 1.4. Removal of Assessment Lien from Portions of the Propertv. Subject to the requirements of California Streets and Highways Code section 8740 et. seq. , and consistent with the Final Engineer's Report for Assessment District 90-2 (otay Valley Road Widening) ("Assessment District"), City agrees to cooperate with Developer in order to effectuate, concurrent with and conditioned upon Developer's parcelization of the Property, a reapportionment of the lien of the Assessment District away from non-developable, non-benefitted portions of the Property, and upon the Project site and other developable, benefitted portions of the Property. 2. Developer's primarv Obliqations. 2.1. Development of the Proiect. Developer shall use its best efforts to acquire the Property and develop the Project on the Project site. Except is specifically provided hereunder, all costs of such development shall be borne exclusively by the Developer. The Project shall be developed (a) in substantial conformance with the Project description, plans and specifications attached hereto as Exhibit B; (b) in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, policies and permits; and (c) in an expeditious manner. Developer's ','best efforts" hereunder shall include, without limitation, the obligation to initiate and process to final consideration any and all governmental approvals that may be required by the city, and/or any and all other governing public agencies, for the development of the project on the Project site (collectively, "Entitlements"). The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that by approving this Agreement the City is not granting or agreeing to grant in the future any Entitlements to the Project and, by law, the City reserves the right to exercise its discretion freely, and as a matter separate and distinct from this Agreement, with respect to any such Entitlements to come before the City. The City's failure to grant any Entitlement necessary for the Project shall not be considered an act of bad faith or default by the 4 .- _._-_..----~--_._._-~ Developer or the City under the terms of this Agreement. 2.2. citv's Share of Proiect Revenues. 2.2.1 For so long, and at such times, that a recreational water park is operated at the project Site, Developer agrees to pay to City an amount equal to two percent (2%) of gross cash receipts from Project operations from (a) all paid admissions from ticket sales or entry fees; (b) parking fees; (c) tube or other equipment rentals; (d) arcade games; (e) locker rentals; and (f) any and all other cash receipts which are not subject to sales or use taxes (collectively, "Specified proiect Revenues") . Notwithstanding the foregoing, Specified Project Revenues shall exclude revenues derived from sponsorships. Specified Project Revenues shall be determined in strict accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. City's 2% share of Specified Project Revenues shall be referred to hereunder as "Citv's Share of proiect Revenues". 2.2.2 On or before December 31 of each calendar year during which the recreational water park is in operation for any portion thereof, Developer shall pay to the City the amount of City's Share of Project Revenues attributable to that calendar year. Said payment shall be accompanied by a written statement certified by a financial officer of Developer showing in reasonable detail the gross cash receipts derived from Project operations at the Project site for the preceding calendar year and the calculation of the city's Share of Project Revenues based thereon. In addition, Developer shall submit to City, on or before April 30, July 31 and October 31 of each calendar year, a report estimating the portion of the City's Share of Project Revenues that will be payable to city with respect to the preceding calendar quarter. In the event Developer fails to pay to City city's share of Project Revenues by January 15th of the year following the year to which such revenues relate, in addition to the City's share of Project Revenues then due, Developer shall be obligated to pay a penalty equal to five percent (5%) of such amount plus interest on such amount at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum until paid. 2.2.3 Developer shall keep complete and accurate books of account and records from which Developer's gross cash receipts from Project operations can be determined. Developer shall keep for at least three years following the end of each calendar year all pertinent original books and records. 2.2.4 The acceptance by city of payments of the city's Share of Project Revenues shall be without prejudice to City's right to an examination of Developer's books and records maintained with respect to the calculation thereof in order to verify the amount of Developer's gross cash receipts from project operations. At any reasonable time within three years after 5 -- -----.---.-....-.. . .._......._--~ receipt of any statement furnished it by Developer, as provided in section 2.2.2, above, and upon ten (10) days' prior written notice to Developer, ci ty may cause a special audit to be made of Developer's books and records relating to the calculation of the city's Share of Project Revenues for the period covered by such statement. Such audit shall be conducted during regular business hours and otherwise in such a manner as to avoid disruption of Developer's operations. Except as provided in section 2.2.5, below, the cost of such audit shall be paid by city. 2.2.5 If it shall be determined that there has been an error in the payment of the portion of the City's Share of Project Revenues, then a reconciling payment or credit shall be made. If it is determined that the error exceeds three percent (3%) of the Specified Project Revenues for the period covered by the audit, and if such error was to the disadvantage of City, then Developer shall also pay to City the cost of the audit. Each statement of City's Share of Project Revenues submitted by Developer shall become binding upon City three years after delivery thereof to City unless within such three years City shall cause such special audit to be commenced. 2.3 citv Access to the Proiect. 2.3.1. Subj ect to the terms and conditions set forth below, Developer shall provide the city with reasonable access to the Project, Monday through Friday, (a) from 6:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m., during the four weeks preceding Memorial Day and the four weeks following Labor Day, so long as the Project is not otherwise open for business, (b) from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. during normal days of Project operation and (c) at such other times as Developer may specify, for purposes of conducting City Parks and Recreation Department sponsored swimming education and therapy programs, and city Police and Fire Department water related training and rescue programs. 2.3.2 City must notify Developer at least ten (10) days in advance of its desire to use the Project for the above- described purposes. Such notice shall include a description of the nature and scope of the City's intended activities and the expected number of participants. Promptly following receipt of such a request, Developer will notify City as to whether the Project is available on the requested date(s). The parties agree to reasonably cooperate to schedule such City access. Such cQoperation shall include meeting from time to time to schedule multiple days of access for city Parks and Recreation programs. Notwi thstanding the foregoing, ci ty expressly acknowledges and agrees that Developer shall at all times have the paramount right to use and schedule events at the Project. 2.3.3 City shall not be required to pay rent for its use of the Project as provided herein. However, city shall 6 pay, or reimburse Developer on demand, for all out-of pocket costs incurred by Developer, that would otherwise not be incurred, by Developer in connection with normal Project operations in connection with City's use of the Project. Developer agrees to cooperate with City in developing a good faith estimate of out-of- pocket costs likely to be incurred for each City use of the Project. 2.3.4 As a condition precedent to City access to and use of the Project as provided herein, City shall enter into an agreement with Developer which shall implement the terms of this section 2.3. Such agreement shall include provisions for City's indemnification of Developer against all risks and liabilities associated with City's use of the Project, including City's willful misconduct and negligence, and such other provisions as may be reasonably required by Developer and agreed to by City. 3. Indemnities; Insurance. 3.1 Developer agrees to indemnify, protect, defend (or, at City's reasonable request, pay for City's defense) and hold harmless City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising directly or indirectly from (a) city's approval of this Agreement; (b) City's approval of any CEQA documeñts or Entitlements for the Project; (b) Developer's installation of the improvements required for the Project, and (c) Developer's operation and maintenance of the proj ect. 3.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall indemnify, defend (or, at Developer's reasonable request, pay for Developer's defense) and hold Developer harmless from and against, and the Developer shall not be required to indemnify City against, claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses caused by (a) the willful misconduct or grossly negligent acts or omissions of City and/or its agents, employees or contractors in the exercise of City's rights or the performance of City's obligations under this Agreement, or (b) any breach or nonperformance by city of any of its covenants, obligations, representations or warranties under this Agreement, except in each case to the extent covered by insurance. 3.3 To the extent the City has an insurable interest, Developer shall name the City as an additional insured in any comprehensive general liability insurance policy purchased by Developer with respect to its operation of the project. 4. Bindinq on Successors and Assiqns and the Propertv. All terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by the parties hereto and 7 --_._-~._._.._.._--,.---_..- their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. In consideration of the benefit bestowed upon the Project site by City's performance of its obligations hereunder, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall also be covenants, conditions and restrictions with respect to the Project site. Developer agrees to execute, have notarized and record in a form approved by City, any and all documents reasonably necessary in order to implement the terms of this section. 5. Dispute Resolution. In the event of a dispute or disagreement between City and Developer arising out of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement or otherwise affecting any party's rights or obligations hereunder, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve such dispute. If the dispute or disagreement is not settled within thirty (30) days of written notice by one party to the other of the existence of such a dispute or disagreement, the dispute or disagreement shall be submitted to binding arbitration in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration shall take place in Chula Vista, California, or such other place in San Diego County as may be mutually agreed upon. The arbitrator shall be bound to the strict interpretation and observation of the terms of this Agreement. The successful party to the arbitrations shall be awarded all costs and attorneys' fees attributable to the arbitration and the controversy to which it relates. The party in whose favor an award is rendered may cause judgment on the award to be entered in any court having jurisdiction. 6. General Provisions. 6.1 Governinq Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Each of the parties consents to the personal jurisdiction of the State of California. 6.2 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original hereof. 6.3 Third-partv Beneficiaries. The provisions of this Agreement are solely for the benefit of, and are enforceable only by, Developer and city. No provision in this Agreement is intended to or may be deemed to create any rights in favor of third parties. 6.4 Aqreement Relationship. Developer and City expressly acknowledge and agree that it is their intent and purpose that this Agreement be construed and interpreted as creating an Agreement arrangement between Developer and City, and that under no circumstances shall this transaction by construed as the creation of a partnership or joint venture, nor the imposition of any tax or assessment by city against or through Developer. S 6.5 Further Assurances. Developer and city hereby covenant that each will, at any time and from time to time upon request by the other party hereto execute and deliver such further documents and do such further acts as may be reasonably requested to fully effectuate the purpose of this Agreement. 6.6 Recordinq. At the request of either Developer or City, the parties will execute and acknowledge an original of this Agreement, and record the same in the Official Records of San Diego county, California. 6.7 ci tv Reserves Discretion. Notwi thstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the city reserves the right to exercise its police powers as a city in conformance with applicable law, and any such exercise shall not constitute a breach of its obligations hereunder. 6.8 Exhibits. Any exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and hereby incorporated herein by this reference. 6.9 Computation of Time Periods. Except as is otherwise provided in section 2.3.1 hereof, all periods of time referred to in this Agreement shall include all Saturdays, Sundays and state or national holidays, unless the period of time specifies business days, provided that if the date or last date to perform any act or give any notice or approval shall fall on a Saturday, Sunday or state or national holiday, such act or notice may be timely performed or given on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or state or national holiday. 6.10 Entire Aqreement. This Agreement, together with all exhibits attached hereto and other agreements expressly referred to herein, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, warranties and statements, oral or written, are superseded. 6.11 Headinqs. The captions and paragraph headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and are not intended to define, limit or affect the construction or interpretation of any term or provision hereof. 6.12 Modification. Waiver. No modification, waiver, amendment or discharge of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by both city and Developer. 6.13 Notice. Notice to either party shall be in writing and either personally delivered or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the party to be notified at the address specified herein. Any such notice shall be deemed received on the date of personal delivery to the party (or 9 such party's authorized representative) or three (3) business days after deposit in the u.s. Mail, as the case may be. citv Address for Notice: Developer Address for Notice: 276 Fourth Avenue Hice Enterprises Cliula Vista, CA 91910 P. o. Box 270826 Attn: Community Development San Diego, Ca. 92198 Director and City Attorney Either party may change its address for notice by delivering written notice to the other party as provided herein. 6.14 Time. Time is of the essence of each provision of this Agreement. 6.15 Authoritv: Bindinq Aqreement. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer represents and warrants that he/she is duly authorized to execute and deliver, and has the power to execute and deliver, this Agreement on behalf of Developer, that the transaction contemplated hereby has been duly authorized by all requisite actions on the part of Developer, that no other consents of any party shall be necessary to the consummation hereof, that this Agreement does not violate any existing law or any existing or pending agreement to which Developer is subject, and that all the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid, legally binding obligations of and enforceable against the Developer in accordance with their terms. 6.16 Real Estate commissions. City and Developer each represent to the other that it has engaged no broker, agent, or finder in connection with this Agreement. City and Developer shall each indemnify the other for any claims for real estate commissions, brokers' fees or finders' fees which are alleged to be due as a result of the acts of the indemnifying party. (NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE] 10 WHITE WATER CANYctI IN(; PAGE 63 66/69/89 62:18 23PPP 1 , , 1:. 1I:I'l1I'" 1IHB111IOJ', ~. I*t't1.. have enUred into tbie Agreeunt _ of tha ~y and. year ~1n1: abcJn written. cr1'Y . ern 01" ~ \l%8TA iibidey Boftoft, Kayar , ..tt..~ I city·CJ.e;rk AP¡Iravad _ 1:0 fœa Þr city Attorney ~Psa: m:eB 1DIT1DIU8I8, :DfC.. a Cal1fœ'ftia GOZ'porat1on iJ'~'&' /. rge B . ~1 nt . / .IJ~.~~.'" 11 . TO'TR.. P. B2 -- ~_.._~.,-_.._.,. ~-'- 116/ð9/B9 112:1B 23PPP "-tIITE WATER CAN\'CI'I INC PAGE ð2 ----- CAWORNIA &u..PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT =~ ~":f~=:X~ . "" 1-.A3 -1ft- - ......... ~.&I. ff)9'41/"" ÁJ"+-"'ò'1l. Ie.. - ~ lit. _...nIo.....(o.Q.,-I>oo,"""~ , appeanod ~e I!. e . personally ........._1 o pereonaIIy ~ to me -OR -~ to me on hi ba8I8 ~ WI''''fsdory I!IIk\enCe to be the pereoo(s) whose name(&) iIIare subsa1bed to Iha within Inllnlment end ø.cknowIedged to me that h8/BtI8Ithey eX8C' - the same in hlalherllhelr aulhorlzed œpacIty(IeI). and that by hlshlerlthelr elgne.tu~s) on the Instrument the person(s). or the entity upon behalf of which the person(.) adad. REBECCA MC MILlEN executed the instrument. i' COmmllllon .1 020564~- WITNESS my hand and official seal. ....~ r.Þllc - C.llfornl~ ~.~~ > SiIn 01_ County t IIJCO:-""~"s.r_2S·I.~ 1 -..-- OPTIONAL T/rou¡;I'" 10". ..11M /»loW It IIOt ~ by...... 'lIIIy ~ __ /D""-' re/ytIØ on !tie doc:unenIl/IIJ (1OIIfc ptP(fI(II tauIfuIønI___--Oft1ls totm ,,""""'r_t Description of Attached Document . 11IIe or Type Œ Document ~ ~ ent-Btt--C Number of Pages: .¡. :: Document Datil: 7'......;t.... Signer(s) OtherThan Named Above: Capaølty(lea) Claimed by 8Igne1(8) Slgner's NIIme: 0f-"'5P-. Ht '('~e SVlur'8 Name: t:.J Individual olndIvtduaJ ~~ ~"4C'. ",.1fJlI-f:- o corporate OIIiœr 11tIø(s): o Partner - 0 United 0 General o Par1ner - 0 Umlted 0 a.neraI o Attomey-In-Fact o AIIomey.4n-Fact o Trullee o Trustee o GuarcI8n or ConIervator o GuarcIi8n or Con8erYator ' IT!\lf'I'IJ'jj - I, t' o 0IhIIr: Top dlhml .... o Other. Tcp d tunÞ "- SIgner Is RI;r :I4¡ s mUng: Signer i. Repruanting: .¡¡:, p~ - Ç"'¡'Þ/fr, ~< 74e.. "/ , 0..............,.........._ ...............0... 7114· ø.Jaga r.w. CIA..__n.. -....- McIIIIIr.QI ......_1~ -- ---------_._--,--_._._~_... --- EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ~;;: .. -- . -. ED ~~ · t.I:; ~ · .2.Ç?.2.Z.&~~ · .+'''·2s'.".7''C · . · / 3 .:. '33 i ~ In :Ii ~ :Ii ~® ~ i ~ !j¡ - ~ d ® ~ .;: ....... . ~I ".... .. ", " .. . "III .. . @ '@ ';- . . ~ I 0 It 0' ", - - -;341: ........ ~ .~ #~ l~ . EID . '"g) ~ .. \,.t . :I: '" . \ WI-- .... ~ ., .... "";',.., ~ . .~ p 0 8 !Þ )i ~. , -< '" , .. - » ~ .. , õ ~~ 4U. :: ~ ~ED '. ...... ¡: » .'", .0 a~ r'" ;J .,. .0 . ". )4~1 ':J3rln 0"1'\ .. ("I ","'N ",00 .~ l"~@ ~"" '" .. i~ -f . , a> ~ . . ~ ~ . . III ~ ~ , I .. ' . .¡'" ,. 21 - ~ ~ ~ ~ I III " N ED æJ2\). ~~ " ..... .. ~ 0 % , ,-10' lot!!:' ;; . \-..J , .. "" z'~ -0 '; 11&... I a q ~~ . ~ -:.:,¡ "'::(,¡ IV .,. '" C5 ~ 1~1~llg ~ -¡ -è.r."'c-- + 1'-1 ~ o ¡ 0 ... .. SA AlL THATPOifl1CN IF THE sOOrHrAST QUARTtR óFFRACTlONAL SECTION "THE. m 1OØNSfHþ':1ifSf)(J7H, RANGt film; ACCORDING 10 THE omClAL . Be1 .., '.' ..P1.AT-lHE8E.;(}f¡i;1NCLI/Þ/NG 'POR1J!JI{S a: PARCELS 1, 2. AND J OF PNiCEI. Sil,/ ..... . . /lAP 13#AcGol?DING.m IiAP·F1I:lJJ AUr;uST ~. fØlJ4.1N TH£OFFlŒ OF I.E . . . THE f#.INJtikf~·IN '/HE CITY or CHU/.A ~STA. CO/lNTY or sAN ":' '. ~ IJIEGq;;$T~~¿r!£.'tAJjf()RNJA, liEfNeMORE PMTlCULARL Y D£SCRIIJEI) AS ~ ..' .' . FOLL'(1WS::¡ti~G.'~T THE NrJRrtlltfsT OORNER ·iFCH/)1.). WSTA 7T?ACT ¡. ": ~. ." . No.. B7:.:s,~'aj¡ 'f;¡R1{J'BtJSlN£SS PARK UN/TNO; f, ACCORDING 10 UAP TH£RE:OF N();"'~I58.~ON FIlE IN THE: OfFICE or 1H.E C(){JNTY RECORDER fT)I.J1. ..' . OF SANDlfGtit.mxJN1YF THENCE ALONG THE IlESftY BOUNDARY OF SAID .~ · ~. . NAP· SouTH.'12" ørsr '262.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE: ARC ·orA AND ~..: '. '. t.PJ8;OORXJ.f:,-'JrAÌ)IUSCIJRVUCNCA'VE: SOOTHfRLY, A RADIAL FRf)M.SAID E.Wi ; ". . .' POlf{!./J£AR$''SfXJTH 05<4g'22" Ð71 THENCE ALONG THE ARC iF SA1/) . · . CURVÐøtsTÇ/fÇf40. 71 .FEET 71-IRQtJ.GH. A CENTRAL ANfH or O1W:XZ¡ W . .. . '. 7HENtEtE). ViNæ:sAIU CtJRVEIN A RADIAL DlREC1tON SOUTH Ð4'2J'49" ¥tiT ?2;OMŒtTrJ :THE BEGtNNlNGOF" NON- TANŒNT 2O.00F'OÒT . 1J!jj//Æ ClJit'/f'/@NCÀ'V£ SOOlHHFSTERLY, A RADIAL /'ROM SAID B£GJNNING 'Si;ARs-.-zr.49" 1If'S7; ·7H£N.CE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID (1JR'IE '. ..: .. . ~"'" .:.3t;14fEET THROIJGH A CENTRAL AN(;f,£ a: 8912-'41; '1Nlfrê£. t/iN.Gtl:lr.~TrlSAlD GVR'VE: sOUtH OJ'J6'JtJ" WEST91.7.84 FEET - · Pro ·tNEBBi!NflINe. OF A TANGENT 20.00 ,!)Or RADIUS·CIJR'VE: IXWCAI£' - ~7HWtSTER/;'Y¡. ~CE ALONG 71iEARC OF SAID:CtJR'tf: SOOTHHf:S1ERLY . 3ð.-58. .F£ET:' 71/ROUCH A ŒNTRALANGI.£ OF '87'36'25; '71IENCE TANGENT - 7r) :SAIPCi/R~~WOR7H:,8B'47'o5" /lEST 4.80 FEtT;. THENCE SOOTH - - ':011#-56· jfsTii72.00 FEET 10 71iE BEGINNING OF' A f,J64.00· FOOT . RADIUS.. CfJRVE.:ëðNëAVE: $OUTH£RLY, A RADIAL FRail SAID B£QNNIN() , DI - . . . 1!£AR$..$d!j'T':k d1'12':S5" S1J' TII£NŒ ALONG TIlt ARC or SAlDClJRIÆ 0, , . ANDJJlJUNfiAR'ffAST£RLY 185.J2.FEET THROUGH A CENTRAl. ANGLEOF' 07'47/(14": .7HENt:E: TANGfJIT 70 SAID CURIÆ NORTH 8IW'OI" £A!;T - '.' . - -.-- --...- ..-..... -......... --, . 5ÔUt·FFEr; THENŒ SOJJ1H 08'ð9'69" HfS1 322.81 FEET 10 THE: - _ . BEGINNING· OF  512.50 rooT HADlUS CUR'Æ CONCAVE: SOII1HERt.Y, A .' 'RÅlJI~SA1/) BEt1N/fING 8£ARS SOUTH 11'20'28" HfSP, THENŒ . ALONO THEAAC.O; sAJO {:/.IH}f:!ASTERLY 190.82FE£T THROUGH A -s- '. . ŒNTRAJ... ANGtE:OF 21'19'58": THENCE NON~TANG£NT 70 SAID CURVE: . .' SOIJTH 51 '19'35" EAST 86.98 FEET; THENC£ SOU71l 67'50'29" IffsT --.. .. . 2B!i.1UFE£T; 1HENŒ SOUTH OO'17'OJ"Ø£ST 746.72 FEET 10 A eaNT .' . OfIN1.E1ŒcTlCN I+1TH'THE SOllTHERt. r UNf OF SAIO FRACTTONAL . - ·SEC71aI20: '. Tff£NCE ALONe THF SOlJ71IfRL Y UN!. iF SAID SECTION NOR11i . . .88'(}(}'58·wtsT'2,lJ4.7t FEET ro' TH£ Sf)()THWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION¡ THENCE ALONG 711£ Eft y UN! OF SAID SECTION NrJRTH 0- 00'28'48" HrSr'JJ6.J2 FE£T; THENCE COlmNUlNG ALONG SA1/) f1 WESTERLYUN£.NOR11i 00"24'oe" EAST 1,JJ5.82 F'E£r.1JOR[ OR LESS .Tr)·7HVIfST QtJARTEH CORNER OF'SA1/) FRACTlONALSf:C1lON 2a'THENCE 'WWlGSAID HE:.m:RLY UN! AND ALONG 71If CENTER OF SAID fRAcTIONAL SECTION' 20 NORTH B6'52'5.J" EAST 1,725.00 F'EET MORt .. . OR l$SS TO THE POfNT OF B£GINNING. .'. ~AS~T t$OTES ø AN EMìElrfENT FrJR'~TOR!tI DIWN AND OPEN S"AŒ AND 1NQD9ITAJ. Piøo.s£s . ..-' 7OŒTH£R WITH Aâ:E3t TED 7D TH£ aTY or SAN DI8:O, PER IIAP NO. 12454 . . . .RECOHDED·5EP7EM/JER ~ 1989. . .' (ITEM 14 .,.1t62-A) . t'./.9.T ® AN EASEl.fENT FOR SErÆR'OR ~$ TOGt'IHFR .TN TH£ RIf1/T (F /NßRES$ AND ErÆ$S AND INCID9ITAL P/JRPOSES GRANTF:D '/r) TNt arr (F SAN DItGO.' R£CORoro , Jl r 16. tll86 ^ .. EXHIBIT B PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is an aquatic recreational park with water rides and accessory uses, including concession stands and administrative buildings. A Reduced Plot Plan and Use Area Detail provide graphic representations of the project details. The water park will occupy 32.4 acres of the Otay Rio Business Park, and will consist of approximately 15,500 sq. ft. of buildings and structures, II water ride attractions, approximately 1,300 parking spaces, access drive, and fire access lanes. Water rides will include a wave pool, raft ride, body flumes, speed slides, a "lazy river" ride, childrens' activity pool, and adult activity pool. Facilities to be provided at the water park include the entry way, water rides, a softball field, volleyball courts, concessions, restaurant service, equipment rental, gift shop, arcade game room, first aid station, administrative offices, changing rooms, restrooms, shade structures/picnic areas, mechanical equipment buildings, and trash enclosures. The overall project design calls for a central entry area in the west central portion of the site and a manufactured earthen berm, varying in height from 30 to 45 feet and approximately 720 feet i length, which will curve from the north to the southeast i the west central portion of the site. The berm accommodates the starting points and flume structures for several of the park's water rides. The berm will be naturalized by being contoured and landscaped. A parking area is proposed along the eastern boundary of the property. Grading for the project will be in the amount of 71,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill. In the Reduced Plot Plan, the water park entry is shown at the end of Otay Rio Road on the left. The parking area occupies the eastern portion of the site. Several decorative islands in the parking area lead to the central entrance building, shown as a modified "U" in black. West of the entrance, a circular walk leads to water park rides and park amenities. The Use Area Detail map highlight the central use area. The central berm, accommodating ride platforms and structures, is shown in grey. On the attached use, park features are numbered and keyed to the attached Legend. The project proposes to use 11.24 million gallons of water per year. Per capita water usage is estimated at an average of 20 gallons per patron, or 6.09 million gallons for the 304,900 park patrons expected annually. Ride filling will use 0.98 million gallons, and irrigation will consume 4.16 million gallons. Waste water is estimated at 5 gallons per patron per day, for a daily average flow of 18,200 gallons. Peak flow, expected on major holidays during the operating season, will be 27,000 gallons. Low flow water conservation devices will be used throughout the park. The water park will be a seasonal summer use, operating daily from Memorial Day through Labor Day, plus four weekends prior to Memorial Day and four weekend subsequent to Labor Day. Hours of operation will be from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., except on days when concerts are planned at the adjacent approved amphitheater, when the park hours will be reduced to accommodate the smooth flow of traffic. The water park will employ 15 people full-time, year around, with 225 additional individuals added to the staff during the operating season. A 24-hour security force will be maintained on the grounds 365 days a year. The project is designed for a maximum capacity of 5,000 patrons. Weekend attendance is anticipated to average 3,500, while average weekday attendance is expected to be 2,600. Discretionary actions required for the project include a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and a Development Agreement. B-1 . CI> -1~ L. a .. ff '. - . 0 " ii .. ., .. >- . . .. ;! .' ... .~. 0 i ": ":, '. -~'- ,". - I " " . -. ... , . - - .' .. ,. - Q '. .'.... -, --- 3nN3A'1 S3Nld.3l1S'1::) . ® '.. --.<.,.." ." -.- : , . -. .__.--. .--.- 1- ~... 00\:'" ..... , '," B"~ ~~' -.:;¡: - ~.. I ~ ' Ot·... . ,J... I ¡1H,¡j)®"'\ !' ~ !) ~~ . ." 0.. ' .... - . ~ > o 'm ~..-; .,.>~.I , [( ·'"'....1 8@ ~ß ~ \ REDUCED PLOT PLAN (See full-sized Plot Plan) B-2 EXHIBIT C -......_- PRO;rECT SITE I 1¢ :E _I (~ :E Z» »-i -im -:D n;o . -ö» »»~ ~:D 0 + Oz }>'f'ft- -~ ¡W g~~ ',.- ~"':D ~ ." ........ .....~ Þ 5; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I!~·~·I " 1I'II ! 191111~ III = " 1~'i¡i¡!~~I~!~!~:¡¡¡¡,\:i\!!1!J . g. I ¡ !' 9 ~ I .. 5 a 1.1, i 'i'IIIU:II!I.lii'llli"'!I'·!~III!111 ä R i . ,II ~ ÌI ¡ . g e U Ili~!I!iI¡!¡¡:!i:!¡¡UI~llil!ill¡!I¡!¡¡~~ . I ~ . I H ~ U, g I ..;¡ I I' 'I!¡ '.,;1' I Ii . ì I a · ~ ."1 m ¡r,;i~ q ¡Ii q ~ p~!!iii 1····.11111 HI 'i\l H ~III ~' ì 1¡¡P !U' i 'I ~ ¡~ m;l nJlI !lH I I ¡Ii 11111 'I' I , III ,511 i j! H IjlHU lill¡11I' IIIII ~ I I I· I" ; '.! !.I~h · ! I , . I! I !Ii I'!. r I Ii .1" --l I Þ . . .___'._·w·_ , r"" . . . . , , / i '.. C . :..'-""f'. ..1(,'; " l .... þt.· , *,,- \. I~ - ~_ . :r . ~",' ,....., \." ....'t ,j(.... . . :-~;: .~,', . . 'I,.h.,· ,:'. .... ',', i....¡;~,{.,\< ; ~ai j i ¡; ïí·k, ~;, . ¡ : ..-4 .\-' 1-) ¡. .,,) \» . ì '¡ ,:,1.,\ .;;\\ 1.' , '. \ \.' I, J {I ' i \ \ \ ,-', ¡'t' i"';\ '" i'; , \ . r ~ I I '. ", i." + r -. t·· ¡¡"''Ii . ( I I' I . .; ~ I .).; ~ . 1 ~, ; / I' z: ... I' : ; t·· 1 ,- . I I . / . . . , . ., . - . ',1'1' ,- d. ~. . '. . , ,. ·h f 1 ; I_I .~. , '(, . : , , . . ; ; . . " ¡ , ..- . ~.\, -, -,.. ¡ I i i . _.__L . , It) . , &'. ~---- ...... " !I . ~ ~ - ,- ..,..,. .,..". , - . - --- - - ....... .,.. .....-.. - - -- , c-~ -1.~ ~¡¡¡ ®~. ~þ Ett I __-.1LJULr¡ij-'¡ ~ ~_____lJ....f:J I I~{-~A~-' \ì IIÐ ~ ~ ~ ~ 13 <P . .. (/) <1.)1 0 z - 91:: \;\ Ii ~ ~ . .® Q5š ® r ~E3® I I I I I I I \ I ¡ I I I I I I ® I ffi~ ® I ~ USE AREA DETAIL I (See full-sized Plot Plan) I B-3 ---_._-- -..--~------_..- Ic ~ I- I I I · LEGEND I ø ENTRY PAVILION / TICKETING @. CONTINUOUS RIVER tV LOCKERS / RESTRooMS @ KIDDIE POOL I @ RETAIL @ 5<:5 PLAY5TRUCTURE 0 ARCADE @ GROUP PICNIC AREA I ® FOOD SERVICES @ PARKING @ REMOTE RESTROOMS @ DROP OFF AREA · Q) TUBE RENTALS @. PROMENADE · @ SIX 'TUBE FLUMES @. TI-lREE TUBE FLUMES (FUTURE) - 8LACK I-IOLE ® @. 'TI-lREE SPEED SLIDES TI-lREE DROP OUT SLIDES (FUTURE) · @ SIX BODY FLUMES @ TI-lREE BODY FLUMES (RJTURE) ® FAMILY FLUME (RJTURE) @. RJTURE ATTARACTIONS · @ WAVE POOL tV· DELIVERY I ® MECI-IANICAL ROOM @. 5I-IADE STRUCTURE nyp) @ 8ACK OF I-lOUSE I ADMINISTRATION ø· 1'-0' FENCE I ® FIRE LANE @ RJTURE SLIDE I , I I ~ LEGEND TO USE AREA DETAIL I B-4 - - - - Technical Appendices: - Initial Study for the Whitewater Waterpark (lS-96-21) - - - - - - - Prepared for: City of Chula Vista Prepared by: TRS Consultants - 7867 Convoy Court, Suite 312 San Diego, CA 92111 May 1996 - - - - - Technical Appendices Appendix A, Traffic hnpact Analysis, Chula Vista Water Park, Linscott Law & Greenspan, February 17, 1996 Appendix B, Air Quality hnpact Analysis, Giroux & Associates, April 24, 1996 Appendix C, Report of a Biological Survey of the Proposed Chula Vista Water Park, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, April 24, 1996 Appendix D, Noise hnpact Analysis, Giroux & Associates, May 6, 1996 -------~ . . - . -- APPENDIX A -- -'" .- - - .....- .. ....,.. -- . " ....- .. ." - - .- TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: TRS CONSULTANTS 7867 Convoy Court, Suite 312 San Diego, CA 92111 Prepared by: LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 8989 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 135 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 299-3090 April 17, 1996 Revised May 9, 1996 JPKlJAB/jh 3-960666 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. Introduction..... ........... ...... ...... ...................... ........................................... ....................... ...... 1 Project Description. ....... ....... .... ... .... ... ... ........ .... ....... ......................... ........ ..... ... ............ ...... 1 Existing Street System ........................................................................................................4 Existing Traffic . ........ ........ ........... ............................... ........................ ......... ....................... 6 Project Traffic Generation ...... .............. ..... ............... ........... ........... ................. .............. ...... 9 Trip Distribution/Assignment........ ........ ....... ....... ...... ..... ... ........... ...... ..... .... ....... ..................9 Cumulative Projects.... ...... ................. ..................... ....... ..... .................... ............. ............. 14 Traffic Impact Analysis..... ................................... .......... ... ................. ........ ........ ......... ....... 18 Threshold Standards. ....... ............ ........... ........ .... ..... .......... ........... ..... ...... ............... .......... 19 Existing Operations. .... .......... ...... ..... ........ ............... ..... ...... ...... .... .... ..... ........... .....:.. 24 Existing + Project Operations..............................,....................................................24 Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects Operations.............................................. 25 Buildout Traffic Condition Discussion............................................................................... 25 Congestion Management Program Compliance ..............................................................25 Access/On-Site Circulation....................................... ..... .............. ..... ........................... .....27 Summary of Findings....:.......... .......... ....:. ....... ............. .... ........... ..... ........ .............. ........... 29 Mitigation Measure·s.. ......... ........ .... .... ... ........... ......... ..... ...... ............. ..... ...... ................. .....31 666.toc LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION NO. 1 Project Traffic Generation ..................................................................................10 2 Cumulative Project Traffic Generation ..............................................................15 3 Signalized Intersection Operations ........................................:........................... 20 4 Daily Street Segment Operations.. .................... ................. ........ ................. ....... 21 5 Arterial Analysis Summary .................................................................................2;2 6 Freeway Analysis ................................................................................................23 7 Proposed Project vs. Current Zoning Trip Generation Comparison... _. ............... ........ .......... ............. .... ................. .......... ._.. _.........26 666.toc LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION NO. 1 Vicinity Map..... .......... ......... ......... ..... ... .......... ............. .......... ............. ..... ... .........2 2 Project Area Map ..... ...... ...... ......... ..... ...................................................... .........3 3 Site Plan.. .... ... ...... ......... .................................. ........ ..... ....................... ........ .... ...5 4 Existing Conditions Diagram ............................................................................ 7 5 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... ß 6 Regional Traffic Distribution ............................................................................ 11 7 Project Traffic Volumes....................................................................................12 8 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes ..................................................................13 9 Cumulative Traffic ..Volumes........................................................................... 16 10 Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ...............................................................:..........................17 11 Peak Amphitheater Arrivals..... .......... .......... .......... ....... .... ....... ....... ............. ....28 12 General Every Day Water Park Ingress/Egress (No Amphitheater Traffic) Condition Diagram........................................... 30 666.1oc APPENDICES A. - Cumulative Projects Assignment Exhibits B - Signalized Intersection Calculated Sheets C - City of Chula Vista Standard Street Classification Table D - Arteriàl Analysis Calculated Sheets E - Freeway Analysis Calculated Sheets F - Unsignalized Calculated Sheets of Spyglass Hill Road/Otay Valley Road 666.toc LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN E N GIN E E R 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION The following traffic study has been prepared to determine and evaluate the traffic impacts on the local circulation system due to the development of a recreational water park in the City of Chula Vista. The project site is located east of Otay Valley Road about 1/2 mile east of the Otay Valley Road/Otay Rio Road intersection. Exhibit 1 shows the general vicinity of the project. Exhibit 2 shows a more detailed project area map. The additional traffic generated by the project has been added to the existing on-street traffic volumes and the traffic impacts were analyzed on several intersections and stre.et segments in the project area. Included in this analysis are: · Project description · Existing conditions assessment · Project traffic generation/distribution/assignment · Inclusion of three short-term cumulative projects · Intersection and street segment capacity analysis · Access assessment · Project and cumulative impact determination · Recommended mitigation measures PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site consists of approximately 32.4 acres and is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Chula Vista, approximately 3 miles north of the international border. Immediately north and east of the site is the improved portion of Otay Rio Business Park (Phase I), which has been fully graded and improved with utilities and roads but is currently not developed. The Otay River runs along a portion of the northern boundary of the property. An unincorporated area of the County of San Diego lies to the east and a corporate boundary for the City of San Diego is to the immediate south of the site. Properties to the south" and west on Otay Mesa and within the City of San Diego are proposed for residential uses. The project site has been graded and is approved for light industrial uses (Phase II of the Otay Rio Business Park). The project 1 . --------¡ I __ . -- ./ -- RIVERSIDE COUNTY , -..... ------------- ~_.J SAN DIEGO COUNTY . CAMP PENDLETON . - . AlPINE - USA -- -- "exICO ? 0 8 . MILES 1 - VICINITY MAP LINSCOTT LAW & . - GREENSPAN CHULA VISTA WATER PARK ENGINEERS 2 _ .... "'_. / I /~," I.·'" r' ,./ ~; ,I. h'.fu+- -.1 Q. :10: .......... 1.-";" r7- I ~ II HI¡f J .. ~ c( 0:: ~ ~ 1 , ,'?t; ·~~...t~1' ~ ~ 't ~.." I """ / , " 'J- ~ ~- ////.. ~ \: l-·----·-Ö~--.i 3ÐV~I~ H """ ~ ~ ¡ ~ Oi~~ < :&: / _/ _.............. $ D ~ll£.'f RO z ê - __ 1#~"'" I- ~ ~~LEY ð~ 0 Ii. ~ r-r--,'-- / ~ > l ~11Ir ,,--- , I ~ ' ' , 0 .c ~}' Oi~ I I (' ~ = ..~'f OR ---- ì Q. - ",.o1i,', :L Ii t" k J' ,~_____~_____ - 0 __ ¡f.A'/;.C'i!(t ~ <'i t- ~ ~ ;Z; I "'. ~ ^Y <;:JNld I ' .]115\':).! ~CANYOtt . . ."". -, . \~ ! ...," >-- r >-: . ~ ~: : I ~ -,' " ...P". '" I- !Í ..-I I .:.t\')IMVlS;v. -' 1>1. <I I~, .'1 .S! >- ~:;:. "'~ _"l"lO~. ..' ... rJ') < - -~ 'ô t:":~., / ..... ~_ .....,...~'i .' I b L æ --~~<~, .. r "?;< 7 :I"" , ..;,.~ \ I I ~ 0 ,I I I ,-----.... œ II I I \ ". ~ I '1 C> ~ -ß' I I IcY) '\..trN ,'MXÞJi I....t ...... -\- - - tic !:if ~!C >-, / .~/ /~ ~ ~ "+ "'::'~ .-,. \ ""!- Vi -- \~ ' \ '" :.IC Ii ~~\' .----/ '--.. \ "\ , ,\ .... - \ f I --- \ \ I ....-'"7--- _________J ~ 0 \ T I <::) \ , ~l ,Jg- 0:: \ I ---" ('Y) \ ¡t;'t'HCJH \ \ r::::::/ \ o~ ,.,MLfJ \ \ M \ ': II ~ '71 --, / \ \ ! \ ¡ IJ.ù. ' '" [q \ I /" · AV 't___ Nt --\:~~,- 1 //7 ~ ~ ir ~. \ ¡ , · i13 S__) c J'¡ \ II ¡//', ~ ~I """_,,, i~.-_ L _ _=(__ _ _ _ _ _. ----'--- _ _ _ _ - - -~ - - _L.. - - - - - -- - - --~ ~< ~ --"---' d'" f \ ' = ~"'T ...J \ \ : '1J ". ' ..... I .... ,.., =J \ \ : '" '_/ \ ..~. _ ~L__- >! l ~'~'" , ' . -< -""'WÞ,i~'-'''''' ......~I:f. I · 'N .1J13Nb. 1\ ~ ~~ ~. i .... ~ ~ ~ ~-""'-- )./1'11:/ )AI\ C > è ì .) ~ - ,. ~._. ¡ Yl-i3)f3a 'IIJ\ ,,~. Æ¡¡ ~"'l",'lTA :\!: ",riti~,o!:~ """:...1., 1~ ,,~ ~ "...J ":;¡!",,,,,,, IT . ",...~ i >-q ~. ~ooo..."" .. - "Ú ~,,--^ ~t -¡¡ "r '"',,,'" ",!!.: t~." "'- ~ ':"~ ":i 'I§ Ha 006V1t13f1H~i!1a._... NlA]N ¡"'r,¡¡¡ ~ ~ ~I-P~ , ~'t.:::>- i' ~o ;'"'11 ~~~."'''N''o-r-.:: lS """" ~ ~I ~I - ' if·l tœ ~ cr: .1" ~ §I~~~v C'\J þ~ 1Ia t;; tl3H1SQ)I ..... ~ IYr~~~ .,.:;:.'" O.I!.I '" ~4~" ...I:;; ..... ..... i RI ..... Y ..~ ~11\ ~ .I m TWUUN .... AY~ .... ... ~ 'U lI '" It ::J. ·~5!:§V')..... PA -"'VAY. n1\ _~ R.llPM z: ^V... ~NINt.'U -::J. ~~I,~~ID ~... ...J i:!"'- > :¿ m::'" -' ~ :::-:s ~ 10:2 .0- d$ .......... {/$ < SOlflA I :¿ ~ !i:¿ 1:10 ~~IfIUl\lUd I".L. ~II4HA Ud:3 8 I!t:: :JOI.AII~C1 l,¡ø,Cfj lH _!C4£~." o...J.....;! ~'£ J, ;1:;~I?ìi i:::I::: ~ !.Ë,'· J. -II} DATE 51 ""1 ...J ~ IS g ;¡ ~ ffi L.L.. ~.~ N'~,-- 9i"C ~~ !OI~~~.~ ~ '",..:¡;-_I!g"" ,~" ~~ i J AD~AY I!#jVd -::J. ID ';!~8 = ð il!1:IO~ä:::t: ð.{J t; + ~ ao" \sPER :¿ ì\..: > PIceA CI AY ~a, Þ.Y ~ \~fü?' 3 ~r DR / ~J\ ~ ~ ,,-,,1<\10OO DRI ~m.~ ,. ~J \w u ¡ ; JI"9 E . ¡ "" '-,'!f ~ tõ i!j~'''' .... ! ~;; 01 !!ú' III\}' \I; & ", ~ ~ ¡¡ ~ 8 ¡r;Hl ~ -. I ~ ~.., t;; "o>\;\$- I In "l . u "U~ MACl 51 u <" TItII!Ï! T¡\D ~R ....~... d'lf'lJf 14 . "'_ ~ ~.'" (( ~ AV .""l 51 3 ~"~.... <1>~ ",,, \ ..r..,,~ W ;2:8;< GRISSOMST~ !¡ _5- ...::¡ø~ P\ t;; !I~r, ~~ OlEY AV _ :61... REE CT JW; ¥ ¡ II ~~ ::5fi...!s:.... t::;¡;;--- J"ri::::) ~ lOOÇV) ~AV R\JTHIJPIW1 AV ~ d":: ~ "" Ë !i!rWl)..n~~~ ":E ^'~'"O ;': ~ '" "-"'-' Ii! pfSAUG""'S AV ~ § ~~ ~J-j ~ ~ ~ .~~"'Y ~ . """'" I" ~ ",,"!TUCK OR".e;,..¡ -. . u~ ~~ . .rf'i'\.Iu.. § ;¡~l ~I bBO?..t1 .~ . t'~ ~a,. ~ '"IIn..lJOII DEl ~ '4NJ,~..7... jq...... 1/'1')1......, 3 LINSCOTT L;\W & CREENSP¡\N ENGINEERS site is generally level and was previously in agricultural production. There are no structures on the site. The project is a recreational water park with water rides and accessory uses, including concession stands, administrative buildings, and future development areas. The water park will be a phased project occupying 32.4 acres and will consist of approximately 15,500 square feet of buildings and structures, plus 11 ride attractions, approximately 1,300 parking spaces, an access drive, and fire access lanes. Facilities to be provided at the water park include the entry way, water rides, softball field, volleyball courts, concessions, restaurant service, equipment rental, gift shop, arcade game room, first aid station, administrative offices, changing rooms, restrooms, shade structures/picnic areas, mechanical equipment buildings, and trash enclosures. The overall project design calls for a parking area on the eastern panhandle of the property, with rides arrayed around an entry area in the west central portion of the site. Exhibit 3 shows a conceptual site plan. The water park will be a seasonal use, operating daily from Memorial Day through Labor Day, plus four weekends prior to and subsequent to that. Hours of operation will be generally from 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM, except on days when concerts are planned for the nearby amphitheater, when the park hours will be from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. This analysis assumes the worst case condition of a weekday when an event is occurring at the amphitheater. The water park will employ 15 people full-time, year around, with 225 additional individuals added to the staff during the operating season. A 24-hour security force will be maintained on the grounds 365 days a year. The project is designed for a maximum capacity of 5,000 patrons. Weekend attendance is anticipated to average 3,500, while average weekday attendance is expected to be 2,600 patrons per day. Ingress to the water park parking area is planned via Otay Rio Road. Vehicles will exit the parking area from two points onto Spyglass Hill Road. Water park traffic will use Spyglass Hill Road to Otay Valley Road to egress the site. CITY ROADWAY STANDARDS & EXISTING STREET SYSTEM DISCUSSION The City of Chula Vista roadway standards indicate that Expressways should be 104 feet in 128 feet of right-of-way (RNIJ), providing six thru lanes, a 16 foot wide raised median/left-turn lane and emergency parking or bike lanes. Prime Arterials should be 104 feet wide in 128 feet of RNV providing six lanes, a 16 foot wide median/left-turn lane and emergency parking or bike lanes. Six-Lane Majors should be 104 feet wide in 4 J ¡ I ¡ " I I ; , I ' j ! I ~......tX0"""Ö:ÖQj"""'''' .. ·..coo····· '. t (9 ()IJS .' 6 , \ I ~. po__........ I ! t:j 19· '" .. \ ~A) , ~~ ' I . -.--._ro....0 I \' '~ ~ \ , ' ""Q . \ ", @~~' êêt:>.... j1ufíi :.:¡J\':." . <Xi>. '" , . .. Át\,.".. ;, ,. .. ' ~ . .. \tVI1 '. ',¡ .... I" t ~, . ; , . f ',' . , ,; . g' , (,. !'b.','.-' ¡', ,". " 'IV' 1- " . t..-..AC:PJ. d!)' . , . I '" '.: e> l- . ê: l- n . .- --- . -.- .-- - - - .-- -. l... ~ NO SCAlE ·3 LINSCOTT LA\\' & SITE PLAN GREENSPAN E N GIN E E R 5 CHULA VISTA WATER PARK 5 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSP/\N ENGINEERS 128 feet of RNIJ providing six thru lanes and a 16 foot wide raised median/left-turn lane. Four-Lane Majors should be 80 feet wide in 100 feet of RNJ, providing four thru lanes, a 16 foot wide median/left-turn and curbside parking or bike lanes. A Class I Collector should be 74 feet wide in 94 feet of RNJ providing four thru lanes and a continuous two- way left-turn lane separating the two directions of traffic flow. A Class II Collector should be 52 feet wide in 72 feet of RNJ, providing two thru lanes and curbside parking with a continuous two-way left-turn lane. A Class III Collector should be 40 feet wide in 60 feet of RNJ with two thru lanes and curbside parking. The following is a description of the existing roadways in the project area. Exhibit 4 shows an existing conditions diagram. Interstate 805 (1-805) is a north-south freeway that extends from the Otay Mesa area to Sorrento Valley. It provides four lanes in each direction in the project vicinity with a full demand interchange at Otay Valley Road. Otay Valley Road is classified as a six-lane Major Street and is constructed as a six- lane divided roadway between 1-805 and about Nirvana Avenue where it narrows to five lanes (3 westbound and 2 eastbound). It then quickly narrows to four lanes. The bridge over the Otay River provides one lane in each direction separated by a two-lane "reversible" roadway section. Otay Valley Road provides one lane in each direction south of Otay Rio Road. Bike lanes are provided and the speed limit is posted at 45 mph near 1-805 and at 50 mph near Nirvana Avenue. Traffic signals are present at the 1-805 interchange. Oleander Avenue, Brandywine Avenue, and Nirvana Avenue. Oleander Avenue is a two-lane Class III Collector which extends from Otay Valley Road to Orange Avenue and provides direct access to residential areas. Brandywine Avenue is a two-lane Class III Collector which extends from Otay Valley Road to Orange Avenue and serves as a collector roadway for the area. There are no fronting residential properties. Otay Rio Road and Spy Glass Hill Road are two streets which extend into a vacant industrial area. These two roadways are currently closed. EXISTING TRAFFIC Exhibit 5 shows the existing PM peak hour (5:00 - 6:00 PM) and daily (ADT) traffic volumes in the project area. These volumes were counted in 1995 and were obtained from the traffic study prepared by BRW, INC. for the MCA Amphitheater (MCA). 6 I~ I~ t. 0 JIA1N sr 5D So"",,, õTAY ~-...- RD 0 ---- SPYG~"'- HILL RD PALII A VB ~ ~ -< ¡ ~ 905 OTAY JŒSA RD LEGEND ! ® - Traffic Signal Ii ....c... - STOP Sign 2U - Two lone undivided roadway ~ 6D - Six lone divided roadway BL - Bike lone NO SCAlE -4 LINSCOTT lAW & EXISTING CONDITIONS DIAGRAM GREENSPAN ENGINEERS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK 7 104,000 -' ~ e¡~ § ~~ 18,6~0 -! I') I "'N "'.. I 011)11"I '- 15 ~1!12 '- 35 NN '-- 403 I :ï ¿ C - 695 .:ï ¿ I.. - 575 22,400 .II.. -454' , S , 2S JIAlN ST 466_ ""'I" 3~~ ""'It" ~~~ ""'It" 3100 318...... -'" N... S, Ii'hlhn 25, ~1J~ N_ ---- OTAY Jtr.--e- 98,000 -' RD 0 šPYG~ -e- HILL RD PAUl AVE ~ '< ~ i§ 905 OTAY JŒSA RD ~ NOTE: - ADT's ore shown midblock I~ - PM Peak hour volumes ore shown at the intersections ~ NO SCAlE 5 LINSCOTT lAW s.. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES GREENSPAN PM PEAK HOUR & ADT's ENCINEERS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK 8 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Table 1 shows the project traffic generation calculations. Several assumptions were necessary to estimate the project traffic generation amount. The traffic assumptions were provided by the "Aquatic Design Group" and are largely based on industry surveys conducted by the World Waterpark Association. This traffic analysis assumes a worst case condition of a weekday (3,500 total patrons) late afternoon period (assumed to be 5:00 - 6:00 PM) on the day an amphitheater event is occurring. Although the total weekend traffic generation could be about 40% greater (about 5,000 patrons vs. 3,500 patrons) than on a weekday, ambient traffic on Otay Valley Road is much higher on a weekday and potential roadway impacts are greater during the weekday commuter hour. The worst-case 5:00 - 6:00 PM analysis time period was chosen since this period accounts for the beginning period of amphitheater arrivals, some "open air market" departures, the "end of the day" at the water park and the approximate peak period of Otay Valley Road traffic near 1-805. The following assumptions were utilized: · weekday maximum attendance of 3,500 patrons · customer vehicular occupancy rate of 3.5 (based on Raging Waters in San Dimas and Wild Rivers in Irvine data) · 150 employees per day, 20% of which would leave between 5:00 - 6:00 PM · 10 deliveries per day · 20% customer departure between 5:00 - 6:00 PM According to the "Aquatic Design Group," each ofthese assumptions is conservative. Table 1 shows that the water park is estimated to generate 2320 ADT (1160 in/1160 out) with 24 inbound and 231 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT The generated traffic was distributed to the street system based on a Select Zone Assignment (SZA) obtained from the SANDAG Series 8 model forecast. This SZA was prepared for the MCA traffic study. The regional distribution of traffic is expected to be similar for MCAand for the water park. Exhibit 6 shows the regional trip distribution. Exhibit 7 shows the project traffic assignment. Exhibit 8 shows the existing + project traffic volumes. 9 LINSCOTT L/\W & GREENSf>¡\N ENGINEERS TABLE 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION GENERATOR DAILY TRIP ENDS PM PEAK HOUR (5-6 PM) (ADT) VOLUME VOLUME IN OUT A. Customers (3500+3.5*2 T.E.) 2,000 20 200 B. Employees (150*2 T.E.) 300 3 30 C. Deliveries(10*2 T.E.) 20 1 1 TOTAL 2,320 24 231 Assumptions 1. Weekday attendance = 3,500 2. Customer Vehicle Occupancy-Rate = 3.5 3. Assume 20% customer departure between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. 4. 150 Employees per day, 20% of which would leavé between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. 5. 10 Deliveries per day. 6. Inbound PM peak hour customers are pick-ups. SOURCE: Aquatic Design Group. T.E. = Trip-End tablesttab1.666 10 BI~Br JIA1N Sf 20" OTAY ilia RD 'NrGI¡:fà PAUl AVE ¡~ , ~ iJ 905 OTAY JŒSA RD ... NOTE: - Neor term distribution i~ ? NO SCALE 6 UNsean LAW & REGIONAL TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION GREENSPAN ENGINEERS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK 11 o 1Iå~ o ~~ Nr en ~ I 0 = '- '041860 '- 2 - '- 10 460 I.. - 80 - 184 I.. _188 JIA1N Sf 4-- r 19-- 19-- 1970 .. ::: DrAY /lio ,) ""\ RD .. ~GI¡:fà \98.J 35~ PAUl AVJ: ~ ><c.a ,~ ~ 905 DrAY JIJ:SA RD ~ t? NOTE: - ADT's are shown mid block I@ - PM Peak hour volumes are rl shown at the intersections ? - The PM Peak hour is 5-6 PM NO SCALE -7 LINSCOTT LAW & PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES GREENSI'AN PM PEAK HOUR & ADT's ENGINEERS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK 12 ~ ti~ g ~~ ~~ . 20.4~0 ... 0 I') I ~:;¡ I Oll'hO It... 17 ~~~ It... 45 NN '- 507' .J ¡C - 879 .:; ¡.... _761 22.860 .,i.... -534' r 5 r 25 JIAIN 8T 470_ ....1' 55..... ....t¡r 130..... ....t¡r 5070 318, ÑIi! 384 _ 264 - N_ 5, ",.nit) 25, ~HH3 OTAY kio RD ~~ PAUl AVE ~ 0< , ~ 905 OTAY JŒSA RD ~ NOTE: - ADT's ore shown midblock I~ - PM Peak hour volumes ore shown at the intersections ~ NO SCAlE ·8 LINSCOTT LAW &. EXISTING + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES GREENSPAN AM/PM PEAK HOURS & ADT's ENGINEERS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK 13 LINSCOTT L/\\ V & CREENSP/\N ENGINEERS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Three cumulative projects were included in the traffic impact analysis per the City of Chula Vista. The impacts from these projects were analyzed in addition to the proposed project. The following is a brief description of the three short-term cumulative projects. 1) The MCA Amphitheater would be located east of 1-805 and north of SR-905 in the Otay River Valley. Access to this project would be Otay Rio Road via Otay Valley Road. The project proposes to develop a 20,000 seat outdoor facility (10,000 fixed seating and 10,000 lawn seating). The project is estimated .to generate 12,120 daily trip ends (ADT). Traffic data for this project was obtained from an August 1995 Traffic Study prepared by BRW, INC. 2) The Open Air Market is located in the same area as the MCA Amphitheater, since it is a part of the MCA Amphitheater project. The Open Air Market would utilize a portion of the MCA Amphitheater parking area on Thursdays thru Sundays, 7:00 AM to about 4:00 PM. The amphitheater is not scheduled for daytime event use. The project is estimated to generate 3,200 daily trip ends (ADT). Traffic data for this project was obtained from a traffic study which was prepared by BRW, INC., in August 1995. 3) The Material Recovery Facility is located immediately north of Otay Valley Road and approximately two miles east of 1-805. Maxwell Road borders the project site to the east. and serves as the access road to the site. The facility within the 10.8 acre site is estimated to generate 942 daily trip ends (ADT). Traffic data for this project was obtained from a November 1995 Initial . Environmental Study prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Table 2 shows the cumulative projects traffic generation calculations. Exhibit 9 shows the assignment of the total cumulative projects traffic to the street system. Exhibit 10 shows the existing + project + cumulative projects traffic volumes on a ADT and PM peak hour basis. - Appe"dix A contains the individual assignments for the three cumulative projects. Another cumulative project which was considered for inclusion is the City of Chula Vista Corporation Yard. This project would be the relocation of the existing uses at the Corporation Yard located at 707 "F" Street. The site would generally be used for storage. The City-prepared Negative D'eclaration indicated that about 1,600 ADT is expected to be generated. The total approved ADT for the site is 3,600 ADT. Therefore, this project was not quantitatively included in the cumulative analysis. 14 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 2 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION USE DAILY TRIP ENDS PM PEAK HOUR (5-6 PM) (ADT) VOLUME VOLUME IN OUT 1. MCA Amphitheater 12,120 605 0 2. Open Air Market 3,200 5 130 3. Material Recovery Facility 942 20 75 TOTAL 16,262 630 205 SOURCE: 1. MCA Amphitheater Traffic Study, August 1995. 2. MCA Amphitheater Traffic Study, August 1995. 3. Initial Environmental Study, November 1995. tables/tab2.666 15 ° all! ° III! ~r 10 ~ CO 13,902 .... 0 I . on I .. on on N ~'04' N ~ 1 N ~ 5 3420 \-. .- 751 \-. _179 \-. -'80 JWN Sf 125-- t' 510-' 515..... 14.7~ Ii: DrAY llJo RD r:Ts~ PALII A VB a '< , ~ 905 DrAY JŒSA RD NOTE: - PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections - This exhibit contains the traffic !g assignment of the following projects: I~ 1 ~ MCA Amphitheater 2 Open Air Market 3 Materials Recovery Facility ~ Appendix A contains the individual project assignments. NO SCALE 9 LINSCOTT I A\\' & CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES CREENSPAN ENGINEERS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK 16 ª I~ ~ ~~ 34,362 Q I "'" i ~I ')~ '- 18 ~~:st '- 50 ~~ '- 611' ..I ~ I.. - 1058 ..I ~ I.. - g41 26,280 ..II.. -609' ,. ~ ,. 2~ JIA1N ST 595_ .....,. .~!. .....t,. m!. .....t,. 19.792 31....... -0 N" 5, onll'tl/') 25. ~~U: NN OTAY liIo RD SPYG~ HILL RD PALJI AVl: ~ '< t ig 905 OTAY JIESA RD ~ NOTE: - ADT's are shown mid block I~ - PM Peok hour volumes are shown at the intersections ~ NO SCALE 10 LINSCOTT EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LAW &. TRAFFIC VOLUMES , PM PEAK HOUR &: ADT's GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 17 CHULA VISTA WATER PARK LINSCOTT LAW & CREENSP¡-\N ENGINEERS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The traffic volumes from the traffic assignment were analyzed based on the following information and assumptions: 1) A weekday analysis was conducted as opposed to a weekend analysis due to the potential for greater traffic impacts. 2) A weekday attendance of 3,500 patrons is assumed. 3) The 5:00 - 6:00 PM period was analyzed since this period is expected to haye the greatest potential for traffic impacts. 4) A weekday when a MCA Amphitheater event was occurring was analyzed. 5) The water park was assumed to close at about 6:00 PM when a MCA event is scheduled. 6) The distribution of project traffic was based on a Select Zone Assignment prepared by SANDAG. 7) Three cumulative projects were included in the analysis, as previously outlined. 