The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 1996/06/04 I f e'iury that I arlt '" "eel are lmder pene ty 0 P ". . , , I ,- _ 'j D'I 1.;,8 City 01 C~1~..!;a V:stD. in tr.ìe em,' O,C. -', ,," ,. nO'~'~ed . ~ -\ '¡tv ('Ie"';' -d"",,'¡ ',,-:2: 'N,)UGO on ihe [)uHf:rt¡!1 Boar Tuesday, June 4, 1996 ".IS h,~n··1 . "1"'" "nd a~all on Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. \M,u~}ïje3 u~,;.;:¡~\~ ~ . ~ _ " Public Services Building oÞ,:rED- '¿) ~ .;).UI..J......J Rel!Ular Meetintl 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. Proclamation expressing congratulations to the United States Army on celebrating their 221st anniversary . Charles K. Nichols, Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired and Chapter President of the Association of the United States Army, will be accepting the proclamation. b. Proclaiming the week of June 2 through June S, 1996 as Management Week. Maria F arrage, President of the Rohr Chula Vista Chapter of National Management Association, and Kathy Baker, Executive Vice President, will be accepting the proclamation. c. Oath of Office: Chester S. DeVore and Jean A. Rogers - Board of Ethics. ***** 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 par/ion of the meeting. However, final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be avaiwble in the City Clerk's Office. ***** CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5 through /0) The staff recommendations regarding the foUowing items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public or City staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" availilble in the wbby 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 City Attorney stating that there were not reportahle actions taken in Closed Session on 5/28/96. It is recommended that the letter he received and filed. Agenda -2- June 4, 1996 6. ORDINANCE 2678 AMENDING SECTIONS 15.04.060 AND 15.04.145 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REVISED LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE PLANS (second readiru! and adoDtion) - 10 December 1994, the Council updated the city Landscape Manual. Certain minor procedural amendments to the Municipal Code are needed in order to reflect consistency with the updated Manual. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Planning) 7. RESOLUTION 18323 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE ON CENTRAL AVENUE AND DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FROM GOLF COURSE PROPERTY, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION - During heavy rain years, there have been periods to time that Central A venue was closed to traffic for 60 days or more due to the Sweetwater Dam overflowing. The County is planning to build a bridge at this location which will allow the water from most storms to flow under the bridge. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Parks and Recreation). 4/5th vote required. 8. RESOLUTION 18324 APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY FOR JULY 4, 1996 AND ENTERING INTO AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT - The City is in the process of finalizing plans for the Fourth of July fireworks display to be conducted on the Chula Vista Bayfront. A contract with the vendor supplying and launching the fireworks has been finalized, and the City has been asked to enter into an Iodemnification Agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District as part of their Tidelands Activity Permit. Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 9. RESOLUTION 18325 APPROVING LEASE WITH SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. FOR OFFICE SPACE AT 315 FOURTH AVENUE - The City purchased the office building located at 315 Fourth A venue from the Redevelopment Agency in September of 1995. Leases with South Bay Community Services for office space that they currently occupy in that building were recently finalized and require approval. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) 10. REPORT CHULA VISTA LIVE STEAMERS REQUEST TO AMEND ROHR PARK MASTER PLAN AND EXPAND TRACK SYSTEM INTO WESTERN AREA OF ROHR-SWEETWATER PARK - The Chula Vista Live Steamers are requesting an amendment to the Rohr-Sweetwater Master Plan adopted in 1986 to expand the railroad tracks to the western area of Rohr-Sweetwater Park. Staff recommends Council approve the report. (Director of Parks and Recreation) ***ENDOFmN~NTCM£NWR*** Agenda -3- June 4, 1996 ......*** This item was set for time certain at 6:00 D.m. II. RESOLUTION 18318 APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 INCLUDING BOTH THE FY 1996/97 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE FY 19%/97 CONSOLIDATED PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) - On 517/96, Council received public comment on the draft Consolidated Plan for FY 1996/97 and reviewed all project and programs being considered for CDBG and HOME funding. The 30-day comment period to review the draft Consolidated Plan began on 4/18/96 and ended 5/17/96. All public comments received have been considered and, if deemed appropriate, integrated into the final version of the Consolidated Plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) Continued from the meeting of 5/28/%. >Ie.........* PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following üems have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by ww. 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. 12. PUBLIC HEARING PCM-94-04; CONSIDERATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR THE SEGMENT OF EAST ORANGE A VENUE BETWEEN HUNTE PARKWAY AND WUESTE ROAD - The proposal consists of changing the street name to "Olympic Parkway." This is the first phase of an overall program to rename East Orange Avenue from Interstate 805 to Wueste Road. Future street name change phases will occur as the area along East Orange Avenue is developed. Staff recommends the public hearintl be continued indefinitelv: it will be renoticed. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of 5/7/96. 13. PUBLIC HEARING PCM 95-01; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN INCLUDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND GEOTECIINICAL REPORT - The first Otay Ranch SPA Plan governs Villages One and Five. SPA One covers ------- ------- ------- Agenda -4- June 4, 1996 1,061.2 acres generally located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future SR-125 alignment. The Otay Ranch SPA One application is the first SP A/specific plan submitted to implement the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP jointly approved by the City and County on 10128/93. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading and approve the resolution. (Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project) Continued from the meeting of 05128/%. A. ORDINANCE 2674 APPROVING THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PCM 95-01B) (first readilU!) B. RESOLUTION 18286 RECERTIFYING THE SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) AND ADDENDUM FOR THE OT A Y RANCH SECTION PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN AND APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN (PCM 95-01), WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN,REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUPPORTING PLANS, NON-RENEW ABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND THE GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction thnt is l1Q1 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 CouncU on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" availilble 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. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS This is the time the City CouncU 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, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form availilble in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes. 14. REPORT PRESENTATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) BUDGET __ ________....__n_ Agenda -5- June 4, 1996 15. RESOLUTION 18326 ADOPTING A CITY COUNCIL POLICY ON INSTALLATiON OF SPEED HUMPS FOR RESIDENTIAL STREETS - On 1/24/95, Council requested comments from the Safety Cotmoission on a Portland, Oregon report entitled 'Reclaiming Our Streets.' On a companion neighborhood traffic safety item, Council on 3/28/95, requested that the Safety Cotmoission consider the appropriateness of speed humps on residential streets as a part of their review of the Portland report. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 16. REPORT REGARDING CURRENT DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SHARP HEALTHCARE REGARDING SHARP'S PROPOSED TRANSACTION WITH COLUMBIAIHCA - In December 1995, City staff became aware of a letter of intent between Sharp HealthCare and Columbia/HCA. Its purpose was to begin discussions between Sharp and Columbia which would convert Sharp Chula Vista and other related Sharp facilities to a for-profit operation. Staff recommends Council agree in concept with the proposed deal points as outlined in the report and approve the resolution. (Assistant City Manager) RESOLUTION 18327 APPROPRIATING FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIRING A CONSULT ANT TO ASSIST STAFF WITH THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED SHARP/COLUMBIA TRANSACTION AND DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH SUCH CONSULTANT - 4/5th's vote required. 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 pulhd nt the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual. OTHER BUSINESS 17. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. 18. MAYOR'S REPORTlS) 19. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Rindone a. Concerns regarding attorney fees paid for the City Manager. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a Special MeetinglWorksession on Monday, June 10, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room and thence to the regular City Council Meeting on June 11, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting. Agenda .{j- June 4, 1996 ***** CLOSED SESSION Unless the City Anorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and deliberøte on the foUowing items of business which are permitted by ww to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in cwsed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated nt this point in order to save costs so that the Councü's return from closed session, reparts of Ji!lJIl action taken, and a4journment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office. 20. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 . Christopher vs, the City of Chula Vista. 2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54956.9 . Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: I. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Title: City Attorney - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINEIDISMISSALIRELEASE - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 . Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE) , Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 21. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION ***** -------.- --"-. "- "--..-.. Tuesday, June 4, 1996 Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. Public Services Building Rel!Ular Meetintl of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council ADDENDUM CLOSED SESSION 20. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Fritsch VS. the City of Chula Vista It of perjury that I am .., declare binder p~na ~ ChqOa \fista in the b the Clt" 0 ,." emptoyed Y.: ... '~r~' 1:md that j PD5~',8d Office of the Crt.y Ck ~he Bullet:n Board at this AgendaJNo~lce on 'Id' g and at City Hall on the Public er ,ces SUI 10 ~ ~-" TED' ..>(:1/.? SIGNED Tuesday, June 4, 1996 DA . ouncil ambers 4:00 p.m. Public Services Building Rel!Ular Meetintl of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council ADDENDUM CLOSED SESSION 20. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING . Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Fritsch vs. the City of Chula Vista Tuesday, June 4, 1996 Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. Public Services Building Rel!Ular Meetintl of the Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council ADDENDUM CLOSED SESSION 20. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Fritsch vs. the City of Chula Vista __ ________ ____"_____n______.._ May 30, 1996 TO: The Honorable il FROM: John D. Goss, City Manager( -' SUBJECT: City Council Meeting of J 1996 This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular city Council meeting of Tuesday, June 4, 1996. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows: 5a. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no observed reportable actions taken by the City Council in Closed Session on May 28, 1996. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED. JDG:mab ,.__._______0..__._."___ ~~~ ::....~ ~ ~~~~ ~- - -- CllY Of CHUlA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Date: May 29, 1996 To: The Honorable Mayor and City cou~ From: Bruce M. Boogaard, city Attorney Re: Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session for the Meeting of 5/28/96 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss the proposed sale of property regarding Marina View Park. No discussion was held regarding Tiger Development Two/Baldwin - motion for relief from stay and labor negotiations. The city Attorney hereby reports to the best of my knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed session in which the city Attorney participated, that there were no actions taken in the Closed Session of 5/28/96 which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. BMB:lgk BMB: 19k c: \1t\clossed.no ~-I 276 FOURTH AVENUE· CHULA VISTA· CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691·5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612 ~PœI-CMsIITøAec)dedPa¡:ø -~----~----~-- -----------.-.-.---- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENrl'.CC<D r;~I::: '<'; g;i) ÞSO?TION Ite~ t Meeting Date 5/28/96 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Municipal Code Amendment PCA-96-05;Consideration of minor amendments to Municipal Code Sections 15.04.060 & 15.04.145 (Excavation, Grading and Fills) - City initiated. Ordinance :»"1Y Amending Sections 15.04.060 & 15.04.145 of the Municipal Code relating to the revised Landscape Manual and approval of landscape plans SlBMITfED BY, D;reoW of PWming ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ bl.t --= (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.lO In December, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2616 updating the City Landscape Manual. Certain minor procedural amendments to the Municipal Code are needed in order to reflect consistency with the updated Manual. The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that these code amendments are exempl from the California Environmental Quality Act as an action that will have no significant impact on the environment per Section 2.4.3 of the Environmental Review Procedures. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Ordinance approving the amendments to the Municipal Code in accordance with the fmdings contained therein. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On April 3, 1996, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the amendments in accordance with Resolution PCA-96-05. DISCUSSION: Municipal Code Sections 15.04.060 and 15.04.145 (Excavation, Grading and Fills) presently require that the City Landscape Architect approve and inspect grading and associated landscape plans. The position of City Landscape Architect is presently vacant and is currently under consideration as a 96-97 budget item. The work previously carried out by this position is currently being perfonned by the Landscape Planner in the Planning Department. The proposed amendments would change the approval authority for grading and associated landscape plans from "City Landscape Architect" to "the Director of Planning or designee". '5' J fa-I -, -{ Page 2, Item _ Meeting Date OS/28/96 This language is consistent with the language used in the updated Landscape Manual, and also consistent with the approach of other City standards and regulations which involve approvals by Planning Department staff. FISCAL IMPACT: . All costs associated with processing development plans will be covered througb the City's processing fees. Anachments 1. City Council Ordinance. 2. Planning Commission Resolution PCA·96-05. 3. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of April 3, 1996. M,IHOMEIPLANNINGlCC9605.113 , -/~ 8... '-:<, "£ v'CCi" ORDINANCE NO. 6! '"1&" ,0 FlE!'.,..",,~ .....!,\\..:.i A""D AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY ., A.')'J'~ì¡ON COUNCIL AMENDING SECTIONS 15.04.060 AND 15,04.145 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REVISED LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE PLANS . WHEREAS. in December 1994, the City Council updated the Landscape Manual by adopting Ordinance No. 2616; and WHEREAS, certain procedural amendments to the Municipal Code are required in order to be consistent with the updated Manual; and WHEREAS, the proposed Code amendments will change the language "City Landscape Architect" to Planning Director or designee" consistent with the updated Manual; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the amendments are exempl from environmental review as an action that will have no significant impact on the environmell'. pursuant to Section 2.4,3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 1996, in a duly noticed public hearing the City Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council enact the amendments in accordance with Resolution PCA-96-05; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on these amendments to the Municipal Code, and notice of said hearing together with its purpose was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as adyertised, namely at 6:00 p.m, on May 14, 1996, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chu1a Vista does hereby fmd, determine and ordain as follows: SECTION I: That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice justify the amendments, and that the amendments are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan. SECTION II: That Section 15.04.060 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: /C3- " -, 15.04,060 Landscaping and irrigation system. All cut and fill slopes shall be planted and inigated in accordance with an approved plan. Said plan shall be prepared in accordance with the city landscape manual and shall be approved by the Ciry LEII'ube&fJe Ad'ehiteet !?