8) The 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Methodology was used to determine the traffic impacts at the key intersections, arterials and freeway segments. Several key intersections, arterial segments and freeway segments were analyzed to deterrpine the operations in the existing, existing· + project and existing + project + cumulative projects conditions. The following four intersections were analyzed in the PM peak hour (5:00 - 6:00 PM) time period. · Otay Valley Road/I-805 SB ramps · Otay Valley, Road/I-805 NB ramps · Otay Valley Road/Oleander Avenue · Otay Valley Road/Brandywine Avenue The signalized intersections were analyzed by determining the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection. The delay was determined using a computer program which utilizes the methodology found in·the 1994 HCM. The delay values (seconds) were qualified by giving a level of Service or "grade" to the corresponding delay values for the intersection as a whole. levels of Service for signalized intersections vary from A (free flow, little delay) to F ("jammed" conditions). Appendix B provides a more 18 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS A (free flow, little delay) to F ("jammed" conditions). Appendix B provides a more detailed explanation of the methodology, a full description of Levels of Service and the signalized intersection calculation sheets. Table 3 shows a summary of the signalized intersection operations in the project area during the PM peak hour. The street segments in the project area were analyzed on a daily basis by comparing the daily traffic volumes (ADT's) to the City of Chula Vista's standard street classification table. This table is shown in Appendix C and provides estimates of Level of Service based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics. Table 4 shows a summary of the daily street segment operations in the project area. The key arterial in the project area (Otay Valley Road) was assessed during the PM peak hour based on the methodologies contained in Chapter 11 of the 1994 HCM. Arterial LOS is based on the average travel speed for through-vehicles on the arterial. Table 5 presents a summary of the arterial operations on a PM peak hour basis. Appendix D contains the calculation sheets. The 1-805 freeway was assessed during the PM peak hour based on the methodologies contained in Chapter 3 of the HCM. Freeway LOS is based on the Maximum Service Flow Rate (MSF). MSF is not equivalent to peak hour traffic volume. Table 6 presents a summary of the freeway operations on a PM peak hour basis. Appendix E contains the calculation sheets. THRESHOLD STANDARDS The following three items are the "threshold standards" from the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Plan, Traffic Element, dated November 17,1987. 1) City-wide: Maintain LOS C or better at all intersections, with the exception that LOS D may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. 2) West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet Standard #1 above, may continue to operate at their current (1987) LOS, but shall not worsen. 3) City-wide: No intersection shall operate at LOS F as measured for the average weekday peak hour. These standards will be checked for conformance in regard to the intersection capacity analysis. 19 IINSCOTT LAVV & GREENSF'AN E N GIN E E R 5 W If) + + > If) 0 CD U CD CD (!)I--I- .....I ZU~U -w w 1-'"')::>'"') ~O~O ~ I'-; Il) r- Q) X 0::::> 0:: ...- Q) Q) 0 Wc...Uc... W ...- ...- ...- 0 II) Z 0 If) ¡::: +1- 0 CD CD CD CD ~ .....I (!)U w ZW -'"') c... 1-0 00:: If) 0:: ~ ~ N (V) I'-; Xc... Z::I W 0 '<t ci 0 C") Qo W ...- ...- ...- W I-:I: 0 ...J O~ en W< ~ II)W 0::11.. W If) I-:E 0 CD CD CD CD ~D.. (!) .....I a Z W l- N If) :J X ~ "<I: CD Q) 1l) < W 0 N ex) 0 Z W ...- ...- ...- g<CDUOWu.. (!) 0 ëñ tJ u '" '" Q) c: 0. 0. Q) ~ 8 E E > Q) Q) ctI ctI < tJ ~ ~ c: £~ CD CD ~ 1 Q) Z If) Z u u .~ 0 Il) Il) c: u !!! Q) ctI c: I- 0 0 Q) ctI ::J1f) ex) ex) 0 ~ "'- U , , CD ctI 0 000000 W ::::: ::::: -. -. Q)- ..0..0..0000 If) u u u u E Q) ctI ctI ctI ctI "'-N'<tCDCD 0:: 0 0 0 0 > tJ Q) W 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: .- .....I ~ VI .9 .9 .9 .9 ^ I- >- >- >- >- ~~ Z Q) Q) Q) Q) ...- ...- ãi ctI ãi ãi wo ~-r:LriLri-r- > > > > 0.....1 OtOT""No CD >- >- >- >- '<t CD ctI ctI ctI ctI CD - - - - (V) 0 0 0 0 .a ctI - 20 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS (J) ++~(J) 0 CC« « « ...J (91--1- ZÜ~Ü -w W I-":;J" ~0::2:~ NN 0 0 X C::::;J a..: ...J CD 0) 0> "'" Wa..:Ü 0 C')r-- CD. ...... > -.iai ...... "'" . C') ...... I- Ü (J) w " 0 «« « « 0 ...J c::: a..: U) + Z (9 0 ¡:: Z 00 0 0 I- ...J CDr-- N 0> ë:i (J) 0 ","0 It) "'" > öIrÏ - X ...... C') W N a. W (1) 0 :c I- <II "'" Z - I:: W W (J) 0 ..J :E 0 «« « « "" ŒI C) (9 ...J <II Z 0 ~ W ¡¡::: U) I- ëñ J- (J) VI X <II W .00 0 0 15 w W ...J 00 0 0 ã) c::: 0 CD...... It) "'" J- > - cri (1) to C') ...... ~ U) ...... - VI >. <II ..J - Cë b~~ VI :> c Z-W 00 0 '0 .!!! -Ü(J) 00 0 0 1-«0 o It) "I:. "'"- ::J ~a..:...J .r:. Or-- 0> 0) Ü X«~ It) C') WÜ. - 0 .?:- è3 E 0 (1).1:: .~ '0 '0 '0 ~ (1) I- (1) <II (1 (1).5 Z ::J 0 CD 0 (J)CO W I:: c::: ::JC::: - (1)-.c ::2: "C (1) CD>. c>. E ~ 0 CU > . ~ (1) GI (1) (9 0 « >- ::J (1) VI W II:: <II CD CO «Cij ->a.> » CD> OQ):¡::; CD (J) I:: > ..J·U >. It) <II «>. 1::>- <II CD .2!0~ .. (1 .- (1 II II c.. ~ ¡¡¡ to .- CD- 3=- ..J(J)<II ."," >...!.Z "CO >.0 OOÜ .c >.00 I:: 0 "CO >.....1, <II -- -- CU__ C__ - J!I Q) Q) GI I:: CU I:: Õ .. 0 ŒI 21 LINSCOTT L;\W & GREENSI)¡\N I- ENGINEERS Ü en Ww Ó>en 0 !D!D -' c:::1-1- a:.~t) +::::>~ ø:EO Z::::>c::: C C"\!C"\! I-t)o. W NO> en+ W MN 0. X en w l- t) en w 0 OJ!D -:> 0 -' 0::: 0. + >- ø II:: Z C o!'- <c I- W MO> :IE en w M N :IE X 0. ::::>0::: w en en::::> II) enO w -::I: en~ ..J ~L3 en !XI <c 0 !D!D I- ~a. ø -' -':IE Z <co. l- ii:: en w X C 00 I- W w MO 0::: W M M <c 0. en c::: ffi~ C .. .... ::3 ~ 0 .r: .... 0 .~ G1 I- - a. "C(/)G1 G1 Z as a. ::3 "en (/) w o E C C'-CQ) :E II::CIIG1 00'- ø .... > 5-:.¡:; E >- OJ <c .cG10c W .!(J)CII - > Q).- (J) - C en G.>.: en <D as II) CII CII-'C'- <D >oi:: w II II "C ~ >- co .- II en c::: g¡ to J!I....!.z .c !DO-a. CII 0 W-,C(J) - 22 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ~ 15 ENGINEERS 0 (/) ê w . ~~ 0 00 00 ~ o-(/)~ E a::~::s~ 0) ~ 0 ~ w _ +~~ ~ 0:20 D z~a::: ~ - 0 ~ u. 0 "<t N I'- ..... ~ (/) M"<t ID~ ~ (/)+ ~ Noo ~ID (1 - .c::; ~T"'" T"'"T"'" a. >< (1 W 0 ~ (1 ~ ~ o (/) ~ ~ 0 00 00 ~ o ~ ~ a::: - ~ ~ + Q) os;.. ~ c: - .... 0 (1 .9- I."- z - ~ <C - _.... ::J ~ ~ u. ~~ ID~, 0) E "'" (/) (/) 0 ID M "<t a. :¡æ ~ NI'- ~ID .... ~ X oe:::; T"'" T"'" T"'" T"'" :::J..c ~a:: W 0 '0 ~ ~ 0) CD !Q~ ~ 1ií w en a. ::J ..J ~.... U> 0 ..J..... (/) .... - ~ <CLiS 0 00 00 r3 r3uj ~ Z~ 0 ~ .... ~O <C:¡æ Z ~ u.~ ~~ ~ c: (/)r:1> <C en 0) ~c: > - U> ~= > >< U> .- (1 . (1 Ww W U. N 00 ~ (j a. O)E >0) en ........1.0 C\I(Y') - L.. a:: :2 ~I'- ~ID - ::Ja. LL T"'"T"'" T"'"T"'" 0.. 0 ~ >0) a. ~ o 0- a. !E£ c: (1 '- .... s: a::: mm mm 2 ~'O O Z(/) Z(/) (1 ::J 0) a::: 01ií ~ .- ~ -æ g - O)U> u. a. U> 0) (1 o 0 0 "'C""C ._ Q) _ ._ (1 (1 ï:: 0 _-:;: o 0 Q) .- C ~ ~ a::: a:: (/)~..!!1z. Z ~ ~ E(/) ~ï3 wO)O) ._ ~ = = :J......c:J~.... :2 (1 (1 E 0 .Q r:r g. o > > -0)~0)0 W ~ ~ ~>Q)ÕI 00 ~ ~ ~~.~c~ ~ o 0 .. 0U>O) ID o 0 wllllll'-E <'! ~- - ~U.(/)a:::U.::J ID Cc: U> 0(/)0 (/)- D ~ Z:2~O:2~ 2 23 LINSCOTT L¡\\N & CREENSP¡\N ENGINEERS EXISTING OPERATIONS Table 3 shows a summary of the operations at the key signalized intersections during the PM peak hour. This table shows that each of the four intersections are calculated to currently operate at LOS B. The good Level of Service at the 1-805/0tay Valley Road interchange is due to the recent widening of Otay Valley Road and the multiple turn lanes on the off-ramps. Table 4 shows a summary of the daily operations on the key street segments in the project area. This table shows that all of the street segments are calculated to operate at LOS A on a daily basis, based on the City's street classification table. Table 5 shows a summary of the operations on the Otay Valley Road arterial between 1-805 and Nirvana Avenue. This table shows that this segment of Otay Valley Road is calculated to currently operate at LOS B during the PM peak hour. Table 6 shows a summary of the operations on 1-805 both north and south of Otay Valley Road. This table shows that LOS C and LOS 0 is calculated for existing conditions during the PM peak hour. EXISTING + PROJECT OPERATIONS Table 3 shows that the addition of project traffic is calculated to not decrease the LOS at any of the key intersections. LOS B is maintained. The delays increase only slightly. The only small increase in delay is due to the off-peak nature of water park traffic and the fact that the majority of PM peak hour Water Park traffic will make a right-turn at the Otay Valley Roadll-805 northbound ramps intersection to proceed north on 1-805. This is a non-conflicting movement. Table 4 shows that the addition of project traffic is calculated to not decrease the daily LOS on the key street segments. LOS A is maintained on each segment. Table 5 shows that the adç:litiori of project traffic is calculated to not decrease the PM peak hour LOS on Otay Valley Road. LOS B is maintained in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Table 6 shows that the addition of project traffic is calculated to not decrease the PM peak hour LOS on 1-805. LOS 0 or better is maintained. 24 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS OPERATIONS Table 3 shows that the addition of cumulative projects traffic results in a decrease in LOS at the Otay Valley Roadll-80S northbound ramps intersection from LOS B to LOS C. The other Levels of Service are unchanged. The decrease in LOS at the Otay Valley Road/I-80S northbound ramp intersection is mainly due to the beginning of MCA arrivals. The 1-805 northbound off-ramp was assumed to be restriped to provide a single left-turn lane, a shared leftlthru/right lane and a single right-turn lane. This restriping was a condition of approval of the MCA project. Table 4 shows that the addition of cumulative projects traffic results in LOS B or better operations on all street segments in the project area. Table 5 shows that the addition of cumulative projects traffic results in continued LOS B arterial operations during the PM peak hour in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Table 6 shows that the addition of cumulative projects traffic results in continued LOSD or better operations on 1-805. The LOS are unchanged. BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITION DISCUSSION Table 7 shows a comparison of. the trip generation estimates for the proposed water park and for the approved industrial park. The SANDAG trip generation guide shows a trip generation rate for an industrial plant of 120 ADT per acre. This equates to 3,890 ADT for the 32.4 acre site with 93 inbound and 373 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This 120 ADT per acre industrial generation rate was used in the Otay Rio Business Park EIR. Table 7 shows that the industrial park is calculated to generate a greater amount of daily and PM peak hour traffic than is expected to be generated by the water park. Therefore, the water park is expected to have no significant traffic impacts in the buildout condition. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was adopted on November 22, 1991, and is intended to directly link land use, transportation and air quality through Level of Service performance. Local agencies are required by statute to conform to the CMP. The CMP requires an Enhanced CEQA Review for all large projects that are expected to generate more than 2,400 ADT or more than 200 peak hour trips. This review is required of the proposed project. 25 LINSCOTT L/\W & CREENSI};\IN ENGINEERS TABLE 7 PROPOSED PROJECT VS. CURRENT ZONING TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON PROJECT SIZE DAILY TRIP PM PEAK HOUR ENDS (ADT) RATE VOLUME %OF IN:OUT VOLUME ADT SPLIT IN OUT 1. Water Park (weekday) 32.4 acres - 2,320 - - 24 231 2. Industrial/Business Park 32.4 acres 120 3,890 12% 2:8 93 373 .- 1. See Table 1 2. Based on SANDAG Trip Generation Rates for Industrial Plant, May 1995, as utilized in the EIR for the site. tab7.666 26 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS In 1993, the Institute of Transportation Engineers California Border Section and the San Diego Region Traffic Engineer's Council established a set of guidelines to be used in the preparation of traffic impact studies that are subject to the Enhanced CEQA Review process. This pUblished document, which is titled 1993 Guidelines for Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Reports for the San Diego Region, requires that the study area be established as follows: · All streets and intersections on CMP roadways or on "regionally significant arterials" where the project will add 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction. · Mainline freeway locations where the project will add 150 or more peak hour trips in either direction. Per these guidelines, the following regionally significant arterials were analyzed in this report, as required to satisfy the CMP. · Otay Valley Road · 1-805 Table 5 shows that LOS B is calculated on the Otay Valley Road CMP arterial in all conditions. Table 6 shows that LOS D or better is calculated on 1-805 in all conditions. The CMP requirement of LOS E (with a goal of LOS D) is satisfied both before and after the proposed project. ACCESSION-SITE CIRCULATION It is proposed to provide ingress to the water park via Otay Rio Road and egress via Spyglass Hill Road. This scheme will best correlate with MCA traffic. The water park isproposec;t to dose at least 90 minutes before an amphitheater event begins. Therefore, only a small amount of water park traffic will be departing during MCA arrivals, especially since at least 80% of the water park traffic will have departed prior to the final hour in. which the park is open. However, an ingress and egress plan must be developed for both when an MCA event is planned and for the more common general day-to-day time when a MCA event is not planned. The MCA traffic study included channelization concepts for Otay Valley Road and the Otay Rio Road and Spyglass Hill Road intersections for both peak departure and arrival times. Exhibit 11 shows the condition diagram for peak MCA arrivals. It is expected 27 I~ ~~ I 0 JIAIN ST INGRESS TO WATER PARK 4- DrAY 1110 RD ECRESS FROM WATER PARK -I> )4 w:Tr~ .F"' , ~ PALII AVI: a '< t ~ 905 DrAY JŒSA RD LEGEND ® - Signal planned as part ~ of MCA project Î@ . - Traffic control personnel present NOTE: - Water Park will close at least ? 90 minutes before an amphitheater event. NO SCAlE 1 1 LINSCOTT LAW & PEAK AMPHITHEATER ARRIVAlS GREENSPAN CONDITION DIAGRAM ENGINEERS 28 CHULA VISTA WATER PARK LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS that traffic control personnel would be present at both the Otay Valley Road/Otay Rio Road and Otay Valley Road/Spyglass Hill Road intersections to assist MCA arriving traffic and water park departing traffic. The Otay Valley Road/Otay Rio Road intersection will be signalized. As previously stated. only a small amount of water park traffic will be departing when the MCA arrival traffic control is set-up. One outbound left-tum lane on Spyglass Hill Road will be sufficient. Personnel should be present to assist exiting water park traffic between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Exhibit 12 shows the condition diagram for water park traffic when an MCA event is not scheduled (i.e. MCA traffic control is not set-up). The calculations show that the egressing left-turn from Spyglass Hill Road onto Otay Valley Road is calculated at LOS B (Appendix F). This indicates that a traffic signal is not necessary for opening day conditions. Also, signal warrants are not met. The Otay Valley Road/Spyglass Hill Road intersection should be monitored for future signalization as traffic on Otay Valley Road increases, as forecasted. The calculations indicate that personnel will not be necessary to assist exiting water park traffic turning onto Otay Valley Road. An initial review of the parking circulation shown on a preliminary site plan indicates that improvements can be made. The main southbound aisle should provide access to all east-west aisles. The southerly three aisles cannot be reached via the main . southbound aisle. The easterly exit from the parking area onto Spyglass Hill Road does not appear to be wide enough. A queueing analysis at the parking entrance· may be necessary, although no major public streets would be potentially impacted by an extended queue. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The addition of water park traffic was calculated to have no significant traffic impacts in terms of the capacity at the key intersections and street segments in the study area. Significant impacts were not determined primarily since: · The water. park generates the majority of it's traffic during off-peak weekday' periods and on weekends. · The water park will close at least 90 minutes before an MCA event. · Significant capacity was recently added to Otay Valley Road and the 1- 805/0tay Valley Road interchange. It is recommended that the parking cirèulation shown on a preliminary site plan be revised to better accommodate on-site traffic. It is also recommended that the water park participate in the development of the Traffic Management Plan which will be prepared for the MCA project, as outlined in the following section. 29 t!~ i~ ! I JlAJN Bt ....~ \ INGRESS TO WATER PARK <I- OTAY Rio RD EGRESS FROM WATER PARK -Þ ~ SPYG~ J , mu. R/) .... PALIl AVE ~ '< ~ ¡g 905 OTAY JIESA RD LEGEND rg ® - Signal planned os port I~ ~ of MCA project ~ § ~ NO SCALE 12 LINSCOTT GENERAL EVERY DAY WATER PARK INGRESS/EGRESS lA\\' & (NO AMPHITHEATER TRAFFIC) GREENSPAN CONDmON DIAGRAM ENGINEERS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK 30 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS MITIGATION MEASURES The water park project was calculated to have no significant impacts in terms of the capacity at the key intersections and street segments. However, the following measures are recommended to provide adequate access and on-site circulation. 1) Close the water park at least 90 minutes before a MCA event. 2) Revise the proposed parking lot circulation and access to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3) Provide traffic control personnel to assist exiting traffic at the Otay Valley Road/Spyglass Hill Road intersection between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on days when a MCA event is scheduled. 4) Monitor the Otay Valley Road/Spyglass Hill Road intersection for future signalization. The intersection is calculated to not require a traffic signal for opening day water park operations. The need for a traffic signal will be directly related to the future increase in traffic on Otay Valley Road at the project site. 5) Participate with the MCA applicant in developing a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for the two projects. It should again be noted that sincé the water park will close early on evenings when a MCA event is scheduled, there will be very little traffic overlap between the two projects. The TMP will identify traffic control, directional signing, variable message signs, traffic control officers, coning, law enforcement and parking management procedures to be followed. 666.rpt 31 - LINSCOTT LAW & GREEi'-.lSmN ENGINEERS APPENDIX A Cumulative Projects Assignment Exhibits o e¡~ o ~~ . mr ~ ~ \O)O$"O - 0 ~I to, Þ 'ÕO /r, '" , Z 5"00 ~ !.> , JlAIN ST 120-'" <1ar;....:;. <¡'\O~ 5.,5- OTAY Rlo RD . *"' Me-A AMPijmt-rt~ :¡¡:r/!~ l' "0 PAUl AVE ~ '< ~ ¡g ~ <\0 905 OTAY JIESA RD ~ ~~ ~ NO SCALE MeA JlMPf-\' ,HrAn-\Z- .g- -& p I""V 12,12-0 AI>T LINSCOTT (pO S- - I N <J - oùT LAW & GREENSPAN CHULA VISTA WATER PARK ENGINEERS ~ I~ e !~ '1.91°, 0 ~ 3 \00 ì30 "",5"9 1....1 ~S" , ....'1'.5", .... 104- _ 10S- .- .- JlAJN ST S-, ~...." , S~ .f- '110 OTAY RIo RD ~ OplOM ÆIJ<. N ftr<-\<..tT SPYG~ HILL RD 2D ~ PAlM AVE ~ '< ~ ~ 20 ~ 905 OTAY JIEBA RD . ~ I~ ~ NO SCALE o 1'tN It 112... "N Æ14:"ET -~ .Ç"-¡¡' p t'1 LINSCOTT 32.00 Æ])T !'i-IN LAW&: I~o - our GREENSPAN ENGINEERS CHULA Vl5rA WATER PARK ~ !5!:! '&~~ 94-2.. !'< M....'ÆY1-I"tI..> i ~ !>-~<N~ f"'-"rC\~ =--r 190 /<=.<15' é- 75' 9"1-2... <.- .0 I r-- , JIAIN ST s..... zõ" 20-7 OrAY RIo RD SPYGÿS8 HlU. R¡j PAUl AVE ~ 0< ~ ¡g 905 DrAY JIESA RD . ~ I~ ~ NO SCALE M"TFf'.'4-L>f2'ë70\!~ FN"'L'T --, s:- - r" ;> "'V LINSCOTT 0,4-2. A 1:> ï LAW & ~o- IN GREENSPAN lS""-ol.JT ENGINEERS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK LINSCOTT L/\\;\I & CREENSP,"\N ENGINEERS APPENDIX B Signalized Intersection Calculation Sheets In the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically. Level of Service criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a 15-minute analysis period. The criterias are given in the table below. Delay is a complex measure. and is dependent on a number of variables. including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the vlc ratio for the lane group or approach in question. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE STOPPED DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A :õ 5.0 B 5.1 TO 15.0 C 15.1 TO 25.0 D 25.1 TO 40.0 E 40.1 TO 60.0 F >60.0 Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, Le., less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable. and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression andlor short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the rangeof15.1to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression andlor longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in the level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersections without stopping. Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. At Level D. the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths. or high vlc ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess.of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation, i.e.. when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. 1994. Edited for clarity LOSFUI.MAN(reports).6123195 ¡¡CM: S;IG~,!ALIZED INTERSECTION S.Ut1MARY Veísion 2.4a 04-09'-1996 Cent_er FOí ylicrocomputers In Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- St.¡-oË,ts: ( :::~J ) ~iAIi'UOTAY VALLEY (N3 ) I- 80':' <¿,8 F,AMPS Anal/'st: jC ¡-.~: ¡ .A (!am¿; : ,'~,(:"b':'ßX . HC'? 1..L1.·::;; P',ì'i2.-3. Typ¿' ; l)t.het (~ . ~ ',;) .-.'J :::' F'¡V¡ ~'¿(11\ C,.:;mment, [)(IST:U'1G -.-----------------------------------------.----.------------------------- ---------,._-------------------------------------------------------------- Easc.bound I l...iestt}ou nd ~,io,- tht:,ound Southbound I , , , L T F.: , L ·r (~~ , r ". , , T ~. , I , '- ,', , ~ " ....-,... ...'u_. u···_······ , un ._.__. -...-... .-...-.... I -..-. ..._M. , .-.-.p .-.- , , , i'·lo" Lan·:?:::: .! 1 , , '-, , , 1 ¿ , , " , I V01Unìe~3 , 4(~,!.:.' :::13 : 2¿.6 3 <':;;ì::'. , 242 2r:.7 , , , ",.,.-..." ¡rJidti~1 12~O 12.0:1.2.0 L: .0 , :12.0 12.0 !-':;:!.II"''';; , , C·T-··r' '.j'Jl.:;;': , -;,""'> ¡ .~ , I 27 ,\ I VI~, , ~~, v, I LC<3 t T im·e 3.00 3.00:3.00 3 ,,()O I ~3.00 3.00 .. - ,... ... .....- ~ .-'. .-~ ..- --...... --. .-... - ...... .- ... ..._,_.n n n. _,,_n ..~ ..- -- -' - -- ". '-- ...- -- . -. -. .... -- .- .... 'Signa.l Uper~ì.tions F'hd:::~~ (':),ílbi na!:íori 1 :2 .! '~ .' 6 7 .,.' ..' -.-,. , ,. ...:1· : (IE: L<3ft _.- ~_'.::' I '_ j ht :_1 * Îi'i-'(;_l j-'; ,j.:;i;'; ~~ .. c·; ,. J\.!.. ~·!'2<¡:":' , F',::j':':::::::; .. , ;,~8 !.._·,;}ft . ; ':,8 L¿,-r·t .. ,·L.,.... ", ". rhr u IIII ·n'. , F·<.idj t~ , F:.iç;ht ;;; , F!ed:=--: '" , ~'<::;,dS; 'i; \,,') ¡':~i(;h :.:. :E8 F;~i:9ht ¡ iL.· Sr.::;· f-:::ig:)t~ :W8 Fi::,;ht_ (:¡ r '::; ;,~~ n 1::, .OA 18.0A : :~reen 15.0A Yeiloh!/P,F\ 4.0 4.0 :Yeilow/AK: 4.0 C ./e 1·:;;: , '. .... . ~~, t- ' '<-:"'0 3eCS ¡"has~ combination o'(der: :t1 1*2 ~-S ._ ,.~., II:::; '_: I ' _ .. m·__ . .. .,-------------------.----------.--------------------------------- Int.eí3&ction F'e¡· fClì·· to'; iìce ::::,ummaT,,/ L..ane Group~ Adj Sat vlc g/C Approach; ¡...·[\/lïlt.3 Cap Flow Ratio r'\atlo Delay LOS Delay LOS. .' - ~- ~ ..---- ------- ----- _._--- ----- ---- ------- ---.~ 1770 51:'~38 0»'322 0.317 10.1 .~) , , ,-:~ -.- '-' .J.J. .¿ " '. 4-;;:'_';, 15/4 0.636 0.31/ 1';; .2 8 " " I- .'" , 17"70 'J. _:,71:; o. ·~,.::,7 ' .., r¿' ~ . '.--.j'",:. '·r/":" . , .., . .- - i --.-'.-' ;.- 372':.· 0.177 I). :::.,3.~; ~ . ,... A -." .. ';.20 1 :::'/4 0.,':-41 (:. ~.'- 1,+ .:! .e> 1.·. ~ '- o. ,. ·;-:;·4U 0.::;(,0 0.207 1:1. .6 '-. I~·. ......J.'-t;i" W Int.¿1"22ctlon [J,c-l a Y - 10. t~ :30C/ '-./Bh I nt.B'íSeC tiOiì :__O~:', .. ;:) '-' L<:i:~:;_ fiHii:::" ¡.'lci;:;, ~ L = ç¡ .0 see Cì~·itieal \//c( x ) = o .61'} --.-----------.----'---..--.---.--...--- .____ ._, __ _. _ __ __ _._ _. __ m_·.. .... _, _~'._ ~.. __ H Ci'1 : SIGr,AUZED I NTEWÆC T IOj'1 ""Ui',íMARY ~jersion .2 .4a 04 -1.::~:> 1-;':;;6 Cent&c F'o¡- 1'1 ic 'tOCoifiPut.e (:s In Transporta.lion ----------------------------,---------------------.---------------------.----- -----------------------------.-----------------------------------.------- :':..t(e~3·t:3 ~ ([." ) ~"iA I I"~/CI T l~ y VALL.E:Y C t·~ .. S ) I-·dO::' -C,"'r:-.· F~ r:Ci r'1 P '~~., ,:-1.:,. (1na1 y~st: j[i f' i 1·:;' i"¡.::;irïìe.: (·:,(~·6'~:~:X .HC':! ¡", I ';v"~' )"'/i::'C. Otheì ''\--- :'-' :::.!"'¡ ~. ¿, f~~¡\ ~~, <>¡"j¡IT¡¿"- n!: ':::.:< r',:, 'J' "L:",¡U '-,L.,", ','- -' '-,'.!_' L'" ~--.----------------_._._----_-________._.. ___________________ø_ ____._________.________ -.--------.---------..------.".---- --.-.------.----------,-.-----,-----.------,...-------- ~:' d :;;.; ~_ !:) C, U. fl c.:; ;,·j.,.:;,s t;:,():.) nd ¡\¡,)¡- ,:"¡~I¡)C';.J. nd '::'0U::" :~¡ :',1 ',_';-i fie; c R I'" L. F,: '- " .., .. .-.-,- . ..'-- .... -. - '.Ji. :"""::.t¡'¡,0:...: , , .. , .. VU.J..UI1'I<:;:3 , ¿¡)' '.) ¿i:Y0 ,;0,+ , , " , ~. - '- .-.',,:,.¡ :_6.ilÇ. !"J.idth , i"':: . ,~~ ' ' 1........ .1) .....J _,_ .1) , _ .'~ 1 --. '..' F:-:UF: \/013 , 0; , . - , ~, T -.,'~ ,_ rime ~.~ . C I'.) ~; ,,:;':)0 r _: ,,·)0 ,ço , : ~; - (H) ,""'. ,_\...,,:;;, 1- , ..;,.; . '~"'../ -.- '.- ... ., ", ~:.~; 'j'; ,1 c';p';:Jrat:. ions :':'" ....,'" C ('fil;~' i (¡,::;:¡ '_ i Co:: ,~ . ¡ ¡.:.;J. '~'J '.:;' " . , -.":',, :'IC ...:.. u, _ :...c...;" '_ '-.'·:';:'1 i ì'ì', :._~ ;\; F:í:jht ;'..:..';('1;: ¡':",:)C:L: c '::'Ci,~:; '/,j¡-~ :_,,:;;, r" f~ - " _. '- . . 'j ;ì¡'"U i:. .. F.-.L9ht~ F':19ht ¡:'!ed~~ , r"i:;;,d::: , 1"'iL; "", _.c..'. !·,:j.¡;ht:. ¡\,.I...:Ji:l. , -.-. ':;'L hi9ht Iii,',', F~: i ::j-h t IW'...) :~: (,':;¿ n 1:'" <)¡.:>¡ .. ~.).':¡ : Gr>::~(;;r¡ ~'::' .O{.:, y";: .ll':)\...J/A¡~: :'t .:) ,) ; 'ri::' lle,(;..I/Af::; i.f ..<> ',_ J'(: 1·;:' L,c:"' n ,:,:;1:. h ~ .",1:; i " ~~ _ "..' .~:. -'_ í'i.::} t i ':' r: \¡"',:':;)I I·'· H_ ¡!'..\. r:' "-'- ---. - .....- I n ~._ ".;:'¡ .:'::0 <. _, .'^ "' J ~"'::;]' ¡" oJ r ¡'Jl.:¡ nc,,:, ~'L:¡¡lli. Lùrk (1ì (..up· ¡"¡J,i '"e, , .j,' (, g/C.. r.':¡¡,Jpr ',~-'3.C ¡ i ~ ¡'Ii \) m t 2~ C,:'::l¡:> i':' 1,)1.,-..) :---<,.it..!. .~j F:a.ticl L'id,,>, ;_OS De l,:3'/ ~...O<;_· -. ._,,- _. ,--- - -....- .n____ ___ _'_·N·_.._ '-'- .~. .__._ m... - 1/ .,.) it ,. -, 1 -.' lO. l. ' , " -.. , , -' ~. - r . r 1 ..~. , .' .. - . ~.. ,- ,. i..dC" ~ ..' :', ' . . ~~ .~, / .i, _ ,,;.. .'-'._' , '" :', -' .- ;.'_.J ~ . -- - - . , :, .~ :'1 '" '''' '_J_':";I ~ '.~ ." ';'11'_',:", ...\..'-' .. '). i.¡n·,::o'" \. '/ ..~. L,,:· ~ ::. ~_.~ '.":".2 1.. '--:', ,_\ A ) ,',,: ,. .- '..' -' .- ,- .'_,..."" HCI''''¡ :' '3 I G~IAL I ZED INTEt-<'3ECTION SUMMARY V'~l·sion 2.4a 04-12-'19')6 Cèilte'í Fo'í Microc.omputers In Transportation ---------------,--.------------------------------------------------.------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -s t "( 0,s-ts : (E' I"; ) I'IAH,/OTAY VALLEY (N'S) 1"{-;'~O5 '::·8 RA/'1P'::, ?ìnalyst: 38 t:- i.le I"'~aîf e : ':.(,,6SB'). HC').; /-1f ~~a Typs; C)t f',,:,:;, ( 4 -"~)-'-)6 Pt..¡ r"'~/~I/ r- ,-rol'\ COíTHíH5'nt. : EX I::' T I f\!(:; + PROJECT I- C1..Jt'1ULÞ;T I\/E F'F:OJCC T';, ---.-----------,---------------------.--------------------,---------------- ---------------------------------------.---.---------------------------- Eastbound , Westbou n·~l , N·:)rthbound , Sout.hbound , I , , I L T R I i_ T F~ , r " , L T F! , , , f\ , I , _ ',--'" .m __n ...---.- , "'-".-- --.-.... ,.-.--.. .-,---.-- , .-...-- .- .......-. , , , i_·:;tO¿;¿ , 1 , 1 , 1 1 I'·i'·.,' " , " , - , - , ....)':...LUifl<3:::: ,C;9.r.:, 318: :2:10 4t.l'j , 548 '" 2(:..7 , , Lan·9 Width , 12 .0 12.0:1.2_0 12.0 , ;12.0 : ',/ (~ 12..0 , , F:i()r.::: Vol:::.: , 32: ~. , 27 I ~.I , LO;3t ··r· , ':;.00 3.00:"3.00 3.00 , ::3.00 3.:)0 3.c.:O L lrn,~ , , ----.------,--.-----------------.-------.--.. ..--.. - .---. . .-..- --- ... ~- ..- .... - -" -. .. ..- ::,i.gn,:¡1 o p.¿;> '( 2 t i.,J Jì:::;' ,. L, .. _ CUiil;j.L. ¡¡-:::,~.::.. ie: ¡¡ .. , ~ "~-" ," ! !.~,'::,.<; . ~ . , , - '.... L:..:' Lðft Ii'..·· :... ,~, I ,j iL' '{hru , ;..1 ::;~i9r,¡_ 'f":, , .:... U¡", :~. !"';DcJ:~ , t....:,-j:-·. , ·..'ii_ I_aT t. , ¡ :;, ~~ L¿~ft , '¡-t'-li" U -01: * , Thru ~ ¡:·:~i9ht. , ;.H<,.LshL , P6d:::i , f=cd::; ,. r-¡e' ¡:':ight:. : E:8 R.i::;jht "~;C Right :l·J8 F:i9ht (~I~:;:·Sïì 1.'::,.OA 1·3.0A :C"í2éï; l':',OA Y;,.311o¡..rIÞ;i::;: 4AO 4.0 : YellovJ/(i::;: .; .0 ,-,._1.. LeíI0t.h. " :.s'3CS r', I.~ ,.,....._ c.vmb,.Lnat.l.Oi"ì ~ " ...J ~~, ,.. ' "' Ii;:: µc ..--¡....... ,,!,ç" ..;'V '-I In·;;;,,'-=' '~' I '''';'Ç i - '''',j. tt,_' .. -- ,.' .. .'- - .'- -. - ..-...... ... _._ n' _ _ .... _, .._ ...",. ,"'.. - ...' - ....-. ...... .--.,-...-- .....--.... -------------'------.-.--..-.- I nt.¿:rs.ectiC.>ïì F'2.r f c!( m.a, n',~:·=", <:~"u."i"jrr¡¿¡ ;.- Lane: Group: Adj Sat vie g/C ApPl-oach: ¡...1....'mt.::, '~ap Plow Rat.Iü ¡:;~a t i. 'j iJ-S'!laj"' L.O::;; Dðld/ LOS --.------- -.---- ---------- ---....-- -. '-',- ---.- .-..-....-.. ._--- ._----- -,,_.... EG T lììO 5588 o .4il ,". .-." -., i0 _:c' " il.3 c I) . ..).L I C R 4 ;_'f;: 1.57l. . 0.>::;'-:::6 o . '~_:;".L / -,..' ..;... - '.,k L ;'+72 i770 o . 7:2':;~ , .-.- ,---..' 3725 () .22.2 ,"'. /.:'-:,.":- . / . '_.J._....' .. . ., .:'f... '- ~,~() 1 .= '~' /,' o .7~.;,¡ r:) _. ':'_'..' l,. ,,' . ....J, --" "-.-' ,., '- L TF: --,/, 18t.:'j' o .f::.,2.:~ (..) . .... ..~, I .J."t ..;:. fJ . ·,i.~'0 1574 0.;::;·3·::;,' () A :;'·':;,·7 ¡ -. " .:.....r. ,- r ';rters~?c t. ion DGlay - 1:L .? ~::':'~C'I' '·./6 ~"; .~ (¡;:',:';;'( :3;'::':::: tie·¡¡ I_U.~· ; .- L'-j:;; r: i" i.IH\~/C/cL::~, L .::¡ .0 see Ci ';. tiC'; L / ...: -- "'..- - . " - U" ,:,:,,'j ,:;': ..-........... .....- . .....-. .-,-...- ..~ -"'.- ..- ...... .-..- ,-. --- - ---. HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I./'::;rsion :2 .4a 04'-09-1'9)6 Center Fo"( i'1icrocompu't·ers In Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Str,3ets: (E-W) MAIN ST/OTAY VALLEY (N--:; ) I -005 ¡'IS F?A¡"!PS Ana.lyst: Jr:; F i 1,:; ¡\lame: 66{~,':;,8X: .I-¡(_ c· Ari-;;'.3. Type: CthE;T 4 ... .-;; .- ';¡ 6 F'ivl ¡:.:- r.: A :(.~ COfllment ~ E)<ISTING ________________________________._____________________---______0______----- ---------------------------------------------------------..-------------- , Eas'tbou nd l,Jes tbou nd Northbound , Soutrlbou nd , , , , L :::~ , T ,-, L T c' i T '-, , , , '- " " - ,', , --.----. .---- ..._,..,,- , - ._ _~'U --.'-'" .. ~- ,- ~- ._.~,- -.-..-... .._.... ",.m .. ----" ." N' ~ ....-. , , i'~o " Lan·5S , 1 ..;) 1 1 , , ~ ,- , \/(,.!..urne::=: , :;./ ¿ :.::::/ ·k)4 40::; ',''',i i7C, : , .;...:....i.. Lane Width ;12,,0 1 '.> I,; 12 .0 12.0,12.0 J.2.0: F~TCIR Vols , 0: 40: 1 ~J : , Lost T..lme :3.00 ~;. CO 3.()0 3.00:3.00 3.00: ... - -......--. -.--..-.- -.. .~ ... .- .. -.------,-----..--.----------------------'-- .;, i .'.:'jiì'J 1 Cperati()lÎ~3 p¡'lase Combination .2 q , H , '. . ~_':: f t.- . : (·!O L'2ft ,- '-¥. '¡"hru . , ThïU ¡;ight , ;":~. : ::~. k-¡' , , ,.J. .,..}t 1_ F'sds '" h"ds 1 ':..~ Left : S,B u,ft .,,~ ''''': Thru ~'I; , Thou , F..:ight k , Right F'eds * , Pads , i'Hi' F~íght : EB F< i 9ht .:;::; F-:ìght.. :W8 Right Gr06n L?OA ~l~OA : Gì-een 10.0A y'í3l1ow/AF: 4~O 4.0 : Yellow/AS: "'.0 Cycl(~ Length: t,O 3è·::':S Phase combination order: In 1*2 ~tS ,,- ~.~ --- -.- ....- "' .~-_.. ... -. -" ... .-.... .. "-'.. - -" ... - ..- -_...,,~. --. ...- .- - --. ._..~ "- .-- .", .. ~.. ...-' .-.---. _. ..~...- - -~..- Inters8ctioi' Pa¡-formanc:s Summary La.ne Group: f-"idj £'.:It v/c g/C Approach~ Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio ~<at~o . D,,,lay LOS Delay I_OS _._._-~... -. - -.... --. ~-_._.._.- -_.- ....-. ..-.-. ...._.~ -_.._,----_. -- -- .....--. ..... L '~,31 1770 0./78 O.JOO 17.4 '- 'J .7 " ....- ¡ ¿L,;'() .,,"" -,e ;)" 14/ 0.717 1.7 , _.'/ ';".-1 ,-1 ~,.~ò r 2Ü4':; "):;:,OU ().270 0.367 ,':;:\.'.:' '- 1 f) . ::' r.:. :.;.,/ ~ ::.:,?':.~ o. () . ~2:('7 1 :~: .;:) .. L ¥; ;-j '~) 1 ':,)" ~~j , ;,) . ~:·:;O 0.1(:;3 2r:; .::- (, 1-:: .:. ,.".- j F: _''.;;0 .-L JIb? U. ..::r.¡,} O. lÜ:~: 1 :~', . ') L fnt2¥sac.tiofi ~)0i:j' - 12. (., S·3c/.......,?h I nt.ei'2.·:sction ~J)':~ :;:: e L. (~)':';::. Tilììe,C/C:L¿~ L .. -1.!.J ::;;,;;:,: Cr '1 t iea 1 I.//c( x ) ::::: o. 75<} .-..---...--"-.------..--.--- ---- ...¥......-.....,...- .-.. ¡-!(.r·'Î: SIGI'~ALIZE.D INTERSECTION '3UMMAF:\ \/e¡-s ion ¿ .t';d. 04--12""1996 :::':':Bnte'( FOí ¡Vii C í OCOîiì~"";U t.0ï':'=:: i"ì r'( 2 n:3f-"'-Or t. s t.lor~ ---------.---------------,-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------.-------------_.----------------------- ; t·( ,':.·,¿!t:'E; ; ([-..irJ ) ì'1AIN '3T /OTÞ1Y \/ALL::'i 1'-; "-'::, ) 1'<::()::::', :"!E F~t~¡"\r¡':, ,"1 n¿~ 1 /':::;':~ --'::'" 1 ¡-j.";.., 111'- ; ,,'-,¿t'·k~>-:: . ;·:c :'-j. .J. 1 'ii~':;; ;-1·;;;-'1 ':','¡ \ ~ ¡~ :', . .. ,. C (HHf!18 Ti t ::><1':": [j',!G + PROJECT ..----------,- -----.------------------- ..__.._------_.,~------------------'- - "'_._ __ __ __, - ~. ,. _.,. __ - ,_._ __... - '_. ____ - - ,_ __,no __ _" _, __, _ ",. ,,.,__ . - ... _. - ,_,~._~ _. - __,_ _._ __ _,________ _,_.n _",_'.__'__ '''': c:t:::;.. t.i:;'{~)U ;')d , Wes!':,,!:::o()U 1'1'::; , !\!or ::"¡"iL'·,)U r!C~ , '~-,i)U, t hbou n(1 ~> , r v , , T , - ,\ ,-- " _d -'" --' :'-!,:) " :_d rl'~'" - 1 , - \.'"c:·lU¡(lc'::: .;} "' .';¡-""-, ~,.;... '.., ~,()/ ; ¿¿l .LbO; J ..',;.. ,J :'I~~ .-,., .---',-" ..<....:...0 1.2.0 '- ,',j 1 .;. ~'- .-\ ~:.::: . (1 : ·,..I-',·'.J'-." L .:_ . '-. ;-\ rUt:, \i() i.::; ("1 .". I 1" ' ~, A·.J.. . ,--,I. ï ~ li1';~ . ,)() .:.}I_? , ~~ .00 ,,;:.. ,:::)0: ( :", .:,)0 : ..-.- -- --'- _. i ,;:; í¡';~1 .1. ;J¡,:),~'I ~" -::, _ '. 'il'¿'~ '-'.-- -- c' (:) ':; : 11:'>,',;:';: ;;¡,-'.l. ;!.~ J..'J, -- -- -- - "~, 1 - . ì'li ¡I! '" , ... :~i ; '. '; ,.-- :-> ,.,. -- _,i_; -. .. i" ~-I 'I :., , 1 ~'''Iì-U :-< 1 :::;j', L -;¡ ïi ::. ".:;"",,:;..: '; '. cc:s ;,' :'\ ,i'J (: . ....,~ ¡- l'iL ~-,- -,.L::;;:J; 1'_ . . :\.!..d:·": : (....: :~~. -: i. ~;j;¡ -:: ~"- ~~!'( .;';'i:;· n -.' .. ,'" ......,1. (:,"':1 , ,I, ·..-:,",-:.,'n .- - ,;:.!. j..,-::J¡;.J.' n,' ~.~ . C: it .. ;.) , í 1 J..()hi r:';'--- "¡ <,.,/C 1.,':::' :..... <:::I'I'~¡ ï.:. ;-1 . .:,:.....) ~:8CS Pha::.:,..;:; '__OIÎibi n,:¡ L_l.;,:.; ¡ -::)r ( ~:: 1 ~¿ I~ ç .-t,..' ...--. 1 nter;:>ec t,le- ¡ F'·;:, r for lì18 n:::.<= 'C.·l.1f'íim;3 (';' Lan,:; Cì(\"')UP: Adj -;:...,-1- 'i/ (' ·:;:/c ¡':';pproac'h; -..}ÇL '_ r1\.!,fI :~¿ C:.'~:¡ p ¡, 10;'" F~:ati{) E;:¡ t:~·.:ì u·Ë'~a/ l_U'~· D¿.:lay LOS· "-..._-".- - ..- " -,- -". -- -. " , () ;' ,',. ~ ___i ,"-'_ ..J.__.' " "','1- "..... -- -, f':, 1 j,- " - - "- .'.... "'Il~ -. -,~ " ,.' ,,;,'.i"'.:.'.' '''', L .- ."" .. - ..~ ." -, .,. ':',:::'i.,;;'; '..j ,-. . .'~. : 1 ;! ~:. "~' ( ::~: ,::,. (. t. ..î. (! Ii i_C;':' . ..II'. ::;/ ':;;"'·:,-,\_'_':"\_'11 - :_u'~;.. ;_ l.ill;·.: '-,-"' ~ ,;. .- ,.- -.:.;'~C :: 1 ..::. ,~:~ .:. i..,/\ ~ '_!.-:;,,':) ....-....-. "...-.-"..- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4a 04-12-1996 Center For Microcornputers In Trarlsportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ St¡-eets; (E-'W) MAIN Sl/OTAY VALLE)' (N-S) 1-805 NB RAMPS AGdlyst: 38 File Name: 6E,6NB2.HC'~ Ai"aa Type: Other 4-9-9~ ~'M F¡EAK CCdliment: EXISTING j. pr:::OJECT ~ CUi"IUI_A TI\iE F'ROJECTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --.-----------------------------------.----------------------------------- : Eastbound wsstbOLlj-¡d : ~!orthbounJ : S()utllb0llI1d : L or R I L T R: L T R: L ~ , , , ...-_. ...",- ..._--". ..., .......-. i',!o. La n¿~s : 1. ¿ .;. 1: 1 .... : Volumes : J72 772 bV') 611: 221 270: LQri~ Width :12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0:12.0 12.0: R'fOR Vols : 0: 61: 2;J: Lost rima :3.00 3.00 3.0f) 3.00:3.00 3.00: -- -----------.--------------- ~-.__....._-------_._----------_._----_._-- -. - ..- ~igl1al Opel-atiorl3 G'hase Co~¡binatlon 1 _ 4 : - LC' LeY L .1. : ¡',IC; L¿;f t Thru ~ I 'rr¡ru Right : G'iqht ~ ¡.-, <:.~ds : ::'ç,d:::; WE Le'-t :SO Left Thru ~ : Thru Right ~ : Right Peds + : F'8ds NG Righi: : E8 Righi:.. :-':"2 R.i.ght : t,.JE F'i.9ht. Green 17.0A 21.0A :G¡-een lO.OA Yello~'J/AF: 4.0":~ .1.) : Y',311o¡,..j/ç:.~F: q..0 Lyele Length: 60 secs F'hase cOITlbination orde1- ~l ~2 #S __ - _.. 0""-- _... ___,. _ __.._... __ _. ... ._. .__ h_.. . _ . _.. _... __ ~.. _ h_ __ .... .. "' Int2rs~::<:.¡:.i\)n ¡':'·'\::.¡-"foï¡T¡.an,::.e Summaï,/ Lana Group: Adj Sat v/e g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS __.__.___ _,._~,._ __.....___...__._ _.._.,____ .. ....__ __._... .A·,,_.· _._. EB L 531 177() 0.778 0.300 17.4 r S L T 2670 :;'-'.'.;..,~' ,:i_~,_ 0.71/ ::'.1 " L~j2- i .204·<.' '.' ...!._,.¡ 'y',~"":"" ',_U ." :"" ::. 7 ';) .i'E· '.>' ) 1 . 'J '::":' ',::, ';', ..-', ,- _. .... .- (.; _ 2;-:;:.)!.. r-,,, 1.'::\ : l: __ __ . ¡~ ~~~ jl~~:' _.___ ~.18j lS.O w Jíit6ïS~:,i~t.i,jr! [':'::-L.),. _ ;~::::,_/""'<:::~I Iì"it¿i^,;:,.;.;ct:t'_'¡-I Li.) , -- '_ !_v:.::t. Ti.îfì·S/C/C.le-, L::; ;._ " ,,_.., Crit.ical ". ; .~ G. 1_;; ....._ '" 0'- _e'¥_ _._ _.. _. __ . _... ._. '" .. __. HCt'l: SIGf'~ALIZCD INTERSECTION SUMMAI,y \/ars ion 2.43 04 -O'j-l 'j'j6 C,snt~e:í For Microcomputers In Trdn:.=;portation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------.-------------------------------- ~,tï',30.9tS : (E --i...J) CTAY VALLEY ::.;!) ( >.¡ ..~, ) O!__C~;i'!DCF,: r0.\/[ /1iidl,/s:: :-'-'" f:' ~ if: ~"!,:im<:o : (:'·t:6i\IG>< . HC':) ~. c (~'I' ·0··J. '¡ ~-:;:.' . '," :,~. ". '0" ,~¡ ,';,j ¡::'r-/j 'LA:< \..I '_J 1"= I C '::JfftIìl6nc'· C><i·~·T lr-"¡(~ --.--------------.---------.-.-----.-----------'----.----.------------------------- ----------.---------------------------------------------------------------- Castbound ¡",iestb,)u nci , t"!Ot thb()ur¡c: Sou thbou fI':; , , , , T " , ; ", , ; ¡.:: , , ~ c' , - " , ~ ¡.-\ - , , ," , .... ,.. .. , -_.. , , ,"'t<::·, j "'--."- " , 1 , 1 1 !_-:;¡I;',: - ; , \/,~, lUlih3S 36':;., 1.-1 '-~ , " .:; I 15 ,J 70 , ~ .' J, ,.' -., "~, J.. .~' I -' '. .' , \-dn,? ~,~i .~'__¡--'¡ : l~.f) L ':';:. ,) i ,,;.:: . '.) J..,.:.. . () L'.'_; : 12.0 l~. ~) F:';or, \/c, .J..:::: 0: 1.1 ",I ~ t...,.¡ -.-." i lii¡,,::;· , .,r·. ~, .:.)0 ::. .(';0: ~'; .CO '~~ . ()O :'. . ,~.» : :; . (;1~) ~' .(,0 J .00 ;.:'; .00 ~; .00 ::; :00 :.....'~..:::;. ,~ j _. . ',,/'J .- -. . ,.. .~, ." ..-... .- .-. ,- ... -. '~-'- - .- --- .~, --. . - .- '.- -. ,-. ,~. i. ,9 îj;;·' .!. ,)¡:;.;:. 'j' ::: '_ ~ t.> ¡";':;:" ; J ,~'. ,-' .,~ ,_ "_'I. ;~. ~ fi-:", ~:. ion " ,~ " 0 / " ~ :...¿.'f ';'-;"", I I 'J.'~' ,-,::;:' , , I I) '~; " I :il ._., ,"., ....... . . ...".,. ,'\1..dl' ...... J.>.:; 1 '. F'<:;od'::,~ ,.. , ..¡ ,., ,-h;' I ,~".-_ , L·--~:·r t. i_Ç_1 ._ .. '- .·1...·._. * ThïU " ; Iii 'J , r'''':,' . ;¡..- F-: j.:~ht " 1"\1..::;;IJ"_ ~!e(;i'::_' " ~'-3d~: , ¡,,--!!3 :-:~i~;¡h 7:- ~:...:' F:i.ght. ..:<L :-:...l.. :WD i'," ; ". ~~ - r\l.::jil·_ ' ". ,1.. ~:-:-,I 1 1 ._ ~_i '( .;;j;;;- 'ï'i ::' .()A J.OA 21~OA : Cr:¿·en 1 ' . i) ~ '¡' ':::.~ lOL^J//i. " tj (,f _,0 ,q. .C: : ''1'',: llow,/(:';F: ,:¡ .:....: :, ;'C: .1.2' . -.' ..,~.. ,,-, . ·~;·,'?C:::: ¡::-'hase c: c;(nb ií'l::i t i o;-¡ ..... .J.... í*l 11;':: -~} ft~, L. \'~ :; :--i '. ¡ : .. '·....I·....<··:::J ,..-.--.' ,,"- --..-"'----.......... -~.- --. Int.,srs2ction ~··;',sr r or rna ¡¡C' \': ':·umma í 'I L..ð.rl,,:. í.;¡!O:.JP: Adj -Sat \' 1- 9/C APPïO-3..ch: '" / 0..-: ¡..,.¡. .-. ~ ,_·ê.P ¡..~ low F~ati<) F~at..io De 1-3.':/ !_C)':, Delay t,OS· 11...,,111·_.:.: ----. ...-.... .·.0.._--_.- "....- - ~-- "..' -.... ~.- -. ---.-.... _.._~_..._".- - 70 I) ,2'JO ,f; ~ cj. . "_' .--., " .".J " . "V_ --, , - ì,"' -."' -- - -. . 0.1'):' C' . ':;.1/ .~ .. ,\It..: - - ' ',,,' .:). ::.)-~;':i U .lU'-) .' . - i. _ - í, :c;,:, '~,::>7l· () .. -::t¿ /~ () .;'{-' >' L.. : T' . -);.~. '.;' , C; . ::)~);:.., <> " ,.:;; ~:..;' " ..-. - : 1 .1.. '~'.J. ,..' ' ..'..- ~' "'., . 10(,'/ O.(Y'::':J.· ". ".' L ) .C c, .,. '~ . .~' ".' '.-' - , , ",~ ! /~,()-¿ o .1..:-\-2 () . -'v' .; ....; j" 1. "\ ". n te t :~;<:';".:' t. i. 0 tì Dee 1a/ . ;P :'·3C-/ \j<:; ìì Iï¡t'::'8fsect.ion LU:, - ") ,~ ..........: ¡ .!.¡'¡, i .0 see Cr il:._1.::-,.31 -·-..//C( x ) = " . '" '_.'_1.;':, '. - ... '- '.,~, . .:... / ;J ...-.-..-.......-.......- HCI'i ~ ~~ICr,ALIZED INTEFÓECTION SUt11~1Ar'~Y \J,:¡;rsion ¿.4a 04~" 12··..19',~!6 (·enter ¡··or 1'1 i (: r ''::'<::.GiTipU t.,,3.:- 'Î::=: [" _. T'( a n:3P()'( t:.,a t. i 0:) i'"i " " ---,--------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ::,i.:. ï ·28 t ~3 '; (¿ .-ì,..J) CrAY VALL:='Y r··..·, ( ~,!.., ì Oi,t~Ai'-~Ucr::.; ,-;VF -'." /~'irl.jlyst : In ,.... J " I'.¡.:) ïì'i ':: (;;,';'!_,OL..["\':: .rl:,_ , ¡' .l.J.<-=' ;-'. T ':~'d Ty-p;¿; . Oth':';::ií" 4"':)'" ')i; :~'Ì'I ¡>[¡:'''!<, CUÜiil¡ent: CXI::~ TII\!C:i , PF;:0,)C.Cr _.-._--_._------_._--_.._---~.- ~ - .-....-... -" - .--.. , , -.-------.---------.-- -." ,.-.--_. .. _u·""'__'··_ .--.------------.-------.-- ....- .-.- ... ~._... .-.-. ------------------ ..- - -.---- .. -, - ... ~... E.astbou ]'¡,j , L"j, ·:::U.J()U)"¡C: I'·!O\- t i"',b,)u íl'~': ',():,):~ :'·,L:,,(.Ju. ¡"Ie; , , L F. , , , F: , , " , , , -, ,-, , - , " , 'io:) . L3n,;;·::::· , 1 ..;:, .. , ~ '\1',:.:;,11.11110:'':; , ,~ .- .,,:.... ',";"'. , " , , 1', 7(; , .~.' ,_, "t - '.'/ ..L/ I :,·Ji,-j I:. i"1 . l,~ ,() j, ,.- . ;~, ,'j , 12 . :.~: l..~ . ,~; (: ...'- _n "- - .,- r'\'rCIF, Vol's i",) 2( c: , :_,,:.::~: t: 'j ::'111;::;: 1).00 ,;. '..'0 I :.:'~ . : ~ ( . .'. ,) _ "f_':O : ~: .OC 3,00 _. . OC1 : .-.~ ,¡~:O ~~ . "·u =:. CO . '.' ~ , ...... ....-. ... --_.- .- -,,- -_._~. __._. ._...m :': :.~;.:- ï" .. ~ ... 'c '" '- .;^ '.~' : ;..;,;. ,.;.L .~. ;. .:~ <:' r~¡~=.:' i f¡·b_ t i. '.) ¡¡ 1 , ·f-<- '_.':.;' I '- ~.,_;. I ._ (i II U ¡'hI U !.,"'.,,';'" ,- , ,- ,,,:)., (1.::;, '.j,-- . +... " i_.~" f:: '.; ~ ,"1"...- T 1"1'( U ¡ 'I' U r::;~9r¡t , F: i gh~::. , , ¡:';;:;'C¡,~:~ F'(;.!d.<.; " (,12 . -.1.." F:i. :~ht ""..L:::jl i'_ I :.._~.; F- : _~ k ,'. :WL r-'::L;¡ht .... i'-..1.':;;jii·_ '_.i, _'" ·..if"'; ~ " , .,," , ¥"" 1'; . (;{i --.. , '-.. ¡'·~:.llOv.;/¡::~F\ .:¡. .u u. ;y lluhl/(':f< /.i .0 ." I.. .." ~.. .. -~ . :~.(; ::·:'~;c:::: ;:',"Id¿:·:;: . "...1.-., ,.... "rJ ...... ;;1 lE 4"',· ",,' '-'1"'-' .1.0:;;: '...-':::' 1;.::1 '_I I . ' _' II ¡ I , '- I 1 ~,t ,_ ..1. ....' I ¡ '·..'1 ',-":;'1 tr~' h·_' ... _. ..- -. ..- _. - n.._ ,w'_ ._, _. 'n'_ ........ -..,... . __..c ~=:¿t.. ¡:. ç.'; :' '::;"'1 in..;':!. iì'':.'';' '~UiTlina.·1 y '.)1'· '-.'" L,:.ti·I':;· (1roup; {,¡cij ..~., ~ '....'/ C .~ I.. .~. ,_ .... . _ , t.. ......::~ '- ~/ '- r--1r' -' I '..-";;:"_i I· ¡V! \/ ffl t~~:5- Cap ¡::- 1 C,i,..¡ ;--;,'.:,"1 t. 1 ,~, :::~d 1.:.1.'.) D.-:!l¿¡/ ;"'1..)'::.;., U<.:.~.l ,:::;'" l.~U·::' ._ m --" - '.i. ... '~1 ',0 .l-'I .' ~ .'.;:') ,......... '11/ _.....,'-- ",:"v' , " ,~- ','j!.: - ~ - . - ïiC, ""' ~.,: '1- :. ;'.¡ ..",,\,-- - , -' ~¡ -' . . ' . ,'. ~.. ',,' '- . -- - . ~ . '. J ~". . 1 :>' .- i, .-¡ . ~ - '- u :..L ".\..', \: ,~. i'l I..... .... : (:' "', ..'-'. ,l : ¡ ._ ~~ , , , '¡:'.c.;, '., x', . . ' - - .' ( " (', HCM' SIG~IALIZ[D INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4a 04-12-19'ib Cent-8T For Microcomputers In Transportation -.-.-------.--.------------------------------------------------------------ -...---------------------------------------------------------------------- ':::'l¡-8$tS: : (E -I,)) OTAY VALLEY RD (N'S) OLEANDEr, AVe ~~ru.lyst : JB f- i. li3 Naíìì<': . 6(,f;,OL2 J1C'j Area Type: iJtr~I.¿:.r :"r .,) ~"'.~¡(. ,",to,; ¡>[P¡I< ¡"Ii L.ornment; [><I:~;T li~G f· PROJECT I' CUt1ULA T I VE ~'RUJECr~· ..------------------.------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ¿asf.:..bound , ~Jestbou nd , f\lor thboU nd .southbound , , , , , í c· , !- í ':' , L , '." , L T ,. , .. " , ,. , " , ,... -~_...- ... , ,.......--.- -- -- -.-.-... - .-.- --"'-" _"N'_ "..'- m _ ___ , , , (Iv. Lanes ! .5 , , .1 " , , 1 , , " , - , " Volume:,;:; (.:(; g';'¡4 c' J lOSd 18: .- (;.'1 40 C 70 .-'.-' .~ , " ..' Lane Width ., -.' , ' '. ,... : 12.0 12.0 ':'2.G : L2.0 J_2,0 1 .!.. '- ' '~' J..':" ".....,. , F.:TCR \/015 , 0: '~', 1 0: -, , .:..¡ , l_o,:;t TIme :3.(;0 .:; ~ C~O "3 .00 : '3 .00 3.00 3.00:':;; "i):) ,;; ,(1:") J . CO : 2; .00 3.00 3.00 .. ..- ..,. '-~ -- -.. ~. ,- . .... ..' ~- - ". m' .__.. .__ _ _.. ._. -----------...--------.- n_..,_, ,.. _, .. ~ '0'- __,,_ _._ .,_ ._ "N'_ .3igík11 O¡::·(;: ¡. a t l u i¡~: Ph.c;se Combi rl.a.tì'Jn " , ¿ , ;,;:; .. c- ., , ¿G Left , ~~. ,',12' L ,;;'ft ~~:_ , -r¡"'j)^U :f~ , , 1·;"I·I·'....l , f~" i 9 ht , , ~ -, ; ; i Ped'2: , , ," " i..JC L6fL .. , ~:- ~ 1 ::,.;- '..';';:;1 ._ Thi"u. :): , "ï:"II'U .. , F<igh>:. :r. , r~:ight , , Pad::; , ¡:'rJd:s ~ , ,. (,IS F~ight. :E8 r", . _'< I.~ ;... (\,1.'--;)11'_ S8 Rig[·yt : L,JE F;i 9ht:. Cr~'j<2n ::' .OA 3.0A ~:l . o;::~ ; (;¡r,':~'8n 1 . ()í':i Y,slli)w/Flr~ 4.0 0.0 4.0 ; ,,{ (~~ L J. (:, iN /" (:1 :':~ ,:¡. .0 Cycle L.<;;'i"lg :~,>, : ~'O sees pha:.=::e cOiTibi.natioÎI ,. ".' !t.:: ItS I:' j .~; e:;:::; 1 ¡OJ'.!. ;t.::_ "'.- ,,_,,_U-_" on _.. ,__ .... _ 'M ...-._," .-.-----. InL'i3ï'sectlOì"ì ¡:'~3¡' ï0rd·¡dnc·¿, ;'U:-liiii-·~ì. r / Lane GíOUP: ¡~dj Sat \j/c g/C Approach~ '1\/mts Ca~ r710w ¡~a.tio R.-21tl'J D.~ L,¡ ~O'~ 081ay L~OS -~ ....--- .-'''' ... .--- n___~ ......_ --,-_.~... -.. -~._, . -... ...... --.-. ,~..- .. -"_..~'._~' -.-".. EB L ".,,- , 1770 0.230 ').1::,0 1,-+.::' ':,,' , e .::..ç,c, . '-' ~ / TF\ ¡ ..' ." r7~. ".".,.' O. ':1-/ -,: o . ,~\ 17 '.) """_""""J .~! ·.."·,J·V :I'JL: , ' -,'"" ...:.? /() .;::. d ()34 :) ,. 1 '~LO In-'' e '- ...,. ..;.. '- ff< ::",,),..¡. '=,571 o .f:i¡-.-·. ,. .:"~'-' " ¡'H:~ .~. ~' -.1; .1._'.1-._' \.:!,(,:-:. ''::1 . .~': :: ~_ ~ :-.)¡-\ .. .- ~'J~ L ·.5·:,i~ li~G? . O. O/~; './ " .-' ....:.' ,~, ~" . .' 1'\ _,' _·,·t l,:';;,();: 0.14 ;":1 .'~ .j. - :tÏì¡:,,ç:'~ï~:38ct.ion DiSl.:;;~,¡ = 'j ./ ··C·'·. / '.,'.:; .J. i"ì :::...·:3 " .c.;,:,::,::,:};"¡ :_U'> .. ;,) L0s:t:, T lili·:~'./·C/ -..: ~';:" , 1 .... ') . () ~::.ç,c ,- "..; ,j. . - ~ ! :) . .- '......' .1-.' !.-'·...-0.--1. ,-', ...-.....-... ..'-... . ..-.. .- · J~C~I: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4a 04-1S'-1')'~6 Center Fo," Mic1-0CO¡nputers In Transportation ;~=============================~=======~================================ ':"s':~eets~ (E"'L,J) OTAY VALLEY' -<u (1"+-''-3) 8F:ANDYlrJlt,jE A\/C. ,::.; Ρ¿¡, 1 ys t:: J8 i~':' i 1 'b i'-lam's' i;;.ö62DX, ;-j(. ":i (~r ,::-,:j, i ,'p,:, Ot.heì^ ":;." -.-;or"... !='1''''1 ¡:'CAI<,: C'->flifììent ~ ¿XI~~'rlj\~C¡ --.---------------.------------.----- -.-.------------------------------------.-- -------------.----------------.- --..-----.---------------------------------- [astbound wEstbound Northbound: SouthboufiG N' \-,"7 tN', tiT" !_. , ¡ ~ I -. ¡ \ ¡' I C\ I!- J r\ _. I I , ¡";'-~" Ld ne~:;: : _ 1 ,.:. 1 '- _ : 1 i "',\.,LUtìHS::: : 1:;0 .24E, 2'::,: ,,--::- _'/~' .~::::. I 2~:: 2:' 2~,: 10 ~~... l'...:.:~,) ~,_'~~ïi,S' ~·JidLh :L2.() 12.0 12.0:~._.C' 12.0 12.0:12.0 12.0 :12.0 1¿.i) ':"2.0 ;<TOh "'/01'3 : ;;.: ~: 2: 1:: ~ost f~i~~ :3.00 3.00 3.00 :C 3.00 J.OO:3.00 3.00 3.00:3.00 3.00 3:00 ..-..'- ....- ...- ..~. .-... .--.,-.. .. ....~.... -..,_.. _. ... _..~. ...~_...... __..__. ... HH_·'_'''. ...._ ".._.. "' ..__.._ __;~¡31 rat¡ons ¡'ildSG CO~ibinatiol'i 1 ~ ~~ I 5 G :... ~,.;;, 1'_. :.." : f-!e i_.ë-ft i ¡-I'I'U ·1 Tr',ru . '\..!..';:-j' I '. F":i,jht ~'e·js ~: Peds ·,·i'~. L·'~f~~ _~ L.s-ft. ~k ';hru h: Thru _,. y ,-:-'lghi: ,F<ight;, .. F',~c:i::: {F'ðds" t. I\!I":· i;',i-;ht. ; EB Right - - F<i. gi-i~_ : ~,J2 r;: i gh t 0[~2il S.OA 6.0A ~/..OA ;Graen 4.0A 2.0A 8.I)A ,'.;~ilu(¡..¡/'-~;\f< 4 n 0.(1 '~i.') :\-'<:s'llov-,I/AF: 4.0 0.0 4 ('I 1~/C12 L0¡,g~h: 60 sees ~hasG cornbination orde¡-: #1 ä2 ~3 #s ~6 ~¡ .. .-_ _._ _ _. _ _ ._..~_. u._.._...... __ .....u .. .~._ __..... ... .... _.. .._ _._ _ .___.__ __ ...__ _~ _~.. _.'" __.._ _~... . _ _.. Int2r'sact~0¡1 Performance Sum~lar>' Lane Group: Adj Sat v/~ g/C Approac11: jvivmt~ Cap ¡::low Ratio r<atio Dalay I_OS D81a"/ : .·'d_', .o.-'-.. ____.._.__,.._ .o.m __..~.___ ._,,_ ._____,_ j54 1770 r).401 0.200 1.,.9 d c.~ i ,¿l¡¿i S:·L:C; -.12_,: O.4:~;.::': ~...."-, [: ,,, ,'~·._;4 l::,/'~) \..:.I_..::,:.~; ..).{;'~;,_': _,.J U ~"'!'. ~ 17'· l/f",./ _,l._'._' I~~,~:"CG .;.~.,.~.) ,__ J,~;.--'- {-<:; '~,'::"':::::':: ~ . ~- () , =, J :=; .) . 'j 13 i\ _ _ ~ 1 ~:':v'··· . 0¿_,'_~' C' .,':':"3:':: ?J ., L.:, I' ¡'-,,¡e -~ ''.' .::.:,:::.":) ..·.v/·. :::.OÜ...:: ':'/:'.4 ¡~ l'~.,~ rF: 2.i':-,'-;' 1726 ..;1"20'>. 0.1.50 1¡:j..5 £3 ~- - 206 1770 J.OSj 0.117 15.2 L 14.~ '( 342 1863 0.08_ 0.183 13.1 8 -_.. 1':',,7') ..:.'-íq.'- U.2.:J" 14.') u 1I'j1:..'2I·':;f:(t.i<)~ _ _ -,/ .l'j. :",...< /'-'..).-:::!", Inter:"::",:::c:t.iol': ~_"_ -- - .1. Îiiç: (/(:1."'3, :... - 1,-;:' .~J '_c'..c".-· :__1 .1.t..1.·,:-¿;,l \-,/'c( >,) ::::; O.~;7:':" : ¡Cr'-1: SIGNALIZED INTEF:~··ECTION SUr1t1ARY \¡',s'îsion 2. . 4~3 0't 1 '~¡.. 1 ')-;/';" [.,:::nter ~70ï t1icrocomputers In TY8nspc·r t....J.\~ì\)n --,--,-----------.--.--.-------------------------'--------------.------------'--- ------------------------.-------------------------------------------------- '~tt¿~et:3: ( C ~ ~J ) C,Tfi\( V;::ìL.L[·'{ r~.r·, ( r" " ) C:.F~Ar\!I) '(l,.,: I !'-,iC (;\/1. I"\LJ ,';Y¡dl/st: JC ¡- .l.L·0 :',1 ;:::l iíì .:'~ ,..,i~··~_.CC1 ::, ¡¡Co:> ¡::"¡rea TYF<;; ; U ~~ hc: '.' 4 -- <)-. ':~i;, P~/¡ ;., :;~. r~\:', õ:'·;.mn¡çònt, " '/ -;- '~,; ,.:, ,- :'>:::,:O.~;CC': ; C Ui'1U~_;~\ T 1 \/C. ,'-,(,.. . ~-, , -. -" .. - õ'·.',.,,~· ,._;._. i __. ._,._______...._..._.._ ,_. . __ ., ... .'.'_. ......_ _... _ _.__m'_.. ,,_....._ _.___ ___ _.__.__~__.. .........--...-.,. - ... '. ..".' ,.- .¥ .....-..,.-..-..- ,¥..-- --------.-.---,.---.-..--------------------------------- -~.- .+----- ..,-....- :~~ ::;l~'~ tbou nc! West,bou. n·:':': , ".,.. ..' '- ¡"'W' __ ". .:.., ") L:. t :'~, t> c) ;~; II d , 1··(....)] '_11·._..,_·1.... I :'.1 ~ T '- , -- - f'. , (". --- - -'.--' --- ~i,> . Lar¡;:::::.- l l 1 , " , .' , -- " " '·¡'c/l u;,nes 1. ~ , ::.c:., .', . - , I: -,r. 1:=-:(1 , -' .--., ;:'"1' ..:.. ..:.\)¡ ,,:,..,-' -- -- -- -".-' -' :-'·::J.n'~ ~L.c':~h ..L _~ . ,~I 12.0;J.":".U ' .' ,-. .L_ . .:;: : .!.. __ . C -- c, .:... . ç) , -- J...........- -,,- ,~'- . -' - - . .~. ¡:--\TOF: \/0 1 ::~ , .::.., - , --, ...J .."..,.1- "¡' in!,::; 1·-":....,;···· .~, , \.1 ,_ (ì('ì I "-·.r, _. . OS, ';'. -::'YJ: :: .()( - .- '1:-': . ,~).) .;; .C'-c(1 2: .00 '._'_1..,;;. ._ .y'" i . ,","J ......... . .¥._",_h -:.i':-;JTia.l n..' ...,.... '::;. ¡ ::::.. '¥C ,I.. .~' "'.\, :._ ,-_, 1.1(:' _~ j '1 . i õ ,~~. :;... "': '-<:.;' ¡::. '".,' -- ' :. ~ .',', j"'~.I..'J i I'~ i-:'¡ - '::\_"- " L~'::t' ._ L'~;" ï li'J::;':; ,~ fl',.,. -' -- -;' ,"IJ' F:is.;h::., , -,..!.. 91'1 ~ -, -. , . .::: (~; :;-. ,- '::.:' ,,-,:;., . ".... r~ig::',~ ,'" ..: ¡\i~' ,t:....0 ,", ~.. .;:1, I' ..... .'--.' ~i,·. ¡. : :"iiJ .~ ;.,-j! I ,", ,,i,. \:}i 1'_ '';;;';-1 :.... . C;'~¡ .'),.- : Cr f~'C 1"1 - .'--' , .\./.""\ .'- -...' " .' 'Mi ,~"; 't';;; ,il. ,:':',1,-;,/ ¡':I~ -, /\ I; /\ ;-"(2 ll,~j:"-.J/ --\: ';1 " -' ..- ~t . -..¡ ;',,;:' C0tiibi nt-:!. <.-io::,,1"· \:~, i " ,~ u c¡.'-: -' i ~ - '- - ¡::";¡¡'¥'i :-.',;;",-...:.., - "j " h':;';' tr / ..... .. .-.-. I rltS'Isbc:t.ion ~'2í i': 0 r ma íiC¿' :~,Ul1'ijll':J '1-/ L.an0 ;·.. ï CUi=': i~dj '~~a t. 'j/C ;:j/C f.ìpprodCh'; l"lvms::: l",ÒP ¡:::, lÜVJ F;a t i 0 [·<.sl:,i·o CI,:: J. _; ~\ <:. i),:;: l.j./ LO":~· " (,;.,:_. c- ---- -- -' ., -' . - .~-- . .~,. ._.1 >() ~. -, - . .~ - '4' .'" ..'" ,j ". ;; ; f'~ \ : ".,.. .- .¡ .;;..,- - ,- . (,~: .~, , '¡'F . - - . ,~. ", ' ~() -, '. "..' - . - - ,. 1 (t- . .' n - ....i. ;- '.~- . .'. .... .- w .- " .~ ;"1 _ ~ ',; f'1 :_:J:,.:, -- l,i,I:: ' .c ¡-jCi"1: ;I(¡NALIZED I i~~TE r~'::,EC T I ;'~'irl ·~,Ui'..!¡vjAr<''( \'¡'¿~Tsloiì 2.Aa 04 1 ':,. 1 '-)'-j(. C;e-nt;~t [.7or t" i c ì'" <'.ICí.:.;fï¡PU t.e- (~3 T~ Transportatio¡--ì . " --------------------------.------------------.----------------------------- - .-....--.-.-...-- __._,..~__..._,..__^._ .,..___~_,._ _._.. _,,___. __, _. ._. ._, _~ _" .. .".... _,,,.._.. - _. _, - __ ___ - ---_·_·-_--_-0-___- _____.___. .____..,_ _ ;:. " ,ji:;'Ls; (i:...·l-j) .-....c:.',',.' \!,._!, ,-"'. (1"J j CF~i-1(!DYL,J I ~!:-= ·""'·jL '-'1,"'41 ','¡-"1'_'_"- ";:;,-;~:.~ ,/:3 t ~¡L 1. i'':, i'-!am.¿~ . ,'-.-,(.,<:,Cf) .;'j.,- ;--i ': ",,' ,:;~ Type: Ot:..I"I(;-t ..'j;:.J ¡:.,!".¡ ¡::-'E{ii< '-..JiIIIÍlç'Íj-:-':" : :::/I-~;Tli'~C :-:·"!-'~~O.JC~: ....---.----------.^-.----.----- - ..-- --- - ... --------------------,.._-,,-- ---------------.,---,-.------. ----_._----------_._----_.... Castl:-e,und !,.J,.~: S t L.'();,l ì-¡':; , ~'~('i~ t hbou nd ,-·OUt.ì-',:::',<:,U¡,·:-: , 1...., " .- .- ,\ ¡-·1'·___. ~d n¿~:..:·· ~ " - , ~ 1 ~ , "'/,~,.ì. unl~~,3 lJU ~i:., ",C / ·~~,L , .:.:~) "/':' l : ~'''1 ":"--'1 - - , ,~' I ¿.~' ~. :-';;(1 ' ~ .'>'" L 11.__ .0 J.';;. (I .~.1 . ,) : ;_ u . '_ l.,- . '.i: l~.O .-'-¿ .r..,: L._ ·,·)1.'''''1...11 -- .. ~ '."- . . . \/018 , .- -. : 1.Iï¡·':"- ..' .U'J _' . ,._,.~ì ."\.",! ')1...) . ~ ,j "I I ~: ,CO ). ,),..) '.,-' -;(; . ;'.~':J .. M'_'\"", . .. - . ':':,.::1':'-'.-" .¡~ '_'il":' i__C.'lld::.,.l. i'j,::;l t: ':..0: - ·__,";'f <.: , ..¡.:.. -. " :,-:';;;J I... :.. .. -- , . , l..... 1:1 ;,,,; , Ii' '..). :,_1. 0h~ . '.- t ¡'eds '-~'; ,~~;.; i"jC L.eft *' : ':e !.^"sft .. , !'hr-u T'l-._, . ;~ , : ¡ I ¡ ._~ r<.i 9¡~,1~. , F<i;ht . :-'·'eds F"0C!:~:: :¡,: ,., ..l... -., ,. I Il~ ¡\..:.:=i ¡I ,_ '.';:';1"- :'",,- r~ight_ 1".--:. ,-'. t.,_ 1",\1,.;. i',..L 11'- u! ,;:'·:;.:rl ':.; .r)¡q <.)" ()A t.__ " .A, "~A - '~,,", . i~I':" '¿'.,:, i'l " '~'H ."_ ,'J,"', .." -{ ':: 1.1 CiVJ/{ìF: "t .'.! 0,:) "f . : f·::::-lLov.J/AF< -:¡ .u -,' .'..' 'f ,\... '._ /", J. ç; Lbìì-S1th: t,O ~::;'-:'C :':;' F·jìÒ:;::.,,-;: '.' OlÌÌw,L n¿:i,'_-"-''::'Ji '.:.' 'í' c~..s·( : ~t 1 µ ". \..1-"', ,.\.,:;- , , ,,~ rt·,.) rt.J r;'·,' .. ---.----.-------------.- .: r: ~~, ¿ ï :;. ':;;: '.:; ~.:. _~ -.:., Ii ;'::'2,' r,,:.,·, j'í¡,::i Îlce :;:,Uíìlma.r:--/ Laíie C:dOUP: )"..1." ~':"'d t- './ /'c -;:/C., ,"::::P¡;"I'C ;;....1 r--IUJ i"'Îvmts Caf-/ ¡-. 1,.)I,-J F;a ~..i':i f~.a ~: i' (j L~"?:la'./ ''-' " :' J.'~"- ,_"f' - . '- _'",'Ci" 1. / ... '.' f'.j ._..::..' -- . ';;'4'<...=- .J..' . -'. ,", , . ,. - ~. 7';:;' -. ~ ,c', j .:) - ; 1. ('t;..._: . . ~'-, --' '-',.- " - . t, -'....;:...:' -,. .-," l.. ~~ /" .-' ,;;,:,:)..;,'j -- , rc ::s .l'i .:...';' ···...cU :'.) I'. ,- :.:'-)c' . , -'.. _',.I,. ., - . , , " ".~ ....-.-'- -... '-' '-' - j _'. li'i"'~'" /'.-,-,. -. ,. LINSCOTT Li\W &. CREEI'ISIJ¡\N ENGINEERS APPENDIX C City of Chula Vista Standard Street Classification Table ~~ . - ........ I.!. ru.;:::: .. ..-- . . .. , TABLE B.1 -- CITY OF CHUJA VISTA ROADWAY CAPACITY STANDAlmS.* AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS ROAD LEVEL OF SERVICE . CLASS X-SECTION A B C D E V /C Ratio (.6) (.7) (.8) (.9) (1.0) Expressway 104/128 S2,SOO 61,300 70,000 78,800 87,500 Prime Arterial 104/128 37,500 43,800 50,000 56,300 62,500 M~or Street (6 anes) 104/128 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Så,ooo Major Street (4 lanes) 80/104 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 . Class I Collector 74/94 16,500 19,300 22,000 24,800 27,500 Clus n Collector 52/72 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000 Class m Collector 40/60 5,600 6,600 7,500 8.400 9,400 '. LOS 'c' Capacities arc from the City of Chula Vista Circulation Element of the GeneraJ Plan. Other levels of service are derived by volume to capacity (V /C) ratios.. This is only II· guIdeline and capacities included in this table represent urban conditions. Rural roadways With little side friction and/or Widening at intersections can acconunodate much higher volumes than stated On this table. 11 . IIN5(OTT L,\W 0.:. CREEN51);\N E N GIN E E R 5 APPENDIX D Arterial Analysis Calculation Sheets · HCS: Arterials Release 2.1b Page 1 ========================================================================== Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- File Name ........... 666EXEB.HC1 Arterial............. OTAY VALLEY ROAD · From/To.............. SB RAMPS/NIRVANA Direction ........... E Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ml-£J Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING CONDITION A. Description of Arterial -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Intersection Art. Flow · Seg. File Name Street Name Length Class Speed Sect. (mi) (mph) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 666SBX.HC9 1-805 SB RAMPS 1 666NBX.HC9 1-805 NB RAMPS 0.09 3 30 1 2 6660LEX.HC9 OLEANDER AVE 0.16 2 35 2 3 666BDX.HC9 BRANDYWINE AVE 0.20 1 45 3 4 666NIEX.HC9 NIRVANA AVENUE 1.16 1 45 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Intersection Delay Estimates -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arrival Inter. Seg. C g/C PHF v/c c Type Act. d1 OF d2 d D LOS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 6~ 0.72 0.90 0.147 2670 3 Y 2.0· 0.850 0.0 1.7 2.3 A 2 60 0.42 0.90 0.195 2325 3 Y 8.4 0.850 0.0 7.2 9.3 B 3 60 0.43 0.90 0.123 2421 3 Y 7.7 0.850 0.0 6.6 8.5 B 4 60 0.70 0.900.078 3912 3 Y 2.2 0.850 0.0 1.8 2.4 A -------------------------------------------------------------------------- HCS: Arterials Release 2.lb Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- File Name ........... 666EXEB.HCl C. Arterial Level of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Int. section Running Total Other Sum of Sum of Art. Art. Seg. Sect. Time Delay Delay Time Length Speed LOS (see) (see) (see) ( see) (mi) (mph) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 17.0 2.3 0.0 19.3 0.09 16.7 C 2 2 21. 4 9.3 0.0 30.7 0.16 18.8 C 3 3 21.8 8.5 0.0 30.3 0.20 23.8 C 4 4 92.8 2.4 0.0 95.2 1.16 43.9 A -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grand sum of time: 175.5 see Grand sum of length: 1. 