~t,§fr~!ÍÎ9r~mgiìiiþ· (Ord. 2128 §3, 1985; Ord. 1797 § I (part), 1978). . . SECTION III: Tl}.at Section 15.04.145 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 15.04.145 Notification of completion. The permittee shall notify the city engineer when the grading operation is ready for final inspection. He shall also notify the eity Il\J\dsell3e at'ehiteet Pir~Ç!j:if9fl"!~tj:itpe¡;i.gnee when planting and irrigation are completed. Final approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage structures and facilities, sprinkler inigation systems, planting and all protective devices have been completed and any required planting established and all as-built plans and reports have been submitted. The city engineer may' accept in writing the completion of all work, or any portion of the work, required by the permit issued in accordance with this chapter and thereupon accept said work or portion thereof. (Ord. 1797 §I (part), 1978), SECTION IV: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by ~ Robert A. Leiter Bruce M. Boogaard Director of Planning City Attorney A:\CC9605.0RD f\home\planning\ 1490,93 {~ 'I ~-1 Page 2 7 ~ --._-.".-- -_...~...__._- RESOLUTION PCA-96-05 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 15.04.060 & 15.04.145 OF TIlE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TIlE REVISED LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE PLANS WHEREAS. in December 1994. the City Council updated the Landscape Manual by adopting Ordinance No. 2616; and . WHEREAS, certain procedural amendments to the Municipal Code are required in order to be consistent with the updated Manual; and WHEREAS, the proposed Code amendments will change the language "City Landscape Architect" to "Planning Director or designee" consistent with the updated Manual; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the amendments are exempt from environmental review as an action that will have no significant impact on the environment pursuant to Section 2.4.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said amendments and notice of said hearing together with its purpose was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely at 7:00 p.m. on April 3, 1996, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission, and the hearing was thereto closed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council enact the attached ordinance amending § 15.04.06 & 15.04.145 of the Municipal Code in accordance with the fmdings contained therein. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 3rd day of April, 1996, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Commissioners Davis, Ray, Salas, Tarantino, Thomas, Tuchscher, Willett NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ATTEST: William C. Tuchscher n, Chainnan Nancy Ripley, Secretary . WPC A.\I'C96œ.RESQ _/~_5~-5 Excernt from Planninl! Commission Minutes of 4/3/96 ITEM 3. PUBUC HEARING: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT PCA-96-05; CONSIDERATION OF MINOR AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 15.04.070 AND 15.04.145 (EXCAVATION, GRADING AND FILLS) - City Initiated Principal Planner Griffm presented the staff report, noting that this was a housekeeping item changing references in oñe of the Codes to refer to Planning Director or designee rather than City Landscape Architect. Staff recommended approval of the resolution. Commissioner Ray noted that due to the City budgel cuts, the Landscape Architect was not replaced when the previous one retired. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak., the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Ray /Davis) 7-0 to adopt Resolution PCA-96-05 recommending that the City Council approve the amendments to the Municipal Code, according to the findings contained in the draft City Council Ordinance. /6-b ,-" COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 7 Meeting Date 6/4/96 ITEM TITLE: R I' / Ú4 . A . h th eso utlon pprovmg an greement Wit e County of San Diego for the Construction of a Bridge on Central A venue and dedication of Right of Way from Golf Course Property, Appropriating Funds, and approving the Negative Declaration SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~~ D;recto' ofP~," ... ~" REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~ ---' (4/5ths Vote: Yes Å- No~ Central A venue in Bonita between Sweetwater Road and Bonita Road experiences flooding quite frequently. During high rain years, there have been periods of time that the road was closed to traffic for 60 days or more due to the Sweetwater Dam overflowing. This flooding problem also makes the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course unplayable for the back nine holes during the same periods of time. The County of San Diego is planning to build a bridge in this location that will allow the flows from the dam and most stonns to flow under the bridge, thus allowing traffic continuous use of the road (except for very short periods of time when the river is flowing at very high flows). If the bridge were made 10' wider than necessary for the road and jogging path, there would be adequate space across the bridge for a golf cart path. RECOMMENDATION: I. Adopt, as a Responsible Agency, the Negative Declaration prepared by the County of San Diego, 2. Approve the dedicating of right-of-way to the County for use as a County Highway, subject to County acceptance thereof, 3. Approve the Agreement with the County for the construction of the project, and appropriate $100,000. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Using Transnet Funds, the County of San Diego will be constructing a street project on Central A venue in Bonita that will improve the intersection of Bonita Road and Central A venue by adding right turn lanes for eastbound Central A venue to southbound Bonila Road, and northbound Bonita Road to eastbound Central Avenue. A traffic signal will be installed at Central A venue and Sweetwater Road and a bridge on Central A venue spanning the Sweetwater River will also be constructed. Currently, the drainage culverts crossing under Central A venue can carry low flows, but if any sizeable stonn occurs and water flows over the road, it stops traffic, pedestrians, and 7-/ Page 2, Item 7 Meeting Date 6/4/96 golfers. This project will remove the undersized culverts and build a bridge that will span about 80 ft. and. be able to pass about 2500 CFS of storm water. When the Dam is not full, this culvert will pass all the water from mosl slOrms. However, the bridge will be designed to have water flow over it during large storms. It is estimated that would only happen a very few times every 5 to 10 years. Also when the Dam is overflowing, the water will pass under the bridge. However, when the Dam is overflowing at the same time that a large slOrm occurs, water will most likely pass over the bridge. This project will make the road much more usable. The real problem is that for even relatively minor slOrms or when the Dam is overflowing (someIimes for as long as 60 days), the road is not passable and traffic (County traffic as well as Chula Vista lraffic), has to go around the golf course, In addition, during these times, the back nine holes of the golf course are unplayable since the golfers can't cross the river. This project will widen the bridge an additional 10 ft. in order to provide for a golf cart path across the bridge, thus allowing play on the back nine during these periods of higher river flows. Further, the recreation trail is blocked by waler, thereby, deterring trail users. The County has estimated that the bridge will COSl $600,000 and will be a tOIaI of 60 ft. wide. The County will pay the IOtal cost of the bridge for the vehicular and pedestrian traffic, but we must pay for the golf cart path. Our share of costs is estimated at $100,000. Agreement Provisions The agreement has the following major provisions: 1. The City will dedicate some land (6470 sq. Ft) for road right of way al the southeast corner of the Chula Vista Golf Course in order to provide for the right turn lane. City will also dedicate a temporary construction easement of approximalely 1 acre which will revert to the City after construction is complete. 2. The County will build the entire facility, maintain the road and the entire bridge structure (including the cart path portion on the bridge). 3. The City will contribute $100,000 IOward the cost of the bridge. It is estimated thai the bridge will cost $600,000 while the enIire road and Traffic Signal project will cost approximately $1.5 million. Funding sources: The primary benefit for the cart path improvement is the abilily of golfers to access all 18 holes during high flows in the Sweetwater River. There are adequate funds in the golf course fund for this appropriation. SIaff recommends using that money 10 front our share of the project. However, we should then use that cost in reaching future agreements with operators of the golf course. American Golf has expressed an interest in sharing with the City the $100,000 cost. American Golf believes a bridge would be a benefit to their users and the corporation. Initial discussions with American Golf ? - ..l. Page 3, Item 7 Meeting Date 6/4/96 have begun concerning their financial share in the project. Staff will return to Council with a cost sharing agreement once our negoliations have concluded. American Golfs first negotiable position is to review the existing green fees with an eye IOward raising the rates. Due to lime constraints staff has not been able 10 reach closure with American Golf on the cost sharing negotiations. There would also be benefit 10 the hotel project now in negotiations before staff to have this golf cart path included in the bridge project. There is also benefit to the City 10 keep the golf course open as long as possible since we do receive revenues from the operation of the course. During the years 1993 through 1995 revenues were lost to the golf course and the City due 10 storms and water flowing over the Dam and subsequently over Central Ave. Total revenue lost due to water problems during the last 3 years is as follows: Year Amount 1993 $407,000 1994 $40,000 1995 $100,000 Total $547,000 Since the City receives 15 % of Golf Course revenues, this represents a total loss of City revenues of $82,050. The County will be advertising for bids on the construction of this project in early June in order to get the project constructed before the next rains. Negative Declaration The County Department of Public Works has prepared a Negative Declaration for the Central Avenue project. (Attachment A). Pages 7 & 8 of that document describe the mitigation measures that the project is required to complete. It is staffs recommendation that Council adopt, as a Responsible Agency, the Negative Declaration. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be an approprialion of $100,000 from the unappropriated balance of the golf course fund. Through negotiations with American Golf the City will attempt to get a portion of the money reimbursed. JPL N:\SHARED\CENTRAL.WPD Attachment: A. Negative Declaration Summary 7 - 3)1 - -- -.---..- -- -" --_._--_...._-~ RESOLUTION NO. /?.1 ~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE ON CENTRAL AVENUE AND DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY FROM GOLF COURSE PROPERTY, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, Central Avenue in Bonita between Sweetwater Road and Bonita Road experiences flooding quite frequently and during high rain years, there have been periods of time that the road was closed to traffic for 60 days or more due to the Sweetwater Dam overflowing; and WHEREAS, this flooding problem also makes the Chula vista Municipal Golf Course unplayable for the back nine holes during the same periods of time; and WHEREAS, the County of San Diego is planning to build a bridge in this location that will allow the flows from the dam and most storms to flow under the bridge, thus allowing traffic continuous use of the road (except for very short periods of time when the river is flowing at very high flows); and WHEREAS, if the bridge were made 10' wider than necessary for the road and jogging path, there would be adequate space across the bridge for a golf cart path; and WHEREAS, the County has prepared a Negative Declaration for the bridge improvement project, and related improvements, in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby: 1. Find and determine that the above recitals are true and correct. 2. Adopt, as a Responsible Agency, the Negative Declaration prepared by the County of San Diego. 3. Approve an Agreement with the county of San Diego for the construction of a bridge on Central Avenue and Dedication of Right of Way from Golf Course Property, in the form presented, with such minor changes and clarifications as may be approved by the city Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No. . 7-5'" _ "__.___m..... ____.__~__..n_ 4. Approve the dedication of right-of-way to the County, in accordance with the terms of such agreement, for use as a County Highway, subject to County acceptance thereof. 5. Authorize the Mayor of the City of Chula vista to execute said Agreement for and on beha If of the City of Chula vista and authorize staff to take all steps reasonably necessary to implement the Agreement. 6. Appropriate the sum of $100,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Golf Course Reserve Fund to fund city's obligations under the Agreement. Presented by Approved as to form by ~ John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works C:\rs\central.brd ?-¡, -----.".-.-.'-.- AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE ON CENTRAL AVENUE OVER THE SWEETWATER RIVER AND A RIGHT TURN LANE AT CENTRAL AVENUE EAST TO BONITA ROAD SOUTH This Agreement is entered into effective as of June 11, 1996, by and between the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as COUNTY, and the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as CITY, with reference to the following facts: WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY are empowered by Government Code Sections 6500 et. Seq. To enter into a joint powers agreement to exercise powers jointly held; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY desire to cooperate and jointly participate in engaging the COUNTY to prepare plans and specifications for and to oversee construction of the following public improvements project ("Project"): (1) The replacement of two corrugated metal pipes beneath Central Avenue with a lOa-foot long bridge, and related improvements, across the Sweetwater River (the "Bridge Improvements"); (2) Improvement of the Bonita Road/Central Avenue intersection to: Relocate the traffic signal poles; add a right-turn lane for northbound traffic on Bonita Road south of Central Avenue; add a right-turn lane for southbound traffic on Bonita Road just north of Central Avenue; add a right-turn lane for westbound traffic on Central Avenue; and underground the existing above-ground drainage facilities in the southwest quadrant of the intersection; and (3) Installation of a traffic signal at the Sweetwater Road/Central Avenue intersection. WHEREAS, the CITY has requested and COUNTY has agreed to include in the Project certain interim and permanent design features which benefit both CITY and COUNTY: and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY intend to jointly finance the 1 ?-7 ---.-.---------------. Project; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY is acquiring the necessary easements in real property for the purpose of constructing the project; and WHEREAS, one of the parcels necessary for the Project lies in whole or in part within the CITY, namely the parcel identified as Parcel No. 93-0422-A,B (which is a portion of A.P.N. 593-240-24), as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Right Turn Lane property"); and WHEREAS, the CITY is willing to grant COUNTY the necessary easement in and to the Right Turn Lane Property on the condition that the COUNTY designate such parcel as a County Highway pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 9, Article 3 of the California streets and Highways Code, beginning with section 1700 and on the terms and conditions set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to accept as a County Highway, the Right Turn Lane Property on such terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, Division 2, Chapter 9, Article 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, beginning with Section 1700, provides for cooperation between a City and a County for the extension of county highway through cities; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 1996, the Planning Department of the CITY found this project to be in conformance with the General Plan of the CITY; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 1996, the Planning Department of the COUNTY found this project to be in conformance with the General Plan of the COUNTY; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY, as lead agency, has prepared a Negative Declaration for the Project (dated April 2, 1996) in accordance with CEQA, and CITY, as a responsible agency, and COUNTY shall have each adopted same prior to their approval of this Agreement; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS mutually agreed between the COUNTY and CITY as follows: 1. CITY TRANSFER OF EASEMENT AND RELATED OBLIGATIONS. contingent on COUNTY approval of this Agreement and adoption of an acceptance resolution, the CITY shall (a) concurrent with its approval of this Agreement, approve a resolution declaring the Right Turn Lane Property a COUNTY Highway for purposes of acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance, repair, general police powers, police enforcement, and all other related purposes; (b) forward a copy of such resolution to the COUNTY; and (c) dedicate to the COUNTY the necessary easement in and to the 2 7- 8" _____ _____~_____m. Right Turn Lane Property as represented diagrammatically on Exhibit A as Parcel No. 93-0422-A¡ and (d) provide the COUNTY with a temporary construction easement as represented diagrammatically on Exhibit A as Parcel No. 93-0422-B. Such easements shall be transferred pursuant to that certain Easement for County Highway document attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2. COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT AND RELATED OBLIGATIONS. Concurrent with its approval of this Agreement, the COUNTY will (a) adopt a resolution declaring the Right Turn Lane Property, a COUNTY Highway for purposes of acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance repair, general police powers, police enforcement, and all other related purposes; and (b) forward a copy of such resolution to the CITY. The Right Turn Lane Property shall remain a COUNTY Highway for all the above-described purposes until such time as the CITY may obtain jurisdiction over such property, or the parties otherwise agree. 