61 mi Arterial Speed: 33.0 mph HCS: Arterials Release2.lb Page 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- File Name oooo.................. 666EXWB.HC1 Arterial............. OTAY VALLEY ROAD From/To.............. NIRVANA/SB RAMPS Direction ........... W Analyst........................... ~ Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING CONDITION A. Description of Arterial -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Intersection Art. Flow Seg. File Name Street Name Length Class Speed Sect. (mi) (mph) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 666NIEX.HC9 NIRVANA AVENUE 1 666BDX.HC9 BRANDYWINE AVE 1.16 1 45 1 2 6660LEX.HC9 OLEANDER AVE 0.20 1 45 2 3 666NBX.HC9 1-805 NB RAMPS 0.16 2 35 3 4 666SBX.HC9 1-805 SB RAMPS 0.09 3 30 4 ----------------------------~--------------------------------------------- B. Intersection Delay Estimates -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arrival Inter. Seg. C g/C PHF v/c c Type Act. dl DF d2 d D LOS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 60· 0.33 0.90 0.377 1863 3 Y 11.60.850 0.1 9.9 12.9 B 2 60 0.37 0.90 0.424 2043 3 Y 10.8 0.850 0.1 9.3 12.1 B 3 60 0.37 0.90 0.270 2049 3 Y 10.2 0.850 0.0 8.6 11.2 B 4 60 0.63 0.90 0.177 2359 3 Y 3.5 0.850 0.0 2.9 3.8 A -------------------------------------------------------------------------- HCS: Arterials Release 2.1b Page 2 ========================================================================== File Name ........... 666EXWB.HCl C. Arterial Level of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Int. section Running Total Other Sum of Sum of Art. Art. Seg. Sect. Time Delay Delay Time Length Speed LOS (see) (see) (see) (see) (mi) (mph) -------------------------~------------------------------------------------ 1 1 92.8 12.9 0.0 105.7 1.16 39.5 A 2 2 21.8 12.1 0.0 33.9 0.20 21.2 D 3 3 21.4 11.2 0.0 32.6 0.16 17.7 D 4 4 17.0 3.8 0.0 20.8 0.09 15.5 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grand sum of time: 193.0 see Grand sum of length: 1. 61 mi Arterial Speed: 30.0 mph HCS: Arterials Release 2.1b Page 1 ========================================================================== Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ========================================================================== File Name ........... 666PREB.HC1 Arterial............. OTAY VALLEY ROAD From/To.............. SB RAMPS/NIRVANA Direction ........... E Analyst.............. MMJ Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING + PROJECT A. Description of Arterial -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Intersection Art. Flow Seg. File Name Street Name Length Class Speed Sect. (mi) (mph) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 666SB2.HC9 1-805 SB RAMPS 1 666NB2.HC9 1-805 NB RAMPS 0.09 3 30 1 2 6660L2.HC9 OLEANDER AVE 0.16 2 35 2 3 666BD2.HC9 BRANDYWINE AVE 0.20 1 45 3 4 666NIPR.HC9 NIRVANA AVENUE 1.16 1 45 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Intersection Delay Estimates -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arrival Inter. Seg. C g/C PHF v/c c Type Act. d1 DF d2 d D LOS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 6~ 0.72 0.90 0.154 2670 3 Y 2.1 0.850 0.0 1.8 2.3 A 2 60 0.42 0.90 0.205 2325 3 Y 8.5 0.850 0.0 7.2 9.4 B 3 60 0.43 0.90 0.133 2421 3 Y 7.8 0.850 0.0 6.6 8.6 B 4 60 0.70 0.90.0.084 3912 3 Y 2.2 0.850 0.0 1.9 2.4 A -------------------------------------------------------------------------- HCS: Arterials Release 2.1b Page 2 ========================================================================== File Name ........... 666PREB.HCl C. Arterial Level of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Int. section Runping Total Other Sum of Sum of Art. Art. Seg. Sect. Time Delay Delay Time Length Speed LOS (see) (see) (see) (see) (mi) (mph) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 17.0 2.3 0.0 19.3 0.09 16.7 C 2 2 21.4 9.4 0.0 30.8 0.16 18.7 C 3 3 21.8 8.6 0.0 30.4 0.20 23.7 C 4 4 92.8 2.4 0.0 95.2 1.16 43.9 A -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grand sum of time: 175.7 see Grand sum of length: 1. 61 mi Arterial Speed: 33.0 mph HCS: Arterials Release 2.1b Page 1 ========================================================================== Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ========================================================================== . File Name ........... 666PRWB.HCl Arterial............. OTAY VALLEY ROAD From/To.............. NIRVANA/SB RAMPS Direction ........... W Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . .. MMJ Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING + PROJECT A. Description of Arterial -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Intersection Art. Flow Seg. File Name Street Name Length Class Speed Sect. (mi) (mph) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 666NIPR.HC9 NIRVANA AVENUE 1 666BD2.HC9 BRANDYWINE AVE 1.16 1 45 1 2 6660L2.HC9 OLEANDER AVE 0.20 1 45 2 3 666NB2.HC9 I-80S NB RAMPS 0.16 2 35 3 4 666SB2.HC9 I-80S SB RAMPS 0.09 3 30 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Intersection Delay Estimates -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arrival Inter. Seg. C g/C PHF v/c c Type Act. dl OF d2 d D LOS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 60, 0.33 0.90 0.500 1863 3 Y 12.2 0.850 0.2 10.5 13.7 B 2 60 0.37 0.90 0.535 2043 3 Y 11.4 0.850 0.2 9.9 12.9 B 3 60 0.37 0.90 0.318 2049 3 Y 10.4 0.850 0.0 8.8 11.5 B 4 60 0.63 0.90.0.200 2359 3 Y 3.5 0.850 0.0 3.0 3.9 A -------------------------------------------------------------------------- HCS: Arterials Release 2.1b Page 2 ======================================================================--=== File Name ........... 666PRWB.HCl C. Arterial Level of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Int. section Running Total other Sum of Sum of Art. Art. Seg. Sect. Time Delay Delay Time Length Speed LOS (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (mi) (mph) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 92.8 13.7 0.0 106.5 1.16 39.2 A 2 2 21.8 12.9 0.0 34.7 0.20 20.7 D 3 3 21.4 11.5 0.0 32.9 0.16 17.5 D 4 4 17.0 3.9 0.0 20.9 0.09 15.5 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grand sum of time: 195.0 sec Grand sum of length: 1. 61 mi Arterial Speed: 29.7 mph HCS: Arterials Release 2.1b Page 1 ========================================================================== Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ========================================================================== File Name ........... 666CUEB.HC1 Arterial............. OTAY VALLEY ROAD From/To.............. SB RAMPS/NIRVANA Direction ........... E Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . .. MÞLJ". Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE A. Description of Arterial -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Intersection Art. Flow Seg. File Name Street Name Length Class Speed Sect. (mi) (mph) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 666SB3.HC9 1-805 SB RAMPS 1 666NB3.HC9 1-805 NB RAMPS 0.09 3 30 1 2 6660L3.HC9 OLEANDER AVE 0.16 2 35 2 3 666BD3.HC9 BRANDYWINE AVE 0.20 1 45 3 4 666NICU.HC9 NIRVANA AVENUE 1.16 1 45 4 ------------------------------~------------------------------------------- B. Intersection Delay Estimates -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arrival Inter. Seg. C g/C PHF v/c c Type Act. d1 DF d2 d D LOS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 60· 0.72 0.90 0.338 2670 3 y 2.40.850 0.0 2.1 2.7 A 2 60 0.42 0.90 0.473 2325 3 Y 9.7 0.850 0.1 8.3 10.8 B 3 60 0.43 0.70 0.505 2421 3 Y 9.4 0.850 0.1 8.1 10.6 B 4 60 0.70 0.90 0.253 3912 3 Y 2.5 0.850 0.0 2.1 2.8 A -------------------------------------------------------------------------- HCS: Arterials Release 2.1b Page 2 ========================================================================== File Name ........... 666CUEB.HCl C. Arterial Level of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Int. Section Running Total Other Sum of Sum of Art. Art. Seg. Sect. Time Delay Delay Time Length Speed LOS (see) (see) (see) (see) (mi) (mph) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 17.0 2.7 0.0 19.7 0.09 16.4 C 2 2 21.4 10.8 0.0 32.2 0.16 17.9 D 3 3 21.8 10.6 0.0 32.4 0.20 22.2 C 4 4 92.8 2.8 0.0 95.6 1.16 43.7 A -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grand sum of time: 179.9 see Grand sum of length: 1. 61 mi Arterial Speed: 32.2 mph · HCS: Arterials Release 2.J.b Page J. ========================================================================== Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 5J.2 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 326J.J.-2Q83 Ph: (904 ) 392-0378 ========================================================================== File Name ........... 666CUWB.HCJ. Arterial............. OTAY VALLEY ROAD · From/To.............. NIRVANA/SB RAMPS Direction ........... W Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . .. MMJ Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE A. Description of Arterial -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Intersection Art. Flow · File Name Street Name Length Class Speed Sect. Seg. (mi) (mph) -------------------------.------------------------------------------------ 666NICU.HC9 NIRVANA AVENUE 1 666BD3.HC9 BRANDYWINE AVE 1.16 J. 45 J. 2 6660L3.HC9 OLEANDER AVE 0.20 J. 45 2 3 666NB3.HC9 1-805 NB RAMPS 0.16 2 35 3 4 666SB3.HC9 1-805 SB RAMPS 0.09 3 30 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Intersection Delay Estimates -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arrival Inter. Seg. C g/C PHF v/e c Type Act. dJ. OF d2 d 0 LOS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- J. 60· 0.33 0.77 0.722 J.863 3 Y 13.3 0.850 1.0 J.2.3 J.6.0 B 2 60 0.37 0.90 0.643 2043 3 Y 12.0 0.850 0.5 J.0.7 13.9 B 3 60 0.37 0.90 0.364 2049 3 Y 10.6 0.850 0.1 9.0 J.1.7 B 4 60 0.63 0.90 0.222 2359 3 Y 3.6 0.850 0.0 3.0 4.0 A -------------------------------------------------------------------------- HCS: Arterials Release 2.1b Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- File Name ........... 666CUWB.HCl C. Arterial Level of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Int. section Running Total Other Sum of Sum of Art. Art. Seg. Sect. Time Delay Delay Time Length Speed LOS (see) (sec) (see) (see) (mi) (mph) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 92.8 16.0 0.0 108.8 1.16 38.4 A 2 2 21.8 13.9 0.0 35.7 0.20 20.2 D 3 3 21.4 11.7. 0.0 33.1 0.16 17.4 D 4 4 17.0 4.0 0.0 21.0 0.09 15.4 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grand sum of time: 198.6 see Grand sum of length: 1.61 mi Arterial Speed: 29.2 mph LINSCOTT I;\IN & GREENSPAN E N GIN E E R S APPENDIX E Freeway Analysis Calculation Sheets HCS: Freeways Release 2.1b Page 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- File Name ........... 6668051XZ.HC3 Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . I-805 From/To.............. SOUTH OF OTAY VALLEY Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . .. MMJ Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Geometries and Traffic Input Data Dir 1 Oir 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Traffic Volume (vph) 3980 5820 Peak-Hour Factor or Peak 15-min Volume 0.90 0.90 Percentage of Trucks 2.0 2.0 Percentage of Recreational Vehicles 2.0 2.0 Number of Lanes 4 4 Free-Flow Speed (mph) 60.0 60.0 Lane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Obstructions-No (0), One (1) or Both (2) 2 2 Distance from Pavement Edge (ft) 6.0 6.0 Driver Population Factor 1.00 1.00 B. Adjustment Factors --------------------- E E F F F Terrain Type T R HV W P ------------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- oir 1 LEVEL 1.50 1.20 0.986 1.00 1.00 Dir 2 1.50 1.20 0.986 1~00 1. 00 C. Level of Service Results Dir 1 Dir 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Service Flow (MSF) (pcphpl) 1121 1639 Level of Service (L()S) C 0 Projected Speed at 'Flow Rate (mph) 60.0 59.8 Density (pc/mi/ln) 18.68 27.40 Density (veh/mi/ln) 18.43 27.02 Speed of prevailing traffic (mph) 60.0 59.8 HCS: Freeways Release 2.lb Page 1 ================================================================ Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ================================================================ File Name ........... 6668051P.HC3 Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-805 From/To.............. SOUTH OF OTAY VALLEY Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . .. M:M:J Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING + PROJECT A. Geometries and Traffic Input Data Dir 1 Dir 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Traffic Volume (vph) 4034 5854 Peak-Hour Factor or Peak 15-min Volume 0.90 0.90 Percentage of Trucks 2.0 2.0 Percentage of Recreational Vehicles 2.0 2.0 Number of Lanes 4 4 Free-Flow Speed (mph) 60.0 60.0 Lane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 obstructions-No (0), One (1) or Both (2) 2 2 Distance from Pavement Edge (ft) 6.0 6.0 Driver Population Factor LOO LOO B. Adjustment Factors --------------------- E E F F F Terrain Type T R HV W P ------------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Dir 1 . LEVEL L50 L20 0.986 LOa LOO Dir 2 L50 L20 0.986 LOO LOO C. Level of Service Results Oir 1 Dir 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Service Flow (MSF) (pcphpl) 1136 1649 Level of Service (LOS) C D Projected Speed at Flow Rate (mph) 60.0 59.8 Density (pc/mi/ln) 18.93 27.58 Density (veh/mi/ln) 18.67 27.20 Speed of prevailing traffic (mph) 60.0 59.8 HCS: Freeways Release 2.1b Page 1 ================================================================ Center For Microcomputers In Transportation university of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- File Name ........... 6668051C.HC3 Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-805 From/To. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOUTH OF OTAY VALLEY Analyst. . . ... .. . . . . .. ÞIMJ Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE A. Geometries and Traffic Input Data Dir 1 Dir 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Traffic Volume (vph) 4124 5884 Peak-Hour Factor or Peak 15-min Volume 0.90 0.90 Percentage of Trucks 2.0 2.0 Percentage of Recreational Vehicles 2.0 2.0 Number of Lanes 4 4 Free-Flow Speed (mph) 60.0 60.0 Lane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 obstructions-No (0), One (1) or Both (2) 2 2 Distance from Pavement Edge (ft) 6.0 6.0 Driver Population Factor 1.00 1.00 B. Adjustment Factors --------------------- E E F F F Terrain Type T R HV W P ------------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Dir 1 LEVEL 1.50 1.20 0.986 1.00 1.00 Dir 2 1.50 1.20 0.986 1.00 1.00 C. Level of Service Results Dir 1 Dir 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Service Flow (MSF) (pcphpl) 1162 1657 Level of Service (LQS) C D Projected Speed at Flow Rate (mph) 60.0 59.7 Density (pc/mi/ln) 19.37 27.73 Density (veh/mi/ln) 19.10 27.35 Speed of prevailing traffic (mph) 60.0 59.8 HCS: Freeways Release 2.1b Page 1 ==================:============================================= Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- File Name ........... 6668052X.HC3 Location............. I-80S From/To.............. NORTH OF OTAY VALLEY Analyst.............. MMJ Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Geometries and Traffic Input Data Dir 1 Dir 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Traffic Volume (vph) 4160 6240 Peak-Hour Factor or Peak 15-min Volume 0.90 0.90 Percentage of Trucks 2.0 2.0 Percentage of Recreational Vehicles 2.0 2.0 Number of Lanes 4 4 Free-Flow Speed (mph) 60.0 60.0 Lane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Obstructions-No (0), One (1) or Both (2) 2 2 Distance from Pavement Edge (ft) 6.0 6.0 Driver population Factor 1.00 1.00 B. Adjustment Factors --------------------- E E F F F Terrain Type T R HV W P ------------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Oir 1 LEVEL 1.50 1.20 0.986 1.00 1.00 Oir 2 1.50 1.20 0.986 Loo 1.00 C. Level of Service Results Dir 1 Dir 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Service Flow (MSF) (pcphpl) 1172 1758 Level of Service (LQS) C D Projected Speed at Flow Rate (mph) 60.0 59.3 Density (pc/mi/ln) 19.53 29.65 Density (veh/mijln) 19.26 29.24 Speed of prevailing traffic (mph) 60.0 59.3 HCS: Freeways Release 2.1b Page 1 ================================================================ Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- . File Name ........... 6668052P.HC3 Location............. I-805 From/To.............. NORTH OF OTAY VALLEY Analyst. .. . .. . .. . . . .. Ml4J' Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING + PROJECT A. Geometries and Traffic Input Data Dir 1 Dir 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Traffic Volume (vph) 4264 6251 Peak-Hour Factor or Peak 15-min Volume 0.90 0.90 Percentage of Trucks 2.0 2.0 Percentage of Recreational Vehicles 2.0 2.0 Number of Lanes 4 4 Free-Flow Speed (mph) 60.0 60.0 Lane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Obstructions-No (0), One (1) or Both (2) 2 2 Distance from Pavement Edge (ft) 6.0 6.0 Driver Population Factor 1.00 1.00 B. Adjustment Factors --------------------- E E F F F Terrain Type T R HV W P ------------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Oir 1 LEVEL 1.50 1.20 0.986 1.00 1.00 Oir 2 1.50 1.20 0.986 1.00 1.00 C. Level of Service Results Dir 1 Dir 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Service Flow (MSF) (pcphpl) 1201 1761 Level of Service (LOS) C D Projected Speed at 'Flow Rate (mph) 60.0 59.3 Density (pc/mi/ln) 20.02 29.70 Density (veh/mi/ln) 19.74 29.29 Speed of prevailing traffic (mph) 60.0 59.3 HCS: Freeways Release 2.lb Page 1 ================================================================ Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- File Name ........... 6668052C.HC3 Location............. I-805 From/To.............. NORTH OF OTAY VALLEY Analyst. .. . . . . . . . . ... MMaJ Time of Analysis..... PM PEAK Date of Analysis..... 04/15/96 Other Information.... EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE A. Geometries and Traffic Input Data Dir 1 Dir 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Traffic Volume (vph) 4368 6546 Peak-Hour Factor or Peak l5-min Volume 0.90 0.90 Percentage of Trucks 2.0 2.0 Percentage of Recreational Vehicles 2.0 2.0 Number of Lanes 4 4 Free-Flow Speed (mph) 60.0 60.0 Lane width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Obstructions-No (0), One (1) or Both (2) 2 2 Distance from Pavement Edge (ft) 6.0 6.0 Driver Population Factor 1.00 1.00 B. Adjustment Factors --------------------- E E F F F Terrain Type T R HV W P ------------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Oir 1 LEVEL 1.50 1.20 0.986 1.00 1.00 Dir 2 1.50 1.20 0.986 1.00 1.00 C. Level of Service Results Dir 1 Oir 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Service Flow (MSF) (pcphpl) 1230 1844 Level of· Service (LOS') C D Projected Speed at Flow Rate (mph) 60.0 58.8 Density (pc/mi/ln) 20.50 31. 34 Density (veh/mijln) 20.22 30.90 Speed of prevailing traffic (mph) 60.0 58.8 LINSCOTT LAW & GREEt-..JSIJ¡\N ENGINEERS APPENDIX F Unsignalized Calculation Sheets of Spy Glass Hill Road/Otay Valley Road LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALlZED" INTERSECTIONS The computations described in the 1994 HCM result in a solution for the capacity of each lane on the minor approaches to a STOP or YIELD-controlled intersection. Level of Service for this methodology are . stated in very general terms, and are related to general delay ranges. The criterias are given in the following table. and are based on the average total delay for any particular minor movement. LEVEL OF SERVIOE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS. AVERAGE TOTAL DELAY LEVEL OF EXPECTED DELAY TO MINOR STREET,," SECNEH SERVICE TRAFFIC ~5 A Little or no delay >5and~10 B Short traffic delays > 10 and ~ 20 C Average traffic delays > 20 and ~ 30 D Long traffic delays > 30 and ~ 45 E Very long traffic delays > 45 F Severe congestion Level of Service F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to safely cross through a major street traffic stream. This is generally evident from extremely long delays experienced by side street traffic. and by queuing on the minor approaches. Level of Service F may also appear in the form of side street vehicles selecting smaller than usual gaps. In such cases. . safety may be a problem. and some disruption to the major traffic stream may result. It is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues, but may result in adjustments to a normal gap acceptance behavior. ,. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. 1994. Edned for clarity lOSFUI.MAN(reports).6123195 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ................ 666SPOTPM.HCO streets: (N-S) OTAY VALLEY ROAD (E-W) SPY GLASS HILL ROAD Major street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst................... MMJ Date of Analysis.......... 4/16/96 Other Information......... EXISTING + PROJECT Two-way stop-controlled Intersection ======================================================================== Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 0 0> 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 stop/Yield N N Volumes 0 122 0 63 196 35 PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 SU/RV's (%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 CV's (%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 PCE's 1.02 1.02 1. 02 1. 02 1.02 1.02 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adjustment Factors Vehicle critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road ·5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 63 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1286 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1286 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.97 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 122 63 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1500 1600 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1500 1600 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 1.00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 185 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 827 Major LT,Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 827 -------------------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Ùnsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v (pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App -------- ------ ------ ------ ------------ ------ --------- EB L 222 827 5.9 B 5.5 EB R 40 1286 2.9 A Intersection Delay = 3.0 - - --... -- APPENDIX B -..- ---- .-- - - - - _... -- -"-. -..- n -. .- -- n -- Giroux & Associates Environmental Consultants AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: TRS Consultants Attn: Mark Thompson 7867 convoy court, suite 312 San Diego, CA 92111 Date: April 24, 1996 17744 Sky Park Cirr:le, Suite 210, Irvine, Califomia 92714 - Phone (714) 8.51-8609 - Fax (714) 8.5/-8612 AIR QUALITY SETTING . Meteoroloay/Climate The climate of Chula Vista, as with all of Southern California, is largely controlled by the strength and position of the semi- permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean. The high pressure ridge over the West Coast creates a repetitive pattern of frequent early morning cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, clean daytime onshore breezes and little temperature change throughout the year. Limited rainfall occurs in winter when the oceanic high pressure center is weakest and farthest south as the fringes of mid-latitude storms occasionally move through the area. Summers are often completely dry with an average of 10.3 inches of rain falling each year from November to early April at Lower Otay Reservoir, the nearest climate station to the project site. Chula vista I s proximity to San Diego Bay and the Pacific Ocean maintains cool temperatures throughout much of the year that limits the optimum use period for a water park. The temperature range in Chula Vista is as follows: J F M A M J J A S 0 H D Min 42 44 47 51 55 58 62 63 60 54 47 44 Avg 52 53 55 58 61 63 67 68 67 62 58 54 Max 62 63 63 64 66 68 71 72 72 70 68 64 Because of "June Gloom" with frequent cloudiness, warmest days first occur in July and last through September or early October. Water park recreation is thus limited by temperatures (and availability of younger guests) mainly to the summer school vacation from late June to early September. Weekend use may begin near Memorial Day and run until the end of September. Unfortunately, the same atmospheric conditions that create a desirable living climate, combine to limit the abi li ty of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the large population attracted 'to the San Diego County climate. The onshore winds across the coastline diminish quickly when they reach the foothill communities east of San Diego, and the sinking air within the offshore high pressure system forms a massive temperature inversion that traps all air pollutants near the ground. The resulting horizontal and vertical stagnation, in conjunction with 1 ample sunshine, causes a number of reactive pollutants to undergo photochemical reactions and form smog that degrades visibility and irritates tear ducts and nasal membranes. Because coastal areas are well ventilated by fresh breezes during the daytime, they generally do not experience the same frequency of air pollution problems found in some areas east of Chula Vista. Unhealthful air quality within the San Diego Air Basin's southern coastal communities does occur at times in summer during limited localized stagnation, but occurs mainly in conjunction with the occasional intrusion of polluted air from the Los Angeles Basin into the County. Localized elevated pollution levels may also occur in winter during calm stable conditions near freeways, shopping centers or other major traffic sources, but such clean air violations are highly localized in space and time and would not normally be found near the project site. Except for the occasional interbasin transport, air quality in the project vicinity is probably quite good. Local meteorological conditions in the project vicinity have not been routinely monitored, but they likely conform to the regional pattern of strong onshore winds by day, especially in summer, and weak offshore winds at night, especially in winter. These local wind patterns are driven by the temperature difference between the normally cool ocean and the warm interior and steered by any local topography. In summer, moderate breezes of 8-12 mph blow onshore and upval1ey from the SW by day, and may continue all night as a light onshore breeze when the land remains warmer than the ocean. In winter, the onshore flow is weaker and reverses to blow from the NE in the evening as the land becomes cooler than the ocean. Both the onshore flow of marine air and the nocturnal drainage winds are accompanied by two characteristic temperature inversion conditions that further control the rate of air pollution dispersal throughout the air basin. The daytime cool onshore flow is capped by a deep layer of warm, sinking air. Along the coastline, the marine air layer beneath the inversion cap is deep enough to accommodate any locally generated emissions. However, as the layer moves inland, pollution sources (especially automobiles) add pollutants from below without any dilution from above through the inversion interface. When this progressively polluted layer approaches foothill communities east of coastal developments, it becomes shallower and exposes residents in those areas to the concentrated reacted by-products of coastal area sources. A second inversion type occurs when slow drainage or stagnation of cool air at night creates localized cold "pools" while the air above the surface remains warm. Such radiation inversions occur throughout the San Diego area but are strongest within low, 2 channelized river valleys. They may trap vehicular exhaust pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO) near their source until these inversions are destroyed by surface warming the next morning. Any such CO "hot spots" are highly localized in space and time (if they occur at all), but occasionally stagnant dispersion conditions are certainly an important air quality concern in combination with continued intensive development of the Chula vista area. The intensity of development near the project site is extremely low such that non-local background pollution levels during nocturnal stagnation periods are also low. The local airshed, therefore, has considerable excess dispersive capacity that limits the potential for any localized air pollution "hot spots" from project implementation. Air ouality Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS): In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed water park project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people whose current health condition makes them most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other diseases or illness and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone at levels that just meet Federal AAQS may nevertheless have an adverse respiratory health impact. Just meeting standards may not provide a sufficient health protection cushion for sensitive receptor populations. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended to 1987 for certain National AAQS, and that deadline passed with the San Diego Air Basin (SOAB) still far from attainment. A California Clean Air Act (AB-2595) and a new Federal Clean Air Act have both since been promulgated that establish more realistic implementation timeframes for airsheds with moderately degraded air quality such as SDAB. Because California had established AAQS several years before the Federal action and because of unique air quality 3 problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and Federal clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 1. Baseline Air Quality: The nearest air quality measurements to the project site are made in downtown Chula vista by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the agency responsible for air quality planning, monitoring and enforcement in the SDAB. A monitoring station on otay Mesa near the otay Mesa Border Crossing slightly closer to the project site than downtown Chula vista was opened in 1991. This site, however, does not monitor the complete spectrum of pollutants and its monitoring history is too short to establish accurate trends. The downtown Chula vista data are therefore used as a basis for characterizing the existing project site air quality environment. Table 2 summarizes the last seven complete years (final 1995 data have not been officially published) of monitoring data from the Chula vista (80 East J. st.) station. Progress toward cleaner air is seen in almost every pollution category in Table 2. The only federal clean air standard that was exceeded throughout the 6-year monitoring period was the hourly ozone standard which was exceeded an average of about 3 times per year (once per year is allowable). The more stringent state standards for ozone and for 10-micron diameter respirable particulate matter (PM-10) were exceeded on a somewhat higher frequency; but, overall air quality in Chula Vista, as representative of the water park project site, is nevertheless very good in comparison to other areas of the SDAB. There are no clear-cut trends in the Chula vista baseline air quali ty data in Table 2. Improvement of the few standards routinely exceeded is relatively slow. Some very encouraging trends are seen in Table 2, particularly for the most recent data. In the last three years, Chula vista recorded the following air pollution records in its monitoring history: - fewest violations of the California hourly ozone standard (1994) - fewest violations of federal ozone standards with the standard met in 1993-94 - lowest annual I-hour ozone maximum (1994) - lowest annual I-hour CO maximum (1993) - lowest annual I-hour NO. maximum (1993) - fewest violations of PM-10 standard (1992-94) Extrapolation of the pollution trendline suggests that limited violations of standards could occur into the future but with decreasing frequency. Since observed San Diego County ozone air quality sometimes derives from the southward drift of pollution 4 . ---- -.. _ --... -------_._"-- TABLE 2 CIIULA VISTA ARI!A AIR QUALITY II)J ITORIBG SllIIIIARY (Days StaOOards llere Exceeded and IIaIiJa For Periods Indicated) Pollutant/Standard 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Ozone: 1-Hour > 0.09 ppa 17 21 21 13 14 12 4 1-Hour > 0.12 ppII 4 7 3 3 4 1 0 I-Hour ~ 0.20 ppiI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppll) 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.10 Carbon Konoxide: l-!1our> 20. ppiI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8-Hour > 9. WI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Cone. (ppa) 7 8 7 7 7 5 7 Max. 8-Hour Cone. (ppa) 3.6 4.7 4.8 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.8 Nitrooen Dioxide: I-Hour> 0.25 ppI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Cone. (Ppl) 0.21 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.09 0.10 Total Susnended Particulates: 24-Hour ~ 100 µg/g' 4/46 3/57 1/61 2/50 0/30 0/23 0/30 24-Hour > 260 µg/g' 0/46 0/57 0/61 0/50 0/30 0/23 0/30 Max. 24-Hour Cone. (µg/I') 109 111 163 110 79 98 97 Particulate SUlfate: 24-Hour ~ 25. µg/D' 0/57 0/60 0/51 0/21 0/29 0/31 0/34 Max. 24-Hour Cone. (µg¡'a3) 17.2 16.5 16.8 11.2 9.9 19.0 15.4 Inhalable Particulates 11'1-10): 24-Hour > 50 µg/g' 3/56 7/61 7/62 7/60 2/60 2/60 2/60 24-Hour > 150 µg/D' 0/56 0/61 0/62 0/60 0/60 0/60 0/60 Max. 24-Hour Cone. (µg/g3) 58 69 67 73 54 56 61 Note: Standards for sulfur dioxide and particulate lead have been let vi th a vide marqin of safety in 1988-94, and are, therefore, not shown. Data for total suspended particulates (TSP) shown for infomtion only because there is no TSP air quality standard since 1987. Source: California Air Resources Board, Summary of Air ~ity Data, 1988-94. Chula vista APCD IIonitorinq station (except for SOlIe particulate data which are from San Dieqo APeD Downtown station.) from the South Coast Air Basin (which is forecast to continue to exceed ozone standards to the year 2010) , some ozone standard violations will likely occur in the County beyond the 1999 attainment target date despite Countywide pollution control efforts. A further improvement in ambient air quality from County- generated emissions reductions will thus occur wi thin the next decade, but complete attainment of all standards may not happen until after the turn of the century. Some air quality concern has been raised about pollutant transport from Mexico with its considerably less stringent pollution control laws. The otay Mesa air quality station was established in part to monitor this phenomenon. Slight differences in ozone distribution on Otay Mesa are seen compared to Chula Vista. These differences are not so dramatic, however, as to indicate any substantial cross- border pollution transport. Sources of Pollution: Nitrogen oxides (NO.) and reactive organic gases (ROG) are the two precursors to photochemical smog formation. In San Diego County, 68% of the 310 tons per day of ROG emitted come from mobile (cars, ships, planes, heavy equipment, etc. ) sources. For NO., 88% of the 240 tons emitted daily are from mobile sources. Computer modeling of smog formation has shown that a reduction of around 25% each of NO. and ROG would allow the San Diego Air Basin to meet the federal ozone standard on days when there is no substantial transport of pollution from the South Coast Air Basin or other airshed. Air Quality Management Planning: The continued violations of national AAQS in the SDAB, particularly those for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pOllution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in a regional air quality management plan developed jointly by the APCD and SANDAG. Several plans had been adopted in the late 1970's and early 1980's under the title Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) . Until recently, the 1982 RAQS was the last federally- approved (EPA) air quality plan for attainment of the federal ozone standard. More recent planning efforts have been modifications, improvements and updates of the earlier RAQS efforts. The California Clean Air Act (AB-2595) required that a state clean air plan be developed to address meeting state standards as well as the often less stringent federal criteria. A basin plan was therefore developed and adopted in 1991 that predicted attainment of all national standards by the end of 1997 from pollution sources within the air basin, but little could be done about the problem of interbasin transport. Since the South Coast Air Basin is predicted to exceed the national ozone standard beyond the year 2000, the San 7 Diego Air Basin, will also not experience completely healthful air for the next several decades. A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state plan. This local plan was combined with those from all other California non- attainment areas with serious ozone problems to create the California state Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after pUblic hearings on November 9- 10, 1994, and forwarded to the U. S. EPA for their approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approval of the SIP is expected within the next few months. During the planning process and smog formation modeling, it was discovered that the SOAB can meet the federal ozone standard by the year 1999 without the creation of any new control programs not already in progress. Airsheds demonstrating an ability to meet standards by 1999 (in the absence of transport from one basin to another) are classified as having a "serious" ozone problem instead of being classified as "severe". The SDAPCD requested that EPA reclassify the air basin from severe to serious. This request was subsequently approved. All progress towards attainment, including offsetting the effects of growth, is expected to derive from existing local, state and federal rules and regulations. Controversial rules previously evaluated that were judged by some people as overly intrusive into personal lifestyles (mandatory trip reduction programs or minimum average vehicle occupancy goals) are not needed to predict attainment. Any violations of ozone standards in the year 2000 or beyond are forecast to occur only on days when transport from the Los Angeles Basin creates substantially elevated baseline levels upon which any local basin impacts would be superimposed. In general, recreational developments such as the proposed water park are not of themselves emitters of air pollutants. They generate air pollution almost exclusively through visitor and/or employee vehicular travel. Traffic-generating sources are called "indirect sources". Project consistency with any regional air quality planning is determined in terms of whether overall growth has been correctly anticipated in a given sUb-region. An entertainment use serves the general population, and will not cause automotive travel to be generated unless there is a perceived demand for such a venue. By and large, commercial recreation uses are growth-accommodating and not growth-inducing. The are thus related to the air quality planning process only inasmuch as the rate of growth they are accommodating by providing recreational entertainment services is consistent with the air quality planning process. 8 AIR DUALITY IMPACTS The proposed project will impact air quality almost exclusively through the vehicular traffic generated by water park visitors. Mobile source impacts occur basically on two scales of motion. Regionally, site-related travel will add to regional trip generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the local airshed. Locally, project traffic, will be added to the Chula vista roadway system near the project site. If such traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation, is comprised of a large number of vehicles "cold-started" and operating at pollution inefficient speeds, and is driving on roadways already crowded with non-project traffic, there is a potential for the formation of microscale air pollution "hot spots" in the area immediately around points of congested traffic. Secondary project-related atmospheric impacts derive from a number of other small, growth-connected emissions sources such as temporary emissions of dusts and fumes during project construction, increased fossil-fuel combustion in power plants from project electricity requirements, evaporative emissions at gas stations or from paints, thinners or solvents used in construction and maintenance, increased air travel from area visitors, dust from tire wear and re-suspended roadway dust, etc. All these emission points are either temporary, or they are so small in comparison to project-related automotive sources such that their impact is less important. They do point out, however, that growth engenders increased air pollution emissions from a wide variety of sources, and thus further inhibits the near-term attainment of all clean air standards in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Standards of Significance CEQA guidelines define a potentially significant air quality impact as one that: a. creates violations of clean air standards, b. contributes measurably to an existing violation, or, c. exposes people to contaminants for which there are no presumed safe exposures. For projects that create mainly automobile traffic whose emissions require complex photochemical reactions to reach their most harmful stage, there is no way to measure the impact to establish a "measurable contribution". Various air pOllution control I management agencies have developed guidelines using total 9 project emissions as a surrogate for determining regional impact potential. The City of Chula vista has no such threshold levels, but relies on guidance from other agencies. Candidate significance threshold levels include the following: significant Emissions (lb/day) Aaencv ~ ROC JIQx SQx BI::1Q SDAPCD Rule 20.2 (a) 550 100 100 100 100 SDAPCD Rule 20.3 (b) 550 250 250 250 250 City of San Diego (c) 550· 100" --- --- - South Coast AQMD (d) 550 55 55 150 150 a = requires best available control b = requires ambient air quality analysis c = significance Determination Guidelines (1991) d = SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) . = in areas of congested traffic .. = in areas of free-flow traffic For purposes of analysis, the SDAPCO Rule 20.2 (BAcT-trigger) is a reasonable compromise between the most stringent and most lenient of the four possible significance thresholds noted above. Construction Ianacts The most significant source of air pollution from project construction will be the dust generated during excavation, grading and site preparation. Typical total dust lofting rates from construction activities are usually assumed to average 1.2 tons of dust per month per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control procedures. These emissions are for total suspended particulates (TSP) which comprise smaller, respirable particulate matter of 10-micron diameter or less (called PM-IO) , as well as larger particles that are trapped wi thin the upper respiratory tract of people and other mammals. The PM-IO fraction of TSP is assumed to be around 50 percent. The PM-10 emission factor for project-related soil disturbance is around 55 pounds per day per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control. 10 Part of the project area has been graded for the otay Rio Business Park such that grading activities may be less than for construction on undisturbed soil. The total project area comprises 32.4 acres, not all of which will be under simultaneous construction. For purposes of analysis, approximately one-third, or 10 acres, was assumed to be disturbed on any given day. In the absence of any dust control, simultaneous disturbance of the 10 acres would generate daily total PM-10 emissions of 550 pounds if no mitigation measures are implemented. Implementation of vigorous dust control measures would reduce PM-10 associated with grading by 50-75 percent or in the range of 140-275 pounds per day. This range of emissions would still exceed the daily PM-10 significance threshold of 100 pounds per day. This generation of construction dust PM-1O emissions can be reduced to sub-threshold levels by reducing the area of disturbance and/or using a very aggressive dust control program. Highly effective dust control can achieve a 90 percent control efficiency or 55 pounds per day per 10 acres of disturbance. Assuming that such an aggressive dust control program is implemented during construction, then with the temporary timeframe of such emissions and the generally good daytime ventilation conditions in the project vicinity, the impact from construction dust generation would be considered as individually less than significant. In addition to small dust particles that remain suspended in the air semi-indefinitely, construction also generates many large particles that are easily filtered by human breathing passages, but settle out rapidly on parked cars and other nearby horizontal surfaces. Large particle emissions thus comprises more of a soiling nuisance rather than any potentially unhealthful air quality impact. With prevailing daytime west to east winds, dust soiling potential is likely greatest directly east of the project site in areas designated for amphitheater parking. Good control of fine particulates also results in reduction in nuisance potential from larger particulate matter. While dust deposition can be minimized, it often can not be completely eliminated. While temporary soiling nuisance is considered adverse, it does not constitute a significant air quality impact. Equipment exhaust as well will be released during project construction activities from mobile sources during site preparation and berm construction. Approximately 75,000 cubic yards of earth will be excavated to create slopes for various water play attractions. For purposes of analysis, it was assumed that nine months of construction are required to develop the project and that the equipment energy expenditure totals 100,000 Brake-Horsepower- Hours (BHP-HR) for each acre under construction. Equipment exhaust emissions are calculated based upon average diesel-powered equipment as follows: 11 Carbon Monoxide - 31 pounds/day Reactive Organic Compounds - 10 pounds/day Nitrogen Oxides - 139 pounds/day Sulfur Oxides - 10 pounds/day Exhaust Particulates - 5 pounds/day Construction activity emission rates are substantial (especially NO. from diesel-fueled trucks and on-site vehicles). Average daily NO. emissions may be in excess of the threshold level of 100 pounds per day established for this project. Equipment exhaust emissions may therefore have a temporarily significant air quality impact during the most intensive phase of construction. Locally, equipment emissions will be widely dispersed in space and time by the mobile nature of much of the equipment itself. Furthermore, daytime ventilation during much of the year in Chula vista is usually more than adequate to disperse any local pollution accumulations near the project site. Any perceptible impacts from construction activity exhaust will, therefore, be confined to an occasional "whiff" of characteristic diesel exhaust odor in close proximity to the project site, but not in sufficient concentration to expose any nearby receptors to air pOllution levels above acceptable standards. Construction activities are most noticeable in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. There is, however, some potential for "spill-over" into the surrounding community. Spillage may be physical such as dirt tracked onto pUblic streets or dropped from trucks. Spill-over may also be through congestion effects where detours, lane closures, or construction vehicle competition with non-project peak hour traffic slows traffic beyond the immediate construction site to less pollution-efficient travel speeds. Such off-site effects are controllable through good housekeeping and proper construction management/scheduling. Management techniques are suggested in the mitigation discussion to reduce potential spill-over impacts. Long-Term Vehicular Emissions Impacts The greatest air quality concern from land use intensification usually derives from the mobile source emissions that result from project-related transportation. The project traffic study 12 estimates that site-related traffic will total around 2,000 daily vehicle trips on a peak acti vi ty day. The range of service for the project is estimated to be 25 miles. The average travel distance between the site and the last stop before site access or the first stop after leaving the park is estimated to be 15 miles (some shorter, some longer). This trip generation forecast was calculated to generate an additional 30,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the air basin. The corresponding air pollution emissions associated with site access/egress was calculated by combining the VMT data with average vehicular emission factors from the EMFAC7F( 1.1) California vehicular emissions computer model. The daily mobile-source emissions for a 30,000 VMT generation are shown in Table 3. Depending upon an assumed completion year, project-related new mobile source emissions may exceed 100 pound per day new source threshold for smog-forming ROC. Daily CO emissions would exceed the 550 pound per day level by a wide margin until midway through the next decade. with a likely completion date in 1997-98, all smog-forming emissions will be below the 100 pound per day significance threshold. Regional air quality impacts from project implementation related to potential smog formation are therefore less than significant. CO emissions in excess of thresholds are a localized microscale concern. CO impacts and potential significance are explicitly analyzed below. Anticipated CO concentrations were calculated to evaluate the potential for the formation of any air pollution "hot spots" at intersections near the proposed project site using a screening procedure based upon the California line source dispersion model CAL1NE4. Maximum simultaneous background and project traffic volumes projected by the project traffic study were used in the analysis. CO was used as the indicator pollutant to determine if there was any air pollution "hot spot" potential. Three (3) intersections were analyzed with the 4 following hourly CO exposures (in ppm) above background: Exist. + Proj. Fut. No P. Fut. w/P. Otay Mesa Road: @ 1-805 NB Ramps 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 @ Oleander 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 @ Brandywine 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 Source: Screening procedure based on CAL1NE4 Model 13 TA.BLE 3 PROJECT-RELATED VEHICULAR EMISSIONS (lbsjday) Significance Pollutant .J.2..22 2000 2010 Threshold ROC 118 75 35 100. NOx 78 56 39 100. CO 917 606 298 550. PM-I0 7 7 6 100. SOx Negl. Negl. Neg!. 100. Source: EMFAC7F(1.1) Vehicular Emissions Computer Model Maximum hourly background CO levels at Chula vista in 1994 were 7 ppm with an 8-hour maximum of 3.8 ppm. Even if the worst background day were to coincide with the worst local impact shown above, neither the 1- or 8-hour CO standards would be exceeded. Therefore project-related microscale air quality impacts will be less than significant, and project-related CO emissions will not significantly contribute to any unhealthful air quality in the project vicinity. 15 :tJI:I'I' IGA.'I' I ON without mitigation, the proposed water park project could create significant air quality impacts from dust and equipment exhaust during construction. There are more opportunities to reduce short- term construction impacts to insignificant levels through mitigation. Such mitigation includes enhanced dust abatement procedures for PM-10 control and equipment maintenance to reduce excess NO. emissions. The following mitigation measures to reduce construction dust may be implemented. For each of the three dust sources, the first listed measure represents a reasonably available control measure (RACM), while the second measure represents best available control technology (BACT). Source Mitiaation Measure Soil Piles 1. Enclose, cover, or water all soil piles twice daily. 2. Install an automatic sprinkler system on all soil piles. Exposed Surfacej 3. Water all exposed soil twice daily. Grading 4. Water all exposed soil with adequate frequency to keep soil moist at all times. Truck Travel- 5. Water all internal roads daily. Internal 6. Pave all internal roads. As an alternative dust control option, grading activities may be staged such that no more than one-fourth of the site in under disturbance at anyone time. Implementation of RACM's, in conjunction with limits on the size of the disturbance area, would reduce daily PM-10 emissions for this option to below the significance threshold. The primary mitigation measure for grading and other construction equipment (both mobile and stationary) is to maintain equipment in good working order. An equipment maintenance program is recommended to assure that construction equipment is well maintained. Low-NO. tune-ups are recommended at periods not to exceed 90 days. The emissions reduction from maintaining equipment in good working order will likely reduce daily NO. emissions below the significance threshold. 16 · - .- · - APPENDIX C · . .. · . .- ~. .- · . · - -' ~...- · - ~--- _u --.- .. .. PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL SERVICES REPORT OF A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OFTHEPROPOSEDCHULA VISTA WATER PARK CHULA VISTA SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for TRS Consultants Convoy Court, Suite 312 San Diego, CA 92111 Tel (619) 496-2525 FAX (619) 496-2527 Prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. Post Office Box 985 National City CA 91951-0985 Tel (619) 268-9300 Fax (619) 268-9302 24 April 1996 R. Mitchel Beauchamp, President Marcia Dustin Mann, Lead Biologist (619) 268-9300 Post Office Box 985 National City, CA 91951-0985 Corporate Office; 8328 Clairemom Mesa Blvd., Ste. 100 San Diego, CA 92111 800-838-PSBS FAX (619) 268-9302 PSBS #T137 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.0 SITE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1 Topography and Soils ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2 Land Uses .................................................. 4 5.0 SURVEY METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ....................... 4 6.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................... 5 6.1 Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1.1 Ruderal (32.4 acres) .................................... 5 6.2 Flora............... ....................................... 5 6.3 Fauna ..................................................... 5 6.3.1 Amphibians ......................................... 7 6.3.2 Reptiles ............................................ 7 6.3.3 Birds .............................................. 7 6.3.4 Mammals ........................................... 7 6.4 Wildlife Habitat .............................................. 7 6.4.1 Disturbed/Ruderal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.4.2 Isolated Seasonal Ephemeral Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.0 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1 S"V'C .. 8 ensltlve egetatlon ommumtles.................................. 7.2 Sensitive Flora ............................................... 8 7.3 Sensitive Fauna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1 Direct Impacts ............................................... 10 8.1.1 Vegetation Communities ................................ 10 8.1.2 Sensitive Flora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 8.1.3 Sensitive Fauna ....................................... 10 8.2 Indirect Impacts .............................................. 10 8.2.1 Vegetation Communities ................................ 10 8.2.2 Sensitive Flora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 10 8.2.3 Sensitive Fauna ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 8.3 Cumulative Impacts . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 11 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T137 U1 FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDICES FIGURE 1. PROJECT REGIONAL MAP ....................................... 2 FIGURE 2. PROJECT VICINITY MAp ........................................ 3 FIGURE 3. VEGETATION AND SENSITIVE REsOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 APPENDIX 1. FLORAL CHECKUST APPENDIX 2. ANIMALS OBSERVED OR DETECTED APPENDIX 3. PHOTOGRAPHS Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T137 1 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE WEISS-POW A Y PROJECT Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 24 April 1996 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A general biological survey of the 32.4-aere proposed Chula Vista Water Park property found a highly disturbed site. The vegetation classification of the entire site is ruderal. No sensitive plant species Was seen and none is expected. Two sensitive animals were detected: San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettit); and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). This site has had and continues to have heavy ORV use, foot traffic, and some illegal refuse dumping. The site is crisscrossed with compacted dirt roads and trails used especially by motorcycles. Direct impacts to the flora are not significant. Direct impacts to the fauna are adverse but not significant. Indirect impacts to the flora are not significant. The Otay River riparian system, which supports least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), is more than 0.6 mile to the north at its closest point. 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of TRS Consultants, Inc., Pacific Southwest Biological Services (pacific Southwest) conducted a general biological survey at the 32.4-acre site. This report summarizes the findings of the biological survey. The report also provides an analysis of the direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources on and/or adjacent to the site. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed Chula Vista Water Park site is located just south of Otay Rio Road in the southeastern portion of the City of Chula Vista, approximatdy 3 miles north of the international border and 1.5 miles east of the 1·805/0tay Valley Road interchange. Immediately north and east of the site is the improved portion of Otay Rio Business Park (phase I), which has been fully graded and improved with utilities and roads but is currently not developed. An unincorporated area of the County of San Diego lies to the east and open space within the City of Chula Vista is to the immediate south of the site (Figures 1 and 2). Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. "T1 cõ" c:: ã! ...... . "'tI a ~" CD $l ::D CD cc õ" :J !!!. s:: I\) 't:J 1 I r. -a en t "= ~ 01 en .. J ~~.' a .. ~ ~ " !: 0 "-.-'~I_...CI i LEY· .- .O¡~-'-"" ...,q"",=",~ " " l 7 537 '. I ~\ -.., " " ". " ". " 4 " " " '{. ::t-.I /" " 0 , "-II , 0 " G.y~: '" " ..~ " " " " .i'\ " " iiÌî~=,V1f1 , " Legend ~ Project Site ofI Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map w.~ <1 USGS 7.5' Imperial Beach Quadrangle lit = 2OtXJ1 Padfte.soutliwut 'lJiDfogiaú SmJias, 111£. PSBS I/T137 4 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an aquatic recreational park with water rides and accessory uses, including concession stands, administrative buildings, and future development areas. The project proposes to use 11.24 million gallons of water per year. The water park will be a seasonal summer use, operating daily from Memorial Day through Labor Day, plus four weekends prior to Memorial Day and four weekends subsequent to Labor Day. The project is designed for a maximum capacity of 5,000 patrons. Weekend attendance is anticipated to average 3,500, while average weekday attendance is expected to be 2,600. 4.0 SITE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS 4.1 Topography and Soils The site ranges in elevation from approximately 143 feet (above mean sea level) to approximately 214 feet. The entire site is gently sloping and relatively flat with the exception of 6 small, low hills in the eastern half of the property. Soil mapping units which occur on the project include: . Salinas clay loam (SbA), 0-2% slopes. . Salinas clay loam (Sbe), 2-9% slopes. 4.2 Land Uses This property Was previously in agricultural production from 1920 to 1983. Agricultural use has ceased entirely since the grading improvements associated with Phase I of the Otay Rio Business Park. During the recent survey, several motorcycles were being driven throughout the site. Foot traffic was also noted while surveying the site, as well as some illegal refuse dumping (photographs, Appendix 3). 5.0 SURVEY METHODS AND LIMITATIONS A biological survey Was conducted by Marcia Dustin Mann and Robert M. Faught on 22 April 96. Air temperature was 77° Fahrenheit, wind velocities between 3-5 miles per hour, with clear, sunny skies. All portions of the site were walked. The vegetation communities and any sensitive flora or fauna were mapped onto a 1" - 100' scale, topographic map. The scientific nomenclature used in this report is from the following standard references: vascular plants (Hickman 1993; Munz 1974; Beauchamp 1986); vegetation communities (Holland, 1986); wildlife Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T137 5 habitats (Mayer, et al. 1988); amphibians and reptiles (Jennings 1983; Stebbins 1966); birds (American Ornithologists' Union 1983, 1989); and mammals (Jones, et al. 1992). 6.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6.1 Vegetation Communities Vegetation types or communities are assemblages of plant species that usually coexist in the same area. The classification of vegetation communities is based upon the life form of the dominant species widùn that community and the associated flora. The vegetation types follow that of Holland (1986). In some instances, there may be an assemblage of plant species for which there is not an adequate description in this reference. In that case, a category was selected which reflected both the floristics and physiognomy ofthat assemblage. Species names follow that of Hickman (1993) and Beauchamp (1986). Only one vegetation type, ruderal, occurs within the study area (Figure 3). 6.1.1 RUDERAL (32.4 ACRES) Ruderal refers to land recently or continually disturbed in which the earliest successional plant species are dominant. These species in coastal San Diego County tend to be non-native, often invasive, annuals. This site Was dominated by the annual non-native grasses of wild oat (Avena fatua), Italian ryegrass (Lo/ium multif/orum), glaucous barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. glaucum), ripgut grass (Bromm diandrus) , and foxtail chess (Bromm madritensis ssp.rubens). Other dominates were black mustard (Brassica nigra) and sweet fennel (Poeniculum vulgare). 6.2 Flora Twenty two species of plants were identified during the survey. Eighteen of these species (approximately 82 percent) are plants that are not native to California. The high percentage of non- native flora on-site is an indicator of the site's disturbance. A complete list of floral species are found in Appendix A. 6.3 Fauna Twenty-three animal species were detected on-site (Appendix 2). The animal composition of the site appears to be consistent with the expected seasonal wildlife diversity for areas supporting similar disturbed! ruderal habitats. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. ¡;¡ - t= --. .. ~ (J , \ .. m \.~ (J ,.. I a. - ! .' 1;'· ,) , '< .~/"./ 0 . ~ ~ . 1 z ,-t- '<0 ~ +- N.. ,.:.? ·9 '.__~ CO) CD."::.:: . ·f ~ ,~..jò ~ ¡ 1 I ~ ;2: I}- :g ~ ~- I' S ~ .~ l~ t if ~ I¥ ~ .,>,ª § :n se S ~.º' "¡j ~.!!. 1~' iñ Q. ~ OJ ~ ! J ~ 1 :~ ! ~ .~- ~ .ag' ~~ ",g. œ -'" oj! ~ï ~ <J) .,,1Jj ." "e ! 1! ~ ~i 1 ~ œ f ñî.!. e .! ( a: CJ ! [i]lB~ (J Q) ~ =' 0 (J Q) II: Q) .Õ?: - ëñ c: Q) en 'C c: (I c: M 0 :¡:o !!! g =' Q) CI CI ü: ~ PSBS #T137 7 6.3.1 AMPHIBIANS No amphibians were observed during the survey. Due to the limited amount of moisture on-site and the disturbed and xeric state of the remaining habitats, the only additional amphibian expected to occur is the California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus). 6.3.2 REPTILES One reptile species, side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburian), Was identified. Only the southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata) and the gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) would also be expected to occur, due to the disturbed ruderal state of the habitats on-site . 6.3.3 BIRDs Eighteen species of birds were observed. Some of the more common species observed were California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoenicus), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). A complete list is presented in Appendix 2. Surveys conducted during different times of the year would undoubtedly encounter additional species, particularly those which may use the site during their seasonal migration. 6.3.4 MAMMALS Four species of mammals were detected: San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californica bennetti¡); Botta's pocket gopher (Tbomomys bottae); desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonit); and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyt). 6.4 Wildlife Habitat Wildlife habitats differ from vegetation communities. A wildlife habitat may contain several vegetation communities which will be similar in structure but different in their plant species composition, location, and soil substrate. This distinction becomes an important factor when assessing the sensitivity of a particular wildlife habitat. An example of this would be a shrubland habitat that is composed of a non-sensitive vegetation community (e.g., ehamise chaparral) versus the sensitive vegetation communities (e.g., Diegan coastal sage scrub or mulefat scrub). The proposed Chula Vista water park study area contains two wildlife habitat types: isolated seasonal ephemeral wetlands; and ruderal. The proposed Chula Vista water park site's heavily disturbed (denuded roads, motorcycle moguls, and illegal refuse dumping) and ruderal state has limited value to any wildlife occurring on-site (photographs, Appendix 3). In addition, because the site is frequently used by motorcycles and other off-road vehicles, wildlife values are further reduced. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T137 8 6.4.1 DISTURBED/RUDERAL Ruderal areas typically support a high concentration of annual, weedy plant species. These areas generally support large populations of small mammals which provide a prey base for a diversity of avian predators. Within the proposed Chula Vista water park site these top predators would be represented by the several raptors observed foraging over the property (white-tailed kite Elanus caeruleus, American kestrel Falco ~rverius. and red-tailed hawk Buteo iamaicensis) and nesting inunediately adjacent to the site (great horned owl Bubo virvinianus). The California ground squirrel and Bona's pocket gopher were the most conunon and conspicuous vertebrates within this habitat. 6.4.2 ISOLATED SEASONAL EPHEMERAL WETLANDS These areas on-site are represented by "mechanically caused' depressions in the clay soils. These depressions may act as collecting basins for water during seasonal rains. The clay substrate slows the percolating of the collected water, creating a seasonal ephemeral isolated wetland. These small, temporary pools may serve as a breeding area for local amphibians. 7.0 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 7.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities No sensitive vegetation conununities occur on-site. 7.2 Sensitive Flora No sensitive plants occur on-site and none is expected. 7.3 Sensitive Fauna Sensitive animals are species or subspecies listed as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or being evaluated (former category 2 species) for listing by the USFWS (1994) and/or by the CDFG (1991b; 1992b; 1992e; 1992d). CDFG also includes evaluation of California Species of Concern (CSe). Two sensitive animal species were observed/detected during the survey (Figure 3). One loggerhead shrike was seen and abundant San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit sign was detected. Due to the disturbed nature of the habitats within the study area, no other sensitive animals are expected occur on-site. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T137 9 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Listing: CDFG Species of Special Concern and former USFWS Category 2 species. This bird species is currently widespread, but declining, throughout North America. Loggerhead shrikes winters south to Central America and occupy open habitats, including grasslands, scrublands, and ruderal areas with adequate perching locations. A significant number of these birds occur and are protected within existing open space preserves (e.g. Mission Trails Regional Park, Los Penasquitos Open Space Preserve, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park), and a substantial number receive partial protection on local military installations (Miramar, Camp Pendleton, Camp Elliot). This species is generally an uncommon breeder on the coastal slope of San Diego County, however its habitats are still fairly common throughout much of southern California. Status On-site: One individual Was observed foraging and using the sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) as perching locations within the western portions of the site. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettil) Listing: CDFG Species of Special Concern and former USFWS Category 2 species. This subspecies ranges from southern Santa Barbara County, south on the coastal slope to the vicinity of San Quintin, Baja California, Mexico. Localities on the eastern edge of its range include Jacumba and San Felipe Valley, both in San Diego County. The San Diego black- tailed jackrabbit occurs primarily in open habitats including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands, croplands, and open, disturbed areas provided there is at least some scrub cover present. Livestock grazing, which reduces vegetation cover, can enhance jackrabbit habitat, and these mammals are often quite common in such areas. This subspecies is still relatively common in open areas in coastal southern California. However, major areas of habitat have been lost to urban development along the coastal strip and in some of the inland valleys. The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit is not under any immediate threat of extinction; the primary reason for its current listing is the alarming loss of coastal sage scrub habitat in Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Populations of these rabbits fluctuate widely, and during drought conditions these mammals can be very rare. Status On-site: Although no individuals were flushed or seen, abundant scat and numerous bedding sites were identified within the study area. 8.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are assessed. Direct impacts are those that permanently alter the affected biological resources such that those resources are not expected to recover to their pre- impacted state (e.g., development of homesites, roads and recreation areas). Indirect impacts are secondary impacts to the biological resources that are a result of direct impacts (e.g., construction). Examples of indirect impacts include habitat fragmentation, habitat insularization, edge effect, exotic species invasion, disruption of natural behavior due to increased noise levels and increased human Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T137 10 intrusion. In addition, cumulative impacts are assessed to determine the long term cumulative effects of project implementation on biological resources on a regional scale (e.g., incremental habitat or species reduction) . 8.1 Direct Impacts 8.1.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES There is no significant direct impact to the vegetation type on-site. 8.1.2 SENSITIVE FLORA No sensitive flora was found on-site and none is expected; therefore, no significant direct impact to sensitive flora will occur. 8.1.3 SENSITIVE FAUNA Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) prohibits the intentional or non-intentional "take" (harassment) of any federally listed species. The Chula Vista water park project will result in no significant direct impacts to any State or Federally listed animal species. Because of their low sensitivity status, direct impacts to the loggerhead shrike and the San Diego black- tailed jackrabbit are considered adverse but not significant. 8.2 Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts are considered secondary impacts to biological resources resulting from direct permanent project impacts. Indirect impacts are not always immediately evident, but may occur over time, depending on the habitat susceptibility and quality, and duration and quality of the direct impacts. Indirect impacts that degrade a sensitive habitat's natural function and species composition may include the following: habitat fragmentation, exotic species invasion, increased human (physical) intrusion, mesopredation, increased noise and light pollution, and an increase in reptile mortality as a result of increased traffic occurring along roads traversing occupied habitats. 8.2.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES There is no significant indirect impact to the vegetation type on-site. 8.2.2 SENSITIVE FLORA No significant indirect impact to sensitive flora will occur with this project. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T137 11 8.2.3 SENSITIVE FAUNA No significant indirect impact to sensitive fauna is expected. The ûtay River riparian system, which supports least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), is more than 0.6 mile to the north at its closest point. 8.3 Cumulative Impacts As defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 'Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.' An example of a cumulative impact would be the incremental loss of small amounts of a sensitive habitat occurring as an impact of several adjacent or locally occurring projects. The individual loss of small amounts of this sensitive habitat may be considered adverse, but not significant, but the cumulative loss among all of the projects would be considered a cumulatively significant impact. There would be no significant cumulative impact if this project were developed. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1m:. PSBS #T137 12 liTERATURE CITED American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds, 6th Edition. American Ornithologists' Union. American Ornithologists' Union. 1989. Thirty-seventh Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Checklist of North American Birds. Auk 106: 532-538. Barbour, M. G. 1987. Community Ecology and Distribution of California Hardwood Forests and Woodlands. In Symposium on Multiple-use Management of California's Hardwood Resources. T. R. Plumb and N. H. Pillsbury, eds. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-I00. Berkeley, California. 462 p. Barbour, M., B. Pavlik, F. Drysdale, and S. Lindstrom. 1993. California's changing landscapes; ~ and conservation 0/ California 'Vegetation. 246pp. California Native Plant Society. s.....=Ju, CA. Beauchamp, R. M. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press, National City, CA. 241 p. Bowman, Roy H. 1973. Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California, Part I. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the County of San Diego Planning Department. December, 1973. California Department of Fish and Game. 1991b. 1990 Annual Report on the Status of the California's State Listed Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals. March 1991. California Department of Fish and Game. 1991e. State and Federal Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Revised April 1991. California Department of Fish and Game. 1991d. Special Animals. California Natural Diversity Data Base. August 1991. California Department of Fish and Game. 1992c. 1991 Annual Report on the Status of California State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. California Department ofFish and Game. 1992d. Special Animals. California Natural Diversity Data Base. December 1992. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1400pp. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game. Jackson, L. 1985. Ecological Origins of California's Mediterranean Grasses. Journal o/Biogeography (1985) 12, 349-361. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T137 13 Jennings, M. R. 1983. An Annotated Check List of the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. California Department of Fish and Game 69: 151-171. Jones, J. Knox, Jr., Robert S. Hoffmann, Dale W. Rice, Clyde Jones, Robert J. Baker, and Mark D. Engstrom. 1992. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 1992. Oec. Papers The Museum of Texas Tech. Univ. Number 146. 23 pp. Laudenslayer, William F., Jr. and William E. Grenfell, Jr., Editors. 1983. A List of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of California. Outdoor California 44(1):5-14. January-February. Mayer, Kenneth E. and William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Munz, P. A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1086 p. Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 336 p. U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Protection for 28 Animals and Plants Proposed During January- June 1992. Endangered Species Tech. Bull. 17(3-8). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Listing Proposals. Endangered Species Tech. Bull. 18(1): 6. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. ApPENDIX 1 FLORAL CHECKLIST PSBS #T137 A-1·1 ApPENDIX 1. FLORAL CHECKLIST HABITAT R = Ruderal Habitat Type DICOTYLEDONS Apiaceae - Carrot Family .. Foeniculum vulgare Mill. fennel R Asteraceae - Sunflower Family Baccharis salicifolia (R. & P.) Pers. mule fat R Baccharis sarothroides Gray broom baccharis R .. Chrysanthemum coronarium L. garland R Boraginaceae - Borage Family Amsinckia menziesii (Lehm.) Nelson & I.F. Macbr. var. menziesii (p.& M.) Ganders R Brassicaceae - Mustard Family .. Brassica nigra (1..) Koch black mustard R Chenopodiaceae - Goosefoot Family .. Salsola tragus L. Russian thisde R Convolvulaceae - Morning.Glory Family .. Convolvulus arvensis L. bindweed R Euphorbiaceae . Spurge Family .. Ricinus communis L. castor-bean R Fabaceae - Pea Family .. Melilotus indica (1..) All. sourclover R Malvaceae . Mallow Family .. Malva parviflora L. Cheeseweed, little mallow R Primulaceae - Primrose Family .. Anagallis arvemis L. scarlet pimpernel R Solanaceae - Nightshade Family .. Nicotiana glauca Grab. tree tobacco R Urticaceae - Netde Family .. Urtica urem L. dwarf nettle R Verbenaceae - Verbena Family Verbena menthaefolia Benth. mint-leaf vervain R Poaceae - Grass Family .. A vena fatua L. wild oat R .. Bromus diandrus Roth ripgut grass R Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #TB7 A-1-2 FLORAL CHECKUST (CONTINUED) HABITAT R - Ruderal Habitat Type .. Bromus madritensis L. ssp. rubens (L.) Husnot red brome R .. Cortaderia jubata (Lern.) Stapf pampas grass R .. Hordeum murinum ssp. glaucum (Steud.) Tzvel. glaucous barley R .. Lolium multiflorum Lam. Italian ryegrass R .. Phleum pratense L. cultivated timothy R .. . Denotes non-native plant taxa Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. ApPENDIX 2 ANIMALS OBSERVED OR DETECTED PSBS #T137 A-2-t APPENDIX 2. ANIMALS OBSERVED OR DETECTED HABITAT NUMBER/MEANs COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OF DETECTION HAmTAT REPTILES Phrynosomatidae Side-blotched Lizard Uta stansburian BIRDS Aecipitridae (Hawks, Old World Vultures, and Harriers) Red·tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis White-tailed Kite Elanus caeruleus Falconidae (Caracaras and Falcons) American Kestrel Fa/co sparverius Columbidae (pigeons and Doves) Morning Dove Zenaida macrouTa Strigidae (Owls) Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianu, * Active nest located immediately adjacent to site. Troehilidae (Hummingbirds) Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna Tyrannidae (I'yrant Flycatchers) Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Hirundinidae (Swallows) Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Corvidae crays, Magpies, and Crows) Common Raven Corvas "'Tax Family Lanüdae (Shrikes) Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Emberizidae (Warblers, Sparrows, Blackbirds and Relatives) Subfamily Parulinae (Warblers) Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Subfamily Thraupinae (I'anagers) Western Tanager PiTanga ludoviciana Subfamily Emberizinae (Sparrows, Towhees, Buntings, and Longspurs) California Towhee Pipüo crissalis Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. PSBS #T137 A-2-2 NUMBER/MEANS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OF DETECTION HABITAT Subfamily Icterinae (Blackbirds) Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus FringiIlidae (Finches) House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus MAMMALs Leporidae (Rabbits and Hares) San Diego Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus californica bennettii Desen Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Sciuridae (Squirrels, Chipmunks, and Marmots) California Ground Squirrel Spermophülus beecheyi Geomyidae (pocket Gophers) Botta's Pocket Gopher 1bomomys bottae Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. APPENDIX 3 PHOTOGRAPHS ; -- :- - ._~ . .. I . ~- ._.__.__~~~ _.'l' -~.. """;"';"-'-" '-,,. ->.--- - '-. .. I . . .. . , . ; , , ~ , - PSBS #T137 A-3·3 - - - - - - - - TRASH AND DISTURBANCE ON·SITE. - - - - - - - - - - Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. --.. -- APPENDIX D -- -- -- _.^~ ""'- .- - . .... - - -- .-- -- -. .....- - - -- ~ Environn1ental Consultants NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS CHULA VISTA WATER PARK CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: TRS Consultants Att.n: Hark Thollpson 7867 convoy Court, Suite 312 San Diego, CA 92111 Date: Hay 6, 1996 17744 Sky PlUt arc¡i!. Suite 210.. /nioc, CJÚiJömia 927/4 - Pbone (714) 8JI-86(J!J - FBJI (i14) 8J/-8612 NOISE SETTING Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. One decibel is the lowest sound presumed detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity. Table 1 shows the range of common exterior and interior noise levels. Because hearing sensitivity covers a wide threshold of sound strength, the decibel scale is a logarithmic progression where each 10 dB increase represents a ten-fold change in sound level pressure. Auditory response is not linearly related to pressure. Each 10 dB increase in sound is subjectively perceived by people to be approximately a doubling of sound strength. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range of maximum human auditory sensitivity more heavily in a process called "A-weighting", written as dB(A). Any additional reference to decibels in this report written as "dB" should be understood to be "dB(A)" unless otherwise noted. Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq) , or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some stated fraction of a given observation period. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise metric called the community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated for multiple family dwellings, and is considered a desirable noise exposure for single family dwelling units as well. Since typical noise attenuation within structures is about 15-20 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is typically the design exterior noise exposure for new residential dwellings, schools, or other noise-sensitive land uses in California. Because commercial or industrial uses are not occupied on a 24-hour basis, a less stringent noise/land use compatibility criterion is generally specified for these less noise sensitive land uses. 1 TABLB I TYPICAL A-WBIGHTBD SOUND LBVBLS Common Indoor Noise Level Common Outdoor Noise Levels (dBA) Noise Levels Rock Band no Jet F1yover @ 1000 ft. Inside Subway Train 100 Gas Lawnmower @ 3 ft. Food mender @ 3 ft. 90 Diesel Truck @ so ft. Garbage Disposal @ 3 ft. 80 Noisy Urban Daytime Shouting @ 3 ft. Gas Lawnmower @ 100 ft. Vacuum Cleaner @ 10ft. 70 Normal Speech @ 3 ft. Commercial Area 60 Heavy TraffIC Large Bmdness Offu:e Dishwasher Next Door SO Quiet Urban Daytime Small Theater Conference 40 Quiet Urban Nighttime Room (B"c1cground) Quiet Suburban Nighttime Library 30 Bedroom @ Night Concert Hall (Rac1cground) 20 Quiet Rural Nighttime Broadcast and Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 The CNEL metric generally is used as a land-use decision guideline in approving a given type of land use within an existing or predicted future noise environment. It is most often applied to noise exposures from vehicular traffic, trains or other sources whose control is pre-empted by state or federal agencies. A generating source of non-mobile noise sources such as a water recreation park, however, may be regulated by the municipal code in its originating jurisdiction. This regulation is typically called the "Noise Ordinance". In Chula Vista, a noise ordinance was adopted in 1985 as Ordinance No. 2101 adding Section 19.68 to the municipal code entitled "Performance Standards and Noise Control." In "Noise Sensitive Zones," the City standards are very stringent for noise generating sources. The City of Chula Vista exterior noise limits are as follows: Noise Level dB(A) Receiving Land Use Cateqorv 10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. All residential except MFU 45 55 Multiple Family Residential 50 60 Commercial 60 65 Light Industry 70 70 Heavy Industry 80 80 If the ambient level already exceeds any of these standards, the allowable level is equal to the ambient. ci ty standards distinguish between "environmental noise" versus "nuisance noise". Environmental noise results from land use activities normally permitted under the land use code. Nuisance noise is considered to be an unusual presence that is "annoying, obnoxious and unpleasant". The above standards are for one-hour averages (LEQ) if the noise is environmental, but never to be exceeded (Lmax) if the source is a nuisance source. For purposes of evaluating standards compliance, the proposed MCA Amphitheater 3 was designated as an environmental source. A recreational water park would presumably be considered a similarly "environmental" source. South of the proposed project site, future planned residential uses are within city of San Diego city limits. San Diego's standards for maximally noise-sensitive land uses are even more stringent than Chula Vista's, seen as follows: Roise Level (I-Hour LEQ in dB) Land Use Zone 7 AM -7 PM 7 PM -10 PM 10 PM - 7 AM RI 50 45 40 R2 55 50 45 R3, R4, other res. 60 55 50 Commercial 65 60 60 Industrial 75 75 75 The San Diego Municipal Noise Ordinance makes no allowance for any already elevated ambient levels, but does modify its standards if the zoning on the sending and receiving land use are different. The arithmetic average becomes the performance standard for dissimilarly zoned uses. Existing noise levels near the project site derive from a variety of sources. Vehicular traffic on Otay Valley Road, including trucks from aggregate operations, auto dismantling yards and other industrial uses, are most noticeable. Other sources observed during site visits included considerable helicopter activity, especially by the INS. Brown Field light aircraft usually take off westward toward the project site. Intermittent gunfire at the skeet range, industrial equipment such as back-up alarms and farm tractors were observed. The most common noise characteristic of the project vicinity is that it is normally quiet such that individual noise events seem more perceptible. Their cumulative contribution to the overall ambient noise level is therefore limited even if they are readily noticeable. A number of noise studies have been conducted in the "Otay Rio" area for the previously approved business park and for the 4 subsequently approved amphitheater project. Amphitheater studies included both baseline monitoring as well as concert noise simulations. The amphitheater studies were primarily conducted during the evening hours, but day/evening noise differences are not significant in the project vicinity. A test of project-area background noise testing was conducted on the evening of April 13, 1995. The test was repeated on May 1, 1995 to evaluate inter-day (night) differences. The results of the measurements are summarized in Table 2. Except for minor sources of noise contamination, mainly close to otay Valley Road, noise levels were very low. Background levels from mid- to late-evening, as defined by the L50 level (one-half the readings higher, one-half lower), are seen to range from 39-44 dB. Background LEQs ranged from 41-50 dB because single event 5 TABLE 2 PROJECT VICINITY NOISE MONITORING SUMMARY (Short-ten readiDqs in units of dBA) Location/Date Leq !.Hax !.Hin LlO L33 LSO L90 Amphitheater site 04/13/95 2053-2123 43.6 64.0 40.0 44.0 43.5 43.0 41.0 05/01/95 2011-2039 44.6 64.0 38.0 40.5 39.0 39.0 38.5 Water Park Site 04/13/95 2136-2206 47.9 73.0 40.0 45.5 43.5 42.5 41.0 05/01/95 2052-2122 48.6 66.5 38.5 50.5 48.0 44.0 39.5 Riparian Area Near Floodplain 04/13/95 2219-2249 46.6 69.0 40.0 44.5 42.5 42.0 41.5 05/01/95 2232-2302 44.4 69.0 38.5 41.5 39.5 39.0 38.5 Gun/Skeet Club 04/13/95 2300-2330 49.5 68.0 39.0 46.0 42.0 41.0 39.5 Source: LDL Model 700 Inteqrating Noise Dosimeter. -- ....-..- "spikes" raised the integrated average. The general conclusion from these measurements is that background levels are very low. Because background levels are low, future planned noise-sensitive development may be annoyed by noise generation activities on the project site since there are few masking effects from other ambient noise levels. with on-going intensification of the Otay Mesa (SR- 905 Freeway, NAFTA traffic, etc.) , and with further planned development within and around the Otay Valley, background levels will continue to increase to make individual sources such as the proposed project less noticeable. 7 NOISE IMPACTS Three types of noise impacts are expected to possibly occur from project implementation. These include: 1. Temporary construction activity noise impacts. The primary concern would be for noise-sensitive avian habitats along the otay River where construction equipment noise may interfere with bird vocalization during nesting/breeding season. 2. Recreational activity noise impacts from mechanical equipment or attendees voices. The low development density of the project vicinity reduces background masking effects. The water park may be audible even if city of Chula vista or other jurisdiction standards are not exceeded. 3. site access traffic noise, especially if the park is open until late evening when departures would occur during a noise- sensitive time period. standards of Significance A project will have a potentially significant noise impact if it substantially increases the noise levels near the site. A "substantial increase" is not defined in any guidelines with any uniformity. For purposes of this CEQA analysis, a substantial increase is defined as: 1. An increase that creates a potential violation of noise standards where standards are currently met, or, 2. An increase of a level equal to the baseline conditions if the baseline already exceeds standards. Noise levels may also create a nuisance independent of any violation of standards. In a low noise environment, nuisance perception may occur at levels as low as 50 dB. This level has been used to define a potential nuisance threshold. The City of Chula Vista has no significance criteria for impacts on avian species. However, both the County and city of San Diego utilize a standard of 60 dB LEQ for gnatcatcher or vireo habitat impacts and this standard has been accepted by wildlife management agencies. A level of 60 dB LEQ is therefore an additional significance threshold used for construction activity impacts relative to nearby avian habitats. 8 Construction Noise Impacts Temporary construction noise impacts from site development will vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by large earth-moving sources, then by foundation and parking lot construction, and finally for finish construction. The large earth-moving sources are the noisiest with equipment noise typically ranging from 75 to 90 dB at 50 feet from the source. Figure 1 shows the typical noise emissions associated with specific construction equipment. Based upon measurements at other major construction areas, a worst-case level of 89 dB at a 50-foot reference distance is typically used in assessing construction activity noise impacts. Point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance through geometrical spreading. The quieter noise sources will, thus, drop to a 60 dB noise level by about 400 feet from the source while the loudest could require over 1000 feet from the source to reduce the 89 dB source strength to a 60 dB level considered as unobtrusive into river bottom bird habitats northwest of the site. The theoretical distance of the 60 dB contour from loudest construction equipment under direct line of sight conditions is around 1,300 feet. For a direct line sight, the closest riparian habitat area at 1,500 feet from the center of the water park would have an equipment noise level of around 59 dB (29.5 dB doubling loss + 0.5 dB absorption loss). This is just below the significance threshold. Given that the above estimate is for semi-continuous peak power equipment operation while actual conditions usually involve intermittent periods of idling interspersed with high engine RPM, the margin of safety is likely substantial. An adequate distance buffer thus exists to create a less than significant construction activity noise impact on noise-sensitive avian habitats. Construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a community noise standard because they occur only during selected times and the source strength varies sharply with time. The penalty associated with noise disturbance during quiet hours and the nuisance factor accompanying such disturbance usually leads to time limits on construction activities imposed as conditions on construction and use permits. Although construction noise is specifically exempt from the noise standards in the Chula Vista municipal noise ordinance, grading/construction permits are generally conditioned by city staff to allow heavy equipment operations only during hours of lesser sensitivity. Weekday hours are typically the allowed times for construction activities if there are occupied dwellings within a reasonable exposure zone 9 NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT SO Ff 70 80 90 100 Compacters (Rollers) - Front Loaders .. Backhoes U .~ ·a 0 Tractors ¡¡j ~ 0 ~ Scrapers, Graders 0 ';2 III ~ Pavers - 'å 8 Trucks 'õI .. Concrete Mixers G ,g ~ -g Concrete Pwnps .. - '" :x: .Þ .!I Cranes (Movable) ] .!J ; .. Cranes (Derrick) 0 Iª - p.. Ii Pumps . ¡. Generators 'S .g $:1 Compressors '" Pneumatic Wrenches ã tS ë Jack Hammers and Rock Drills ß..~ Pile Drivers (Peaks) .B$ Vibrator .. J! Saws Õ Source: EP A PB 206717, Environmental Protcction Agency. Dec. 31, t971, ~Noisc from Construction Equipment ok Operations" FIGURE TYPICAL CONSTRUCnON EQUIPMENT 1 NOISE GENERATION LEVELS surrounding the construction site. Given the distance and topography between the project site and any off-site sensitive receivers, construction activities will have a less than significant noise impact when conditioned to operate during less noise-sensitive hours. Recreational Activity Noise Impacts There are no noise handbooks where noise generation from a prototypical water park is tabulated. Water parks are not generally known as nuisance noise sources, even where they exist in much closer proximity to residential uses than that proposed near the amphitheater site in the Otay Rio area. The City of Chula Vista noise standard during the hours of water park operation from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. is 55 dB at the nearest residence. If the noise is "environmental," the standard is for a one-hour average. If the noise is a "nuisance" source, this is the maximum allowable at any time. Environmental sources include: - Commercial activity found in connection with a permitted use - Pumps and compressors used in conjunction with a permitted activity - outdoor pUblic address and assembly at a permitted use Each of these above definitions of "environmental" applied to the proposed project. The standard at the nearest City of Chula Vista noise-sensitive use will be 55 dB for a one-hour average. Homes have been proposed atop otay Mesa (Robinhood Homes) within the City of San Diego. City of San Diego noise standards are 50 dB until 7 p.m. and 45 dB (LEQ) until 10 p.m. The lip of the mesa, however, will interrupt the line of sight from most water park activities with a 5-10 dB reduction in noise exposure. Meeting the City of Chula Vista standard of 55 dB under direct line of sight conditions is thus equivalent to meeting the more stringent City of San Diego standard when the line of sight is interrupted. In the absence of published data on water park noise, a noise measurement program was conducted at an existing operating park to simulate noise conditions that might be experienced at Chula Vista. The Oasis Water Park in Palm Springs was monitored on Sunday, April 21, 1996. Temperatures were near 90° F and attendance was moderate to heavy. Measurements were made in the parking lot and adjacent to the park boundary at a chain link fence near a water ride. Results were as follows: 11 I.EQ ~ I.min Noises: . Parking Lot: 61 75 40 Vehicles in lot Music on P.A. System Faint water noise Children yelling faintly Park Boundary 59 70 50 Children yelling Music on P.A. System Distant traffic Water rushing . = in perceived order of priority The parking lot measurement at 400 feet from the park boundary included nearby traffic movement. The background noise level attributable primarily to water park activity was less than 55 dB at this location. The park boundary reading of 59 dB LEQ was located approximately 200 feet from the center of recreational activity. A noise level of 59 dB at 200 feet from the park center as representative of the Oasis waterpark activity level on the particular measurement day was thus assumed reasonably applicable for the proposed project. Even if one assumes that the Chula vista water park on a peak day might have three times the noise generators as in Palm Springs, the reference noise level would increase by only 5 dB (10 X log [3/1] = +5 dB) because of the logarithmic nature of decibels. The reference level for the proposed project on a peak activity day would be 64 dB LEQ at 200' from the activity centroid. Under assumed peak conditions, the city of Chula vista standard (and, by inference, the City of San Diego standard under a partially blocked line of sight), is met 350 feet from the nearest water attraction. Proposed residential uses west of the project site are well over 500 feet from the closest water play activity. Peak hourly average noise exposure (LEQ) of 56 dB at the nearest candidate residential use is well below the identified 60 dB LEQ impact significance standard. Operational acti vi ty noise impacts are therefore considered less than significant. Traffic Noise Impacts The proposed project may add almost 2,000 daily trips to the area street system. Of these visitors, most are forecast to use Otay Valley Road in the near term with minimal travel on Otay Valley Road/Heritage Road to the top of otay Mesa. Given that only 3,100 vehicles currently use otay Valley Road each day east of Nirvana 12 Ave., the project contribution is substantial. The project traffic study concludes that there is adequate capacity to accommodate project traffic without any adverse congestion effects. However, the increase in average daily traffic (ADT) will affect the noise environment near otay Valley Road. The noise impact potential is exacerbated by the fact that most departure traffic will occur in the evening when the CNEL metric adds 5 dB to all traffic noise from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., and 10 dB to all noise after 10 p.m. Every vehicle from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. counts as 3 effective vehicles, and every vehicle from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. counts as 10 vehicles. The traffic volume of 2,000 ADT associated with the project effectively counts as a substantially greater volume when the time-weighting penalty is applied to evening and post-l0 p.m. departures. Substantial increases in traffic levels because of the proposed project, however, will occur in areas of limited noise sensitivity (except perhaps for avian habitats such as gnatcatchers near otay Valley Road). The nearest Chula Vista homes north of otay Valley Road have higher adjacent traffic volumes, including trucks from industrial uses, activities at the auto center, and possibly the 1- 805 background "hum." Project impacts near noise-sensitive uses thus will be sUbstantially masked by the existing baseline. Traffic noise was calculated at three locations near otay Valley Road with nearby residential uses where baseline ADT had been developed by the project traffic consultant. The Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with the California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) modification was used for this analysis. Project traffic noise was artificially weighted for its evening and/or post 10 p.m. contribution to generate a worst-case assessment. Traffic noise levels for the no-project baseline were predicted, and the project impact was then superimposed upon the baseline. A comparison between future no-project and future with- project conditions was also made. Table 3 shows the results of these calculations. A change in ambient noise levels of 3 dB is the generally accepted threshold of a perceptible change in noise levels. Peak traffic noise levels of 0.7 dB will occur near 1-805. Such an increase is imperceptible even under laboratory conditions -- much less in an ambient environment. This increase will further be masked by the 1-805 background level not considered in the above analysis. project-related traffic noise impacts, individually or cumulatively, will be less than significant. 13 TABLE 3 Chula vista Water Park Traffic Noise Impact [CNBL @ 100' to Centerline in dB(A)/ Distance to 65 dBA CNEL] Existina Ex. + Proj. Diff. Otay Valley Road Oleander - 1-805 64.8/ 97' 65.6/109' +0.7/+12' Oleander Avenue N of otay Valley Road 53.9/<50' 54.0/<50' +O.l/NA Brandywine Avenue N of otay Valley Road 57.4/<50' 57.6/<50' +0.2/NA Future Future No Proj. wlProject Diff. otay valley Road Oleander - 1-805 67.2/141' 67.7/151' +0.5/+10' Oleander Avenue N of otay Valley Road 54.3/<50' 54.4/<50' +0.1/NA Brandywine Avenue N of Otay valley Road 58.2/<50' 58.4/<50' +0.2/NA Source: FHWA-RD-77-108 (Calveno mod.) · MITIGA.TION Construction noise impacts to sensitive avian species are considered less than significant. Recreational activity noise will be well within City of Chula Vista noise standards at any existing or future residential uses. with partial terrain screening created by the edge of otay Mesa, the more stringent City of San Diego noise standard will also be met at the nearest proposed residences. site access/egress traffic noise will be undetectable at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors near otay Valley Road. Traffic level increases on evenings with water park operations will be less than on evenings with amphitheater performances. At the nearest Chula vista residences near otay Valley Road as the primary site access route, background noise levels from 1-805 and from non- project traffic will further mask any small project traffic noise increment. There are thus no significant noise impacts for which any impact mitigation is necessary. 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Whitewater Waterpark PROJECT LOCATION: Approximately 112 mile east of Otay Road and Otay Rio Road intersection (Phase II of the Otay Rio Business Park) PROJECT APPLICANT: Hice Enterprises CASE NO: IS-96-21 DATE: May 10, 1996 A. Project Setting The project site consists of approximately 32.4 acres and is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Chula Vista, approximately 3 miles north of the international border and 1.5 miles east of the I-805/0tay Valley Road interchange. Immediately north and east of the site is the improved portion of Otay Rio Business Park (phase I), which has been fully graded and improved with utilities and roads but is currently not developed. An unincorporated area of the County of San Diego lies to the east and open space within the City of Chula Vista is to the immediate south of the site. The reader is referred to Regional Map and Vicinity/USGS Quadrangle Map, Figures I and 2, pages 5 and 6 respectively, for a graphic reference. The project site is generally level. Elevations range from 143 to 214 feet above mean seal level (AMSL). It was previously in agricultural production from between 1920 to 1983. Agriculture has ceased entirely since the grading and improvements associated with Phase I of the Otay Rio Business Park. There are currently no structures on the site. Regional Setting The project site is within the Otay Rio Business Park, which has been approved for light industrial uses. A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the business park was certified in July of 1987 (EIR 87-2). A 20,OOO-person capacity amphitheater, to be located on the Phase I portion of the Business Park, was the subject of a Conditional Use Permit, and an FEIR which was certified in November of 1995 (SCH# 95031073). Relocation of the City of Chula Vista Corporation Yard is planned for a portion of Phase II of the Business Park. A Negative Declaration for that project was prepared and circulated for public review but was never approved. The Otay River Valley area in the vicinity of the subject site is characterized by industrial uses and open lands. Industrial/Commercial areas and auto recycling facilities extend along Nirvana A venue, approximately 1 mile northwest of the site. A gravel mining operation is located on the north side of Otay Valley approximately one mile east of the site, while a shooting/skeet range is located across Otay Valley Road from the southeast comer of Otay Rio Business Park, Phase I. Remaining property in the vicinity of the proposed water park is undeveloped. 1 Lands that are a portion of the Otay Ranch Master Planned Community are located to the north and east of the site. Proposed residential developments that are a part of the Otay Mesa Precise Plan are located to the south and west of the site in the City of San Diego. B. Project Description The project is an aquatic recreational park with water rides and accessory uses, including concession stands and administrative buildings. A Reduced Plot Plan, Figure 3, page 7, and Use AIe Detail, Figure 4, pages 8-9, provide graphic representations of the project details. The water park will occupy 32.4 acres of the aforementioned Otay Rio Business Park, and will consist of approximately 15,500 sq. ft. of buildings and structures, 11 water ride attractions, approximately 1,300 parking spaces, access drive, and fire access lanes. Water rides will include a wave pool, raft ride, body flumes, speed slides, a "lazy river" ride, childrens' activity pool, and adult activity pool. Facilities to be provided at the water park include the entry way, water rides, a softball field, volleyball courts, concessions, restaurant service, equipment rental, gift shop, arcade game room, first aid station, administrative offices, changing rooms, restrooms, shade structures/picnic areas, mechanical equipment buildings, and trash enclosures. The overall project design calls for a central entry area in the west central portion of the site and a manufactured earthen berm, varying in height from 30 to 45 feet and approximately 720 feet in length, which will curve from the north to the southeast in the west central portion of the site. The berm accommodates the starting points and flume structures for several of the park's water rides. The berm will be naturalized by being contoured and landscaped. A parking area is proposed along the eastern boundary of the property. Grading for the project will be in the amount of 71,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill. In the Reduced Plot Plan, Figure 3, the water park entry is shown at the end of Otay Rio Road on the left. The parking area occupies the eastern portion of the site. Several decorative islands in the parking area lead to the central entrance building, shown as a modified "U" in black. West of the entrance, a circular walk leads to water park rides and park amenities. The Use AIea Detail map, Figure 4, highlights the central use area. The central berm, accommodating ride platforms and structures, is shown in grey. On Figure 4, park features are numbered and keyed to the Legend on page 9. The project proposes to use 11.24 million gallons of water per year. Per capita water usage is estimated at an average of 20 gallons per patron, or 6.09 million gallons for the 304,900 park patrons expected annually. Ride filling will use 0.98 million gallons, and irrigation will consume 4.16 million gallons. Waste water is estimated at 5 gallons per patron per day, for a daily average flow of 18,200 gallons. Peak flow, expected on major holidays during the operating season, will be 27,000 gallons. Low flow water conservation devices will be used throughout the park. The water park will be a seasonal summer use, operating daily from Memorial Day through Labor Day, plus four weekends prior to Memorial Day and four weekend subsequent to Labor Day. Hours of operation will be from 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM, except on days when concerts are planned at the adjacent approved amphitheater, when the park hours will be reduced to accommodate the smooth flow of traffic. The water park will employ 15 people full-time, year around, with 225 additional individuals added to the staff during the operating season. A 24-hour security force will be maintained on the grounds 365 days a year. The project is designed for a maximum capacity of 5,000 patrons. Weekend attendance is anticipated to 2 average 3,500, while average weekday attendance is expected to be 2,600. DiscretiolÌary actions required for the project include a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and a Development Agreement. C. ComDatibilitv with Zoning and Plans The project is consistent with the Industrial-Limited (I-L) General Plan designation and zoning for the site but will require a Conditional Use Permit to accommodate the proposed uses. D. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following impacts have been determined to be less than or not significant. A discussion of each follows in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist and Expanded Discussion: development of agricultural areas, growth inducement, hydrology, biological impacts, hazards, noise, cultural resources, paleontological resources, recreation, and cumulative impacts. The following impacts have been determined to be potentially significant unless mitigated. A discussion of each impact and mitigation follows in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist and Expanded Discussion: geophysical impacts, air quality, public services thresholds, transportation/circulation, and aesthetics. E Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Please refer to the Expanded Discussion of the Initial Study Checklist Responses for a discussion of required mitigation. F Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Joe Monaco, Community Development Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Steve Thomas, Engineering Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Doug Perry, Fire Marshal MaryJane Diosdada, Crime Prevention Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Glen Googins, Deputy City Attorney TRS Consultants: Thure Stedt, Principal Mark Thompson, Senior Analyst Eric Kallen, Senior Research Analyst Caryl Brennan, Planner 3 Group Delta: Adolph Lugo, Senior Engineer Giroux & Associates: Hans Giroux, Principal Linscott, Law & Greenspan: John Keating, Principal John Boarman, Engineer Pacific Southwest Biological Services: Marcia Mann, Senior Biologist 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Final EIR Otay Rio Business Park, (EIR 87-2), June 24, 1987 Final EIR MCA Chula Vista Amphitheater EIR 95-03 (SCH 95031073), August 1995 Chula Vista Corporation Yard-- Negative Declaration (lS·95-02) 3. Initial Studv This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study, and any comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. ~~ Case No. IS-96-21 E ONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR 4 Á . , Not to Scale PaJomar ~.S.P. Palomar Mountain Pauma Valley o Warner Springs o VaHey Center Ocolillo Wells 0 Anza·Dorrego Desert Stale Park ûpoway 0' OMounlla OGualay o Pí~e Valley o CulLUra BoulevarllO PotreroO JaculnbaQ Tecalc CampoQ \ REGIONAL MAP Figure 1 ~ \1,\\\1 i( , 'II ,,_\\1 -,'.\ 'I 0 I 11 '. .;~ " TA)'1' t; III OAO , -~1 î II : ,.. ' :1" ~\il '--" -',I" I I ;.\ ..~o \ II " ~",__- --~- ' - , . - 't '-.." " --, -, I,~III l·~--"'<'. >.\!I",,\} -'0 -........(~. I _J_~; \ ~, .' ,~ 7 .....(1 ( (I.--J , J':,=~c- "P "" o , " " IIi " " I ~ III It " 11 4 II ,--D_ _____ " 0' ' ::?'- :\ I " 0 " -<..11 L II " ^ I!I ~,...J<;_1'-A ro VICINITY MAP Figure 2 USGS QUADRANGLE MAP @ CD ~~ L a .. '1 <- f2 '., 0 - ¡p '" " .. i -. -- ,!) >- .. ., ;! " ... '~. 0 .. r "oj" "Ii@. ...~ , .. ".. -$1 ~, " . .¥-. . :.-... . . ,- . ~ .' os " .. 41', ..~ . ., '-- 3nN3AV' S3Nld,3l.LSV':) . gj> '. ....<..., ,. " ." -.-.. .. -.- ._-. . -.- ~'~ -' .. .. . . ....~~, "" " B'~ q¡¡~' '.:¡¡¡. ~.,. I B" . ~, ,.... ·.-'....P i ¡iH,¡¡, 41}" 'æ,' ~ !) ~, :." _ J ..... . ,".' ~'" EJ '¡[J) ifJr.:'" .... ,..~.! .... 't (( .,', "..' Q I 8@ ª~ ~ ~ REDUCED PLOT PLAN Figure 3 (See full-sized Plot Plan) -1~ ®v, I ~ ~~~ ¡¡::¡;Lbl~ IìJ~ ~v, øt ~ . 11\ lIB N ' ~~t I (~1hr-l·-Lª_.L§LtL~~ ~ -. (/) v' 0 <3t ¡¡ ¡¡ z - ~ d ® ~eQ9 ,® @ -I) ... ® f}4~ ® ~ USE AREA DETAIL Figure 4 (See full-sized Plot Plan) LEGEND CD ENTRY PAVILION / TICKETING @ CONTINUOUS RIVER IV L=KER5 / RESTROOMS @ KIDDIE POOL @ RETAIL @ 5CS PLAYSTRUCTURE @ ARCADE ® GROUP PICNIC AREA ~ FOOD SERVICES @> PARKING. @ REMOTE RESTROOMS @ DROP OFF AREA Q) TUBE RENTALS @ PROMENADE ® SIX TUBE FLUMES @. TµREE TUBE FLUMES (FUTURE) . BLACK µOLE ® TµREE SPEED SLIDES @. TµREE DROP OUT SLIDES (FUTURE) @. SIX BODY FLUMES @. TµREE BODY FLUMES (RJTURE) (jj) FAMIL Y FLUME (RJTURE) @. FUTURE ATTARACTIONS @ WAVE POOL Q). DELIVERY ® MECµANICAL ROOM @. SµADE STRUCTURE (TYP) @ BACK OF µOUSE / ADMINISTRATION @. 1'-e>' FENCE ® FIRE LANE @ RJTURE SLIDE \ LEGEND TO USE AREA DETAIL Figure 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Hice Enterprises, Inc. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: P.O. Box 270826 San Diego, CA 92198 4. Name of Proposal: Whitewater Waterpark 5. Date of Checklist: May 6, 1996 1 Potenlially Potentially SigniflCafit "",,- Significant Un!", SigniflC3fit No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: A. Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 liS! zoning? B. Conflict with applicable environmental plans 0 0 liS! 0 or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? C. Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 liS! (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? D. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement 0 0 0 liS! of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: The project is consistent with existing General Plan designations and zoning but will require a Conditional Use Permit since it is an unclassified use. The project will not adversely affect plans for the Otay River Valley Regional Park, other environmental plans, or policies for the area. Although the project site was used for agricultural production historically, agricultural use of the site ceased with the development of the Otay Rio Business Park. Impacts to removal of agricultural uses is fully addressed in the Otay Rio Business Park Environmental Impact Report (EIR 87-2) dated June 24, 1987. The project site does not constitute an existing community. See Section I, page 1 of the following Expanded Discussion for additional information. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: A. Cumulatively exceed official regional or 0 0 0 liS! local population projections? B. Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 liS! directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure) ? C. Displace existing housing, especially 0 0 0 liS! affordable housing? Comments: The project is a recreational use and is intended to serve the needs of existing and future populations in the City of Chula Vista and surrounding region. As such it is growth- serving rather than growth-inducing. The project replaces already approved light industrial uses. The project does not include any housing. Therefore, the project will not exceed growth forecasts, nor induce growth either locally or regionally. See Section XI, page 86 of the following Expanded Discussion for a summary of additional information. 2 Potentially Potentially Signiftcallt In, than SignificaDt Un!", Signiftcant No _" Mitigated Impact -" III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: A. Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 ~ 0 geologic substructures? B. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 ~ 0 overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface 0 0 ~ 0 relief features? D. The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 ~ any unique geologic or physical features? E. Any increase in wind or water erosion of 0 0 0 ~ soils, either on or off the site? F. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 ~ 0 0 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 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: Grading in the amount of 71,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill will be required for the project to accommodate building pads, a central berm, and parking area. This will necessitate some excavation and fill operations. Since the site is relatively level, with slopes ranging from 2-5%, only minor grading would be required to level existing stockpiles and construct the central berm. A site specific soils report will be required as a part of the grading permit/building permit plan check process. See Section II, page 9, of the Expanded Discussion that follows for more information. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: A. Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 ~ 0 patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? B. Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 ~ related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? C. Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 ~ alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 3 Po<enlially Potentially Significant In, than Significant Un!", SigniflC3llt No Imvact Mitigated Impœ::t Impact D. Changes in the amount of surface water in 0 0 riSI 0 any water body? E. Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 riSI direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? F. Change in the quantity of ground waters, 0 0 0 riSI either through direct additions or withdra wals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? G. Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 riSI groundwater? H. Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 riSI I. Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 riSI waters? 1. Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 riSI otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: Although the project site is not within the lOO'year floodplain of the Otay River, measures to avoid impacts associated with drainage and flooding from the river are required of the project as a part of standard grading plan and building plan review. These measures will include site specific drainage facilities to adequately convey anticipated runoff volumes. NPDES permits will be required for the project for construction activity. A separate storm water pollution prevention program (SWPPP) will be required for permits that will address any urban runoff/water quality concerns associated with the project. See Section III, page 13, of the Expanded Discussion for more information. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: A. Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 0 riSI to an existing or projected air quality violation? B. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 riSI C. Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 0 0 riSI temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? D. Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 riSI 4 Potentially PoteII.tiaUy Significant Less than Signfficanl U'"'" Signiftcant No ...." Mitigated Impact ...." e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 ~ 0 0 non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The project has the potential to create air quality impacts associated with construction activity on the site. Enhanced dust abatement procedures, including watering and covering, and equipment maintenance programs would mitigate these short-term impacts. With a likely completion date in 1997-98, all smog-forming emissions will be below significant thresholds. Project-related mircoscale air quality impacts will be less than significant and project-related CO emissions will not significantly contribute to unhealthful air quality effects. See Section VI, page 47, of the Expanded Discussion for additional information. VI. TRANSPORT ATION/CIRCULA TION. Would the proposal result in: A. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 ~ 0 B. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 ~ 0 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? C. Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 ~ nearby uses? D. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- 0 0 0 ~ site? E. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 ~ bicyclists? F. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ~ alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? G. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 ~ h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 ~ 0 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The project will increase traffic levels in the project area by 2,320 Average Daily Trips (ADT), and will replace approximately 32.4 acres of industrial uses that would generate approximately 3,600 trips. The impacts associated with the aquatic recreational park were analyzed in the associated Initial Study, and traffic impacts were found to be not significant. The project was analyzed against the Congestion Management Plan and was found to have a less than significant impact. See Section IV, page 17 for more information. 5 Polentially PoIentially Signif"lcant [n, than S;pmcmt U"""' Significant No ImI"Cl Mitigated ImV'" Impact VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: A. Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 ~ 0 concern or species that are candidates for listing? B. Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 ~ trees)? C. Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 ~ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? D. Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 ~ vernal peo1)? E. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 ~ t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 ~ efforts? Comments: The site has been cleared in the past for agricultural production, and is presently used for substantial off-road activity which has denuded portions of the site. A biological assessment of the site found no direct or indirect impacts to vegetation communities, sensitive flora or fauna, or cumulative impacts. The Otay River riparian system is more than 0.6 miles to the north at its closest point. See Section VII, page 59 of the Expanded Discussion following for additional information. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: A. Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 ~ plans? B. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 0 0 ~ and inefficient manner? C. If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 ~ protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The project would not use extraordinary amounts of energy or mineral resources. The site was analyzed for possible mineral resources in the Otay Rio Business Park EIR dated June 24, 1987, and these were found to be not significant. See Section XI, page 87 of the Expanded Discussion following for a sununary of more information. 6 Potentially Potentially Signif"lcant ,-",,_ Significant Un!"" SigniflCaDt No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: A. A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 ~ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? B. Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 ~ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? C. The creation of any health hazard or 0 0 0 ~ potential health hazard? D. Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 ~ potential health hazards? E. Increased fire hazard in areas with 0 0 0 ~ flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: Materials onsite that once contained concentrations of pollutants above regulatory thresholds have been remediated. The County of San Diego Environmental Health Department, Site Assessment and Mitigation Division, has issued a No Further Action Letter dated October 12, 1995. See Section IX, page 77 of the Expanded Discussion following for more information. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: A. Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 ~ 0 B. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: Increased traffic from the proposed project and activities on the site would increase noise levels in the project vicinity. Project-related traffic noise, weighted for evening and nighttime departures, was found in the noise analysis to be less than significant. No significant impacts to any sensitive receptors would result from project implementation, nor would the project violate the City's Noise Ordinance. See Section VIII, page 65 of the Expanded Discussion for more information. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government servic es in any of the following areas: A. Fire protection? 0 0 0 ~ B. Police protection? 0 0 0 ~ 7 Potentially Potentially SigniflC3llt ,"""",," SigDitkm, U"""" Signiftc3llt No Impad Mitigated Imp"" Impad C. Schools? 0 0 0 SI D. Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 SI roads? E. Other governmental services? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: No new governmental services would be required to serve the project. See Section IX, page 77 of the Expanded Discussion for more information. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact 0 ~ 0 0 the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold Standards. A. Fire/EMS 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 proposed project will not comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire Department has indicated calls to the project area would take between 7 and 8 minutes, which is above current threshold standards. To accommodate the higher response time, the Fire Department is requiring that project buildings be Type V 1 hour-rated construction, with sprinkler systems. B. Police The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I 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. Comments: The Police Department has indicated there were 7 calls to this grid area between June I, 1995 and April I, 1996. There were no Priority 1 calls. Priority 2 calls, representing 100% of the calls to this area, had a response time of 6:25 minutes, which is within the threshold. 8 ___ __.._._._~___·__~_.___'._.."U Potentially Potentially SigniftcaDt Loss .... Significant Unkss SigniflC3Dt No Impact Mitigaled Impact Impact C. Traffic 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 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "P" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterial with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The 2,320 additional trips generated by the project would not cause Level of Service on local roadways to fall below LOS "C". D. Parks/Recreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l ,000 population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: As a recreational use, the project will not create any new demand for park or recreation facilities or services. E. Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volwnes 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 Threshold Standard. Comments: Drainage facilities to adequately convey runoff exist adjacent to the site. F. Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volwnes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Adequate sewer capacity exists to serve the proposed project. 9 Poteoti.a11y Potentially SigniflCaD.t Less than Significant Un!e<s SigniflCaDt No Impaot Mitigated Imp'" Impaot G. Water 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. Comments: Application of required water conservation devices or fee offset will reduce the project's impact to a less than significant level. 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 0 0 ~ B. Comrnurucations systems? 0 0 0 ~ C. Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 ~ distribution facilities? D. Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 ~ E. Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 ~ F. Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: Extension of facilities to serve the project will be required. Existing infrastructure adequate to serve the project exists in Phase I of the Otay Rio Business Park immediately adjacent to the site. See Section IX, page 77 of the Expanded Discussion for more information. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: A. Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 ~ 0 public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? B. Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 ~ scenic route? 10 Potentially Potentially Signif"tcant "" .... Signilican' U""" SigniflCZt No _ct Mitigated Imp"" Impact C. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 0 ~ effect? D. Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 ~ 0 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. Produce an additional amount of spill light? 0 ~ 0 0 Comments: The project will result in grading of existing landforms and construction of buildings, a berm, rides, picnic areas, a sports field, and parking lot. The project will be landscaped and lighting designs will be implemented to minimize spill light and shy glow. The project will be subject to design review. Due to the location, nature, and size of the proposed project, and application of the design review process, the project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to visual resources or to produce significant adverse light and glare impacts. See Section V, page 40 of the Expanded Discussion for more information. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: A. Will the proposal result in the alteration of 0 0 0 ~ or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? B. Will the proposal result in adverse physical 0 0 0 ~ or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause 0 0 0 ~ a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? D. Will the proposal restrict existing religious 0 0 0 ~ or sacred uses within the potential impact area? E. Is the area identified on the City's General 0 0 ~ 0 Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? 11 P"""liaIly Potentially Signif1C3llt la, .... Significant Un1= SignifICaDt No Impact Mitigated bnpact bnpact Comments: The project is proposed in an area of known cultural resources. The Otay Rio Business Park EIR 87-2 provides a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources and the significance of impacts. The site was extensively studied: artifacts were catalogued and removed, effectively exhausting the archaeological value of the site. The Olay Rio Business Park was developed, which included grading of the project site. No undisturbed areas or historic structures presently exist at the site. Therefore, no significant impacts to cultural resources are anticipated for the development of the proposed project. See Section XI, page 86 of the Expanded Discussion for a summary of more information. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will 0 0 0 ~ the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: Paleontological resources were examined as part of the Otay Rio Business Park EIR 87-2 and mitigation recommended where grading would cut into the Otay or San Diego Formations. None of the areas cited as potentially fossil-bearing occur on the site. See Section XI, page 86 of the Expanded Discussion for a summary of more information. XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: A. Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 ~ regional parks or other recreational facilities? B. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 ~ c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 ~ plans or programs? Comments: The water park will provide recreational opportunities for residents of the region. The project will not have a significant impacts on the recreational opportunities or plans in the City of Chula Vista. 12 Potentially Potentially Signif1C3Dt Less .... Significant Unkss Signif1C3Dt No Impact Mitigated Imp~t Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an E1R is needed, this section should be completed. A. Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 ~ 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 Califonúa history or prehistory? Comments: None of the impacts resulting from the project are considered significant and the project as a whole would not degrade the environment or substantially affect any biological habitats or cultural resources. B. Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 ~ achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in curtailment of any long- term environmental goals. C. Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 ~ individually linúted, 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.) Comments: Consideration of cumulative effects for development of the site was given in the Otay Rio Business Park EIR 87-2. Cumulative effects of surrounding projects were evaluated in the Initial Study, and found to be not significant. No cumulative effects beyond those already documented would result from this project. 13 Potentially Potentially Signifx:ant Less than Significant UÐkos Signifx:ant No Impoct Mitigated Imp"" Impoct D. Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 181 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The project is not of the nature to cause any such impacts. 14 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The cnvironmcntal factors ehceked below would be potcntially affcctcd by this projcct, involving atlcast onc impact that is a "Potcntially Significant Impact" or "Potcntially Significant Unlcss Mitigatcd," as indicatcd by the checklist on the following pages. o Land Use and Planning ~ Transportation/Circulation Œ Public Services o Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems []: Geophysical 0 Energy and Mincral Resources æJ Aesthetics o Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources ¡sa Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environmcnt, and a 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, therc ŒI will not be a significant effect in this Case becausc thc mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fmd that the proposed project MAY havc a significant effcct on thc enviroruncnt, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fmd that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effcct(s) on thc environment, but at least 0 one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier documcnt pursuant to applicable Icgal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the cffcct is a "potentially significant in1pacts" or "potentially significant wúess mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze onJy the effects that remain to be addressed. ~/h-- 4"(,, S' ature Date osephMonaeo,AICP Environmental Projects Manager 1 5 Expanded Discussion of Initial Study Checklist Responses for the Whitewater Waterpark (18-96-21) Prepared for: City of Chula Vista Prepared by: TRS Consultants 7867 Convoy Court, Suite 312 San Diego, CA 92111 May 1996 Table of Contents I. Land Use and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 II. Geophysical Analysis ..............................................9 m. Hydrology, Drainage, Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 IV. Transportation/Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 V. AestheticsfVisual Study . . ... ... . . . .. ...... . . ..... . .... ......... ...40 VI. Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 VII. Biological Resources ............................................ 59 vm. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 IX. Public Services, Utilities, and Hazards ................................. 77 X. Cumulative Projects .............................................. 82 XI. Effects Found Not to Relate to the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 A. Cultural and Historical, Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86 B. Population and Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 D. Energy and Mineral Resources ............................... 87 XII. Consultation .................................................. 88 XIII. Sources ..................................................... 89 XIV. Consultant Certification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Technical Appendices (Under Separate Cover) Appendix A, Traffic Impact Analysis, Chula Vista Water Park, Linscott Law & Greenspan, February 17, 1996 Appendix B, Air Quality Impact Analysis, Giroux & Associates, April 24, 1996 Appendix C, Report of a Biological Survey of the Proposed Chula Vista Water Park, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, April 24, 1996 Appendix D, Noise Impact Analysis, Giroux & Associates, May 6, 1996 LIST OF FIGURES Figure I, Land Use Designations/City of Chula Vista ....................... 2 Figure 2, Surrounding Area Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 3, Otay Valley Regional Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Figure 4 Otay Mesa Community Plan Map .............................. 8 Figure 5, Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 6, Existing Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 7, Regional Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 8, Project Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 9, Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .......................... 25 Figure 10, Cumulative Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 11, Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . 28 Figure 12, Peak Amphitheater Arrivals Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 37 Figure 13, Project Traffic Without Amphitheater Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 38 Figure 14 Key to Photographs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 15, Photo View I ........................................... 42 Figure 16, Photo View 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 17, Photo Views 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 18, Biological Resources ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 19, Fire Department Locations .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Figure 20, Cumulative Study Area .................................... 83 --------- ----------.-....- LIST OF TABLES Table I, Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 2, Cumulative Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 3, Signalized Intersection Operation·-PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 Table 4, Daily Street Segment Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 5, Otay Valley Road Operations--PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 Table 6, 1-805 Analysis-PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 7, Proposed Project vs Current Zoning Trip Generation Analysis ........ . 35 Table 8, Clean Air Standards in California ...................... . . . . . . . 49 Table 9, Chula Vista Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 50 Table 10, Candidate Significant Air Quality Threshold Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53 Table 11, Project·Related Vehicular Emissions ........................... 56 Table 12, Hourly CO Exposures at Key Area Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57 Table 13, Typical A Weighted Sound Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table 14, City of Chula Vista Exterior Noise Limits ....................... 67 Table 15, City of San Diego Standards for Maximally Noise-Sensitive Land Uses. . . 68 Table 16, Project Vicinity Noise Monitoring Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Table 17, Oasis Water Park Noise Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Table 18, Whitewater Waterpark Traffic Noise Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Table 19, Project Water and Sewer Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 I. Land Use and Planning Existing Conditions Compatibility with Plans and Zoning The site is designated Industrial-Research and Limited Manufacturing (ILP) on the Chula Vista Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is zoned Industrial-Limited Manufacturing and Research, which allows the proposed recreational use with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Figure 1, Land Use Designations, page 2, shows that the site is surrounded by open space designations. The Otay River north of the site is designated as open space. Onsite Land Use Surrounding Area Land Uses in the vicinity are portrayed in Figure 2, page 3. The project site is within the Otay Rio Business Park, which has been approved for light industrial uses. Phase I of the Business Park has been improved with graded pads, streets and infrastructure but no structures have been built, nor are there any industrial useS in operation at the site. A Final Environmental Impact Report for the business park was certified in July of 1987 (EIR 87-2). The business park was proposed in 2 phases. Phase I has been graded and improved. A Final Environmental Impact Report for a 20,000 person capacity amphitheater/open air market, to be located on the Phase I portion of the Business Park, was certified in November of 1995 (SCH# 95031073). A Negative Declaration for relocation of the City of Chula Vista Corporation Yard has been proposed for the Phase II portion of the site and is currently planned for the undeveloped northwest portion of the Business Park, immediately north of the proposed project. Surrounding Land Uses The Otay River, located north of the site, includes a natural floodway with disturbed and undisturbed riparian vegetation. A small utility yard is located on a parcel adjacent to the northeast border of Phase I of the Otay Rio Business Park. Further to the north of the Otay River is Otay Valley Road, which runs north from the site, then west toward 1-805. Beyond Otay Valley Road to the north, numerous commercial recycling/auto recycling facilities line the edge of the mesa. Farther to the north is the Otay Landfill, operated by the County of San Diego. Otay Valley Road provides primary access to the site. Improvements to Otay Valley Road are currently underway to provide a six lane divided road from 1-805 to Nirvana Avenue, and 5 lanes (3 westbound and 2 eastbound) from Nirvana Avenue to the Otay River crossing. At that point, the road becomes 4 lanes, including one lane in each direction and two reversible lanes. Across Otay Valley Road at the southeast corner of the Otay Rio Business Park are several structures used in conjunction with a public trap/skeet shooting range. Further to the east is undeveloped land. To the northeast, on the north side of the Otay River, is an 1 ~ No Scale Olay CounlY Disposal Area \ ILP I \ ILP I \ \ . Ola Valle ROila \ \ ----,.-,- -.....:: . ~.~ _.....~c< "-. . ...[ LL. LEGEND , ILP I Industrial: Research & Limited Manufacturing ~ Open Space ~ LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Figure 1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~ No Scale OTAY LANDF1LL OTAY RANCH I OTAV VAllEY ROAD RECYCLING FACILITY '. - -' -" -.- ~-;:.-. BRIDGE -' -' -' -. _·__._0 Dca)' River ~;.-::".......,. SERVICE Ot/11 '_'_1_' YARD -'" Proposed - I City Corporation Yard Proposed Kobey -- · ;: Swapmeet I UNDEVELOPED LANDI If. , · ABANDONEO AGRICULTURAL AELDS .' Proposed X Residential , UNDEVELOPED LANDI ABANDONED AGRICULTURAL AELDS Proposed MCA TARGET Amphitheater FIRING RANGE ! PROJECT SITE· '" I · STEEP SLOPES I UNDEVELOPED LAND ~._._._._.-.-._._._._._._.-._._.. City of San Diego Proposed Residential ~ SURROUNDING AREA Figure 2 LAND USES aggregate mining operation, located at the southwest base of Rock Mountain. The site borders open space within the City of Chula Vista on the south. The southern border of the site is dominated by the steep slopes and intervening canyons of two large bluffs extending from Otay Mesa. These slopes are cross-cut by roads and the tracks of unauthorized off-road vehicle activity, which has disturbed the native vegetation. Further to the south is the high ridge of Otay Mesa and the eastern portion of the largely residential Otay Mesa Precise Plan area in the City of San Diego. Undeveloped land proposed for residential uses within the City of San Diego is located to the west of the site. The I-805/Otay Valley Road intersection is located futher west, approximately 1.5 miles from the site. Additional Plan Jurisdictions Draft Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan A Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego has been executed to create a regional park in the Otay Valley area. The proposed aquatic recreation park is within the proposed regional park boundary. Within the proposed regional park is a core area containing environmentally sensitive open space, an interconnecting regional trail system, trail system staging areas, recreational development areas, and nature interpretive centers. A preliminary concept plan has been prepared and is presently under review. The Concept Plan identifies the subject site as a "recreational development" area. A preliminary map of the park is shown as Figure 3, page 5. Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan The Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program which addresses multiple species habitat needs and the preservation of natural communities for a 900-square mile area in southwestern San Diego County, which includes the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego. The Draft MSCP includes a Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) within which preserve planning is focused to implement a preserve system which conserves viable habitat and provides for wildlife use and movement. The City of San Diego Subarea Preserve Plan is comprised of approximately 45,000 acres of the MHPA, including approximately 37,000 acres within the City of San Diego jurisdiction and within the City of Chula Vista. The Southern Subarea does not include the City of Chula Vista; however, it does include Otay Mesa and areas within the Otay River Valley. Impacts The proposed project would require approval of a Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) which would allow for the development of an aquatic recreation park on the project site. In addition 4 Á ~ , ,~ , ~ I Lro" ,....,-,...".. r- ~ '""''"\. J.. \ No Scale t:/:;, t!) r- r rl f ~ I . ,.. I .~, l A >rm'l¡} \ ì . .~ l ~A~£4 I ; "' L..J...:.t-"')~ J....J -' -' -JO ; . I $ ør...,. ( .I i rI'.... ........¡;.y ,..,.1' / "/ r .--=~ Î\/1 (r-------¡,- _ ,L-_..,__ \_______ --------J(-"-:;7 --"::"-=:1>::::: -"-J~0 ~~- .,..,.. ,..::sA ,... Source: City of Chula Vista 1''&'''.340 LEGEND l [ ~~/Þ1'.1&.o ..A..-....L ð.v'"'pÞ"',....., ..... ,..¿C¡&.~þ.nð,.' , AL.rc.....,.,Ã. r(~ ¡ ¡ "-ILl: - - .. - -.. I'þ~"'" ~..,NDA-~ ,..¡a-Ã4. ~ ~"".'o':CÞ .,.......,.,- r /... / J ¡'C'N'~"õ,-J_ -.-.-.. _. ~. ~~/._II- :~~"'-" 3r.....,. ,..Þ-... ~ P........sl:.e> I~ r..~~cc.n.HI HeO': r-r-"--;1 ,,,.¡-.,.... _ -1;1..,11 "'Þr _ LII ~ !;/,~~'A,,- JrUItÞ)1' S '~.I"_ C,Cø L... --J -..J ...~~" .rr"~/"'G At"..4. ~ OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK Figure 3 the City of Chula Vista would require Design Review, including review of architectural guidelines and development standards for the waterpark structures and parking area. General Plan and Zoning The project is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan. The use is allowed under the Industrial-Research and Limited Manufacturing (ILP) designation as an unclassified use with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The project is a less intensive use of the site than the planned industrial/manufacturing use in terms of building coverage, traffic generation, and the seasonal nature of the proposed use. Proposed industrial land uses were planned for 1,319 acres within the City of Chula Vista Eastern Territories Area Plan as of August 1995. The redesignation of 32.4 acres would not significantly reduce the area of industrial land uses planned for this area of the City. Relationship of the Proposed Project to Existing and Proposed Adjacent Land Uses The project site has been cleared historically for agricultural activity, and has been graded as part of brush clearing operations. The immediate vicinity to the north and east is planned and approved for development of an amphitheater and open air market. The project would be consistent with the existing adjacent land uses, and therefore, would not result in significant impacts to adjacent land uses. Open Space/Otay River The aquatic recreation park would not be located within an existing area of open space. The proposed use would be less intensive than the industrial land uses based on the projected traffic generation and seasonal use of the site. The proposed project would have design features which would create visual buffers between the project and surrounding open space. However, due to its proximity to the Otay River, the proposed project may have impacts on natural resources within the Otay River or designated Open Space due to night glare associated with the planned nighttime use of the park. A discussion of these impacts is presented in the discussion of Aesthetics/Visual Quality, Section VI, below. Industrial-Research and limited Manufacturing The proposed aquatic recreation park would not create significant impacts to the area of surrounding land reserved for industrial purposes. The reduction in acreage designated for industrial uses is not significant, consisting of 32.4 acres in contrast to 1,319 acres of industrial uses planned in this area. Surrounding uses, including the amphitheater and open air market, are compatible, belonging to a family of uses that can be characterized as visitor- serving commercial and recreational. The City of Chula Vista Corporation Yard may be located directly north of the project. The proposed water park project operates as a seasonal use, with hours of 10 AM to 10 PM, and will not conflict with Corporation Yard use as a storage/staging area for City of Chula Vista trucks and equipment. 6 Proposed Residential Land Uses in the City of San Diego, Otay Mesa Community Plan The proposed aquatic recreation park would not create significant impacts to proposed residential land uses located to the south and west in the City of San Diego, Otay Mesa Community Plan. (See Otay Mesa Community Plan Map, Figure 4, page 8). The proposed residentia1land uses are proposed for the upper mesa to the south of the project and to the west of the project. Areas to the south are buffered by open space in the City of Chula Vista. Areas to the west are designated Very Low Residential (0-5 Dwelling Units ¡Acre). Areas to the west are buffered from waterpark impacts by the park design that focuses uses on the east side of a long benn, wlùch shield the parking area and most ride structures from view. Noise and lighting will also be attenuated by the benn and the eastern focus of the project. As a result of substantial buffering, no significant land use impacts would result. Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan The project is not located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Multiple Habitat Planning Area of the Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan, although the planning area is south of the project site and includes Otay Mesa and areas in the Otay River Valley. The Subarea Plan covering the Otay Mesa area identifies 180 foot buffers as important features to protect resources within the preserve from the edge effects of adjacent land uses. Buffers may be either inside or outside the preserve system, on public or private lands, as long as easements or other land use restrictions are imposed. The Draft MSCP states that "in areas with existing approved plans or existing development, the buffer will be contained entirely within the preserve. (City of San Diego, MSCP Plan, Public Review Draft, Page 8-3). The proposed project would be compatible with the MSCP. A buffer area would be established within the MHPA between the disturbed habitat to the south and the south border of the project site. The jurisdictional boundary of the City of San Diego Southern Subarea-Otay Mesa and Otay River Valley, borders the project site to the south. The vegetation communities within the Southern Subarea Preserve Lands identified to the south of the site are depicted as "Disturbed Habitat" and "Developed Land" which extends along the entire south border of the site. further to the west, southwest, and south in the City of San Diego, Otay Mesa Community, the vegetation communities are depicted as Disturbed Habitat, Grassland, and Coastal Sage Scrub. The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to land uses within the City of San Diego Southern Subarea. 7 Á , '" , 0 '" .!. ,~ . , . 1" , ( .~= , ~- - LEGEND Svrnbol/(Number\ DescriDtion L (2) Low Residential 5-10 DUlAC LM (3) Low Medium Residential 10-15 DUlAC M (4) Medium Residential 15-30 DUlAC 0/5 (9) Open Space P - Mini Park CP (8) Community Park ~ OTAY MESA Figure 4 COMMUNITY PLAN MAP (City of San Diego) II. Geophysical Analysis The purpose of the geophysical study is to assess potential geologic and geotechnical impacts to the study area. Specifically, the study will contain an independent review of existing reports for impacts associated with seismicity, soil suitability, erosion, subsidence and soil contamination, and/or remediation. A geotechnical investigation was perfonned by Geocon Incorporated in 1984, for the Otay Rio Business Park which encompassed 210 acres, including the 32.4 acres of the project site. Subsequently a Final EIR for the Otay Rio Business Park dated June 24, 1987 was approved. Upon certification of the EIR, Phase I improvements were undertaken. These improvements include graded level building pads, street improvements, underground utilities, and landscaped entrances/embankments. Following completion of the Final EIR, Geocon Incorporated prepared a report entitled Geotechnical Investigation for the Dtay Rio Business Park dated August 1987. Additionally, a document completed in August 1995, by Tetra Tech Incorporated and entitled MCA Chula Vista Amphitheater Hydrology, summarized the fmdings contained in the Geocon and Keller reports. The following report presents a brief summary of the data and conclusions found in these three studies. Existing Conditions Geophysical The site is underlain by the Cenozoic Sweetwater Fonnation and by Quaternary surficial deposits consisting of river terrace deposits, agoonal sediments, alluvium, colluvium, landslide debris including debris flow materials, and undocumented fill (Geocon, Geotechnical Investigation, August 14, 1987). Project area soils consist of Salinas Clay Loam, Stockpen Gravelly Clay Loam, Diablo Clay, Linnes Clay Loam, and recent alluvial sediments. Generally, the Salinas Clay Looms are found in the areas with slopes of 2-9 percent. The Diablo and Linnes Clays are on the steep slopes; and the Stockpen Clays are in the drainages. The Otay Fonnation consists primarily of silty, fme, light gray sandstones that are moderately to poorly cemented. Also interbedded with the sandstones are occasional siltstone beds and bentonite clay deposits that are two to three feet thick. Two additional units, the San Diego Formation and Quaternary Terrace Deposits, were observed on-site; however, they have limited area1 extent over the site. Slopewash and colluvial materials found primarily near the base of the steeper slopes along the southerly portion of the project area consist almost entirely of highly expansive clays. These materials may also be compressible. 9 A subsurface soil and engineering geology investigation was conducted by the developer of the Otay Rio Business Park to provide remedial grading, foundation and construction recommendations prior to the fmal project design. The following measures have been completed to detennine the significance of existing conditions: · Drilling, logging, and sampling of drill holes to evaluate the bedrock composition and structure; · Excavation, logging, and sampling of test pits and trenches in areas of suspected landslides or fault traces; · Determination of the relevance of groundwater conditions in relation to grading and slope stability and provision of subdrain requirements. Following completion of these procedures, the site was graded and pads were constructed. Roads were developed and underground utilities were installed. Seismicity The geotecluúcal investigation (Geocon, August 14, 1987), concluded that the site was not located on any known fault traces, and no major landslides or other unstable geologic conditions were identified on the property. The closest mapped fault zone is the La Nacion Fault zone located approximately 1.5 miles to the west, which is considered to be potentially active by the California Division of Mines and Geology. The Elsinore and San Miguel Fault zones lie approximately 33 miles to the northeast and 24 miles to the south, respectively. The seismic risk attributed to these fault zones was not considered to be significantly greater than that of the surrounding developments in the Otay Valley area. Based on the relatively high density of soils prevailing at the site, and the lack of a high groundwater table, the risk for seismically induced liquefaction was identified as low. Minerals Studies were completed by GEOCON, Inc. in March, 1987, to detennine whether site soils were suitable for use in the manufacture of hydraulic concrete. The study included 5 borings to depths ranging from 11 to 33 feet, and found the first 5 feet of subsoils to be clayey to very clayey sand and sandy clay. TIùs mantle is underlain by silty, clayey sands with abundant subrounded gravels and cobbles which increase in dimension with depth. Relatively large amounts of cobbles and boulders with dimensions of approximately 24 to 30 inches were encountered near the contact with the fonnational soils of the Sweetwater Formation. The formational soils were characterized as dense to very dense, very moist, fme to medium grained clayey sands. 10 Because the top 5 feet of subsoils possess considerable amounts of clays and silts, and because the percentage of gravels, cobbles and boulders is much greater than would be acceptable for mining operations, it was GEOCON's opinion that mining of the on-site sand was not feasible for manufacturing hydraulic concrete. Furthermore, GEOCON compared the grain size of the site soils with the grain size requirements of "Standard Specifications for Fine Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete," and found that the soils did not meet the criteria for fine aggregate. Impacts Geophysical The fmdings of the geoteclmical analyses prepared for the subject site indicate that the proposed project would not result in significant geological impacts. The proposed project would incorporate 71,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill grading of the site in. preparation for structural development. Several small earthen knolls will be removed and dispersed over the proposed parking area. An earthen berm ranging in height from 30 to 45 feet will curve from the north to the southeast. The berm will be approximately 680 feet long along its crest and approximately 980 feet at its base, and will support the structures of several rides. Seismicity No unusual seismic risks are posed by construction of the project, and any potentially significant seismic impacts can be mitigated with the application of seismic design criteria in conformance with the standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code. Minerals Based on the GEOCON study performed to determine the suitability of subsurface soils for resource extraction, it was found that these soils do not possess qualities desirable for mining, and that no significant or adverse impacts to this resource would occur from project development. Mitigation Geophysical To ensure proper design of structures with respect to geologic condition, a soils report will be required as a part of grading permit conditions. That report shall contain or identify the following: . In situ and laboratory testing of soils to establish engineering characteristics; 11 "_ _~__..~.._____ .. _"__u · Grading specifications and foundation design criteria; · Definition of areas where slope buttressing may be required; and provision of buttress designs; · Definition of areas requiring soil removal and recompaction; and · Recommendations for seismic design parameters. Seismicity Recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would ensure appropriate ground stabilization and building design to protect against seismic occurrences. The design and construction of buildings in conformance with the State 1976 Uniform Building Code would effectively minimize the hazards of ground·shaking on the site to less than significant levels. Minerals No mitigation measures are necessary, as there would be no significant or adverse impacts to mineral resource extraction. 12 III. Hydrology, Drainage, Groundwater The purpose of the water study is to evaluate the impact of the project on hydrologic characteristics of the site. Specifically, this task includes assessing any changes in runoff absorption and redirection, flooding, water quality, and groundwater characteristics. Evaluation of potential impacts to the project site will utilize a previous report which was completed in August, 1995, entitled MCA Chula VISta Amphitheater Hydrology, by Tetra Tech Incorporated. This study represents the most recent report on hydrology for the subject site. Additional consultation related to drainage issues was canied out with Group Delta Consultants who accomplished a third party review of existing hydrological and hydraulic data, as well as an on-site visit in April 1996. Existing Condüions The project site lies within the San Diego Coastal Province and the Otay Hydrographic Unit. The San Diego Coastal Province is approximately 3,900 square miles and includes all hydrographic basins which drain into the Pacific Ocean between Laguna Beach and the United States·Mexico international border. The elevations range from sea level to 6,000+ feet. Due to the seasonal rainfall pattern, most San Diego streams are of an ephemeral type. Eleven rnajor hydrographic units make up the entire province. These units are further divided into subunits which are major tributaries or groundwater basins within each hydrographic unit. The project site lies within the Otay River Valley, a portion of the 145-square mile Otay Hydrographic Subunit. Drainage Due to the topography of the South San Diego Bay region, two drainages traverse the south side of the project site and flow in a northerly direction toward the Otay River. One drainage crosses the southwest comer of the property. This drainage course as well as another located west of it run into the proposed project site. The western drainage is presently controlled by two check dams. A drainage channel is located north of the dams to channel excess runoff to Otay River. These improvemelÙs were constructed to protect non-defunct agricultural fields from inundation. The project site is not located within a loo-year floodplain; the project site is designated by Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) as Zone C - Area of Minimal Flooding (FEMA Community Panel 065021-0006E, April, 1988). The northwestern boundaries of adjoining properties are located within the loo-year floodplain, which widens along the Otay River to the west. 13 Groundwater Groundwater occurs in the Otay unit, and in the general project area is typically deeper than 100 feet below the surface (State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 1967). TIús is confmned by a depth test run by the DWR in October, 1985. The test was run at a well located at the then-existing on-site residence adjacent to Otay Valley Road. The depth to groundwater at this well, which is no longer used, was 109.9 feet. In addition, the March 1987 study performed by GEOCON for subsurface soils encountered the most shallow depth of groundwater at 22 feet. Historically, groundwater was used for agricultural and drinking water purposes in the project region. However, due to poor water quality, and the accessibility of imported water, groundwater is no longer used. No seawater intrusion problems occur in the project vicinity. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), The State of California agency responsible for surface and sub-surface water quality issues, lists beneficial uses for groundwater in the Otay subunit. These uses include industrial service supply and potential groundwater recharge. Neither use presently occurs, except whatever groundwater recharge occurs naturally. Water Quality The RWQCB is also responsible for regulating point sources of water pollutants. The Otay River watershed is largely unmonitored and data on water quality and water level are sparse. The existing water quality in the river is variable, ranging from good to poor depending on rainfall and runoff volumes. Groundwater in this area typically has high amounts of total dissolved solids and is characterized by high sodium and chloride counts. TIús chernical character is directly related to the mineral composition of the granodiorites and gabbros which occur in the watershed. Because of the high amounts of chloride in this water, it is rated to be inferior for irrigation purposes (DWR, 1967). Surface water quality measurements along the Otay River have been taken by the RWQCB in 1984 and 1985 at various times of the year. The two locations measured are: (I) just east of the 805 freeway, and (2) just east of the 1-5 freeway. The first location, closest to the project site, is approximately 1.5 miles downriver from the site. Within this distance are located many farming and industrial land uses which contribute to surface runoff into Otay River. Generally, the amount of total dissolved solids exceeded the RWQCB's objectives for this area. Groundwater quality measurements were taken at various locations throughout Otay Valley by the California Department of Water Resources in October 1985. The two wells tested which are closest to the project are located approximately 2.5 rniles from the site. Generally, groundwater quality was fair to good, with only one well slightly exceeding RWQCB 14 · objectives for total dissolved solids, chloride, and sodium. Additionally, groundwater measures were taken by the RWQCB in November, 1985 at a well in front of the Otay landfill, approximately .75 mile downriver from the project site. Generally, water quality was less than fair, with total dissolved solids and other constituents exceeding RWQCB objectives. The County's Solid Waste Division also conducts water quality testing at wells both on the landfill and toward the river from the landfill. Their tests also show levels of total dissolved solids, chloride, and other constituents generally exceeding the RWQCB objectives. Surface water runoff and groundwater from the project site specifically have never been tested. However, due to its use historically for farming, water runoff is expected to have contained various pesticides and fertilizers used for crop fertility and maintenance. Impacts Groundwater Impacts The amount of water potentially lost to the groundwater basin from project development is not considered to be significant and does not constitute an adverse impact to the basin. Buildout of the proposed project will eliminate surface-te-groundwater (leaching) drainage, thus decreasing the amount of water naturally added during storms to the groundwater basin. This loss is not considered significant for two reasons. First, the naturally occurring topsoils on the property are largely clay loams, which naturally drain very slowly. Thus, the amount of water available from the project site by leaching is an incremental amount of the basin, and therefore the site is not an important recharge watershed area. Secondly, groundwater in the general project area is high in total dissolved solids levels, and naturally high is sodium and chloride, which has already precluded its suitability for agricultural and potable uses. Drainage Impacts The existing storm drain system is adequate to serve the anticipated surface water drainage from the proposed project. The project will require specific conveyance facilities to tie into the existing drainage system. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to the existing drainage patterns and facilities. The portion of the project site where the water park is proposed is a separate drainage system from the drainage system east of Castle Pines Avenue and is not located within the lDO-year floodplain area surrounding Dtay River. Therefore, drainage impacts along the southwestern portion of the proposed site will be less than significant. 15 · Erosion Grading for the project would result in temporary exposure of graded surfaces and would increase the potential for erosion. Mitigation is required to avoid potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall submit evidence that adequate onsite drainage facilities will be provided to accommodate project runoff. A drainage system plan will be examined for approval by the City of Chula Vista's Engineering Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 2. During construction, the developer shall implement erosion and sedimentation control measures that shaH include sandbagging, temporary desiItation basins, and/or other measures approved by the City engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. 3. Development of the Whitewater Waterpark project shall comply with all applicable regulations established by the State of Califomia and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and stormwater discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent followed by a Notice of Termination with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. 4. Additionally, the applicant shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. In accordance with the requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, the SWPPP shall specify both construction polIution prevention measures. The SWPPP shall also address operation and maintenance of post-construction polIution prevention measures, including short-term and long-term funding sources and the party or parties that will be responsible for the implementation of said measures. The purpose of the water study is to evaluate the impact of the project on hydrologic characteristics of the site. Specifically, this task includes assessing any changes in runoff absorption and redirection, flooding, water quality, and groundwater characteristics. 16 IV. Transportation/Circulation A traffic study was prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan in April 1996. The traffic study is included in a separately bound appendices to this Initial Study. Existing Street System The following is a description of the existing roadways in the project area. Figure 5, Existing Conditions, page 18, details the characteristics of the present circulation system. Interstate 805 (I-80S) is a north-south freeway that extends from the Otay Mesa area to Sorrento Valley. It provides four lanes in each direction in the project vicinity with a full diamond interchange at Otay Valley Road. Otay Valley Road is classified as a six-lane Major Street and is constructed as a six-lane divided roadway between I-80S and about Nirvana Avenue where it narrows to five lanes (3 westbound and 2 eastbound). It then quickly narrows to four lanes. The bridge over the Otay River provides one lane in each direction separated by a two-lane "reversible" roadway section. Otay Valley Road provides one lane in each direction south of Otay Rio Road. Bike lanes are provided and the speed linùt is posted at 45 mph near I-80S and at 50 mph near Nirvana Avenue. Traffic signals are present at the I-80S interchange, Oleander Avenue, Brandywine A venue, and Nirvana A venue. Oleander Avenue is a two-lane Class ill Collector which extends fonn Otay Valley Road to Orange A venue and provides direct access to residential areas. Brandywine Avenue is a two-lane Class ill Collector which extends from Otay Valley Road to Orange A venue and serves ass a collector roadway for the area. There are no fronting residential properties. Otay Rio Road and Spy Glass Hill Road are two streets which extend into a vacant industrial area. These two roadways are currently closed. City Roadway Standards and Existing Street System Figure 6, page 19, shows the existing PM peak hour (5:00 - 6:00 PM) and daily (ADT) traffic volumes in the project area. These volumes were counted in 1995 and were obtained from the traffic study prepared by BRW, Inc. for the MCA Amphitheater (MCA). Otay Valley Road carries an ADT of 3100 east of the industrial/commercial and mixed residential area in the vicinity of Oleander and Brandywine Avenues. Between Oleander and the I-80S interchange, Otay Valley ADT is 18,600. 17 Á I~ ~~ No Scale 0 1,,- --- ~ == ==6D4.... --;:: ..II.... (= S- S· S 8<. 5D "" JIAJN ST '5 ~ ~ BI. "''''' ..... ~ rr "PH::: 'f' ::: "1"1" . ..