3. APPORTIONMENT OF COST. The COUNTY shall acquire all necessary easements as reflected on Exhibit A and bear all costs for the Project, except that (a) the CITY shall grant the Right Turn Lane Property to the COUNTY at no cost, and (b) the CITY shall contribute up to $100,000 towards the Bridge Improvements component of the Project (described above). The CITY's contribution is based on the COUNTY's original estimate, that the Bridge Improvements will cost $600,000 to complete. In the event that Bridge Improvements cost greater than $600,000, the COUNTY shall bear all additional costs. In the event that the Bridge Improvements cost less than $600,000, the CITY contribution shall be reduced proportionately. (For example, if the Bridge Improvements cost $500,000 to complete, the CITY contribution hereunder would be reduced from $100,000 to $73,444). The CITY shall pay to the COUNTY 50% of the CITY contribution at the award time of the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The remaining balance shall be paid to the COUNTY after the completion and acceptance by the COUNTY of the Project and the concurrent good faith and reasonable approval of the project by the City Engineer. 4. COUNTY LEAD AGENCY. The COUNTY shall be the lead agency for the Project and shall be responsible for its completion in a timely manner. As such the COUNTY shall provide plans, specifications and cost estimates for the Project which shall be reasonably approved by the city. The design of the Project will be in conformance with COUNTY standards. The construction contract will require that the contractor indemnify, hold harmless, and defend COUNTY and CITY respectively regarding damages or claims arising out of the performance of said agreements. The contract will require the contractor to obtain and maintain either commercial general liability insurance (including errors and omissions coverage) protecting both entities as additional insured with respect to negligent construction, as appropriate, and, if not 3 7~~ -- -~-_._---~.._._._.__.."._--- included in such insurance, separate errors and omissions coverage protecting both public entities. 5. INDEMNITY. The COUNTY shall indemnify, protect, defend and save the CITY and CITY'S Councilmembers, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all liabilities, claims, suits, actions, damages, costs (including, without limitation attorneys' fees) and/or causes of action arising out of the design, construction or maintenance of the Project, or any other activities under this Agreement except to the extent caused by the negligence or wilful misconduct of the CITY. 6. MAINTENANCE. Upon completion of the Project improvements including, without limitation, the Bridge Improvements, the COUNTY maintain and repair same in perpetuity, at no cost to the CITY, in accordance with COUNTY standards. 7. MODIFICATION. This Agreement may not be modified, amended or otherwise changed unless by amendment, in writing, executed by both parties. 8. TERM. This agreement shall terminate upon completion of the Project, and upon payment of all amounts due under the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, COUNTY's maintenance, repair, general police powers and policing responsibilities hereunder shall continue in effect. 9. PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. COUNTY agrees to construct the Project in conformance with the description set forth herein, subject to such further refinement in the Project plans and specifications as may be reasonably agreed upon the parties. The Project plans and specifications shall include the following elements, to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY: (a) interim plans for pedestrian and traffic flows during Project construction; (b) rip rap on the banks at the southern outflow points of the Bridge Improvements; and (c) permanent fencing on the CITY side of the bridge crossing which adequately separates vehicular, pedestrian and golf course traffic. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the County of San Diego, pursuant to action taken by the Board of Supervisors and the City of Chula vista pursuant to action taken by the City Council. [Next Page is Signature Page] 4 ?-/P signature Page to Agreement between the County of San Diego and the City of Chula vista for the Design and Construction of a Bridge on Central Avenue over the Sweetwater River and a Right Turn Lane at Central Avenue East to Bonita Road South CITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BY: BY: shirley Horton, Mayor Clerk of the Board of supervisors ATTEST: CITY OF CHULA VISTA BY: City Clerk DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: .. BY: County Counsel N:\shared\attorney\acvcag2.wpd 5 7-/1 ---..- ----..---.-----.-....-.-..--. . ,. EXHIBIT A Diagram Reflecting Right Turn Lane Property and Temporary Construction Easement 6 7-/,2 ,~ (" ".--~-~--_._._-,-_.~ EXHIBIT B Easement for County Highway 7 7-/3 .., ~/ ( -.---- ~_... --.-- WHEN RECORDED, PLEASE RETURN THIS INSTRUMENT TO: (MAil STATION A45) Clerk, Board of Supervisors San Diego County Administration Center .1600 Pacific Highway San Diago, California 92101 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY RECORDED REQUEST OF DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NO TRANSFER TAX DUE EASEMENT FOR COUNTY HIGHWAY Assessor's Parcel Project: BONITA ROAD/CENTRAL No.: 593-240-24 AVENUE CONNECTOR W.O. No.: TE4334 Parcal No.: 93-0422-A,B Log No.: 93-04-07 Fund: TRANSNET CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipel corporetion hareinafter called GRANTOR, does hereby grant, convey and dedicate to the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Stete of Cellfomia, hereinafter called GRANTEE, the right-of-way and incidents thareto for a public highway upon, over and across that certain real property in the County of San Diego, State of Callfomia, descrtbed as follows: Parcel No. 93-0422-A (04-01-961 IBTH:PET:dlg) That portion of Quarter Section 47 of RANCHO DE LA NACION, In tha County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 166, made by Morrtll and filed in tha Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, on May 11, 1869, dascribed as follows: COMMENCING at tha Northaast comer of said Quartar Section 47; thenca along the Northerty line of said Quarter Section 47, South 72°28'25" West (South 72°08' West rec) 312.73 faat; thanceleaving said Northerty line South 17°31 '35" East, 20.00 feet to the Southerty Ilna of Roed Survay No. 72, a copy of which Is on fila In the Offlca of tha County Engineer of said County and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said Southerty line North 72°28'25" East 273.00 feet to the Westerty sideline of Road Survey No. 656-2 (Bonita Road), being 60.00 foot wide; a copy of which Is on file In the Office of the County Engineer of said County; thence along, said Westerfy sideline South 05°03'56" West, 112.00 feet; thence leaving said line North 84°56'04" West, 5.00 feet; thence north 05°03'56" East, 37.87 feet to the beginning of a tangent 30.00 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterty; thence Northwesterty along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 112°35'31", a distance of 58.95 feet; thence tangent to said curve South 72°28'25" West, 124.21 feet; thence South 88°19'59" West, 91.48 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ?-I'f 10300071 Rev, 11M., ,.. ".6 ¡l--' ( ".~-_.".._._-------~------- . 93-0422-A.B Parcel No. 93-0422-B (04-01-96) (BTH:PET:dlg) A Temporary Construction Easement upon, through. under. over and across that portion of Quarter Section 47 of RANCHO DE LA NACION. in the County of San Diego. State of California. according to Map thareof No. 166, made by Morrill and filed in the Office of the Recorder of Hid San Diego County. on May 11. 1869, descrlbad as follows: COMMENCING at the Northeast comer of said Quarter Section 47; thence along the Northerly line of Hid Quarter Saction 47. South 72°28'25" W.st (South 72°08'West rec) 312.73 feet; thencel.avlng aald Northarly line South 17°31'35" e.st. 20.00 feat to the Southerly line of Road Survey No. 72. a copy of which Is on file in the Office of the County Engineer of said County and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence elong said Southerly line North 72°28'25" East 273.00 f.et to the Westerly aldellne of Road Survey No. 656-2 (Bonita Road), baing 60.00 foot wide; a copy of which la on file In the Office of the County Engineer of said County; thence elong, aald Westerly aldellne South 05°03'56" West. 270.00 feet; thence leaving said line North 07°04'17" W.st. 95.13 feet; thence North 05°03'56" East, 82.03 feet; thence South 72°28'25" Welt. 425.05 feet; thence North 17°31'35" West. 80.00 feet to said Southerly line of Road Survey No. 72 thence along the Southerly line North 72°28'25" East, 207.00 faet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion thereof lying within Parcel No. 93-0422-A described above. 1-/.5' 10300071 Rev. IIMI, 1e, "'6 {ì:_/ v 93-0422-A,B The Grantor hereby further grants to the County of San Diego the privilege and right to extend drainage structures end excavation and embankment slopes as shown In Exhibit· A· (Parcel No. 93-0422-A,BI attached hareto and made a part hereof. RESERVING unto grantor of the above described parcel of land, his successora or assigns, the right to eliminate such slopes and/or drainage structures or portions thereof, when In the written opinion of the County and/or District Engineer of Grantee, the necessity therefore Is removed by substituting other protection, suppol1 and/or drainage facility, provided such substitution is first approved in writing by the Englneer(s). The Grantor hereby further grants to Grantee all trees, growths (growing or that may hereafter grow), and road building matarials within said easaments and right-of-way, together with the right to use the same In such manner and at such locations as said Grantee may deem proper, needful or nacessary, In the construction, reconstruction, Improvement or maintenance of said highway. Dated this day of .19 CITY OF CHULA VISITA e municipal corporation By: By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) On before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person!s) whose FOR NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL name!s) Is/are subscribed to tha within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same In his/her/their authorized capacity lies), and that by his/her/their slgnature(s) on the Instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the personls) ected, executed the Instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: 7-lt 10300071 Riw.IIM.y 11, '''6 ,>D 93-0422-A,B This Is to certify that the Interest In real property conveyad by the foregoing daed or grant to the County of San Diego. a political subdivision, is hereby accepted on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of said County of San Diego pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of said Board adopted on January 7. 1992, and the Grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: JOHN KROSS, Deputy Director Real Property Division Department of General Services 10300071 7 - / ;jI'í? Rev. I/May 'e. ,... ,,0\ , -- --- ~._.._.- · #? or11U~'nf Y6an ~i.eBn COUNTY ENGINEER COUNTY AIRPORTS TOM GARIBAY COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER TRANSIT IE.wICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY SURVEYOR (I") ....-2212 FLOOD CONTROL FAX: ('1') 21'-041' WAlTEWATEIII MANAGEMENT LOCATION CODE 850 5555 OYERLAND AVE, IAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 12123-1215 aouo WASTE Date: &rch 27, 1996 :IN:ITIAL STUDY StJMKARY FORM 1. Project Name (Number): Central Avenue Bridqe, Bonita Road/Central Avenue :Intersection :Improvements, and Sweetwater Road/central Avenue Siqnallzation Projects (UJ1549) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: County of San Dieqo Department of Public Works 5555 Overland Avenue (M.S. 0385) San Diego, California' 92123 3. Analyst's Name and Phone Number: Connie Willens (619) 694-3223 4. Project Location: The project area is within the Sweetwater Community Planning Area, in southwestern San Diego County (see Fiqure 1). :It encompasses: the portion of Central Avenue between and just beyond Sweetwater Road and Bonita Road; approximately 240 feet both north· and south of Central Avenue on Bonita Road; approximately 0.14 acre of the Sweetwater River floodplain within Planninq Area 17 of Sweetwater Regional Park (Park), upstream of Central Avenue; and approximately 0.73 acre within the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course (Golf Course) property downstream of Central Avenue. See Fiqure 2. Thomas Brothers Coordinates: Paqe 1310, Grids 82 and J2. 5. Project Applicant Name and Address: County of San Dieqo Department of Public Works 5555 OVerland Avenue, M.S. 0340 San Diego, CA 92123 Attention: Ralph Munoz {. r", 1 -, . 1)1' J \ '... v ;~- .'.. " fJ·-1 7-/9 0_...__ I 0 0 c: z . "ð :;! 0 I) 0 . »' "TI z: ~ I)' fI ! :Þ I'" Z 11\ 1)0 (þ ·0 !" ..~ iii ~. " - 0 0 , m " ~ ~ .. 0 ~ .. "TI c " " . i c: m . ~ CD .. C> a r- ; Õ - ~ 0 . .. :\1: > z n % · ! . 0 » · a ::D . · . r · ;II:; · a fI r· , !;1 0 < 0 :5 » :!! 0 -I < z - .. 3: 0 :II m Z ~ z 0 ; .. n r- 0 fI C . z m " -4 ~ ~ n .. i a C .. ~ : : : Õ ~ Þ C"I I: .. % . m . " . 0 ~ fI 0 c: · Z n · ::¡ · .. .. C .. . )( . 8 i .. .. .. . ! . 0 . ~ a ~ ~ .. . % .. · ~ .. H . "'11 a .. . .. .. .. E - ;) ... C IMPERIAL COUNTY 720 :1:1 .- m - -.._- . )'. ~'d"~, 1...:... "~~ ~/j~:~~"J \ ,'Tofu:1 '-7 ~~' 'ÀJ f. \' < ~>IP".o--··t-" . /1 \'\"', ~ ". ~__. 1 . ~~ ! ' ~ .~'. ':'JcP \ ~ '""",g.... Ii'¡; ..""" ~_ 9" '..... I .:.~I ~. t:,\ .. ,\\ 'v" '" \ ~'. f' ,rfJ~, , " ~.'" ., <¡ ~ ., FEET FIGURE PROJECT AREA. 2 3' '1-2./ - COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES UNIT ·' . ~ "-;pt _:.~ '"'; .. IS/ND Form -2- UJ154!1 6. General Plan Designation community Plan: Collector Land Use Designation: N/A Density: N/A 7. zoning Use ..1tequlation: N/A Density: N/A Special Area Requlation: N/A 8. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation): The project consists of three parts: (1) the replacement of two corrugated metal pipes beneath Central Avenue with a 100- foot long bridge crossing the SWeetwater River undercrossing; (2) the installation of a traffic signal at thé SWeetwater Road/Central Avenue intersection; and (3) the improvement of the Bonita Road/Central Avenue intersection to: move the traffic signal poles; add a right-turn lane for northbound traffic on Bonita Road south of Central Avenue; add a right- turn lane for southbound traffic on Bonita Road just north of Central Avenue; add a riqht-turn lane for westbound traffic on Central Avenue; move the traffic signal pole; and underqround the existing above-qround drainage facilities in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. Central Avenue will be closed during èonstruction of the project, which is expected to require about 3 months. However, the project area will be accessible to pedestrians ,. equestrians, and golf carts. A dirt area in the southeast quadrant of the Sweetwater Road/Central Avenue intersection that contains scattered Acacia trees will be used as a staging area for the project. The maximUJII area of potential effect (APE) for the project includes approximately 0.73 of the downstream Golf Course property and approximately 0.14 acre of the upstream area within the Park. The APE is generalized,- and the actual area of impact within the Golf Course property is expected to be less than the APE shown in Fiqure 3. The project will take about 3 months to complete. Construction is expected to occur in late Summer and Fall of 1996, avoiding the majority of the riparian bird breeding season. Water in the sweetwater River will be diverted durinq construction throuqh a temporary pipeline and released just downstream of the project area. Il;",~ 7- 22 II! ~ C') - ',' ~ \"~"'_P-- \'. v .. ~ i iI' ,'. ~.-..-- II ;\~ Qll q h/¡ ! , I ! rIli :-(~r \- I ¡ I. II . ~01D r t j -......'. .....'-- g l- e Q r c i I en if :> - ' - i ø - ~ I - f C? ~ I - I ~-- ~ , ·Z--.c... -- - . - i .~ ~ I , , .,---- i ~<~':.. - - --- ~ ~,_. .-..'- -- . --.~_. I --. --- . .. . : ~.....,~;=-::::.:~-? - - ," -', -.' :.!- ..":-- I . .. .' ! ¡Î\- , \. ~ , 7-;Z 3 .