- "" ---- OTAY JlJ¡--e- RD 0 šPYGI~ -e- HlU.JlitY . N C PALII AVE o ~ 0( ~ ~ 905 OTAY JŒSA RD ~ LEGEND ~ ® - Traffic Signal ~@ ....a... - STOP Sign 2U - Two lane undivided roadway 6D - Six lane divided roadway BL - Bike lane ~ EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 5 ~ o 11.i~ O~!:! 104,000 , ~r ~-< - No Scale 18,600 <> ~ M. . ono !Xi .... : ~It')~ '- 15 ~N_ "- 35 ........ 22,400 .I.... '-- 403 .I .... - 69~ .I .... - ~7~ -4~41 r ~ r2~ JIAIN ST .66_ .....1' ~~..) .....11' '30..) .....1 J100 3'8, -.. 36~_ 24~_ r ....~ 5" 1I1"h"l 251 ~~:Q ....- ----- OTAY Jl1¡--e- 98,000 / RD 0 šPYG~ -e- HILL R¡j . PAlJI AVE ~ '< ~ ~ 905 OTAY JIESA RD ~ NOTE: - ADT's are shown mid block I~ - PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections ~ EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 6 Project Traffic Generation Project traffic generation calculations are shown in Table I, page 21. Several assumptions were necessary to estimate the project traffic generation amount, as follows: · weekday maximum attendance of 3,500 patrons · customer vehicular occupancy rate of 3.5 (based on Raging Waters in San Dimas and Wild Rivers in Irvine data) · 150 employees per day, 20% of which would leave between 5:00 - 6:00 PM · 10 deliveries per day · 20% customer departure between 5:00 - 6:00 PM The traffic assumptions were provided by the "Aquatic Design Group" and are largely based on industry surveys conducted by the World Waterpark Association. According to the "Aquatic Design Group," a consultant to the project applicant. Each of these assumptions is conservative. Total project ADT is 2,230, consisting of 2,000 ADT generated by park patrons, 300 ADT contributed by employees, and 20 ADT resulting from deliveries. Table 1 also shows that the water park is estimated to generate 2320 ADT (1160 injl160 out) with 24 inbound and 231 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This traffic analysis assumes a worst case condition of a weekday (3,500 total patrons) late afternoon period (assumed to be 5:00 - 6:00 PM) on the day an amphitheater event is occurring. Although the total weekend traffic generation could be about 40% greater (about 5,000 patrons vs. 3,500 patrons) than on a weekday, ambient traffic on Otay Valley Road is much higher on a weekday and potential roadway impacts are greater during the weekday commuter hour. The worst-case 5:00 - 6:00 PM time period was chosen for analysis since this period accounts for the beginning period of amphitheater arrivals, some "open air market" departures, the "end of the day" at the water park and the approximate peak period of Otay Valley Road traffic near 1-805. Trip Distribution/Assignment The generated traffic was distributed to the street system based on a Select Zone Assignment (SZA) obtained for the SANDAG Series 8 model forecast. The SZA was prepared for the MCA traffic study. The regional distribution of traffic is expected to be similar for MCA and for the water park. Figure 7, page 22, shows the regional traffic distribution. Typically, 85% of trips will proceed north on Otay Valley Road, then west to 1-805, while 15% will proceed south on Otay Valley Road to Otay Mesa. Of the Otay Valley Road traffic, the greatest amount, 45%, will travel north toward San Diego, while 20% would continue west toward the main residential areas of Chula vista, and 15% would proceed south toward Mexico. 20 Table 1 J PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION GENERATOR DAILY TRIP ENDS PM PEAK HOUR (5-6 PM) (ADT) VOLUME VOLUME IN OUT A. Customers (3500+3.5*2 T.E.) 2,000 20 200 B. Employees (150*2 T.E.) 300 3 30 C. Deliveries(10*2 T.E.) 20 1 1 - TOTAL 2,320 24 231 Assumptions 1. Weekday attendance = 3,500 2. Customer Vehicle Occupancy Rate = 3.5 --' 3. Assume 20% customer departure between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. 4. 150 Employees per day, 20% of which would leave between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. 5. 10 Deliveries per day. -' 6. Inbound PM peak hour customers are pick-ups. SOURCE: Aquatic Design Group. T.E. = Trip-End J - .J - - ~ H Á ~ BI~~I~ No Scale JIAIN Sf OTA Y Iilo RD SPYG~ . HlLL /i¡j PALJI AVE ~~ i ~ iJ 905 OTAY JŒSA RD !g tJ NOTE: - Near term distribution ~&! fi \ REGIONAL TRAFFIC Figure 7 DISTRIBUTION Project traffic is distributed to the existing roadways in Figure 8, page 24, which shows the PM peak hour project traffic volumes and ADTs. Figure 9, page 25, shows the existing plus project traffic volumes, AM/PM peak hours and ADTs. Otay Valley Road north of the project carries a combined ADT of 5,070, while the Oleander AvenuefI-805 segment of Otay Valley Road carries 20,460 ADT. Cumulative Projects Three cumulative projects were included in the traffic impact analysis. The impacts from these projects were analyzed in addition to the proposed project. The following is a brief description of the three short-term cumulative projects. I) The MCA Amphitheater would be located east of 1-805 and north of SR-905 in the Otay River Valley. Access to this project would be Otay Rio Road via Dtay Valley Road. The project proposes to develop a 20,000 seat outdoor entertairunent facility (10,000 fixed seating and 10,000 lawn seating). The project is estimated to generate 12,120 daily trip ends (ADT). Traffic data for this project was obtained from August 1995 Traffic Study prepared by BRW, Inc. 2) The Kobey's Open Air Market is located in the same area as the MCA Amphitheater, since it is a part of the MCA Amphitheater project. The Open Air Market would utilize a portion of the MCA Amphitheater parking area in Thursdays thru Sundays, 7:00 AM to about 4:00 PM. The amphitheater is not scheduled for daytime event use. The project is estimated to generate 3,200 daily trips ends (ADT). Traffic data for this project was obtained from a traffic study which was prepared by BRW, Inc., in August 1995 3) The Chula Vista Trash Transfer Station/Materials Recovery Facility is located immediately north of Dtay Valley Road and approximately two miles east of I-80S. Maxwell Road borders the project site to the east, and serves as the access road to the site. The facility within the 10.8 acre site is estimated to generate 942 daily trip ends (ADT). Traffic data for this project was obtained from a November 1995 Initial Environmental Study prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. Table 2, page 26, shows the cumulative projects traffic generation calculations. The largest contribution is from the MCA Amphitheater, which is estimated to generate 12,120 ADT. Cumulative projects include 630 in-bound and 205 out-bound trips during the PM Peak Hour of 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Figure 10, page 27, shows the assignment of the total cumulative projects traffic to the street system. Figure II, page 28, shows the existing plus project plus cumulative projects traffic volumes on a ADT and PM peak hour basis. Otay Valley Road is now seen to carry 19,792 ADT north of the project and east of Brandywine Ave. Another cumulative project which was considered for inclusion is the City of Chula Vista Corporation Yard. This project would entail the relocation of the existing uses at the 23 ~ o ell':! o ~I':! Nr en ~ ~ No Scale 0 - - '-1041860 '- 2 - '- 10 460 I.- - 80 _ 184 \.. -186 JlAlN sr 4- r' 19- 19- 1970 .. " 0 ) OTAY Itlo '"\ RD .. SPYG~ HILL.R/) '90.J 35, PAlJI A VB ~ -<Vi §~ ~ 905 OTAY JlESA RD ~ NOTE: - ADT's are shown midblock Iä! - PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections - The PM Peak hour is 5-6 PM ~ PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 8 A ~ 2i~ g ~~ It) ~~ ~ ~ No Scale 20,460 - 0 I') ! :;;:;¡ I 0""_ &:Q I Olt'llt'l '-... 17 P")N_ '-- 45 NN '- 507: :; ~ c. - 879 .:; ~ I.. - 761 22,860 ..)1.. -~. , 5 , 25 JlAIN ST 470_ .....1' ~~!. .....tr ~~!. .....tr 5070 J18, ;;2 N_ ~, II'III')W') 25....... ~~tQ OTAY liJo RD SPYG~ HILl. 1lJj PAUl AVE ~ -< § ~ 905 OTAY JIESA RD :g NOTE: - ADT's are shown midblock I~ - PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections EXISTING PLUS Figure 9 PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES - Table 2 CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION USE DAILY TRIP ENDS PM PEAK HOUR (5-6 PM) (ADT) VOLUME VOLUME IN OUT . 1. MCA Amphitheater 12,120 605 0 2. Open Air Market 3,200 5 130 3. Material Recovery Facility 942 20 75 TOTAL 16,262 630 205 SOURCE: 1. MCA Amphitheater Traffic Study, August 1995. 2. MCA Amphitheater Traffic Study, August 1995. 3. Initial Environmental Study. November 1995. \ -À o e¡~ o ~~ ~r 10 ..; CD 13.902 - 0 I No Scale , on , .. on on N 1....104' NI....l N I.... 5 3420 I.. - 7~1 I.. _179 I.. -180 JIAIN ST 125- l' ~10- 515- 14.722 :i1 OTA Y 1110 RD SPYG~ HILL RD PALIl A VI: . ~ -< ~ iN 905 OTAY JIESA RD NOTE: - PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections - This exhibit contains the traffic ~ assignment of the following projects: Ii 1 ~ MCA Amphitheater 2 Open Air Market 3 Materials Recovery Facility Appendix A contoins the individual project assignments. ~ CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC Figure 10 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 34.3~2 ~ I ~ ~ No Scale ~'" goO" .... I RIl'I~ ~ 18 _ NP") '- 50 NoO ..... 611 ' ..,I ¡ I.. - 1058..,1 ¡ I.. - '4\ 26,280 ..,II.. -609' ,5 ,25 JlAlN ST 595_ .....r 8;~!. .....tr ~~!. .....tr 19.792 J18, -0 N~ 5, 11"I11"I11"I 25, :G:G:G NN OTA Y Ji¡o RD SPYG~ HILL RD PAUl A Vl: ~ >< ~ ~ 905 OTAY JIESA RD {j NOTE: - ADT's are shown midblock I~ - PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections EXISTING PLUS PROJECT Figure 11 PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC VOLUMES Corporation Yard located at 707 "F" Street. The site would generally be used for storage. The City-prepared Negative Declaration indicated that about 1,600 ADT is expected to be generated. The total ADT that would result from development of approved land uses at that site, and which has been factored into the SANDAG model, is 3,600 ADT. Therefore, this project was not quantitatively included in the cumulative analysis. Impacts Street Operations A summary of the operation at the key signalized intersections (Otay Valley Road at I-80S, Oleander Avenue, and Brandywine Avenue) during the PM peak hour is presented in Table 3, page 30. Three conditions are examined: (1) existing, (2) existing plus project, and (3) existing plus project plus cumulative projects. This table shows that each of the four intersections are calculated to currently operate at LOS B. The good Level of Service at the I-805/Otay Valley Road interchange is due to the recent widening of Otay Valley Road and the multiple turn lanes on the off-ramps. As noted, in condition 2 the addition of project traffic is calculated to not decrease the LOS at any of the key intersections. LOS B is maintained. The delays increase only slightly. The only small increase in delay is due to the off-peak nature of water park traffic and the fact that the majority of PM peak hour Water Park traffic will make a right-turn at the Otay Valley Road/I·805 northbound ramps intersection to proceed north on I-80S. This is a non-conflicting movement. In condition 3 intersections remain at LOS B, with the exception of the Otay Valley Road/I-805 Northbound Ramps, which operate at LOS C in the third condition. The decrease in LOS at the Otay Valley Road/I-805 northbound ramp intersection is mainly due to the beginning of MCA arrivals. The I-80S northbound off-ramp was assumed to be restriped to provide a single left- turn lane, a shared left/thru/right lane and a single right-turn lane. This restriping was a condition of approval of the MCA project. A summary of the daily operations on the key street segments in the project area are shown in Table 4, page 31. This table shows that all of the existing street segments are calculated to operate at LOS A on a daily basis, based on the City's street classification table. The addition of the project traffic is calculated to not decrease the daily LOS on the key street segments. LOS A is maintained at each segment. Under condition 3 (existing plus project plus cumulative projects), the Otay Valley Road/ I-80S segment operates at LOS B. Table 5, page 32, shows a summary of the operations on the Otay Valley Road arterial between I-80S and Nirvana Avenue. This table shows that this segment of Otay Valley Road is calculated to currently operate at LOS B during the PM peak hour. PM peak hour LOS on Otay Valley Road remains at LOS B under condition 2, and condition 3. A summary of the operation on I-80S both north and south of Otay Valley Road is shown in Table 6, page 33. This table shows that LOS C and LOS D is calculated for all three conditions during the PM peak hour: service levels remain unchanged. 29 Table 3 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OPERATION PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION EXISTING EXISTING + EXISTING + PROJECT PROJECT + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS Otay Valley Road/I-80S SB ramps 10.4 B 10.6 B 11.7 B Otay Valley Roadll-805 NB ramps 12.6 B 14.2 B 19.5 C Otay Valley Road/Oleander Ave 8.9 B 9.3 B 9.7 B Otay Valley Road/Brandywine Ave 10.5 B 10.7 B 10.9 B DELAY is measured in seconds LOS = Level of Service DELAY 1.00. 0.0 ~ 5.0 A 5.1 to 15.0 B. 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 40.0 D 40.1 to 60.0 E > 60.0 F ~ Table 4 DAILY STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS SEGMENT EXISTING' EXISTING EXISTING + PROJECT EXISTING + CAPACITY PROJECT + (LOS E) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS Otay Valley Road e/o 1-805 50,000 18,600 A 20,460 A 34,362 B e/o Nirvana Avenue 37,500 3,100 A 5,070 A 19,792 A Oleander Avenue n/o Olay Valley Road 9,400 1,500 A 1,520 A 1,690 A Brandywine Avenue n/o Olay Valley Road 9,400 3,400 A 3,490 A 4,140 A VOL = Volume LOS = Level of Service , Capacities obtained from City of Chula Vista street classification table ~ Table 5 OTAY VALLEY ROAD OPERATIONS PM PEAK HOUR SEGMENT DIR EXISTING EXISTING + PROJECT EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS Otay Valley Road 1·805 SB ramps to EB 33.0 B 33.0 B 32.2 B Nirvana Avenue WB 30.0 B 29.7 B 29.2 B EB = Eastbound LOS = Level of Service DIR = Direction Speed is in miles per hour \ Table 6 1-805 ANALYSIS- PM PEAK HOUR SEGMENT DIR EXISTING EXISTING + PROJECT EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS MSF LOS MSF LOS MSF LOS 1-805 n/o Otay Valley Road NB 1172 C 1201 C 1230 C SB 1758 D 1761 D 1844 D s/o Otay Valley Road NB 1121 C 1136 C 1162 C SB 1639 D 1649 D 1657 D NOTE: MSF = Maximum Service Flow Rate in pcphpl (passenger cars per hour per lane) LOS = Level of Service DIR = Direction % .-.....-----"^- Buildout Traffic Condition Discussion A SANDAG Series 8 Model forecast was used as a basis for determining regional buildout traffic conditions. A comparison of the trip generation estimates for the proposed water park and for the approved industrial park, which was the use anticipated by the Series 8 model, is shown in Table 7, page 35. The SANDAG trip generation guide shows a trip generation rate for an industrial plant of 120 ADT per acre. This equates to 3,890 ADT for the 32.4 acre site with 93 inbound and 373 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This 120 ADT per acre industrial generation rate was used in the Otay Rio Business Park EIR. Table 7 shows that the industrial park is calculated to generate a greater amount of daily and PM peak hour traffic than is expected to be generated by the water park. Therefore, the water park is expected to have no significant traffic impacts in the buildout condition. Congestion Management Program Compliance The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was adopted on November 22, 1991, and is intended to directly link land use, transportation and air quality through Level of Service performance. Local agencies are required by statute to confonn to the CMP. The CMP requires an Enhanced CEQA Review for all large projects that are expected to generate more than 2,400 ADT or more than 200 peak hour trips. This review is required of the proposed project. In 1993, the Institute of Transportation Engineers California Border Section and the San Diego Region Traffic Engineer's Council established a set of guidelines to be used in the preparation of traffic impact studies that are subject to the Enhanced CEQA Review process. This published document, which is titled 1993 Guidelines for Congestion Management Pro~ Transportation Impact Reoorts for the San Diego Region, requires that the study area be established as follows: · All street and intersections on CMP roadways or on "regionally significant arterials" where the project will add 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction. · Mairiline freeway locations where the project will add 150 or more peak hour trips in either direction. Per these guidelines, the following regionally significant arterials were analyzed in this report, as required to satisfy the CMP. · Otay Valley Road · I-80S Table 5, page 32, shows that LOS B is calculated on the Otay Valley Road CMP arterial in all conditions. Table 6, page 33, shows that LOS D or better is calculated on I-80S in all 34 Table 7 PROPOSED PROJECT VS CURRENT ZONING TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS . PROJECT SIZE DAILY TRIP PM PEAK HOUR ENDS (ADT) RATE VOLUME %OF IN:OUT VOLUME ADT SPLIT IN OUT 1. Water Park (weekday) 32.4 acres - 2,320 - - 24 231 2. Industrial/Business Park 32.4 acres 120 3,890 12% 2:8 93 373 1. See Table 2 2. Based on SANDAG Trip Generation Rates for Industrial Plant, May 1995, as utilized in the EIR for the site. \ -.------" ------------.------- conditions. The CMP requirements of LOS E (with a goal of LOS D) is satisfied both before and after the proposed project. AcceSS/On-Site Circulation Ingress to the water park is proposed via Otay Rio Road and egress via Spyglass Hill Road. This arrangement will best correlate with MCA traffic. The water park is proposed to close at least 90 minutes before an amphitheater event begins. Therefore, only a small amount of water park traffic will be departing during MCA arrivals, especially since at least 80% of the water park traffic will have departed prior to the final hour in which the park is open. However, an ingress and egress plan must be developed for both when an MCA event is planned and for the more common general day-to-day time when a MCA event is not planned. The MCA traffic study included channe1ization concepts for Otay Valley Road and the Otay Rio Road and Spyglass Hill Road intersections for both peak departure and arrival times. Figure 12, page 37, shows the condition diagram for peak MCA arrivals. It is expected that traffic control personnel would be present at both the Otay Valley Road/Otay Rio Road and Otay Valley Road/Spyglass Hill Road intersections to assist MCA arriving traffic and water park departing traffic. The Otay Valley Road/Otay Rio Road intersection will be signalized. As previously stated, only a small amount of water park traffic will be departing when the MCA arrival traffic control is set-up. One outbound left-turn lane on Spyglass Hill Road will be sufficient. Personnel should be present to assist exiting water park traffic between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Figure 13, page 38 shows the condition diagram for water park traffic when an MCA event is not scheduled (i.e. MCA traffic control is not set-up). The calculations show that the egressing left-turn from Spyglass Hill Road onto Otay Valley Road is calculated at LOS 8 (Appendix F, Traffic Impact Analysis, Separate Volume). This indicates that a traffic signal is not necessary for opening day conditions. Also, signal warrants are not met. The Otay Valley Road/Spyglass Hill Road intersection should be monitored for future signalization as traffic on Otay Valley Road increases, as forecasted. The calculations indicate that personnel will not be necessary to assist exiting water park traffic turning onto Otay Valley Road. An initial review of the parking circulation shown on the proposed site plan indicates that improvements can be made. The main southbound aisle should provide access to all east- west aisles. The southerly three aisles cannot be reached via the main southbound aisle. The easterly exit from the parking area onto Spyglass Hill Road does not appear to be wide enough. A queuing analysis at the parking entrance may be necessary, although no major public streets would be potentially impacted by an extended queue. 36 ~ I~ ~~ ~ No Scale 0 JlAIN ST .... ~I\ I INGRESS TO WATER PARK ~ OTA Y Itlo RD ECRESS FROM WATER PARK -Þ ..i.4 SFYG~ .J ""\1 H1LL RD , PAlJI AVE 0 ~ -< ~ i§ 905 DrAY JIESA RD LEGEND ® - Signal planned as port ~ of MCA project ~~ . - Traffic control personnel present NOTE: - Water Pork will close at least 90 minutes before on amphitheater event. ~ PEAK AMPHITHEATER Figure 12 ARRIVALS ~ eH~ ~~ r ¡ No Scale 0 JIAIN ST INCRESS TO WATER PARK ~ OTA Y liIo RD EGRESS FRO.. WATER PARK -«> I SPYG~ ..J t H1LL 10 , PALIl AVE ~ -< ~ ~ 905 OTAY JIESA RD LEGEND ~ ® - Signal planned os port I~ of MCA project \ PROJECT TRAFFIC WITHOUT Figure 13 AMPHITHEATER CONDITION Summary of Findings The addition of water park traffic was calculated to have no significant traffic impacts in tenns of the capacity at the key intersections and street segments in the study area. Significant impacts were not determined primarily since: · The water park generates the majority of its traffic during off-peak weekday periods and on weekends. · The water park will close at least 90 minutes before an MCA event. · Significant capacity was recently added to Otay Valley Road and the 1- 805/Otay Valley Road interchange. Mitigation Measures The water park project was calculated to have no significant impacts in tenns of the capacity at the key intersections and street segments. However, the following measures are required ed to provide adequate access and on-site circulation. 1) Close the water park at least 90 minutes before an event at the MCA Amphitheater. 2) Revise the proposed parking lot circulation and access to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3) Provide traffic control personnel to assist exiting traffic at the Otay Valley Road/Spyglass Hill Road intersection between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on days when an event is scheduled at the MCA Amphitheater. 4) The applicant shall participate in the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) that is required for the MCA Amphitheater project. The TMP shall identify traffic control, directional signing, variable message signs, traffic control officers, coning, law enforcement and parking management procedures to be followed. 39 V. Aesthetics/Visual Study A visual study was conducted in April 1996, by TRS Consultants and included site visits on March 29, and April 2, 1996. Existing Conditions Views onto the project site are limited to users of Otay Valley Road and the industrial/commercial facilities located north of the project site. A residential development west of the commercial area has a distant view of the site. Views through the valley are partially blocked by riparian vegetation, trees, and landforms. Views from the bluffs of Otay Mesa on the south extend across the valley to the northern mesa, its industrial/commercial district, the landfill, and undeveloped land. Views of the site from tills vantage are restricted to users standing at the edge of steep slopes directly adjacent to the project. A series of photo montages are included to document major views of the site. Photo locations and orientations are provided in the Key to Photographs, Figure 14, page 41. Photograph I, Figure 15, page 42, was taken from the intersection of Otay Valley Road and Nirvana Road, approximately % mile northwest of the site. The view looks east southeast along a section of the Otay River Valley, located in the foreground. Otay Mesa dominates the horizon to the south. Some scaring from off-road vehicle activity is visible on the southern hills. The property is indicated by several low mounds on the left of the photo, which mark the approximate central activity area of the proposed water park. Photograph 2, Figure 16, page 43, was taken from a point approximately 112 mile northeast of the site on the northern mesa. The Otay Rio Business Park, with developed pads and landscaping, occupies the view left of center. Ulitity lines, dirt roads, and off-road vehicle paths are seen to the right of the Business Park. Three bluffs descend from Otay Mesa and border the Otay Rio Business park. The central bluff, seen in the center of the photo, dominates the project site on the south. Otay Valley Road is seen running north-south on the extreme left. A bridge, recently expanded to four lanes and marked by darker pavement, spans the Otay River. In contrast to the foreground, the site and its surrounding area are seen to be sparsely vegetated. The water park would occupy a portion of the site to the right of the Otay Rio Business Park. Photograph 3, Figure 17, page 44, was taken from the top of the bluff looking down on the site. The photo takes in a major portion of the site. Two private roads of the Otay Rio Business Park, Castle Pines Avenue running north-south, and Spy Glass Hill Road running east-west, are seen intersecting right of center. The four on-site mounds mark the approximate main entrance to the water park. The site is seen to slope gradually to the north. There is an absence of steep slopes and dense large-scale vegetation. Otay Valley Road runs across the top of the photograph, while industrial and commercial areas are seen just beyond. 40 À I " "- . -;. -'...... CD'" Photograph Number & Direction of View ~ KEY TO PHOTOGRAPHS Figure 14 -....- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... ¡;;, Q. - os ... DI 0 .. 0 ¡;;, - c.. - - ~ Figure 15 PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEW #1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ('oj .c Q. os - .. C ) 0 .... 0 .c - Q. - - ~ PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEW #2 Figure 16 - , , - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - C') "'" .c .c Q. Q. '" '" ... , - ... C ) C ) 0 i 0 ... ... 0 0 .c .c ~ - ~ - ~ Figure 17 PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWS - #3 & #4 Photograph 4, Figure 17, page 44, was taken from Castle Pines A venue looking southwest toward the site. The on-site mounds, seen as darker green, approximately occupy the main entrance area for the water park. The bluffs of Otay Mesa are seen in the distance. Impacts Landform Alterations The proposed project would include the constructing of an earthen berm approximately 680 feet long at its top and ranging in height from 30 to 45 feet. Additional alterations will include grading for rides, a parking lot, and recreation areas. A total of 71,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill will be used. All graded areas will be landscaped. No natural or undisturbed slopes of the Otay River Valley would be graded or cut for the proposed project. Landform alterations for the water park represent only a minor change in the overall viewshed of the Otay River Valley and their impact is further reduced by intervening topography and vegetation. Visual impacts associated with landform alteration are not considered to be significant. Views In Photograph 1, Figure 15, page 42 the existing mounds already described would be replaced by a north-south trending landscaped berm approximately twice as high as those pictured. Parking areas would not be visible, and ground-level rides and structures would be obscured by landscaping. Elements of the softball field may be visible in the middle-distance beyond the tress in the center of the photograph. Photograph 2, Figure 16, page 43, would show the presently undeveloped area east of the Otay Rio Business Park as a developed aquatic park, with parking areas and structures partially visible west of Castle Pines Avenue. The east face of the central berm would be seen, with ride flumes and platforms along its crest and down the east face. Lines of structures would be broken by landscaping. The berm would appear approximately twice as high as the on-site berms pictured here, but would trend north-south rather than east-west. Photograph 3, Figure 17, page 44, would present an overview of the entire park, with parking areas occupying the right foreground and the area west of Castle Pines A venue. The central berm would curve west and north beyond the western-most berm currently pictured. Photograph 4, Figure 17, page 44, would show landscaping and parking areas along Castle Pines A venue. The central berm would be seen beyond bushes and trees rising at points to the height of the bluff currently pictures in the background. Off-site views of the project would include the 680-foot long central berm, which will accommodate ride platforms and chutes. The berm would be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and grass. Views for Otay Valley Road and the industrial/recycling facilities to the north 45 - ------~-_....__._. would take in the Otay River Valley, a landscaped berm, various water park rides, a softball field and volleyball courts dotting the site. The lines of structures would be broken by landscaping over the entire site. The landscaped berm and other structures would not block or inhibit expansive views east and west through the Otay River Valley. Views from the north and south slopes of the Otay River Valley toward opposite slopes would not be obstructed, as the water park berm would be significantly lower that the nearby mesa slopes. Views from the slopes of Otay Mesa toward the water park would be restricted to a vantage point on the edge of the mesa bluffs directly behind the site. Because the proposed project would not result in the obstructing of a scenic vista or views open to the public, anticipated impacts to aesthetics would be insignificant. Lighting/Glare The proposed project would result in the introduction of lighting and short-term glare related to nighttime use of the water park. Permanent lighting sources will be located at water park rides, the softball field, and volley ball courts, parking areas, entry plaza, and picnic areas. Lighting impacts are less than significant if appropriately designed. Mitigation Lighting/Glare 1. All lighting shall utilize shields to prevent excess lighting and glare from the top and side of lighting elements. 2. Lighting must be directed inward and/or downward to contain as much as possible lighting on-site. 46 VI. Air Quality The air quality study was conducted by Giroux & Associates in April 1996. Existing Conditions Meteorology and Climate The climate of Chula Vista, as with all of Southern California, is largely controlled by the strength and position of the semi-pennanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean. The high pressure ridge over the West Coast creates a repetitive pattern of frequent early morning cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, clean daytime onshore breezes and little temperature change throughout the year. Limited rainfall occurs in winter when the oceanic high pressure center is weakest and farthest south as the fringes of mid-latitude stonns occasionally move through the area. Sununers are often completely dry with an average of 10.3 inches of rain falling each year from November to early April at Lower Otay Reservoir, the nearest climate station to the project site. Unfortunately, the same atmospheric conditions that create a desirable living climate, combine to limit the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the large population attracted to the San Diego County climate. The onshore winds across the coastline diminish quickly when they reach the foothill communities east of San Diego, and the sinking air within the offshore high pressure system fonns a massive temperature inversion that traps all air pollutants near the ground. The resulting horizontal and vertical stagnation, in conjunction with ample sunshine, causes a number of reactive pollutants to undergo photochemical reactions and fonn smog that degrades visibility and irritates tear ducts and nasal membranes. Because coastal areas are well ventilated by fresh breezes during the daytime, they generally do not experience the same frequency of air pollution problems found in some areas east of Chula Vista. Except for the occasional interbasin transport, air quality in the project vicinity is probably quite good. Local meteorological conditions in the project vicinity have not been routinely monitored, but they likely confonn to the regional pattern of strong onshore winds by day, especially in summer, and weak offshore winds at night, especially in winter. These local wind patterns are driven by the temperature difference between the normally cool ocean and the warm interior and steered by any local topography. In summer, moderate breezes of 8-12 mph blow onshore and up-valley from the southwest by day, and may continue all night as a light onshore breeze when the land remains warmer than the ocean. In winter, the onshore flow os weaker and reverses to blow from the northeast in the evening as the land becomes cooler than the ocean. Both the onshore flow of marine air and the noctumal drainage winds are accompanied by 47 two characteristic temperature inversion conditions that further control the rate of air pollution dispersal throughout the air basin. The daytime cool onshore flow is capped by a deep layer of warm, sinking air. As the layer moves inland, pollution sources (especially automobiles) add pollutants from below without any dilution from above through the inversion interface. When this polluted layer approaches foothill communities east of coastal developments, it becomes shallower and exposes residents in those areas to the concentrated reacted by- products of coastal area sources. A second inversion type occurs when slow drainage or stagnation of cool air at night creates localized cold "pools" while the air above the surface remains warm. Such radiation inversions occur throughout the San Diego area but are strongest within low, channelized river valleys. The intensity of development near the project site is extremely low such that non-local background pollution levels during nocturnal stagnation periods are also low. The local air-shed, therefore, has considerable excess dispersive capacity that limits the potential for any localized air pollution "hot spots" from project implementation. Air Quality Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS): In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed water park project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. Table 8, page 49, outlines the clean air standards in California. Baseline Air Quality: The nearest air quality measurements to the project site are made in downtown Chula Vista by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the agency responsible for air quality planning, monitoring and enforcement in the SDAB. Table 9, page 50, summarizes the last seven complete years (final 1995 data have not been officially published) of monitoring data from the Chula Vista (80 East J. St.) station. Progress toward cleaner air is seen in almost every pollution category in Table 9. The only federal clean air standard that was exceeded throughout the 6-year monitoring period was the hourly ozone standard which was exceeded an average of about 3 times per year (once per year is allowable). The more stringent State standards for ozone and for lO-rnicron diameter respirable particulate matter (PM -10) were exceeded on a somewhat higher frequency; but, overall air quality in Chula Vista, as representative of the water park project site, is nevertheless very good in comparison to other areas of the SDAB. There are no clear-cut trends in the Chula Vista baseline air quality data in Table 9. Improvement of the few standards routinely exceeded is relatively slow. Some very encouraging trends are seen, particularly for the most recent data. In the last three years, Chula Vista recorded the following air pollution records in its monitoring history: - fewest violations of the California hourly ozone standard (1994) - fewest violations of federal ozone standards with the standard met in 1993-94 - lowest annual I-hour ozone maximum (1994) 48 Table 8 CLEAN AIR STANDARDS IN CALIFORNIA California Standards National Standards PolI\.l\.lnt AV9f1glng TI_: Co.,ç,n¡r.Uon Melhod Pflm&I'Y Secor1dary M.thod 0.09 ppr" UlII:]lIjol.t 0.\2 ppt" ~..,m(l J\~ (\rl~'lo"l¡I 0£009 1 HolJI' 1180 UglmJ) Photomotry (235 ug/mJ) PIIf""ry SId. Chemllumine:cCnO;l 8liOw( 9,0 ;!PI" Non·dl,potlivo 9 p~T\ I~M·di~pe sivo e",,,,," PomQlmJ) InlrDrod (IOrnQlmJ) nh.ted Monolid, Spc>C\;O~GOpy SPf'ClrOscopy 1 Houl 20 µpm J5 ppm (Z3mQlm3) {NOIR (40 m~m3 (NOIR Annual 0,05.:1 PP'TI NlltOQOr'\ A..../ag. Gas Phast (100Ilgtu'I31 5~rn. 1\$ Ci:,~ Ph~" OIQ,iClO Chemilvmi· Pllm,¡ry 51d. C~om~vminlllsc.enc. \ HOur 0.25 ppm n~n,¡;.ønc.e ("70u9~) Annual 80 ug/m3 Av,,'ao" (o.OJ þpm\ 2' Hour 0.04 ppm ~rG5 ug/":~ S!oIJlUI 1105 "Q/m:1) UII.t,)vlolet 01<\ ;'--"11 l)lOxld. r:luQI'~ÇA nç, ¡1¡I.:aro~o:v.ilinll 1:100 vOlm::! ;I Hovr 'O!io~\ , HoUl' 0.?,5 ppn'l (6SS uQlm:!) Suspended Annual C.ornellir; P3fllcu1310 Mun JO ug/mJ $1l:CI SOIt<l.ivl) Inertial MõllI.r Inl.1 High !.c~r:'hQn {PMIO> 24 Hour SO~/m:! Volymo S='fT1pI9r 1:'10 u~/m3 .nd an. S.¡m9 as Gr .vtm~l/!c Aro.nlUl Gr¡Vlo-..lJic Pri",,,,,}' An.aJYJois MIJ'I~tlc ^n.a.1y¡i. !j()ug/mJ Star.dard ",-,n Sull.les 2'" Hour 25 ug/m:! Turtld¡moulc Batium SUU31~ ~day 1,5 vQll'l'l3 Av~'age Alomic, Alomic:; load Ab;orption $.,nw:.s ^ooorption Calend.v Ovô'rl.r \.5 UglmJ Prim.vyS\d. HydrðCl~1'I 1 Hour 0.03 ppm Cadmium Hydr. Sulhd. (el uQlm;J) oxide STR'Clan V"yi CNol'~ 0.010 ppm Tt4lar Baq ~4 Hour CoUtction. Gn (<:f\lOrootn'nt) (Uug/mJ) ChrO","llnnrwmv ahoY< In ,ulfictenl 3t' 'IOUnllo ;.-oduc.t an 8.11W1ction VisiDi.lily co.lrici.nt 01 Q .23 per 1\11Om01'f dUll t... Re4uçinQ (10am 10 p.atlic'.~ when 1he 1~1.'iv. hum;dil't 's \0;'; Pallid" ......pST) U~n 70 pcIu:cnl. M.....u.m.nt in .c:.cord~co ""¡Ih ARB Mel1'loo v. ARB Fact Sheet 39; (revised 11/91) ~ Table 9 CHULA VISTA AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY Pollutant/standard 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 199J 1994 Ozone: I-Hour> 0.09 PpiI 17 21 21 13 14 12 4 I-Hour> 0.12 p¡m 4 7 J J 4 1 0 I-Hour ~ 0.20 ppil 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hax. I-Hour Cone. (PPD) 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.10 Carbon Monoxide: I-Hour> 20. PpiI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8-Hour > 9. PPD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. I-Hour Cone. (ppa) 7 8 7 7 7 5 7 Hax. 8-Hour Cone. (PPD) J.6 4.7 4.8 J.9 3.8 J.5 J.8 Nitroaen Dioxide: I-Hour> 0.25 ppa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hax. I-Hour Cone. (ppD) 0.21· 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.09 0.10 Total Susoended Particulates: 24-Hour ~ 100 µg/a3 4/46 J/57 1/61 2/50 O/JO 0/2J 0/30 24-Hour > 260 µg/a3 0/46 0/57 0/61 0/50 O/JO 0/2J O/JO Hax. 24-Hour Cone. (µg/a3) 109 III 163 110 79 98 97 Particulate Sulfate: 24-Hour ~ 25. µg/a3 0/57 0/60 0/51 0/21 0/29 0/31 0/J4 Hax. 24-Hour Cone. (µg/m3) 17.2 16.5 16.8 11.2 9.9 19.0 15.4 Inhalable Particulates (PM-IO): 24-Hour > 50 µg/a3 J/56 7/61 7/62 7/60 2/60 2/60 2/60 24-Hour > 150 µg/a3 0/56 0/61 0/62 0/60 0/60 0/60 0/60 Max. 24-Hour Cone. (µg/m3) 58 69 67 7J 54 56 61 Note: Standards for sulfur dioxide and particulate lead have been aet with a wide margin of safety in 1988-94, and are, therefore, not shown. Data for total suspended particulates (TSP) shown for information only because there is no TSP air quality standard since 1987. Source: California Air Resources Board, Summy of Air Quality Data, 1988-94. Chula Vista APCJ) Monitoring Station (except for SODe particulate data which are froD San Die<¡o APCJ) Downtown Station.) \ - lowest annual I-hour CO maximum (1993) - lowest annual I-hour NOz maximum (1993) - fewest violations of PM-lO standard (1992-94) Extrapolation of the pollution trendline suggests that limited violations of standards could occur into the future but with decreasing frequency. Since observed San Diego County ozone air quality sometimes derives from the southward drift of pollution from the South Coast Air Basin (which is forecast to continue to exceed ozone standards to the year 2010), some ozone standard violations will likely occur in the Countywide pollution control efforts. Air quality concern has been raised about pollutant transport from Mexico with its considerably less stringent pollution control laws. The Otay Mesa air quality station was established in part to monitor this phenomenon. Slight differences in ozone distribution on Otay Mesa are seen compared to Chula Vista. These differences are not so dramatic, however, as to indicate any substantial cross-border pollution transport. Sources of Pollution Nitrogen oxides (NO.) and reactive organic gases (ROG) are the two precursors to photocheDÚcal smog fonnation. In San Diego County, 68% of the 310 tons per day of ROG eDÚtted come from mobile (cars, ships, planes, heavy equipment, etc.) sources. For NO.. 88% of the 240 tons eDÚtted daily are from mobile sources. In general, recreation developments such as the proposed water park are not of themselves eDÚtters of air pollutants. They generate air pollution almost exclusively through visitor and/or employee vehicle travel. An entertainment use services the general population, and will not cause automotive travel to be generated unless there is a perceived demand for such a venue. By and large, commercial recreation uses are growth-accommodating and not growth inducing. It is thus related to the air quality planning process omy inasmuch as the rate of growth it is accommodating by providing recreational entertainment services is consistent with the air quality planning process. Impacts The proposed project will potentially impact air quality almost exclusively through the vehicular traffic generated by water park visitors. If traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation, and is comprised of a large number of vehicles "cold-started" and operating at pollution inefficient speeds, and is driving on roadways already crowded with non-project traffic, there is a potential for the formation of DÚcroscale air pollution "hot spots" in the area immediately around points of congested traffic. Secondary project-related atmospheric impacts derive from sources such as temporary eDÚssions of dusts and fumes during project construction, increased fossil-fuel conduction in power plants from project electricity requirements, evaporative eDÚssions at gas stations or 51 ---- - ---.-.....---....-.-....,-- from paints, thinners or solvents used in construction and maintenance, increased air travel from area visitors, dust from tire wear and re-suspended roadway dust, etc. All of these emission points are either temporary, or they are so small in comparison to project-related automotive sources such that their impact is less significant. Standards of Significance CEQA guidelines defme a potentially significant air quality impact as one that: a. creates violations of clean air standards, b. contributes measurably to an existing violation, or, c. exposes people to contaminants for which there are no presumed safe exposures. For projects that create mairùy automobile traffic whose emissions require complex photochemical reactions to reach their most harmful stage, there is no way to measure the impact to establish a "measurable contribution." Various air pollution control/management agencies have developed guidelines using total project emissions as a surrogate for determining regional impact potential. The City Chula Vista has no such threshold levels, but relies on guidance from other agencies. Candidate significance thresholds are presented in Table 10, page 53. Construction Impacts The most significant source of air pollution from project construction will be the dust generated during excavation, grading and site preparation. Portions of the project site have been graded for the Otay Rio Business Park such that grading activities may be less than for construction on undisturbed soil. The total project area comprises 32.4 acres, not all of which will be under simultaneous construction. For purposes of analysis, approximately one-third, or 10 acres, was assumed to be disturbed on any given day. In the absence of any dust control, simultaneous disturbance of the 10 acres would generate daily total PM-1O (particulate matter of 10 micron diameter or less) emissions of 550 pounds if no mitigation measures were taken. Mitigation would reduce PM-1O associated with grading by 50-75 percent or in the range of 140-275 pounds per day. This range of emissions would still exceed the daily PM-1O significance threshold of 100 pounds per day. This generation of construction dust PM-1O emissions can be reduced to sub-threshold levels by reducing the area of disturbance. Assuming that such an aggressive dust control program is implemented during construction, then with the temporary time-frame of such emissions and the generally good daytime ventilation conditions in the project vicinity, the impact from construction dust generation would be considered as individually less than significant. In addition to small dust particles that remain suspended in the air semi-indefinitely, . construction also generates many large particles that are easily filtered by human breathing passages, but settle out rapidly on parked cars and other nearby horizontal surfaces. Large 52 Table 10 CANDIDATE SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY THRESHOLD LEVELS Significant Emissions (lbjday) Agencv -1óL. ROC liQx ~ Bt=J.Q. SDAPCD Rule 20.2 (a) 550 100 100 100 100 SOAPCD Rule 20.3 (b) 550 250 250 250 250 City of San Diego (c) 550' 100" --- --- - South Coast AQMD (d) 550 55 55 150 150 a = requires best available control b = requires ambient air quality analysis c = Significance Determination Guidelines (1991) I d = SCAQMO CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) . = in areas of congested traffic .. = in areas of free-flow traffic \ particle emissions thus comprises more of a soiling nuisance rather than any potentially unhealthful air quality impact. With prevailing daytime west to east winds, dust soiling potential is likely greatest directly east of the project site in areas designated for amphitheater parking. Good control of fme particulates also results in reduction in nuisance potential from larger particulate matter. While dust deposition can be minimized, it often can not be completely adverse, it does not constitute a significant air quality impact. Equipment exhaust as well will be released during project construction activities from mobile sources during site preparation and berm construction. Approximately 75,000 cubic yards of earth will be excavated to create slopes for various water play attractions. For purposes of analysis, it was assumed that nine months of construction are required to develop the project and that the equipment energy expenditure totals 100,000 Brake-Horsepower-Hours (HHP- HR) for each acre under construction. Construction activity emission rates are substantial (especially NO. from diesel·fueled trucks and on-site vehicles). Average daily NO. emissions may be in excess of the threshold level of 100 pounds per day established for this project. Equipment exhaust emissions may therefore have a temporarily significant air quality impact during the most intensive phase of construction. Locally, equipment emissions will be widely dispersed in space and time by the mobile nature of much of the equipment itself. Furthermore, daytime ventilation during much of the year in QlUla Vista is usually more than adequate to disperse any local pollution accumulations near the project site. Any perceptible impacts from construction activity exhaust will, therefore, be confmed to an occasional "whiff" of characteristic diesel exhaust odor in close proximity to the project site, but not air pollution levels above acceptable standards. Construction activities are most noticeable in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. There is, however, some potential for "spill-over" into the surrounding community. Spillage may be physical such as dirt tracked onto public streets or dropped from trucks. Spill-over may also be through congestion effects where detours, lane closures, or construction vehicle competition with non-project peak hour traffic slows traffic beyond the immediate construction site to less pollution-efficient travel speeds. Such off-site effects are controllable through good housekeeping and proper construction management/scheduling. Management techniques are suggested in the mitigation discussion to reduce potential spill-over impacts. Lone:-Term Vehicular Emissions Impacts The greatest air quality concern from land use intensification usually derives from the mobile source emissions that result from project -related transportation. The project traffic study estimates that site-related traffic will total around 2,000 daily vehicle trips on a weekend activity day. The range of service for the project is estimated to be 25 miles. The average travel distance between the site and the last stop before site access or the first stop after leaving the park is estimated to be IS miles (some shorter, some longer). 'This trip generation 54 forecast was calculated to generate an additional 30,000 vehicle miles traveled (YMT) within the air basin. The corresponding air pollution emissions associated with site access/egress was calculated by combining the VMT data with average velùcular emission factors from the EMFAC7F(1.l) California velùcular emissions computer model. The daily mobile-source emissions for a 30,000 VMT generation are shown in Table II, page 56. Depending upon an assumed completion year, project-related new mobile source emissions may exceed 100 pound per day new source threshold for smog-fonning ROC. Daily CO emissions would exceed the 550 pound per day level by a wide margin until midway through the next decade. With a likely completion date in 1997-98, all smog-fonning emissions will be below the 100 pound per day significance threshold. Regional air quality impacts from project implementation related to potential smog formation are therefore less than significant. CO emissions in excess of thresholds are a localized microscale concern. Anticipated CO concentrations were calculated to evaluate the potential for the formation of any air pollution "hot spots" at intersections near the proposed project site using a screening procedure based upon the California line source dispersion model CALINE4. Maximum simultaneous background and project traffic volumes projected by the project traffic study were used in the analysis. CO was used as the indicator pollutant to detennine if there was any air pollution "hot spot" potential. Three (3) intersections were analyzed with the hourly CO exposures (in ppm) above background. (Table 12, page 57). Maximum hourly background CO levels at Chula Vista in 1994 were 7 ppm with an 8-hour maximum of 3.8 ppm. Even if the worst background day were to coincide with the worst local impact shown above, neither the 1- or 8-hour CO standards would be exceeded. Therefore, project-related microscale air quality impacts will be less than significant, and project-related CO emissions will not significantly contribute to any unhealthful air quality in the project vicirúty. Mitigation Without, mitigation, the proposed water park could create significant air quality impacts from dust and equipment exhaust during construction. There are more opportunities to reduce short-term construction impacts to insignificant levels through mitigation. Such mitigation includes enhanced dust abatement procedures for PM-10 control and equipment maintenance to reduce excess NO. emissions. The following mitigation measures to reduce construction dust may be implemented. For each of the three dust sources, the first listed measure represents a reasonably available control measure (RACM), wlùle the second measure represents best available control technology (BACf). 55 - Table 11 PROJECT-RELATED VEHICULAR EMISSIONS Significance Pollutant .l.2.2..§. 2000 2010 Threshold ROC 118 75 35 100. NOx 78 56 39 100. CO 917 606 298 550. PM-10 7 7 6 100. SOx Negl. Negl. Negl. 100. Source: EMFAC7F(1.1) Vehicular Emissions Computer Model ~ Table 12 HOURLY CO EXPOSURES AT KEY AREA INTERSECTIONS Exist. + Pro;. Fut. No P. Put. w/P. otay Mesa Road: @ 1-805 NB Ramps 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 @ Oleander 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 @ Brandywine 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 Source: Screening procedure based on CAL1NE4 Model ~ Mitie:ation Measure 1. Enclose, cover, or water all soil piles, exposed graded surfaces, or internal roads twice daily. 2. Maintain grading and construction equipment in good working order to avoid emissions from inefficient engine combustion. As an alternative dust control option, grading activities may be staged such that no more than one-fourth of the site is under disturbance at anyone time. Implementation of RACM's, in conjunction with limits on the size of the disturbance area, would reduce daily PM-lO emissions for tills option to below the significance threshold. 58 VII. Biological Resources Pacific Southwest Biological Services (Pacific Southwest) conducted a general biological survey at the 32.4-acre site dated April 24, 1996. Their report is summarized below. Included is their analysis of the direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources on and/or adjacent to the site. A biological survey was conducted by Marcia Dustin Mann and Robert M. Faught on 22 April 96. Air temperature was 77° Fahrenheit, wind velocities between 3-5 rniles per hour, with clear, sunny skies. All portions of the site were walked. The vegetation communities and any sensitive flora or fauna were mapped onto a 1"= 100' scale, topographic map. Existing Conditions The site ranges in elevation from approximately 143 feet (above mean sea level) to approximately 214 feet. The entire site is gently sloping and relatively flat with the exception of 6 small, low hills in the eastern half of the property. Soil mapping units which occur on the project include: . Salinas clay loam (SbA), 0-2% slopes. . Salinas clay loam (SbC), 2-9% slopes. This property was previously in agricultural production from approximately 1920 to 1983. Agricultural use has ceased entirely since lhe grading improvements associated wilh Phase I of lhe Otay Rio Business Park. During the recent survey, several motorcycles were being driven throughout the site. Foot traffic was also noted while surveying the site, as was some illegal refuse dumping. Vegetation Communities Only one vegetation type, ruderal, occurs within the study area (Biological Resources, Figure 18, page 60). Vegetation types or communities are assemblages of plant species that usually coexist in the same area. Ruderal refers to land recently or continually disturbed in which the earliest successional plant species are dominant. These species in coastal San Diego County tend to be non-native, often invasive, annuals. This site was donùn3ted by lhe annnal non- native grasses of wild oat (Avenafatua), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), glaucous barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. glaucum), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), and foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens). Other dominates were black mustard (Brassica nigra) and sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). Flora Twenty two species of plants were identified during lhe survey. Eighteen of these species (approximately 82 percent) are plants that are not native to California. The high percentage 59 ~ No Scale .'- .. ....--- .. - .. .. .. " ... .. ... .. .. '" .. .. .. ... '. - " , - .. .. , - , .. .;;..-.-.-. .. .- . ~ 0 .:"....,.". .. ~ .. : '/~·.; ·.·'1···.