(J,,-g j ISIND Form -3- UJ1S49 , 9. SurrouncUng Land Uses and Setting (land uses, topoqraphy, veqetation, proximity to major infrastructure and qeoqraphical features): The area immediately upstream of Central Avenue is part of a 37-acre area known as SWeetwater Regional Park Planning Area 17 ~t is being restored. The restoration area once contained three riparian communities. It was highly disturbed in the past by sand mining, the installation of utility lines, horseback and bike riding, walking, and other recreational activities. As a result of the sand mining, the topoqraphy included several large rows of sand that inhibited natural flood flows and sediment deposition. This area is currently being restored by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the County of San Diego Department of Public Works on land owned by the County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation. The habitat restoration was originally proposed as mitigation for two Caltrans road projects. The county of San Diego Department of Public Works later entered into an agreement with Caltrans to reimburse Caltrans for the restoration of 2.1 acres of land in the southwestern portion of the restoration area. The restoration includes the removal of exotics, grading to ) return the topoqraphy to a more natural state, the installation of an irrigation system and planting, which have been completed, and seeding, which has not yet been completed. The work is being conducted in conformance with the Modified Irrigation Plan (HP-14) and.the Modified Planting Plan (HP-S) prepared by Caltrans on December 31, 1995. Upon completion of the seeding, there will be three years of monitorinq and maintenance and an additional two years of monitoring and stewardship by Caltrans. The Bonita Road/Central Avenue intersection is already signalized. There is a commercial center on the northeast corner and a commercial/office center on the southeast corner. The area to be used for the new right-turn lane and bike lane for northbound traffic is partly paved and contains limited landscaping, with no native species present. The area on Bonita Road to be used for a right-turn lane for southbound traffic is already disturbed and has no native habitat. The area on Central Avenue to be used for a right-turn lane onto Bonita Road southbound is currently disturbed and contains no native habitat. The SWeetwater Road/Central Avenue intersection area, at the western end of the project area, appears more rural than the Bonita Road (east) end of the project area. At Sweetwater , Road, there are homes well set back from the west side of ) Sweetwater Road. There are grasses and disturbed coastal Sage fì~~ 7-.21 IS¡ND Porm -4- UJ1549 Scrub in this area outside the APE. The east aide of Sweetwater Road is bounded by the Golf Course south of Central Avenue and by the Park on the north side of Central Avenue. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is requested (responsible agencies, e.g., permits, financing approval etc.): ../ California Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 (Clean Water Act) Waiver or Certification. California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1601 of California Fish and Game Code). u.s. Army Corps of Engineers section 404 (Clean Water Act;) Permit. County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation approval of right-of-entry and temporary construction work within Sweetwater Regional Park. City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Department approval of right-of-entry and temporary construction work within Chula vista Municipal Golf Course. Caltrans approval of temporary disruption of restoration work and County DPW planting and seeding upon project completion. 11. State agencies (not included in #10) that have jurisdiction by law (trustee agencies) over natural resources affected by the project [e.g. , biological habitat (Fish and Game) , State highways (CALTRANS)]: None. 12. Names of persons who participated in the Initial Study (including consulting firm names): Alexander Segal, County of San Diego DPW Environmental Services Unit (ESU) Connie Willens, County of San Diego DPW ESU David C. Hanna, County of San Diego DPW ESU Mark Webb, County of San Diego DPW ESU Ralph Munoz, County of San Diego DPW Engineering Design Lou Christensen, County of San Diego DPW Engineering Design Consulted during the preparation of the Initial Study: Rick Repasy, County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Doug Reid, city of Chula Vista Planning Department, Environmental Coordination Dave Zoutendyk, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Terri Dickerson, California Department of Fish and Game Pam Klos, Caltrans John Rieger, caltrans Tom Boquin, Caltrans Brian Hadley, Caltrans :ft;.7- 7-.25 IS/ND Form -5- V.:r1549 ~3, Environmental Factors potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvinq at least oneiapact that is a WPotentially Sic¡nificant Adverse Environmental ImpactW as indicated by a wYesw answer on the wEnvironmental ChecklistW, /" o Land v.. , Planning o '1'ran.portation/Circulation o Public "rvic.. o Population , Sou.ing o Biological ...ouree. o Vtil1ti.. , "rviee. o Geological I..u.. o Sazard. o ,...thetic. o wat.r ".ourc.. o lIoi.. o other Impact. o Air Quality o Cultural and o Handatory Find.ing. of Pal_ntoloqical Significanc. it~ 1-2'0 . IS¡ND Form -6- UJ1549 14. Initial study Determination: On the basis of the initial evaluation: o The Department of Public Works recommends that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on .%be environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. . The Department of Public Works recommends that althouqh the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the 1IIitiqation 1IIeasures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o The Department of Public Works recommends that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o The Department Public Works recommends that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursùant to applicable leqal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitiqation measures, as necessary, based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o The Department of Public Works recommends that althouqh the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or 1IIitiqated pursuant to that earlier EIR, includinq revisions or 1IIitiqation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. fJ~-7-27 IS/NO Porm -7- UJ1549 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FORM (the following are not applicable to EIR projects) 15. Mitigation Measures: (for mitigated Negative Declarations include all project related environmental impact mitigation measures created during the Initial study as they will app~ in the project approval documentation.) · The County DPW will stake and flaq, and fence where needed, the construction area, and will monitor construction to ensure that construction limits are not exceeded. · Within the impact area of the restoration area of the Park, the county DPW will: Ca) mitigate the loss of three mature willow trees near the existinq pipes in the Park restoration area by transplanting the trees outside of the APE, away from the vicinity of the new bridge, to locations within the Park restoration area; Cb) replace/repair any portions of the irriqation system that are impacted by project construction; (c) replant and hydroseed the impact area within the Park restoration area according to Caltrans' Modified Plantinq Plan CHP-S); and Cd) conduct mitigation monitoring, plant replacement and maintenance for the impact/mitigation area for the remainder of the construction contractor's contract, until approximately March of 1997. Caltrans will be responsible for lonq-term mitigation monitoring and maintenance after this initial plant establishment period when Caltrans' contractor's responsibilities end. · The County DPW will plant willow cuttinqs just outside the main channel flow and in between the rip rap in the streambed immediately downstream of the bridge within the APE south of Central Avenue. The species will be those used in the upstream restoration area: Salix lasioleÐis, Salix hindsiana, Salix Gooddinaii. · The County DPW will hydroseed the impacted slopes and floodplain area outside the main river channel south of central Avenue with a seed mix comprised of Salix lasiolenis, Salix hindsiana, Salix Gooddinaii, and Baccharis salicifolia. · Any impacted slopes associated with the qolf course will be hydroseeded with qrass seed recommended by the Golf Course qreenskeeper. · The County DPW will be responsible for mitigation monitoring and maintenance for the area south of Central Avenue for three years or 'until the mitigation meets the success A-::J.ð 7-2. J? ZS!ND Form -8- UJ1549 criteria to be included in the Reveqetation Plan and in the' state and Federal permit conditions. . Equestrian, pede.trian, qolfer, and qolf cart· access will be maintained throuqbout construction of the project. 16. ManØatory CEQA Neqative Declaration Findinq: (Choose one of the followinq) 0 "There is not substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" (for Neqative Declarations without mitiqation measures) or, . "Revisions in the project plans or proposals agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitiqate the effects to a point wbere clearly no significant effects would occur and there is no substantial evidence before the County that the project as revised may bave a significant effect on the environment" (for Mit1qated Neqative Declarations). 17. Mandatory CEQA Findinq for Adoption of a Neqative Declaration: Tbis Neqative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of tbe County of San Dieqo as represented by the appropriate decision-makinq body. NOTE: Tbis action becomes final upon approval by the appropriate decision-makinq body. . LL/{?A~ ~AVID S. SOLOMON, Deputy Director Department of Public Works DSS:CW Attachment ¡:r=tl~ 7-.4 éj ._._,~,. . r --=.--- (71) . u, , ...