· Legend IRUDI Ruderal I ma:ed I Black-tailed Jackrabbit (Lepus ca1ifomicus) (sign scattered throughout sUe) I * I Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) B Project Boundary 00 Great Homed Owl (Bubo virginianus) (active nest with young) ~ BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Figure 18 of non-native flora on-site is an indicator of the site's disturbance. A complete list of floral species are found in Appendix I of the Biological Report, included in a separate volume. Fauna Twenty-three animal species were detected on-site (Appendix 2, Biological Report, separate volume). The animal composition of the site appears to be consistent with the expected seasonal wildlife diversity for areas supporting similar disturbedfruderal habitats. No amphibians were observed during the survey. Due to the limited amount of moisture on- site and the disturbed and xeric state of the remaining habitats, the only additional amphibian expected to occur is the California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus). One reptile species, side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburian), was identified. Only the southern alligator lizard (EIgaria multicarinata) and the gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) would also be expected to occur, due to the disturbed ruderal state of the habitats on-site. Eighteen species of birds were observed. Some of the more common species observed were California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoenicus), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). A complete list is presented in Appendix 2. Surveys conducted during different times of the year would undoubtedly encounter additional species, particularly those which may use the site during their seasonal DÙgration. Four species of manunals were detected: San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus calif arnica bennettii); Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae); desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii); and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). Wildlife Habitat The proposed Whitewater Waterpark study area contains two wildlife habitat types: isolated seasonal ephemeral wetlands; and ruderal. Wildlife habitats differ from vegetation communities. A wildlife habitat may contain several vegetation communities which will be similar in structure but different in their plant species composition, location, and soil substrate. The proposed Whitewater Waterpark site's heavily disturbed (denuded roads, motorcycle moguls, and illegal refuse dumping) and ruderal state has limited value to any wildlife occurring on-site. In addition, because the site is frequently used by motorcycles and other off-road vehicles, wildlife values are further reduced. Ruderal areas typically support a high concentration of annual, weedy plant species. These areas generally support large populations of small manunals which provide a prey base for a diversity of avian predators. Within the proposed Whitewater Waterpark site these top 61 predators would be represented by the several raptors observed foraging over the property (white-tailed kite Elanus caeruleus, American kestrel Falco sDarverius. and red-tailed hawk Buteo iamaicensis) and nesting immediately adjacent to the site (great homed owl Bubo vir¡;¡inianust The California ground squirrel and Botta's pocket gopher were the most common and conspicuous vertebrates within this habitat. Isolated seasonal ephemeral wetlands were noted on site. These areas on-site are represented by "mechanically caused" depressions in the clay soils. These depressions may act as collecting basins for water during seasonal rains. The clay substrate slows the percolating of the collected water, creating a seasonal ephemeral isolated wetland. These small, temporary pools may serve as a breeding area for local amphibians. Sensitive Biological Resources Sensitive Vegetation Communities No sensitive vegetation communities occur on-site. Sensitive Flora No sensitive plants occur on-site and none is expected. Sensitive Fauna Two sensitive animal species were observed/detected during the survey (See Figure 3, page 60). Sensitive animals are species or subspecies listed as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or being evaluated (former category 2 species) for listing by the USFWS (1994) and/or by the CDFO (l991b; 1992b; 1992c; 1992d). CDFO also includes evaluation of California Species of Concern (CSC). One loggerhead shrike was seen and abundant San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit sign was detected. One individual shrike was observed foraging and using the sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) as perching locations within the western portions of the site. The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus califomicus bennettii) was not seen on the site, but abundant scat and numerous bedding sites were identified within the study area. Due to the disturbed nature of the habitats within the study area, no other sensitive animals are expected to occur on-site Impact Analysis Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are assessed. Direct impacts are those that permanently alter the affected biological resources such that those resources are not expected to recover to their pre-impacted state (e.g., development of homesites, roads and recreation areas). Indirect impacts are secondary impacts to the biological resources that are a result of 62 . direct impacts (e.g., construction). Examples of indirect impacts include habitat fragmentation, habitat insularization, edge effect, exotic species invasion, disruption of natural behavior due to increased noise levels and increased human intrusion. In addition, cumulative impacts are assessed to detennine the long tenn cumulative effects of project implementation on biological resources on a regional scale (e.g., incremental habitat or species reduction). Direct Impacts Vee:etation CommUlÙties There is no significant direct impact to the vegetation type on-site. Sensitive Flora No sensitive flora was found on-site and none is expected; therefore, no significant direct impact to sensitive flora will occur. Sensitive Fauna Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) prohibits the intentional or non- intentional "take" (harassment) of any federally listed species. The Whitewater Waterpark project will result in no significant direct impacts to any State or Federally listed animal species. Because of their low sensitivity status, direct impacts to the loggerhead shrike and the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit are considered adverse but not significant. Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts are considered secondary impacts to biological resources resulting from direct pennanent project impacts. Indirect impacts are not always immediately evident, but may occur over time, depending on the habitat susceptibility and quality, and duration and quality of the direct impacts. Indirect impacts that degrade a sensitive habitat's natural function and species composition may include the following: habitat fragmentation, exotic species invasion, increased human (physical) intrusion, mesopredation, increased noise and light pollution, and an increase in reptile mortality as a result of increased traffic occurring along roads traversing occupied habitats. Vee:etation CommUlÙties There is no significant indirect impact to the vegetation type on-site. 63 Sensitive Aora No significant indirect impact to sensitive flora will occur with this project. Sensitive FalUUl No significant indirect impact to sensitive fauna is expected. The Otay River riparian system, which supports least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), is more than 0.6 mile to the north at its closest point. Cumulative Impacts As defmed in the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), "Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." An example of a cumulative impact would be the incremental loss of small amounts of a sensitive habitat occurring as an impact of several adjacent or locally occurring projects. The individual loss of small amounts of this sensitive habitat may be considered adverse, but not significant, but the cumulative loss among all of the projects would be considered a cumulatively significant impact. There would be no significant cumulative impact if this project were developed. Mitigation As there would be no impacts to biology from the proposed project, no mitigation is proposed. 64 VITI. Noise The noise impact analysis was completed by Giroux & Associates on May 6, 1996. Because the proposed recreation use has not been constructed, Giroux & Associates mOlÙtored The Oasis Water Park in Palm Springs on April 21, 1996 to measure noise levels, and provide a comparative analysis based on such factors as size, topography, and distance from potentially effected uses. A test of project-area background noise testing was conducted on the evening of April 13, 1995. The test was repeated on May 1, 1995 to evaluate evening differences. A number of noise studies have been conducted in the Otay Rio area for the previously approved business park and for the subsequently approved amphitheater project. Amphitheater studies included both baseline monitoring as well as concert noise simulations. The amphitheater studies were primarily conducted during the evening hours, but day/evening noise differences are not significant in the project vicinity. The analysis is sununarized below. Existing Conditions The City of Gmla Vista adopted a noise ordinance (Ordinance No. 2101, Section 19.68, entitled "Performance Standards and Noise Control") in 1985. In "noise sensitive zones", the City standards are very stringent for noise-generating sources. City standards distinguish between "environmental noise" versus "nuisance noise." Environmental noise results from land use activities nonnally permitted under the land use code. Nuisance noise is considered to be an unusual presence that is "annoying, obnoxious and unpleasant." For purposes of evaluating compliance, the proposed recreational water park would presumably be considered an environmental source. Table 13, page 66, shows the range of common exterior and interior noise levels. Because hearing sensitivity covers a wide threshold of sound strength, the decibel scale is a logarithmic progression where each 10 dB increase represents a ten-fold change in sound level pressure. In other words, each 10 dB increase in sound is subjectively perceived by people to be approximately a doubling of sound strength. Chula Vista exterior noise limits are outlined in Table 14, page 67. City of San Diego standards are even more stringent, as outlined in Table 15, page 68. A test of project-area background noise testing was conducted on April 13 and May 1, 1995, as noted. The results of the measurements are sununarized in Table 16, page 69. Except for minor sources of noise contamination, mainly close to Otay Valley Road, noise levels were very low. Background levels from mid- to late-evening, as defmed by the L50 level (one-half the readings higher, one-half lower), are seen to range from 39-44 dB. Background LEQs ranged from 41-50 dB because single event "spikes" raised the integrated average. 65 Table 13 TYPICAL A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS Common Indoor Noise Level Common Outdoor Noise Levels (dBA) Noise Levels Rock Band 110 - Jet Flyover @ 1000 ft. Inside Subway Train - _ 100 Gas Lawnmower @ 3 ft. Food Blender @ 3 ft. - _ 90 Diesel Truck @ 50 ft. Garbage Disposal @ 3 ft. - I- 80 Noisy Urban Daytime Shouting @ 3 ft. Gas Lawnmower @ 100 ft. Vacuum Qeaner @ 10ft. - _ 70 Normal Speech @ 3 ft. Commercial Area - I- 60 Heavy Traffic Large Business Office Dishwasher Next Door - I- 50 Quiet Urban Daytime Small Theater Conference - _40 Quiet Urban Nighttime Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime Library - _ 30 Bedroom @ Night Concert Hall (Background) - ¡- 20 Quiet Rural Nighttime Broadcast and Recording Studio - _ 10 Threshold of Hearing ~ _'-- 0 Table 14 CITY OF CHULA VISTA EXTERNAL NOISE LIMITS Noise Level dB(A) Receivina Land Use Cateaorv 10 D.m. - 7 a.m. 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. All residential except MFU 45 55 MUltiple Family Residential 50 60 Commercial 60 65 Light Industry 70 70 Heavy Industry 80 80 . ~ . Table 15 CITY OF SAN DIEGO STANDARDS FOR . NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES Noise Level (1-Hour LEQ in dB) Land Use Zone 7 AM -7 PM 7 PM -10 PM 10 PM - 7 AM Rl 50 45 40 R2 55 50 45 R3, R4, other res. 60 55 50 Commercial 65 60 60 Industrial 75 75 75 ~ · Table 16 PROJECT VICINITY NOISE MONITORING SUMMARY Location/Date Leg LIIax LHin LI0 L33 LSO L90 Alphitheater site 04/13/95 2053-2123 43.6 64.0 40.0 44.0 43.5 43.0 41.0 05/01/95 2011-2039 44.6 64.0 38.0 40.5 39.0 39.0 38.5 Water Park site 04/13/95 2136-2206 47.9 73.0 40.0 45.5 43.5 42.5 41.0 05/01/95 2052-2122 48.6 66.5 38.5 50.5 48.0 44.0 39.5 Riparian Area Near Floodplain 04/13/95 2219-2249 46.6 69.0 40.0 44.5 42.5 42.0 41.5 05/01/95 2232-2302 44.4 69.0 38.5 41.5 39.5 39.0 38.5 Gun/Skeet Club 04/13/95 2300-2330 49.5 68.0 39.0 46.0 42.0 41.0 39.5 Source: LDL Model 700 Inteqrating Noise Dosileter. \ The general conclusion from these measurements is that background levels are very low. Because background levels are low, future planned noise-sensitive uses may be annoyed by noise generation activities on the project site since there are few masking effects from other ambient noise levels. With continued intensification of the Otay Mesa (SR-905 Freeway, NAFfA traffic, etc.), and with further planned development within and around the Otay Valley, background levels will continue to increase to make individual sources, such as the proposed project, less noticeable. Noise Impacts Three types of noise impacts are expected to possibly occur from project implementation. These include: 1. Temporary construction activity noise impacts. The primary concern would be for noise-sensitive avian habitats along the Otay River where construction equipment noise may interfere with bird vocalization during nesting/breeding season. 2. Recreational activity noise impacts from mechanical equipment or attendees voices. The low development density of the project vicinity reduces background masking effects. The water park may be audible even if the City of Chula Vista or other jurisdiction standards are not exceeded. 3. Site access traffic noise, especially if the park is open until late evening when departures would occur during a noise-sensitive time period. Standards of Significance A project will have a potentially significant noise impact if it substantially increases the noise levels near the site. For the purposes of this CEQA analysis, a substantial increase is defmed as: 1. An increase that creates a potential violation of noise standards where standards are current! y met, or 2. An increase of a level equal to the baseline conditions if the baseline already exceeds standards. Noise levels may also create a nuisance independent of any violation of standards. In a low noise environment, nuisance perception may occur at levels as low as 50 dB. This level has been used to define a potential nuisance threshold. The City of Chula Vista has no significance criteria for impacts on avian species. However, both the County and City of San Diego utilize a standard of 60 dB LEQ for gnatcatcher or vireo habitat impacts and this standard has been accepted by wildlife management agencies. 70 A level of 60 dB LEQ is therefore an additional significance threshold used for construction activity impacts relative to nearby avian habitats. COTlStruction Noise Impacts Temporary construction noise impacts from site development will vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-tenn construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases donùIJated initially by large earth-moving sources, then by foundation and parking lot construction, and finally for finish construction. The large earth-moving sources are the noisiest with equipment noise typically ranging from 75 to 90 dB at 50 feet from the source. Based upon measurements at other major construction areas, a worst-case level of 89 dB at a 50-foot reference distance is typically used in assessing construction noise impacts. Construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a community noise standard because they occur only during selected times and the source strength varies sharply with time. The penalty associated with noise disturbance during quiet hours and the nuisance factor accompanying such disturbance usually leads to time limits on construction activities imposed as conditions on construction and use pennits. Although construction noise is specifically exempt from the noise standards in the Chula Vista municipal noise ordinance, grading/construction pennits are generally conditioned by city staff to allow heavy equipment operations only during hours of lesser sensitivity. Weekday hours are typically the allowed times for construction activities if there are occupied dwellings within a reasonable exposure zone surrounding the construction site. Given the distance and topography between the project site and any off·site sensitive receivers, construction activities will have a less than significant noise impact when conditioned to operate during less noise-sensitive hours. Recreational Activity Noise Impacts There are no noise handbooks where noise generation from a proto-typical water park is tabulated. Water parks are not generally known as nuisance noise sources, even where they exist in much closer proximity to residential uses than that proposed near the amphitheater site in the Otay Rio area. The City of Chula Vista noise standard during the hours of water park operation from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. is 55 dB at the nearest residence. If the noise is "environmental", the standard is for a one-hour average. If the noise is a "nuisance" source, this is the maximum allowable at any time. Environmental sources include: · Commercial activity found in connection with a pennitted use. · Pumps and compressors used in conjunction with a pennitted activity. · Outdoor public address and assembly at a pennitted use. 71 Each of these above deftnitions of "environmental" applied to the proposed project. The standard at the nearest City of Chula Vista noise-sensitive use will be 55 dB for a one-hour average. Homes have been proposed atop Otay Mesa (Robinhood Homes) within the City of San Diego. City of San Diego noise standards are 50 dB until 7 p.m. and 45 dB (LEQ) until 10 p.m. The lip of the mesa, however, will interrupt the line of sight from most water park activities with a 5-10 dB reduction in noise exposure. Meeting the City of Chu1a Vista standard of 55 dB under direct line of sight conditions is thus equivalent to meeting the more stringent City of San Diego standard when the line of sight is interrupted. In the absence of published data on water park noise, a noise measurement program was conducted at an existing operating park to simulate noise conditions that might be experienced at Chula Vista. The Oasis Water Park in Palm Springs was monitored on Sunday, April 21, 1996. Temperatures were near 90° F and attendance was moderate to heavy. Measurements were made in the parking lot and adjacent to the park boundary at a chain link fence near a water ride. The data are presented in Table 17, page 73. The parking lot measurement at 400 feet from the park boundary included nearby traffic movement. The background noise level attributable primarily to water park activity was less than 55 dB at this location. The park boundary reading of 59 dB LEQ was located approximately 200 feet from the center of recreational activity. A noise level of 59 dB at 200 feet from the park center as representative of the Oasis Waterpark activity level on the particular measurement day was thus assumed to be reasonably applicable for the proposed project. Maximum attendance at Oasis Waterpark is 3,900, while maximum attendance at the Chula Vista Waterpark is planned at 5,000. Making what is therefore a conservative estimate that the Chula Vista water park on a peak day might have three times the noise generators as in Palm Springs, the reference noise level would increase by only 5 dB (10 X log [3/1] = +5 dB) because of the logarithmic nature of decibels. The reference level for the proposed project on a peak activity day would be 64 dB LEQ at 200' from the activity centroid. Under assumed peak conditions, the City of Chula Vista standard (and by inference the City of San Diego standard under a partially blocked line of sight), is met 350 feet from the nearest water attraction. Proposed residential uses west of the project site are will over 500 feet from the closest water play activity. Peak hourly average noise exposure (LEQ) of 56 dB at the nearest candidate residential use is well below the identifted 60 dB LEQ impact signiftcance standard. Operational activity noise impacts are therefore considered less than significant. Traffic Noise Impacts The proposed project may add almost 2,000 daily trips to the area street system. Of these visitors, most are forecast to use Otay Valley Road in the near tenn with minimal travel on Otay Valley RoadfHeritage Road to the top of Otay Mesa. Given that only 3,100 vehicles 72 Table 17 NOISE MEASUREMENTS AT . OASIS WATER PARK. PALM SPRINGS LEQ ~ L!!!in Noises:" Parking Lot: 61 75 40 Vehicles in lot Music on P.A. System Faint water noise Children yelling faintly Park Boundary 59 70 50 Children yelling Music on P.A. System Distant traffic Water rushing . = in perceived order of priority \ currently use Otay Valley Road each day east of Nirvana Avenue, the project contribution is substantial. The project traffic study concludes that there is adequate capacity to accommodate project traffic without any adverse congestion effects. However, the increase in average daily traffic (ADT) will affect the noise environment near Otay Valley Road. The noise impact potential is exacerbated by the fact that most departure traffic will occur in the evening when the CNEL metric adds 5 dB to all traffic noise from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 10 dB to all noise after 10:00 p.m. Every vehicle from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. counts as 3 effective vehicles. The traffic volume of 2,000 ADT associated with the project effectively counts as a substantially greater volume when the time-weighing penalty is applied to evening and post-lO:00 p.m. departures. Substantial increases in traffic levels because of the proposed project, however, will occur in areas of limited noise sensitivity (except perhaps for avian habitats such as gnatcatchers near Otay Valley Road). The nearest existing homes north of Otay Valley Road have higher adjacent traffic volumes, including trucks from industrial uses, activities at the auto center, and possibility the I-80S background "hum." Project impacts near noise-sensitive uses thus will be substantially masked by the existing baseline. Future residential areas are not located within proximity of roads impacted by project traffic, and are not anticipated to experience any significant project traffic noise impacts. Traffic noise was calculated at three locations near Otay Valley Road with nearby residential uses where baseline ADT had been developed by the project traffic consultant. The Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA·RD-77-108) with the California Vehicles Noise (CAL VENO) modification was used for this analysis. Project traffic noise was artificially weighted for its evening and/or post 10:00 p.m. contribution to generate a worst- case assessment. Traffic noise levels for the no-project baseline were predicted, and the project impact was then superimposed upon the baseline. A comparison between future no- project and future with-project conditions was also made. Table 18, page 75 shows the results of these calculations. A change in ambient noise levels of 3 dB is the generally accepted threshold of a perceptible change in noise levels. Peak traffic noise levels of .7 dB will occur near 1-805. Such an increase is imperceptible even under laboratory conditions -- much less in an ambient environment. This increase will further be masked by the 1-805 background level not considered in the above analysis. Project-related traffic noise impacts, individually or cumulatively, will be less than significant. Summary of Impacts Construction noise impacts to sensitive avian species are considered less than significant. Recreational activity noise will be well within City of Chula Vista's noise standards at any existing or future residential uses. With partial terrain screening created by the edge of Otay Mesa, the more stringent City of San Diego noise standard will also be met at the nearest 74 Table 18 WHITEWATER WATER PARK TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS CNEL @ 100' TO CENTERLINE IN dB(A)/DISTANCE TO 65dBA CNEL Existina Ex. + Pro;. Ditt. otay Valley Road Oleander - I-805 64.8/ 97' 65.6/109' +0.7/+12' Oleander Avenue N of Otay Valley Road 53.9/<50' 54.0/<50' +O.l/NA Brandywine Avenue N of Otay Valley Road 57.4/<50' 57.6/<50' +0. 2/NA . Future Future No Pro;. w/Pro;ect Ditt. Otay Valley Road Oleander - I-805 67.2/141' 67.7/151' +0.5/+10' Oleander Avenue N of Otay Valley Road 54.3/<50' 54.4/<50' +O.l/NA Brandywine Avenue N of Otay Valley Road 58.2/<50' 58.4/<50' +0.2/NA Source: FHWA-RD-77-108 (Calveno mod.) ~ proposed residences. Site access/egress traffic noise will be undetectable at the nearest noise- sensitive receptors near Otay Valley Road. Traffic level increases on evenings with water park operations will be less than on evenings with amphitheater perfonnances. At the nearest residences near Otay Valley Road as the primary site access route, background noise levels from 1-805 and from non-project traffic will further mask any small project traffic noise increment. Mitigation Since there are no significant project impacts, no mitigation is required. 76 IX. Public Services, Utilities, and Hazards Existing Conditions There follows a discussion of public services, utilities, and potential hazards as they relate to current conditions at the project site. Police The site is within an area served by the Chula Vista Police Department. The Department's Crime Prevention Unit has indicated the from June 1, 1995 through April 1, 1996, there were seven calls for the service area within the project grid area. Four of the calls resulted in crime cases. Estimated response times for Priority 1 calls could not be made for the period because no calls fell into the Priority 1 category. In this same period, estimated response time for Priority 2 calls was 6.25 minutes. FirejEmergency Medical Service Fire protection for the project would be provided by the Chula Vista Fire Department. The Chula Fire Department has indicated that the City of San Diego Fire Station 43 is 3.5 miles from the proposed facility. The Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego have a mutual aid agreement providing for better response city-wide. A portion of the response route is a winding two lane road. Estimated response time is between 7 and 8 minutes. Fire stations are indicated in Figure 19, page 78. Water Service Water service would be provided by the Olay Water District. Water in currently available at the project site through improvements made during the construction of Phase I of the Otay Rio Business Park. Sewer Service Sewer service will be provided by the City of Chula Vista. Sewer service, including a line capable of serving the project, exists at the project boundary as the result of improvements made during the construction of Otay Rio Business Park, Phase I. Drainage Drainage facilities exist to serve the project. Landscape alterations will cause excess surface water to flow into a 48" drainage pipe in Castle Pines Avenue adjacent to the project site. TIùs facility was constructed as part of the Otay Rio Business Park Phase I project. 77 ~~ I I \ L'l avo\! VI03Y1 V"l 1 '-- I 0 I z I . 00- I M Q) c: I : Õ Ë ~ I ICc't: I ,2 (tI cu . ~U) go 1 --¡.. I iñõo ~D I , ~ 2:- ~ .... I ¡¡:ü¡¡: ~I .t. '<" I ~ I --¡.. ~I ? ~ :::1 0 0 ~ . 111 \ !u '" 4.1 -;t. ... , \ I ù , I CJ . \ 0 w ~ I çt. -'w ~ \ I 0... ¿;¡ \ I te_ I g,,(I I ./ / /" OW 3DVlJ\:i3H I 1 ! I 0 1 c I i! ... 0 I ~·8 a: _ ~HTY~OIE~ --'" If' ... ( en =-" 5i~ w J CITY OF CHUV. VISTA. ::¡ 0 (- , ~ Is >- J ... f"~ ~i¡; ~ I 0 0 I a: ' o,u \' _,1 I .>. J '" ..., I Q) ..., § ...... , .- I (I) , I ~ (! 0 \ L._. , \ ! ...--.-.- 1\\ '- "--..-- i \~ . \0 ~ L.\! 0 '" 00- = ~ - (().! :ä ~ 5 c '} aOE '" '" a", E c c <: .ª ~; ,2 ns IU (ã U) 0. Iii U g. iñõ~ êñõc '" "''" ~ - ~ ~Þ! ~ÜÜ: Ü:Üü: ~ FIRE STATION LOCATIONS. Figure 19 Hazards The presence on-site of contaminated stockpiled soils was noted in previous documents. The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Site Assessment and Mitigation Division monitored an open file of the site for an unauthorized release of petroleum hydrocarbons. On October 12, 1995, the County issues a "No Further Action" letter after determining that adequate remediation of the soils had been achieved. Impacts Police Impacts are not significant. 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. Fire/Emergency Medical Service Fire Department response times may exceed established threshold standards. The potential for inadequate response times requires that project buildings be constructed with fire sprinklers. Parks/Recreation The project will not increase demand for parks and recreation facilities. Drainage There are no significant impacts, as adequate drainage facilities exist to serve the project as proposed. Water Estimated water use for the project is outlined in Table 19, page 80. Total demand of 11.24 million gallons consists of 6.09 million gallons for 304,900 patrons annually (at 20 gallons per park patron), 0.98 million gallons for initial pool filling, and 4.16 million gallons for landscaping. Average daily demand is estimated to be 64,000 gallons, wlùle peak demand, on those days when peak attendance reaches 5,000 patrons, is estimated at 112,000 gallons. Water service exists to meet all project water needs; there are no significant impacts. The project has incorporated water conservation features, such as state-of-the-art water attraction leakage control features and low-flow showers and toilets that reduce water consumption 79 Table 19 PROJECT WATER AND SEWER DATAl WATER CONSUMPTION GALLONS Aruma! Water Demand 304,900 patrons @ 20 gal/person' 6,098,000 Initial pool filling 982,510 Landscape 4,168,000 Total 11,248,510 Average Daily Demand' 64,000 Peak Daily Demand' 112,000 SEWER CAPACITY Weekly Backwash RequirementS 21,000 Kitchen Facility 1,000 Gallons/Day Avg 2,000 Gallons/Day Peak Daily Average Flow6 18,200 Peak Flow6 27,000 1Sased on data from NSS Lowry for White Water Canyon Waterpark. 2Based on data from Wave Waterpark, Vista, Califonúa. 3 Average attendance 2,600 patrons. 4Peak attendance 5,000 patrons. 5Sackwash Monday thru Friday during off-peak hours. ~ 6Sased on an estimated 5 gallons per patron per day generated. 6Sased on an estimated 5 gallons per patron per day generated. impacts to less than significant levels. Sewer There are no significant impacts. Daily peak waste water flow is estimated at 27,000 gallons. A vemge daily flow is estimated at 18,200 gallons. Services currently exist to serve the project. Additional construction costs and fees will be incurred to install metering stations, and pay for the costs of sewage transport, as discussed in Mitigation below. Sewer service exists to serve the project, although the applicant must comply with City of Chula Vista requirements for sewage station metering, fair share fees, and meter station monitoring. Mitigation Sewer 1. The applicant will need to pay all costs associated with the construction and on-going maintenance of sewage metering stations, in accordance with City Council resolution numbers 13173 and 153100. Sewage metering stations will be under the authority and control of the City of San Diego, per existing sewage tmnsportation agreements between the City of Chula Vista and San Diego (City of Chula Vista City Council Resolution No. 15285). 2. The applicant must pay fair share fees associated with the transport of sewage from the project, in proportion to the project's overall contribution to the City of Chula Vista's total sewage flow to the City of San Diego's trunk sewer line. 3. 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. 81 X. Cumulative Projects Cumulative impacts are those effects which may result from a series of projects which, when reviewed individually, have only incremental impacts and are not of a severity that would be considered significant, but when reviewed regionally, have the potential for significance. 'This section will discuss the cumulative effects of currently-proposed or approved development in the project area. The following projects were determined to have potentially cmnulative impacts in conjunction with the proposed project. Figure 20, page 83, depicts the study area: 1) The MCA Amphitheater would be located east of I-80S and north of SR-905 in the Otay River Valley. Access to this project would be Otay Rio Road via Otay Valley Road. The project proposes to develop a 20,000 seat outdoor entertainment facility (\0,000 fixed seating and 10,000 lawn seating). The project is estimated to generate 12,120 daily trip ends (ADT). Traffic data for this project was obtained from August 1995 Traffic Study prepared by BRW, Inc. 2) The Open Air Market is a use proposed to be operated at the MCA Amphitheater facility. The Open Air Market would utilize a portion of the MCA Amphitheater parking area on Thursdays through Sundays, 7:00 AM to about 4:00 PM. The amphitheater is not scheduled for daytime event use. The project is estimated to generate 3,200 daily trips ends (ADT). Traffic data for this project was obtained from a traffic study which was prepared by BRW, Inc., in August 1995 3) A Trash Transfer Station and Material Recovery Facility is proposed immediately north of Otay Valley Road and approximately two miles east of I- 805 on Maxwell Road, which borders the Transfer Station site to the east, and serves as the access road to the site. The facility is proposed on a 10.8 acre site and is estimated to generate 942 daily trip ends (ADT). Traffic data for this project was obtained from a November 1995 Initial Environmental Study prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. 4) Relocation of the City of Chula Vista Corporation Yard is proposed for a site immediately north of the proposed project site. A Negative Declaration dated December 16, 1994 has been proposed and circulated for public review, but neither the Negative Declaration nor any other project approvals have been acted on by the City Council. The project calls for approximately 146,500 square feet of building floor area with parking and outdoor storage of equipment and materials. Outdoor uses include a vehicle fueling and wash area. Planned activities encompass City services related to maintenance and public works administration. ADT has been estimated at 1,600. 82 ~ !( I ' ~. .~ Legend . Otay Landfill Transfer Station . Kobey Swapmeet . AMC Amphitheater . Chula Vista Corporate Yard ~ CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Figure 20 Impacts Cumulative impacts are of both a quantifiable nature (for example traffic, biology, noise, and air quality) and non-quantifiable nature (such as visual quality and aesthetics). Quantifiable Impacts Traffic Cumulative traffic impacts were assessed in the traffic study, summarized in Section V above. Cumulative impacts were found to be not significant. Cumulative traffic was estimated at 16,262 ADT, with PM Peak Hour (5·6 PM) volume of 630 in-bound and 205 out-bound. The addition of cumulative traffic resulted in a decrease in LOS from B to C at the 1-805/Otay Valley Road northbound ramps, due largely to amphitheater arrivals. Street segment operations, arterial operations during PM peak hour, and 1-805 operations were found to continue at current levels of service. Noise Noise impacts of the projects within the Otay Rio Business Park were deemed to be not significant, due to the lack of impacts to surrounding existing or proposed land uses. The noise study for the Whitewater Waterpark noted that because background noise levels are very low, future planned noise-sensitive development may be annoyed by noise generation activities on the project site. With the on-going intensification of uses in the Otay Mesa area, and with further planned development within and around the Otay Valley, background levels will continue to increase to make individual sources less noticeable. Air Ouality The impact of vehicular emissions from water park traffic was found to be not significant. The amphitheater project, however, noted significant and unmitigable air quality impacts. The water park project does not have air quality impacts in a concurrent time frame with the amphitheater, and therefore does not contribute to the unrnitigable effects of the amphitheater. Bioloe:v Cumulative impacts on biology are not significant. Biological impacts for the Otay Rio Business Park were assessed in the Final EIR for the business park (87-2) dated June 24, 1987, and minor mitigation measures were recommended. No significant impacts to biology were noted in the amphitheater study or in this study for the waterpark. 84 Non-quantifiable Impacts Aesthetics Three of the projects in the study area will be located on a site approved for industrial uses. Impacts will be less than impacts from existing approved uses in terms of building covemge and bulk. The Corpomtion Yard would represent an impact similar to that expected in an industrial/commercial development. The Transfer Station is located in an area of industrial/commercial development that accommodates the aesthetics of the station's purpose and design. Any conversion of a use from open land to land developed with structures, rides, berms and parking areas constitutes an impact. While the study area is characterized by open space, it also is marked by extensive off-road vehicle damage and trash dumps. The cumulative use of this area does not have a negative aesthetic impact over planned and existing uses. 85 XI. Effects Found Not to Relate to the Project A. Cultural and Historical, Paleontological Resources The project is proposed in an area of known cultural resources. The Otay Rio Business Park EIR 87-2 provides a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts to cultural and historical resources. The site was studied using a network of 15-foot square grids combined with field investigations. A total of approximately 14,400 grid squares were created over the site, and over 7,000 of these were inspected, covering an estimated 37 acres. Artifact finds were recorded and removed. A total of 1,122 artifacts were found. The search, cataloging, and removal effectively exhausted the archaeological potential of the site. A house possibly dating from the 1870s was examined for historical value. The structure was found to be in too poor a condition to be preserved. No links to historical persons in the region were discovered, and the site was deemed not significant. In the clearing operations that followed the approval of the Otay Rio EIR, the structure was removed. Paleontological resources were judged to potentially exist in the Otay and San Diego Formations, which largely underlay the bluffs south of the proposed water park. These areas are outside the property boundary of the proposed water park, and so will not be impacted by grading. B. Population and Housing The project is a recreational use intended to serve the needs of existing and future populations in the City of Chula Vista and the surrounding region. As such it is designed to meet the needs of an existing population base in the region. In this sense, it is growth-serving rather than growth-inducing. The project replaces already approved light industrial uses, and as such, does not represent an addition of project capacity over and above those already approved. All utilities and services required to serve the project currently exist; no new capacity need be created to serve the project. The project does not inel ude any housing. C. Recreation The Whitewater Waterpark will provide regional recreational opportunities. It will enhance recreational opportunities in the area, and will not impact recreational facilities or plans in the City of Chula Vista. 86 D. Energy and Mineral Resources The Otay Rio Business Park ErR (87-2) examined the entire site for mineral resource potential. Due to the considerable amount of clay an silts in area subsoils, and because the percentage of gravels, cobbles, and boulders was much greater than would be acceptable for mining operations, the geological consultants determine that the minim of on-site sand was not feasible. Further, soils were found to not meet the criteria for fme aggregate. 87 .....- XII. Consultation City of Chula Vista: Joe Monaco, Community Development Dave Byers, Public Works Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Steve Thomas, Engineering Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Doug Perry, Fire Marshal MaryJane Diosdada, Crime Prevention Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Glen Googins, Deputy City Attorney TRS Consultants: Thure Stedt, Principal Mark Thompson, Senior Analyst Eric Kallen, Senior Research Analyst Caryl Brennan, Planner Diana Priddy, Administrative Assistant Aquatic Design: Giroux & Associates: Hans Giroux, Principal Group Delta: Adolph Lugo, Senior Engineer Rice Enterprises: George Hice, Owner Linscott, Law & Greenspan: John Keating, Principal John Boarman, Engineer Pacific Southwest Biological Services: Marcia Mann, Senior Biologist 88 XIII. Sources Documents consulted: Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Final EIR Otay Rio Business Park, (EIR 87-2), June 24, 1987 Final EIR MCA Chula Vista Amphitheater (Sm 95031073), August 1995 Chula Vista Corporation Yard·- Negative Declaration (1S-95-02), December 16, 1995 89 XIV. Consultant Certification This report presents a full disclosure and an independent analysis of all available information pertin t 0 the proposed action. , < THU R. STEDT President, TRS Consultants 90 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM ¡ 1 MEETING DATE: 7/23/96 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of City's Option to Extend the Decision Regarding the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel in the EastLake Vicinity /f383 RESOLUTION: Exercising the City's Option to Extend by Two Years a Decision as to Whether or Not the City Will Require the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel as the Actual Location for a Permanent Library in the EastLake Vicinity. SUBMITTED BY: Limry Direct,,0i3 ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager J~ ~ .AØ' (4/5th Vote: Yes No----X-) In 1993 the City Council approved an "Option Agreement for Interim Library Services and Facilities in EastLake" (A TT ACHMENT A). The Agreement specified that the City would decide within three years whether the site reserved in Village Center West would be needed as a permanent Library site. There is a provision in the agreement to extend this three year decision period by an additional two years. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution extending the decision regarding the permanent EastLake Library by two years. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Attheir meetings of December 6, 1995 and May 1, 1996 the Library Board of Trustee's voted to support the renewal of the agreement between the City and the Sweetwater Union High School District to continue the joint use agreement for the EastLake Library for another three year period. Inherent in those votes was an understanding that the decision about the use of the designated permanent h'brary parcel would be postponed for two years. DISCUSSION: In 1987 the City Council accepted the Chula Vista Public Library Master Plan: Facility Planning to the Year 2010. That document outlined the need for four regional sized libraries within the City. Two of the facilities are already online (Civic Center/Main, South Chula Vista), a site has been designated for a third (Rancho Del Rey), and interim service has been established in the fourth region (EastLake). 11-/ __ __ - ____..n..._..... .._._....__."...,_,_.____"'.__,_~.._.__,.,..____ ITEM ,PAGE ì MEETING DATE: 7/23/96 The EastLake I and EastLake Greens Public Facilities and Financing Plans ("PFFPs") imposed certain permanent and interim duties on the developer with regard to the provision of library services. The permanent library duty obligated the developer to provide a one-acre library site within the EastLake Village Center or an alternate EastLake site, if the City determines a library site is appropriate within EastLake. When the City was approached by the Sweetwater School District to jointly use the library on the EastLake High School campus, an "Option Agreement for Interim Library Services and Facilities in EastLake" was negotiated with the EastLake Development Company and approved by CounciL In regards to the pennanent duty, Section 2.2.1 specified that; " ... not later than three years ITom the commencement of the Pilot Library Project at the EastLake High School Library, the City will decide whether the City will require the Presently Designated Pennanent Library Parcel as the actual location for a pennanent library in the EastLake vicinity. " However, the agreement went on to further state that this period of time (necessary to decide whether the City will or will not require the permanent library parcel) could be extended by two years, or until August 1998. The Agreement requires that this decision be made at a public hearing. It is recommended that this two year extension be exercised to allow for a revision or update to the "Library Facilities Master Plan" in light of the anticipated annexation of the Otay Ranch and the changing nature oflibrary services with it's greater emphasis on computerized infonnation delivery. As called for by the Growth Management Oversight Commission, the Library expects to complete this revision ofthe master plan in the first half ofFY 1997-98. This time ITame will ensure that the City can make a final decision about the pennanent EastLake library parcel by August 1998. The EastLake Company has been notified of this public hearing and this proposed extension and has expressed no opposition. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff estimates that it will cost $30,000 to $60,000 to revise the Library Facility Master Plan. The Library has requested that this revision be funded by Development Impact Fees in FY 1997-98. Funds are currently not available to build a pennanent EastLake area library. I i -d-.- I) -_....._-_._-~_.. ""-.---.,.--..----- ---"_._--,---~-_. RESOLUTION NO.1 ~3r3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA EXERCISING THE CITY'S OPTION TO EXTEND BY TWO YEARS A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY WILL REQUIRE THE PRESENTLY DESIGNATED PERMANENT LIBRARY PARCEL AS THE ACTUAL LOCATION FOR A PERMANENT LIBRARY IN THE EASTLAKE VICINITY WHEREAS, in 1993, the City Council approved an "Option Agreement for Interim Library Services and Facilities in EastLake"; ( " Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Agreement specified that the City would decide within three years whether the site reserved in Village Center West would be needed as a permanent Library site; and WHEREAS, there is a provision in the Agreement to extend this three year decision period by an additional two years; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that this two year extension be exercised to allow for a revision or update to the "Library Facilities Master Plan" in light of the anticipated annexation of the Otay Ranch and the changing nature of library services with its greater emphasis on computerized information delivery; and WHEREAS, at their meetings of December 6, 1995 and May 1, 1996, the Library Board of Trustees voted to support the renewal of the Agreement between the City and the Sweetwater Union High School District to continue the joint use agreement for the EastLake Library for another three year period inherent in those votes was an understanding that the decision about the use of the designated permanent library parcel would be postponed for two years; and WHEREAS, a noticed hearing was held by the City Council on July 16, 1996 to consider this matter with notice of such hearing provided to EastLake. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby exercise the City's option to extend by two years, to August 1998, a decision as to whether or not the City will require the presently designated permanent library parcel as the actual location for a permanent library in the EastLake vicinity.... as set forth in section 2.2.1 of the Agreement. Presented by Approved as to form by ·dPI L'b D· t A~V ~t' ·t OaVl a mer, 1 rary lrec or nn Y. Moore, In erlm, Cl y Attorney C:\rs\library.opt t1~3d~ 'i 1-- ATTACHMENT A OPTION AGREEMENT FOR INTERIM LIBRARY SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EASTLAKE This OPTION AGREEMENT FOR INTERIM LIBRARY SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EASTLAKE ("Agreement") , dated this April 6, 1993 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed by the parties, is between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a chartered municipal corporation of the State of California, ("City" ) and EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California General Partnership ("Developer") , and is made with reference to the following facts: RECITALS A. Permanent and Interim Library Duties. The EastLake 1 and EastLake Greens Public Facilities and Financing Plans ( "PFFPs" ) impose on Developer certain permanent and interim duties with regard to the provision of library services as follows: (i) Permanent Library Duty. "As an obligation of SPA #1, a one-acre library site shall be dedicated to the City of Chula Vista (by EastLake] if the City determines that a branch library site is appropriate within the EastLake Planned Community area. If needed, the library site would be incorporated within the EastLake Village Center area with the actual site to be ( determined by the City in the context of subsequent site plan approval processes associated with the project area. Alternative locations within future EastLake SPA's will also be considered." Developer shall also be required to pay any required Development Impact Fees attributable to libraries. These obligations of Developer may herein be referred to as the "PFFP Permanent Library Duties". (ii) Interim Library Duty. "As a further obligation, the Developer will provide the City of Chula Vista with up to 4,000 square feet within the EastLake Village Center for interim storefront library purposes. The space would be provided at no cost to the City for a period of 5 years. In addition, funding for 1 year for 2 librarians, 4 clerks and 6 part-time aides as well as for the purchase of 7,000 to 8,000 books (approximately $10.00 each) has been required." Those obligations of Developer may herein be referred to as the "PFFP Interim Library Duties". B. Subject Property for PFFP Permanent Library Duties. The EastLake I Activity Center Precise Plan Guidelines ("Precise Plan Guidelines") approved June 30, 1992 require that: "A one acre City of Chula Vista library site with public access shall be ellib6.wp PILOT LIBRARY PROJECT OPTION March 25, 1993 Page 1 /9-s ---'._-""",- -~_..~--_._.__._---_._._._._..._--'- reserved for dedication withi~ the Core Area of Village Center West" (which is also known by EastLake as Village Center North). Relevant sections of the Prec~se Plan Guidelines (pages 14 and 53 and Exhibits 2 through 5) are attached as Exhibit A. Although the actual library site will need to be determined in the context of subsequent preparation and review of a Precise Plan for the Core Area of Village Center West, the area designated as "Landmark Building" on Exhibit 4 and as the "Library Site" on Exhibit 5 of the Precise Plan Guidelines ("Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel") shall be reserved in order to fulfill, in part, Developer's PFFP Permanent Library Duties. C. Pilot Library Project. The City desires to attempt to provide library services to the general public on a more cost effective basis, and in that regard, desires to negotiate an agreement with the Sweetwater Union High School District ( "District" ) for the joint use and operation of a library facility at the EastLake High School campus on an interim basis instead of at the storefront location, and perhaps on a permanent basis instead of at the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel. In order to determine if such a cooperative effort can be worked out on a long term basis to the mutual satisfaction of both the District and the City, the City and the District have been entertaining, in conceptual terms, a pilot program for contributing books to, and sharing and maintaining the facility at, and permitting access by the general public to, the EastLake High School Library ("Pilot Library Project"). D. Developer and City desire to enter into this Agreement to provide for the City's option to modify Developer's PFFP Interim Library Duties and Developer's PFFP Permanent Library Duties, according to the terms and conditions set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals set forth above, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as set forth below. OBLIGATORY PROVISIONS 1. Option to Pay Fee in Lieu of Performing Interim Library Duties. 1.1 Grant of Interim Library Option. Developer hereby grants to City an option ( "Interim Library Option") exercisable on the occurrence of the conditions precedent, that in lieu of performing the PFFP Interim Library Duties to City, Developer will pay to City an amount equal to $716,275 ("In Lieu Fee"). If City properly exercises the Interim Library Option pursuant to Section 1.3 below, then Developer shall pay the In Lieu Fee to ellib6.wp PILOT LIBRARY PROJECT OPTION March 25, 1993 Page 2 !q-~ _ -- -----.-----.-- -_.._..._.,_.~~." --~_.~-,...__._- ,--..----.. City in the following payments which will be made on or before, but in no event later than, three (3 ) days after, the following dates: $215,450 - June 30, 1993, or ten days after the City exercises the Option, whichever is later; $215,450 - June 30, 1994; $ 95,125 - June 30, 1995; $ 95,125 - June 30, 1996; and $ 95,125 - June 30, 1997. City shall be required to use the entire amount of the In Lieu Fee paid by Developer to pay costs incurred in connection with providing library services. The In Lieu Fee shall not be credited against any Development Impact Fees payable by Developer. 1.2 Term of Option. The term of the Interim Library Option shall commence on the effective date of this Agreement and shall terminate on October 1, 1993 ("Interim Library Option Term") . Developer shall be entitled to extend the Interim Library Option Term by delivering written notice to City setting forth the length of the extension prior to October 1, 1993. 1.3 City's Exercise of Interim Library Option. 1. 3.1 Condition Precedent to Exercise. City , shall be entitled to exercise the Interim Library Option if and only if, prior to the expiration of the Interim Library Option Term, the City has entered into a written agreement with the District for the Pilot Library Project, which agreement shall be for a minimum term of three (3 ) years. 1. 3.2 Method of Exercise. Provided that the condition precedent set forth in Section 1.3.1 has been fully satisfied, City shall exercise the Interim Library Option by adopting a Resolution of the City Council on or before the expiration of the Interim Library Option Term (as such may be extended) which provides for and authorizes the exercise of the Interim Library Option by City. 1.4 Failure to Exercise Option. If City fails to exercise the Interim Library Option pursuant to Section 1.3 above, then the Interim Library Option shall expire and Developer shall be required to perform the PFFP Interim as well as Permanent Library Duties pursuant to the PFFPs and the Precise Plan Guidelines. 1.5 Full Satisfaction of PFFP Interim Library Duties. If City properly exercises its Interim Library Option, ellib6 . wp PILOT LIBRARY PROJECT OPTION March 25, 1993 Page 3 / c¡ -1 ,.._~-. ...--.-- -_._--.-~--."-~.--.---" ..."",,- then Developer's payment of the In Lieu Fee to City according to the terms and conditions set forth herein shall be in full and final satisfaction of all of Developer's PFFP Interim Library Duties. 2. Permanent Library Duties. Nothing herein, except in this section provided, shall affect the Developer's PFFP Permanent Library Duties. 2.1 Reservation of Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel. Developer agrees to retain under the Developer's ownership, title and possession, and to withhold development upon, the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel, except with the advance written permission of the City Council, until the Actual Permanent Library Site is determined. If the beneficial title to the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel is retrans~erred to the Developer in the manner specified below, Developer may then sell, lease and/or develop the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel within the constraints of this Agreement and zoning and planning law and ordinances of the City of Chula Vista, but nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to relieve Developer from its PFFP Permanent Library Duties at an alternate location or from other duties or conditions imposed by existing entitlements, including but not limited to the duty to prepare and submit to the City for its review and approval a Precise Plan for the Core Area of the Village Center West. 2.2 Time Frame for Designation of Actual Permanent Library Site. 2.2.1 If the City is able to commence the Pilot Library Project with the District, then, not later than three years from the commencement of the Pilot Library Project at the EastLake High School Library, the City will decide whether the City will require the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel as the actual location for a permanent library in the EastLake vicinity or decide, at a public hearing, notice of which is given to EastLake, to extend for a period of two additional years, or any portion thereof, the time within which to determine that the City will or will not require the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel ~s the actual location for a permanent library in the EastLake vicinity. The site actually selected by the City as the site for the Permanent Library shall herein be referred to as the "Actual Permanent Library Site" which may, but is not required to be, coterminous with the boundaries of the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel. If, after such public ellib6.wp PILOT LIBRARY PROJECT OPTION March 25, 1993 Page 4 ¡9-g , --~--- ~---~-- -------- "-"~--'--"-""+-"'----'------""'~'---T-"-'--'-" ........- . ..," -"'--'---- ._._.···_m..·.._··" - --------- ----- ""-'-' hearing, the City determines to extend the decision date, the City will, within five ( 5 ) years from the commencement of the Pilot Library Project, decide whether the City will or will not require the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel as the actual location for a permanent library in the EastLake vicinity. 2.2.2 Remedy. Failure to make a decision will not result in the automatic selection of one of the alternatives, but will allow EastLake to solicit a writ from a Court of competent jurisdiction requiring the City to make a choice if it first determines, inter alia, that the City has acted unreasonably. 2.3 If Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel is Needed. 2.3.1 If the City decides the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel is needed, Developer will grant legal title thereto, clear of all liens or encumbrances that would restrict or interfere with the use of the parcel as a library, to the City. 2.3.2 At such time as the City applies for building permits to build a library at the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel, Developer shall provide an allocation of 40 P.M. Peak Period Traffic Trips for the library. City may enforce this provision by making it a condition of the City's approval of the distribution of P.M. Peak Period Traffic Trips which may be reallocated in the future based on additional system capacity using the methodology detailed in Section 6.5 ("Transfer of Approved Project Status") of the Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Development Agreement with the City dated July 2, 1992. 2.4 If Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel Not Needed. 2.4.1 If the City determines that the Presenély Designated Permanent Library Parcel is not needed, the Ci.ty shall have the option, to be exercised in writing within a reasonable period of time after making said decision, to either (1 ) trade the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel for ar:other similar parcel owned by Developer within the EastLake Planned Community Area or (2 ) sell the Presently Designated PerT-anent Library Parcel back to the Developer. 2.4.2 If the City elects to sell the present:y Designated Permanent Library Parcel back to the Develope~, the parties will do the following to set the price for the 'òxchange and usage of the parcel: Developer shall use good fait:-. and best efforts to apply for and process such entitlements as me.y be necessary to allow the commercial usage ("Commercially :::ltit1ed") ellib6.wp PILOT LIBRARY ?ROJ::CT OPTION March 25, 1993 Page 5 I I I /9-; I .~....~. .~=~J I I I . i of the P~esently Designated Permanent Library Parcel, and if the parcel is Commercially Entitled, they agree to pay the City 100% of the fair market value of the Presently Designated Permanent Library Parcel, as Commercially Entitled, for the retransfer of its bene=icial title to the Developer from the City. If the Parcel is not Commercially Entitled even after the use of good faith and best efforts by the Developer, City shall "put" the beneficial title to the Parcel to the Developer in exchange for its fair market value as then entitled, in which case the Developer shall covenant not to improve the Parcel to a greater use intensity than that to which the Parcel was then entitled and shall record said covenant. If the Parcel is entitled only to be open space, said covenant shall allow uses the City deems to be consistent with open space. The City may, in exchange for additional consideration, agree in the future to waive the encumbrance of said covenant. 2.4.3 As used in the preceding paragraph, if the parties are unable to agree upon a determination of fair market value, then fair market value, either as Commercially Entitled or otherwise as this Agreement requires, shall be determined by an arbitrator who is selected and who conducts arbitration proceedings according to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. 2.4.4. The cost of applying for and processing such entitlements as are required in Section 2.4.2 will be borne by Developer if said processing is performed at the same time as Developer is processing the Precise Plan for the Core Area of the Village Center West. If the processing required in Section 2.4.2 is not performed at the same time as Developer is processing said Precise Plan, the cost of applying for and processing the entitlements as required in Section 2.4.2 will be borne by the City. The City shall have the option of proceeding with the processing required in Section 2.4.2 or waiting until Developer is ready to process the Precise Plan. 2.5 Development Impact Fee. Nothing herein shall be deemed to affect the obligation of the owners of land in the area encompassed by the EastLake Planned Community Area to continue to pay Development Impact Fees ("DIF" ) for the library component of said DIF. 3 . Attorney Fees. In the event of any dispute between the parties, the prevailing party shall recover its attorney fees, and any costs and expenses incurred by reason of such dispute. 4 . Miscellaneous. . ellib6. wp PILOT LIBRARY PROJECT OPTION March 30, 1993 Page 6 ¡q - (0 ---- ---..---.- ~- ---<--....---,-----.- .."...-------------..-.. -r- 4.1 No Construction Against Draftsman. This Agreement has been fully negotiated by all parties, and no construction or interpretation is to be made hereof on the basis of draftsmanship of the document. 4.2 Time is of the Essence; Provisions Binding on Successors. Time is of the essence of all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement and, except as otherwise provided herein, all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to, benefit and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties, jointly and individually. 4.3 No Inverse Condemnation. The exercise of any right under this agreement shall not be interpreted as an exercise of the power of eminent domain and shall not impose any liability upon either party for inverse condemnation. 4.4 Notices. All notices and demands shall be given in writing by personal delivery or first-class mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be addressed as appears below for the respective party; provided that, if any party gives notice of a change of name or address, notices shall be appropriately modified to reflect such changes. Notices shall be deemed received seventy-two (72) hours after deposit in the United States mail. Notice to the Developer: With a copy to: EastLake Development Company Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600 Chula Vista, CA 91914 San Diego, CA 92101 Attn: Mr. Curt Stephenson Attn: Craig K. Beam, Esq. Notice to the City: With a copy to: City of Chula Vista City of Chula Vista City Manager City Attorney 276 Fourth ~venue 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Chula Vista, CA 92010 4.5 Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant, condition, Jr provision of this license is found invalid, void, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions will remain in full force and effect. 4.6 Captions. The section headings, and captions for various art~cles and paragraphs shall not be held to define, limi t, a ugrr.2n t , or describe the scope, content, or intent of any or all part;; of this Agreement. The numbers of the paragraphs ellib6.wp PILOT LIBRARY PROJECT OPTION March 25, l:: 9 3 Page 7 /~-!( ", , .' - --.---,.-.--.,. --,----- -".._--,---,~~_.~-_... - .u._'", -T--···--------....··- and pages of this Agreement may not be consecutive. Such lack of consecutive numbers is inte~tional and shall have no effect on the enforceability of this Agreement. 4.7 Entire Understanding. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter it purports to cover. Each party has relied on advice from its own attorneys. Ea=h of the parties agree that no other party, agent, or attorney c: any other party has made any promise, representation, or warranty whatsoever which is not contained in this Agreement. The failure or refusal of any party to read this Agreement and obtain legal or other advice relevant to this transaction constitutes a waiver of any objection, contention, or claim that might have been based on these actions. 4.8 Arbitration. Any controversy arising out of this Agreement or its breach shall be settled by arbitration if, prior to the commencement of any legal proceeding arising out of this Agreement or its breach, either party demands by written notice that such controversy be arbitrated. After such demand, and within ten (10 ) days from such demand, the parties shall attempt to designate a mutually acceptable individual to arbitrate the controversy. If within the ten (10) day period the parti€s are unable to designate an individual, the controversy shall be arbitrated under the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator chosen by the parties or used pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association may be entered in any court having jurisdiction and shall be fully binding on the parties. 4.9 Amendment. This Agreement may only be amended by the written consent of the Parties at the time of such amendment. 4.10 Exhibits. All exhibits to which reference is made are deemed incorporated in this Agreement, whether or not actually attached. 4.11 Further Assurances. Each party hereto agrees to perform any further acts and to execute and deliver any further documents which may be reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this Agreement. 4.12 Governing Law. This Agreement has been executed in and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 4.13 Counterparts. The Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. ellib6.wp PILOT LIBRARY PROJECT OPTION March 25, 1993 Page 8 ¡9 --!Þ , -"---------- ____ ______.u____~__ ~___ . 4.14 Authority. The City and the Developer represent that the individuals signing this Agreement have full right and authority to bind their respective parties to this Agreement. 4.15 Invalidity. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. 4.16 No Strict Construction. This Agreement shall not be strictly construed against any party hereto. ellib6.wp PILOT LIBRARY PROJECT OPTION March 25, 1993 Page 9 I q --13 I ______ _ _.--__. _..______.__.. ~ --ì . ----.-.--~~....---- -... ._._-,.._-~. - .--- _..m .'.'..________ __._~_ _~__.._..............L~__._____ , I Signature Page to OPTION AGREEMENT FOR INTERIM LIBRARY SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN EASTLAKE Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto. Dated: CITY OF CHULA VISTA Attest: By: Tim Nader, its Mayor Beverly Authelet City Clerk APPZ ~.to Bruce M. Boogaa City Attorney Dated: EASTLAKE: EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, California general partnership By: BOSWELL PROPERTIES, Inc., a g ral partner By: ,¿v-4?~ Its: ý" BY:-YL1/t-w{ J:LJ¡ Its: By: THE TULAGO COMPANY, a ge ~l ~rtner By' ~::t?..,,( ~ Its: ¡/,~4!. By : (l,I~ Its: ellib6.wp PILOT LIBRARY PROJECT OPTION March 25, 1993 Page 10 / 9 -( '-i . l . ".-..."'.--. - -. _..._-- -.....-.,...--.- ..._------~._~._-~- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item;Z 0 g ~ Meeting Date 7/23/96 ITEM TITLE: Resolution I ~?> Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of One or More Bond Purchase Agreements and Official Statements and the Distribution of One or More Preliminary Official Statements in Connection with the Issuance and Sale of One or More Series of Industrial ,Development Refunding Revenue Bonds of the City of Chula Vista in an Aggregate Principal Amount of Not to Exceed $151,000,000 and Authorizing and Approving Related Matters. SUBMITTED BY: Di="" of Fbw>œ ~ ¡W' REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ .-4 (4/STHS Vote: Yes_No..xJ San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDG&E") previously requested that the City take the necessary steps to assist them in refinancing up to three series of Industrial Development Bonds (!DBs), similar to the financing the City did for SDG&E in 1992. SDG&E was simultaneously working with the City of San Diego on the same refinancings with the intention of making the final determination later which city would be used for each refinancing. SDG&E has recently informed the City that they intend to process all three series of IDBs with Chula Vista. The total amount they intend to refinance is up to $151 million. The purpose of tonight's action is to authorize the execution and delivery of one or more Bond Purchase Agreements and Official Statements in connection with the issuance and sale of one or more series of industrial development refunding revenue bonds of the City of Chula Vista in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $151,000,000 and approve the selection of the transaction teams. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution which approves the issuance and sale of not to exceed $151,000,000 aggregate principal amount of revenue bonds to refinance industrial development bonds. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable. DISCUSSION: On April 16, 1996, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 2669 amending Chapter 3.48 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to permit the refinancing of regional utility projects upon a finding of City benefit. Council also passed a resolution setting a refinance participation fee at .25 percent of the principal amount, payable at the time of issue. On May 21, 1996, Council adopted resolution 18302 finding the refinancings shall directly benefit the citizens of Chula Vista; authorizing the issuance of one or more series of bonds in d,O-j Page 2, Item Meeting Date 7/23/96 an aggregate principal amount up to $151,000,000; and approving the Indenture of Trust and Loan Agreement providing for the repayment by SDG&E of the loan of the proceeds of the revenue bonds. On July 20, 1996, the sixty day protest period for the proposed action expired. At this point in the process SDG&E was to determine which city, Chula Vista or San Diego, would be used for the various refinancings. SDG&E has informed Chula Vista that they intend to finance all three reissues with Chula Vista. San Diego was concerned about SDG&E going to the bond market in San Diego's name at the same time San Diego would be involved in some significant bond activity for water related items. San Diego did not want any confusion by investors that could affect the price they could get for their bonds. We have examined this issue and feel that the IDBs for SDG&E would not in any way have a negative impact on any Chula Vista bond issues. Bond Counsel has advised SDG&E that no Superior Court validation is required for the refinancings. After tonight's action, SDG&E will refinance the first of the three series. In September they intend to refinance the second series and June, 1997 the last series. The previous approval in substantial form of the Indenture of Trust and Loan Agreement and tonight's approval in substantial form of the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Official Statement for all three issues constitute the last action needed by Council for these three refinancings. The financing teams for the two future refinancings will be selected in the same manner as for the first refinancing subject to the approval of the Director of Finance for the City. As has been iterated in the previous City Council items, any bonds issued by the City on behalf of SDG&E will be limited obligation revenue bonds and will not constitute an indebtedness against the general credit or !axing power of the City or the State of California. Payment of the bonds will be solely from and secured by a pledge of revenues to be received from SDG&E pursuant to the Loan Agreement. SDG&E will reimburse the City for any staff costs and administrative expenses associated with this process whether or not SDG&E does the refinancing. Such reimbursement includes costs associated with defending Chula Vista if the City is sued related to this refinancing effort. SDG&E also pays for all legal counsel (including Jones, Hall, Hill and White, selected by the City to represent Chula Vista's interests), financial advisors and bond issuing costs directly. Except for legal counsel representing City interests, SDG&E selects and recommends for Chula Vista approval all outside firms that make up the refinancing team. Bond Purchase A¡¡reement and Official Statement Submitted for Council approval are the Bond Purchase Agreement (Exhibit A on file in the City Clerk's office) and the Preliminary Official Statement (Exhibit B, on file in the City Clerk's office), both of which have been reviewed and accepted by legal counsel representing the City. ;)O-~ -,-'" - --_.~._---~-_._.._---"._--_..- Page 3, Item Meeting Date 7/23/96 The Bond Purchase A~reement is between the City of Chula Vista and the underwriting team. By this Agreement the City agrees to sell, and the Underwriters agree to purchase, all of the bonds issued. The Preliminary Official Statement is a disclosure document that provides potential buyers of the bonds the information regarding how the proceeds will be used, what the source of the repayment will be, a legal opinion of tax exemption, and a description of the legal documents supporting the financing structure. Transaction Teams The firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe is bond counsel, and the firm of Williams & Gilmore is co-bond counsel, in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. The bond counsel was selected based on a longstanding involvement in SDG&E's prior IDB bond issuances. For the first issue SDG&E has selected Citicorp Securities and Grigsby, Brandford & Co. as underwriters. Underwriters have not been selected for the other two issues yet. SDG&E selects the Underwriters from a group of 3 or 4 qualified firms. The firm selected is based on demonstrated competence and a willingness to provide their service at competitively low expenses. The expenses SDG&E will pay the underwriter for the first bond issue are among the lowest paid in the industry for similar bond financing over the past year and a half. For the two subsequent issues, underwriters will be selected by SDG&E in substantially the same manner, subject to approval of the Director of Finance. As an informational note, there is Federal legislation pending that could preclude SDG&E from issuing new IDBs, including refmancing IDBs. If passed, this could go into effect as soon as early August. The first refinancing should be concluded by then and would not be affected, but this pending legislation could affect the other two proposed refinancings. FISCAL IMPACT: All bonds issued will be limited obligations of the City of Chula Vista payable solely from revenues to be received from SDG&E. The City will receive a one-time fee from SDG&E, payable at the time of issuance, in the amount equal to .25 percent of the principal amount of the revenue bonds issued. The fee could be up to $97,250 for the first refinancing, $150,000 for the second issue and $62,500 for the third. Any fees paid would be revenue to the City's General Fund. SDG&E will also reimburse the City for any staff costs and administrative expenses associated with this process. SDG&E pays all legal counsel, financial advisors and bond issuing costs directly, including counsel representing City of Chula Vista interests. 1ia:\dIII.......\dircctarIIcIao-3.113 ;70 -~ ~i RESOLUTION NO. / f? 3g I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ONE OR MORE BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS AND OFFICIAL STATEMENTS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF ONE OR MORE PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $151 ,000,000 AND AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING RELATED MATIERS WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista (the "City") is authorized pursuant to its Charter and Chapter 3.48 of the Municipal Code of the City (the "Municipal Code") to assist in financing and refinancing utility facilities located within and without the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 18302 adopted on May 21, 1996 ("Resolution No. 18302"), the City authorized the issuance and sale of one or more series of refunding revenue bonds of the City, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $151,000,000 (the "Bonds"), and the loan of the proceeds thereof to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (the "Company") to repay certain loans made to the Company with proceeds of Industrial Development Bonds, 1986 Series A (the" 1986 Series A Bonds"), 1986 Series B Bonds (the" 1986 Series B Bonds") and 1987 Series A Bonds (the" 1987 Series A Bonds") previously issued by the City of San Diego to finance certain gas and electric facilities located within and without the City (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the City now desires to approve the forms of the bond purchase agreements and the offering documents to be executed and delivered in connection with the issuance and sale of one or more series of Bonds and the selection of underwriters with respect to the issuance and sale of one or more series of Bonds (collectively, the "Underwriters"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct, confirms its previous findings set forth in Resolution No. 18302 and finds and determines that the Project and the refinancing thereof will directly benefit the citizens of the City by substantially promoting one or more of the public interests recited in Chapter 3.48 of the Municipal Code. SECTION 2. The proposed form of the bond purchase agreements (the "Bond Purchase Agreements "), by and among the City and the Underwriters, in substantially the form of Exhibit A attached hereto, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved. The selection of Citicorp Securities, Inc. and SF2-61300.1 J()~ /4/ -~,._.._- Grigsby Brandford & Co., Inc. to serve as underwriters with respect to the issuance and sale of the bonds for purposes of refunding the 1986 Series A Bonds is hereby approved. The Director of Finance or designee thereof is hereby authorized and directed to approve the selection of underwriters with respect to the refunding of the 1986 Series B Bonds and the 1987 Series A Bonds based upon similar criteria applied to the selection of underwriters relating to the refunding of the 1986 Series A Bonds, and to execute and deliver the Bond Purchase Agreements with respect to all such refunding with such additions or changes as the Director of Finance or designee thereof may recommend or approve upon consultation with the City Attorney of the City (the "City Attorney"), special counsel to the City ("Special Counsel") and bond counsel to the City ("Bond Counsel"), the approval of such additions and changes to be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreements. SECTION 3. The proposed form of the preliminary official statements (the "Preliminary Official Statements") with respect to the issuance and sale of one or more series of Bonds in substantially the form of Exhibit B attached hereto, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved. The Director of Finance or designee thereof is hereby authorized and directed to approve the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statements in connection with the issuance and sale of one or more series of Bonds, and to certify that the Preliminary Official Statements are, as of their respective dates, "deemed final" by the City for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Director of Finance or designee thereof is hereby further authorized and directed to execute and deliver final official statements (the "Official Statements") in substantially the forms with such additions or changes as the Director of Finance or designee thereof may recommend or approve upon consultation with the City Attorney, Special Counsel and Bond Counsel, the approval of such additions and changes to be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Official Statements. SECTION 4. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the City with respect to the authorization of the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statements and the execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreements and the Official Statements are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified, and the Mayor, the City Manager, the Director of Finance and the City Clerk, or any of them, or their duly authorized designees, are hereby authorized and directed to execute, attest, seal and deliver any and all documents, including but not limited to those described in the Bond Purchase Agreements, and do any and all things, deemed necessary to effect the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statements and the execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreements and the Official Statements and to carry out the intent and purpose of this resolution and otherwise necessary to carry out the issuance and sale of one or more series of Bonds. SECTION 5. The provisions of this resolution are hereby declared to be severable and if any section, phrase or provision shall for any reason be declared to be invalid, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the section, phrases or provisions. 51"2'61300.1 2 -0 ;ÅO .~ \ - SECTION 6. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith, if any (of which none are known to the City), are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 7. This resolution shall become effective immediately. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert Powell, Director of Finance SF2-61300.1 3 d ()- 7 "... - -'-~-""'-'--'--'--- ---~._.,-_.,.._---_.__..- PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this _ day of July, 1996, by the following vote: YES: Councilmember: NOES: Council member: ABSTAIN: Councilmember: Mayor of the City of Chula Vista ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista SF2-61300.1 4;)<0 ~~ 101 ~ ~~-_...._,_.." ..m. .. __ ....__m._"_..__~_"_.______.~.._.__~. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 2/ . Meeting Date 7/23/96 ITEM TITLE: Report; Review of draft proposed amendments to the City's Growth Management Program and Ordinance regarding development phasing and monitoring - request for Council input and direction SUBMITTED BY: Director of PlanninJf Di'ocm, of hbli, oc~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager j~ ~ /1 (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ NoX) The City's adopted Growth Management Program establishes the phasing of transportation facilities as the major determinant of overall public facility and development phasing, based on the fact that major street facilities are the most complex and time consuming to plan, fInance and construct, and that other major facilities are located in the street system (e.g. water, sewer, drainage), or require access to a street system (e.g. schools, parks, fire stations). As such, coordination of the amount, location and timing of development in relation to the available street system is a critical factor in ensuring maintenance of growth management Threshold Standards. In conjunction with Council's adoption of the Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility Study (HNTB Study) in 1994, it was identified that the cumulative amount of development contained within eastern Chula Vista projects which had already received Tentative Map approval (please refer to Attachment 1) could not be accommodated without construction of additional arterial streets in order to maintain traffic threshold standards. Future tentative map approvals, such as the Otay Ranch, will clearly require at least an interim 125 facility and preferably a freeway/toll facility SR 125. Given the uncertain timetables for construction of SR 125, and forthcoming additional Tentative Map approvals for Otay Ranch and other projects, it has become necessary to evaluate methods by which the overall phasing of new development can be managed in concert with needed circulation improvements, so as to ensure threshold maintenance prior to construction of SR 125. Staff, with participation from the major developers, has completed that evaluation, and is presenting a proposed policy approach along with suggested draft amendments to the City's Growth Management Ordinance for Council input and direction. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report, and direct staff to fInalize the draft proposed amendments to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance, and return them for formal public hearing adoption by September 1996. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: As part of its 1994 Annual Report, the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) supported the need for the updated ;;)(-/ ') . -.." ." Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date 7/23/96 phasing policy, and recommended that the City Council direct staff to refine the draft amendments for adoption. Council supported that recommendation as part of its July 25, 1995 action on the GMOC's report. DISCUSSION: Backeround: Need for Amended DeveloDment Phasinl! and Monitorinl! Provisions- As noted in the opening paragraphs, the principal need for the proposed policy and ordinance amendments arises from the amounts of development currently approved in eastern Chula Vista, in relation to the timing of needed roadway improvements. At present, the amount of development contained within projects with approved Tentative Maps (please see Attachment 1), has the potential to overburden the currently existing street system, absent the addition of significant new capacity through the construction of Orange Ave. and other planned, major arterial streets. Currently, several of these large projects (such as Sunbow and Salt Creek Ranch) which received Tentative Map approval a number of years ago, have yet to commence construction. Under current growth management policies, which consider approved Tentative Maps in the determination of available street system capacity, these projects consume available capacity on the existing street system, even though they have not commenced construction. The result has been the need to execute "trip deferrals" on recent active projects including portions of EastLake, Rancho del Rey SPA III, and the City's future library and fire station site in Rancho del Rey SPA I, until such time as additional capacity in the eastern Chula Vista street system is provided through the construction of other major streets. This situation has resulted in a number of questions from developers as to the ability of the transportation network as it currently exists, and as will be supplemented by future roadway improvements, to accommodate development prior to the need for the SR 125 facility. Given that currently approved projects cannot all build-out without an SR 125 facility, many of those questions center around the issue of equity to those projects which are ready to build, and have provided (or can provide) for necessary street system improvements, but which could be held back due to other Tentative Map level projects which, under current growth management phasing policies, are consuming available capacity, but are not ready to build. This situation has become heightened by pending, additional development approvals for Otay Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, and the future phases of EastLake which have not yet received Tentative Map approval. Considering the uncertainties of development schedules for large, master planned projects (as evidenced by recent experiences with Sunbow and Salt Creek Ranch), staff and the development community believe that an orderly, and evenhanded process must be developed so that all parties can, utilizing the same information, draw conclusions regarding the ability of any given project to go forward based on available capacity in the street system. A fundamental premise in developing that process is that the limited capacity on the City's existing and planned arterial ;). t -"d-- , , Page 3, Item_ Meeting Date 7/23/96 street system prior to needing SR 125 should be available to those developments (or portions thereof) which are ready to construct and have, or can provide needed street system capacity. Based on that premise, staff and developer intents in preparing the proposed policy and ordinance amendments were to provide a fonn of "first come. first served" Dhasing at the final maD stage, which would respond to the noted concerns with existing phasing policies, and hopefully lead to elimination of the need for trip deferrals at the tentative map stage. This suggested approach is based on the mutual understanding that the final map stage reflects development which is immanent given the level of financial commitment required of the developer, and that that financial commitment is worthy of receiving some "priority status" to build based on available street system capacity, or the commitment to build sufficient capacity. ProDosed DeveloDment Phasing Amendments- In revising the approach to allocating available street system capacity on a first come, first served basis, the proposed amendments consist of the following major components: 1) updated policies regarding development phasing on a "first come, first served" basis to be added to Section 4 of the City's Growth Management Program document; 2) amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance to legally establish a process and criteria for detennining "priority status" for development to move forward on a first come, first served basis prior to the need for SR 125; and, 3) a set of administrative guidelines for processing requests for "priority status", and conducting transportation system capacity analyses in conjunction with those requests. In order to establish a process for detennining "priority status" it will be necessary to recognize the existing approval status of various projects, including prior commitments and expenditure toward expanding the street system. At the same time, such a process should also establish equitable development opportunity within each of the master planned projects. Creating such opportunity requires a system which will fairly control street system capacity allocation based on the imminent nature of the development requesting the allocation, and the ability of the street system to accommodate that development. This approach to priority is a key foundation of the proposed amendments which are designed to essentially provide a "gate" at the final map level through which each project must pass in order to obtain "priority status" to receive building pennits. The "gate" is based on available street system capacity andlor the identification, and commitment to construction, of needed improvements to create sufficient capacity. ~1-.3 '-.,.' Page 4, Item_ Meeting Date 7/23/96 The following process and criteria are proposed to establish such a system, and are reflected in the draft proposed amendments to the City's Growth Management Ordinance presented in Attachment 3: 1) Initial Baseline Forecast- In order to recognize existing development approvals, and related contribution toward street system construction in an overall priority approach, staff will compile an inventory of projects which meet the following: - The project has an approved Public Facility Financing Plan (PFFP), and all or a portion thereof, meets one or more of the following criteria: - has an existing "Transportation Capacity Development Agreement (TCDA)", or other Development Agreement with the City which vests transportation capacity in exchange for improvements; - is eligible for Transportation Development Impact Fee credits, either by virtue of being included in an assessment district, or having obtained cash credits through construction of major transportation facilities; - is a residential project for which an "Implementing Final Map" has been approved by the City; is a project of a public, quasi-public, residential, commercial, or industrial nature for which an "Implementing Final Map", and/or site plan/architectural review, or other final planning approvals, have been authorized. Projects, or portions thereof, meeting these criteria will be considered to have already passed through the "gate", and will automatically be given "priority status". In addition to the above categories, a five-year projection of public, quasi- public, commercial and industrial projects, based on the City's Five Year Capital Improvement Program, Facility Master Plans, and development phasing schedules contained within adopted Public Facility Finance Plans, should also be included. The reason for this is so the City may ensure that adequate, available street system capacity will be reserved to accommodate needed support services for residential development, that may otherwise not cumulatively be included through individual, private development requests for priority status. Staff recognizes that there may :Þ(- i . . I::¡i:~ --------- Page 5, Item_ Meeting Date 7/23/96 be some overlap with the last criteria above, and intends that this five-year projection be used to evaluate whether capacity included under that criteria is sufficient. The City will then prepare a traffic modeling run of all existing development, plus the projects which meet the above criteria, using the currently existing street system in eastern Chula Vista. This base condition traffic analysis will be known as the "Initial Baseline Forecast (IBF)". The IBF will provide an indication of how much additional capacity remains on the existing street system prior to the time that other major roadway improvements will be necessary. As additional projects are added to the "Initial Baseline Forecast", and granted priority status in accordance with proposed provisions discussed in the following section, the overall listing of such projects will be referred to as the "Current Baseline Forecast (CBF) " , and utilized as the database for ongoing verification of available capacity through transportation modeling. 2) Future Final Map Applications Seeking Priority Status· Once the Initial Baseline Forecast has established the amount of remaining capacity on the existing street system, all future applications for Implementing Final Map approval will be required to demonstrate, through a traffic analysis, that sufficient capacity exists on the current street system, or that additional improvements necessary to create capacity to accommodate the subject request will be constructed when needed. Once either of these detenninations has been made, and appropriate assurances provided to the City, the project will be granted "priority status" and become part of the Current Baseline Forecast (please see Attachment 2A). Developers have also requested that applications for "Superblock or Financial" type Final Maps be allowed to obtain priority status. The reason for this is that developers need reasonable assurances in advance in order to conduct land transactions. They have indicated that lenders require reasonable assurances as to the ability to develop, before they will lend to builders purchasing the Superblock lots. In order not to hamper land transactions, staff is proposing an additional process to facilitate such applications. Staff's initial concern was that these Superblock maps often encompass large areas which develop over a number of years. Therefore, if priority status was granted in full, a situation could be created in which a large development could obtain a significant amount of available street system capacity it really does not need for a number of years. Such an occurrence would effectively block other near-tenn development from moving forward absent construction of substantial street system improvements to add capacity. This would create a situation not unlike that which we have today based on the past policy of assigning capacity at the Tentative Map level. 2{-~ - Page 6, Item_ Meeting Date 7/23/96 To provide for processing of Superblock map requests, and in order to avoid the noted potential negative consequences of allocating street capacity at that level, the amendments propose that for projects for which a Superblock final map is requested, the City will consider granting of priority status through approval of a "Transportation Capacity Development Agreement (TCDA)" (please see Attachment 2B), provided that said map meets the following criteria: a) the area of the map is consistent with a phase or phases as established in the project's adopted PFFP, including all applicable phasing schedules, and associated facility requirements; and, b) the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate the capability to finance related, necessary improvements. In preparing the associated TCDA with the City, staff proposes several criteria which should be employed in determining whether all or a portion of the subject Superblock final map should be granted "priority status" based on street system capacity. The main premise of these criteria is that proposed development which can add overall capacity to the street system, through either on- and/or off-site improvements, should receive priority over development which does not provide such capacity. Staff feels such a premise is valid given the reason for needing the proposed phasing policy amendments; that the limited capacity on the City's existing and planned arterial street system prior to needing SR 125 should be available to those developments (or portions thereof) which are ready to construct and provide needed street system capacity. a. If no major TransDIF street improvements are needed as a result of the traffic model run, the City would grant priority status to proceed with that amount of development (dwelling units and/or non-residential Equivalent Dwelling Units [EDU's]) within the Superblock area which can be accommodated on the available street system, and which does not represent more than a 1-2 year projected volume of absorption for that project. b. If major TransDIF street improvements are determined to be needed as a result of the traffic model run, including any off-site improvements, the City would consider granting priority status for a greater amount of development (dwelling units and/or non- residential Equivalent Dwelling Units [EDU's]) than that reflected in a. above, provided that the developer commits to provide both the on-site, as well as any off-site improvements. at-{¡ ---....- Page 7, Item_ Meeting Date 7/23/96 The amount of development within the Superblock Final Map to be granted priority status, shall be based on the amount of development necessary to support that project's pro-rata share of needed street facility costs, and said status shall remain in effect for the term of the financing mechanism(s) to be used in construction of the identified, needed streets. c. Similar to b. above, but in the instance that off-site TransDIF street improvements are needed, and the developer cannot commit to providing them, the City would grant priority status to proceed, but only for that amount of development (dwelling units and/or non-residential Equivalent Dwelling Units [EDU's]) within the Superblock map which can be accommodated without the off-site street improvements, and which is necessary to support that project's pro-rata share of on-site TransDIF streets as applicable. Said priority status shall remain in effect for the term of the fmancing mechanism(s) to be used in construction of the identified, needed streets. None of the preceding provisions shall affect the ability of the developer to record the subject Superblock Final Map, but rather are intended to solely apply to the ability to proceed with development of land uses encompassed by said map. Traffic Modelinl! for Onl!oinl! Policv bnDlementation As stated previously, staff proposes to perform an initial series of transportation model runs (utilizing the SANDAG regional model) to establish the current status of capacity on the roadway, and to analyze the initial impacts of approximately 3 years of growth. The methodology associated with this is to calibrate the model using the most recent information on the current state of development (homes/businesses actually occupied) and the current status of the roadway network. The second aspect of the modeling process is to add in all projects currently eligible for priority status based on the concepts proposed by staff (the Initial Baseline Forecast). The results of this model would then be analyzed by staff, and necessary improvements (if any) identified. Since many of the development projects in the initial baseline have already paid TransDIF fees, it may be necessary for the City to construct transportation facilities to serve these development projects utilizing some of the TransDIF fees. This would only apply to "general" transportation facilities, not facilities that are currently the specific condition of any development project. Since the number and scope of the priority status projects is large, and many of the units will not be developed for several years, staff believes that the requirement to construct such a facility will probably not arise for several years, if at all. Staff expects to have the initial baseline forecast ;;J-{ ~7 -J.' ! Page 8, Item_ Meeting Date 7/23/96 completed in the next few weeks, well before the final adoption hearings on the proposed amendments. Depending on the information derived from this run, it may be practical to do a "projection" run, which would include approximately 3 years of growth. If this model does not identify any significant necessary improvements, all projects could utilize this model as the "analysis" called for in the policy. This would minimize the modeling efforts necessary to comply with the requirements of the policy. FISCAL IMP ACT: General Fund neutral. Development of the Initial Baseline Forecast model will be funded using TransDIF monies. Ongoing modeling and evaluations at the [mal map level will be funded through both the TransDIF, and through reimbursable charges to developers in association with the processing of individual development applications. Attachments 1. Status listing and map of projects with approved Tentative Maps. 2A. Flow Chart- Proposed approval process for non-superblock final maps. 2B. Flow Chart- Proposed approval process for superblock final maps. 3. Proposed draft amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance. (m:\home\planning\GMOC\DEV ·POL\FAl13-CC.INF) d- ( -? /''J.) -" I I I ¡ial Ii ~ ~0 ~ i!llfIIIIJ~!"i I-' I- z Z (,) .... !.J~~~~~IIÌIIÌIÛ W 1111 1lÌ1II1II1II W 6 .~..g~~g:=ltl~ == Œ ---- I ~ 0 ~ Ij1 Ii e ~ ~ Ja'l ! i!1 -=Ii!J!Jt.it ïc( I&.! -II lŒI ..s, ~ -~¡~¡ g!g!I!!~ o 2~ŒŒŒ O_N~~= - . ut......GÞ___.... ...I _N~. , . I ~ D CI ,. ~ / / ~~I / -- , .... / / mŒ . i~~ ~ . ~ III ~II ffil?:' C). ~ \ § i !Z~ ow §I~II ~l 6 ~ ~ c: - rlJ t i 1ì . i ~ ! .. w en t;;~ ã en ì:;u f III t:i~ U wð î 0 ~ DI:: !!: . a. ... ~D: ...... ~~3 00 -' - z-,_ DI::~ 0- < ~ ~i:!ä! z '" C)o- a.- Uu!!! ii:...ð I!:!~ð C)~¡:;: =:I-V> ~t;2 ~~ a.D Qtt~ o~::¡ _U::; zi:!~ '" "- v>w... WW -=t.E o ... ~!::"- ~a~ =w =:1"- 00-< u < oõ< ~8::~ '" .......11. u ~ ~ ",,,,~ ",0 e~ 8::<- º~¡2 < 8:: z~ -- en..Q -=t~ z ::z:GI ~giz I a.§- ..en cr~uQ Zm ~ o~ II I;¡~E I IIIC ;;:~it~ ~ .¡:¡ - ~ i ca.: º 0; ...= III~ >0 IIIZ 0- 0 III U') "'~ V '" '" - 0 2.0- ..It 2~,,- 2~ ~ 0--' - a. '" z <V> z¡::~ z~b~ a ... w o?izo 2 LL t;;~ -=:100 OZ 0 0 J LL !;(c-z 5~~ ~ ~'" ... ~ uwli:o u.I UWJ:t a. -:ßOu ::;~¡¡: :J5šu-< !t=:l-'" a..~ CL DC: <V> 0 a.._ Q.. < .. < < 1Co "- ATTACHMENT 2A d-l-(ù ~...-, ........ - --.~.'-'--'.-^._-.._-~-"'-""- "'------ ----- N t i 1i . ~ I w .. ~~ þ en I en u 1&1 t:;~ U wð ~ 2 ~ !!: A. .... ICC ~ã: c... ~ ...... :!... =u..~ ~~I~~ ~ o~ GII:a I- uo Uou zoZ uu!!! Ww Z ~ c", o"'¡¡:~ A.::E ~N :J.....< z.....o L'J~"'<!2 ~~~~ :J-VI -< :J<..... ctt~ :J.....c og;c '" u!¿ A. z~< ~<u uOI:! 8ð~ ¡; Q W c:c- ZI- ~õæa~ -u"'C Ol-Z "'- ~~ ~"'~ D'OW-, a u < 0'" ~:J r=~~I!:~ o ~- .......c u. ü< Ü<VI ",::i!=>c :r~ cc .- o",,,,~ 5 :Jo øu. ã<!2 e < "'z ... < Z~ - \I cno c:c- z :z:i! ° ..E A.GI ~~~z ....a.. UO¡;¡ o~u Z~ ~ c< ! ~J¡¡~~ i 11Im -~>~ .... .. ::Ec - ~ w A..- c o .!:! ...= III" ~~ Q Q 1&1 !Z en '" w- 0 0 s?~2í u.:'=a.. O"'u A. '" zu~ z~gt::. 0 .... ~~ 09 OE<~!Z u. ¡:;;"'..... u. ð"'< 52cw GII: .... ~z -"'~~ A. ::J:>~ ~~~~ ....VI .... < < 0;< ð ATTACHMENT 28 ;;;l(-¿( (.~:? j ~,.... -~--.- PROPOSED REVISIONS TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (6/6/96) Add to Section 19.09.020 (Definitions) as follows: G. "Implementing Final Map" means a ftnal map which gives the developer the ability to record lots and develop the property without further discretionary approvals, and for which all fees and exactions which are required at the time of ftnal map recordation have been paid. Portions of any map for which subdivision improvement obligations are secured by liens are not included within this deftnition. H. "Priority Status" means that the developer of the project may proceed in obtaining building pennits or other necessary administrative approvals prior to other projects which have not achieved this status. A project which has achieved priority status is still subject to all other provisions and requirements of the Municipal Code, conditions of approval, and the like. N. "Transportation Capacity Development Agreement (TCDA)" means a development agreement which provides speciftc assurances to the developer regarding utilization of remaining capacity within the existing and/or planned roadway system. Requests for a TCDA must meet the criteria outlined in Section 19.09.105(B). Add Section 19.09.105 as follows: 19.09.105 Development Monitoring and Phasing A. Projects for which a Public Facility Finance Plan has been approved, and which meet one or more of the following criteria, shall be given "priority status" in the allocation of building pennits for future development: 1. projects for which the City has entered into a "Transportation Capacity Development Agreement;" 2. projects which currently are eligible for Transportation Development Impact Fee credits, either by virtue of being included in an assessment district, or having obtained cash credits through construction of major transportation facilities; 3. residential projects for which an "Implementing Final Map" has been approved by the City; ATTACHMENT 3 1 .d-.f -{ A , I -- -,--~-.-----.-.-".--.-,-,-.,----..- 4. projects of a public, quasi-public, commercial, or industrial nature for which an "Implementing Final Map", or site plan / architectural review, or other fInal planning approvals have been authorized. B. For projects for which a "superblock fInal map" is requested, the City, will consider granting of priority status through approval of a Transportation Capacity Development Agreement, provided that said map meets the following criteria: a) the area of the map is consistent with a phase or phases as established in the project's adopted PFFP, including all applicable phasing schedules, and associated facility requirements; and, b) the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate the capability to fInance related, necessary improvements. In preparing the associated TCDA, the following criteria shall be applied to determine whether all or a portion of the subject Superblock fInal map should be granted "priority status" based on street system capacity. The intent of these criteria is that the limited capacity on the City's existing and planned arterial street system prior to construction of State Route 125 should be available to those developments (or portions thereof) which are ready to construct, and can provide needed street system capacity. a. If no major TransDIF street improvements are needed as a result of the traffic model run, the City would grant priority status to proceed with that amount of development (dwelling units and/or non-residential Equivalent Dwelling Units [EDU's]) within the Superblock area which can be accommodated on the available street system, and which does not represent more than a 1-2 year projected volume of absorption for that project. b. If major TransDIF street improvements are determined to be needed as a result of the trafflc model run, including any off-site improvements, the City would consider granting priority status for a greater amount of development (dwelling units and/or non-residential Equivalent Dwelling Units [EDU's]) than that reflected in a. above, provided that the developer commits to provide both the on-site, as well as any off-site improvements. The amount of development within the Superblock Final Map to be granted priority status, shall be based on the amount of development necessary to support that project's pro-rata share of needed street facility costs, and said status shall remain in effect for the term of the fInancing mechanism(s) to be used in construction of the identifIed, needed streets. 2 d- { -/3 ¡- " i ,~ ----'..- . _____u___u___o._ - .-..,~~- ""----.-.'.".,-.-------- c. Similar to b. above, but in the instance that off-site TransDIF street improvements are needed, and the developer cannot commit to providing them, the City would grant priority status to proceed, but only for that amount of development (dwelling units and/or non-residential Equivalent· Dwelling Units [EDU's]) within the Superblock map which can be accommodated without the off-site street improvements, and which is necessary to support that project's pro-rata share of on-site TransDIF streets as applicable. Said priority status shall remain in effect for the term of the fInancing mechanism(s) to be used in construction of the identifIed, needed streets. None of the preceding provisions shall affect the ability of the developer to record the subject Superblock Final Map, but rather are intended to solely apply to the ability to proceed with development of land uses encompassed by said map based on street system capacity. C. Projects which meet the criteria contained in Section A above as of the date of adoption of this ordinance amendment shall be included in the "Initial Baseline Forecast." In addition, the "Initial Baseline Forecast" shall include a fIve-year projection of public, quasi-public, commercial and industrial projects, based on the City's Five Year Capital Improvement Program, Facility Master Plans, and development phasing schedules contained within adopted Public Facility Finance Plans, as approved by the City. As additional projects are added to the "Initial Baseline Forecast" in accordance with Sections D or G below, the overall listing of such projects shall be referred to as the "Current Baseline Forecast." In addition, the City shall at least annually update the forecast for public, quasi-public, commercial, and industrial projects, and incorporate it into the Current Baseline Forecast. D. The City Engineer shall prepare a traffIc analysis of the "Initial Baseline Forecast," and shall verify that: I. the currently constructed roadway system provides for adequate capacity to ensure compliance with adopted Threshold Standards as those projects develop in accordance with this forecast; or 2. additional facilities which are necessary to ensure compliance with Threshold Standards have been planned and fInanced, and will be constructed in advance of, or concurrent with need. E. Once the "Initial Baseline Forecast" has been established, additional projects may be given "priority status" and added to the forecast when one or more of the criteria under Section 19.09.I05.A or B, as applicable, is met. fI~¡ in order for a project to "'.·.<·.·..:-.·.·~.w.·.{w.·..·.·.-:-.·.w.· be added to the "Current Baseline Forecast" and given "Priority Status," the City Engineer shall conduct a traffIc analysis, and indicate what, if any, additional roadway 3 ~ ( -Ii ¡ . improvements will be needed in order to maintain Threshold Standards, in relation to the "Current Baseline Forecast", including the subject project. Prior to the City giving approval to any such project, the developer will be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that all roadway improvements necessary to maintain compliance with Threshold Standards will be constructed when needed. Once the project is deemed to have complied with the above requirements, and receives one or more of the approvals listed in Section 19.09.105.A, the project shall be added to the "Current Baseline Forecast. " F. Where an applicant is requesting approval of an "Implementing Final Map", or other fmal approval, for a project which is part of a master planned community for which an assessment district for a major transportation facility was previously established, and Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) are therefore included in the Current Baseline Forecast (whether or not the credits are on that specific property), the following procedure shall apply: the number of EDU's contained in the subject "Implementing Final Map" shall be subtracted from the total units assumed in the "Initial Baseline Forecast" for that master planned community, and shall no longer be available as credits for other development projects within that community. The City Engineer shall maintain an ongoing listing of these EDU credits. G. Future updates of the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) shall take into consideration all projects included in the "Current Baseline Forecast" at the time the update is commenced, and shall identify all Circulation Element roadway improvements needed to support this level of development in accordance with adopted Threshold Standards, along with financing requirements and any necessary adjustments to Transportation Development Impact Fees to support these improvements. In addition, updates to the ECVTPP shall include an updated estimate of the maximum amount of development which can be accommodated prior to construction of an interim or pennanent SR-125 facility, as well as the maximum amount of development which can be accommodated by the completion of an interim or pennanent SR-125 facility, while maintaining compliance with Threshold Standards. (This requirement shall no longer be applicable at such time as SR-125 facilities are completed). In evaluating Threshold Standard compliance, impacts of new development on roadways in Western Chula Vista will also be considered. H. In preparing traffic studies for new development projects (for which a Public Facility Finance Plan has not been previously approved, or for which an amendment to an approved PFFP is required), the following scenarios shall be evaluated: 1. "Current Baseline Forecast" plus proposed project land use; and, 2. Current Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) street system capacity both prior to and including an interim SR-125 facility, plus proposed project land use. 4 d-.(-/~ "7 :' .- I .j { ^ -" ,-~ . '-r-~'. .--..- - "~~-- -.".----,---..-'.---..--."'- In conjunction with approval of any such project, the City shall make a fmding that all roadway improvements necessary to maintain compliance with 1breshold Standards are guaranteed to be constmcted before needed. In addition, for projects for which the proposed land use has potential traffic impacts which are greater than those associated with land uses allowed in the adopted General Plan, or other approved regulatory plan as applicable, a scenario evaluating traffic impacts at the General Plan buildout level shall also be required. (M:\home\planning\grnoc\dev-pol\DRFT-ORD.REV) 5 d-{-!(¡ !Sl I~ ¡-- , . _.-.--- -.--+. ---_._.._..~--_.._-- --'-------,--------,-.'..-....--------..- ____'m ..__ __,_.._._. -----