-~ r---- BNVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PORM .,¡.: U '" 13::!5 DATI: March 27, 1996 [- I I. .: \; \. i . ~ PROJECT NAME/NUMBIR: CENTRAL AVENUE BRIDGE, BONITA ROAD/CENTRAL AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, AND SWEETWATER ROAD/CENTRAL AVENUE SIGNALIZATION PROJECTS (UJ154 9) Instructions: - The following questions must be answered either "Yes", "Yes, Unless Mitigated", "No" , or "Not Applicable." - A brief explanation is required for "Yes" and "Yes, Unless Mitigated" answers. Explanations may simply reference an. extended initial study (e.g. , Biology Report) as appropriate. A "No" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.. the project will not result in any impacts to groundwater resources based on minimum lot size and well testing results) . - All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. - "Yes" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Yes" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. - "Yes, Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially Significant Adverse Environmental Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Adverse Environmental Impact" . You must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (this can be done by the consultant within the "Extended Initial Study) (mitigation measures from Section XVI of this checklist, "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced) . - Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. CEQA Guidelines section 15063 (c) (3) (D) . Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVI at the end of this checklist. - Incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. , general plans, zoning ordinances) . Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference as to where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. N/A . Not Applicable ~ 7-30 Environmental Analysis Form -2- Project Number: UJ1549 I . LAND USE AND PLANNING. a. Would the proposal potentially be in conflict with General Plan Designation or zoning (including the Community Plan and General Plan Elements)? No b. would the proposal potentially be in conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Yes, Unless Mitigated. It will be mitigated by restoration of the recently planted Caltrans restoration area to its original condition as specified in the Caltrans CCo # 13 (Modified) Planting Plan, HP-8 and CCO # 13 (Modified) Irrigation Plan, HP-14. c. Does the proposal have the potential to be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? No. d. Would the proposal have a potentially significant adverse impact on agricultural resources or operation (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No e. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? No f. Would the proposal use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner (e.g., residential development over a mineral resource)? No Brief Explanation of Land Use and Planning Answers (as necessary): Caltrans and the County Department of Public Works are currently implementing a restoration plan for the portion of the Sweetwater River immediately upstream of Central Avenue. The removal of exotics, installation of irrigation lines, and planting have already been completed, though seeding has yet to be completed. The project will impact approximately 0.14 acre of the restoration area. This potential impact will be mitigated by the County's restoration of this area to its current condition upon project completion and by seeding of this area, in conformance with the approved Caltrans restoration plans (CCO # 13, (Modified) Planting Plan, HP-8 and CCO # 13, (Modified Irrigation Plan, HP-14). The restoration project and the remainder of the biological mitigation measures conform with the Sweetwater Communitv Plan goals, policies and recommendations by improving the habitat quality along the 'Sweetwater River. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. a. Would the proposal potentially induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., extension of .B=~:ß, 7-.3/ Environmental Analysis Form -3- Project Number: UJ1549 major roads, water, and/or sewer or place urban development significantly beyond the current limits of urban development)? No b. Would the proposal displace a potentially significant amount of existing housing, especially affordable housing? No Brief Explanation of Population and Housing Answers (as necessary) : The project will not increase the capacity of the road or displace any housing. III. GEOLOGIC ISSUES. a. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly increase the exposure of people to hazards related to fault rupture (Alquist-Priolo Zone) , seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (liquefaction) , subsidence of land (from groundwater extraction), or landslides? No b. Would the proposal result in potentially significant increased erosion? No c. Would the proposal result in potentially significant unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? No d. Does the proposal have soil characteristics that have the potential to substantially increase grading quantities (e.g. , expansive soils)? No e. Would the proposal result in a potentially significant adverse effect to unique geologic features? No f. Would the proposal result in potentially significant loss of availability of a known significant mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? No Brief Explanation of Geologic Problems Answers (as necessary) : The Geoloaic Reconnaissance Study. Central Avenue to ~riarwood Road Connector OVer Sweetwater River. San Dieao County. California, which was prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants in 1990 for a different project, included the project area as well as additional land to the north. It indicated that there was no evidence of faults or landslides in or near the project area. The Central Avenue area is underlain by the Mission Valley Formation, which generally has good strength characteristics in a natural state. There is undifferentiated fill and alluvium within the river bed of the Sweetwater River, some of which has been partially removed or reworked. The fill and alluvium areas have a potential for liquefaction during an earthquake. ~ 7-32- m..'.'·.__'~__.._...._~__.._.._.~.___ Environmental Analysis Form -4- Project Number: UJ1549 The fill currently underlying Central Avenue will be removed for the bridge construction. The bridge pilings will extend deep into more stable materials. Construction will comply with all of the recommendations of the final geologic/soils study. IV. WATBR RESOURCBS. a. would the proposal create a potentially significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff? No b. Would the proposal expose people or property to flooding (e.g. development within a floodway or floodplain, create a potentially significant adverse impact to the configuration of a streambed, floodway, or floodplain)? No c. Would the proposal result in a potentially significant increase in local imported water supply demand? No d. would the proposal have a potentially significant adverse impact on surface water quality (with emphasis on areas upstream of a public drinking water supply/reservoir)? No e. If the proposal is groundwater dependent, plans to utilize groundwater for non-potable purposes, or will obtain water from a groundwater dependent water district, does the project have a potentially significant adverse impacts on groundwater quantity? No f. Would the project have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality (e.g. , nitrates; pesticides; herbicides; disposal, storage or use of hazardous materials)? No . Brief Explanation of Water Resources Answers (as necessary) : The project is planned for construction during the dry season, when there is little, if any, flow in the Sweetwater River. All water in the River will be diverted around the construction area so there is not expected to be a potential for erosion. The project area is less than 5 acres, but a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared and implemented if it is required. V. AIR QUALITY. a. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly contribute to the violation of any air quality standard or significantly contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? No it=£ 1-33 Environmental Analysis Form -5- Project Number: UJ1549 b. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly increase the exposure of sensitive receptors to any excessive levels of air pollutants? No c. Would the proposal potentially result in the emission of objectionable odors at a significant intensity over a significant area? No Brief Explanation of Air Quality Answers (as necessary) : N/A VX. TRANSPORTATXON/CXRCULATXON. a. Would the proposal result in a potential increase in traffic congestion that is significant in relation to .existing traffic loads and street capacities? No b. Would the proposal result in potentially significant adverse traffic safety impacts related to development of, or increased exposure to, identified traffic safety issues (e.g., sharp curves, limited sight distance, or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment, heavy truck use)? No c. Would the proposal potentially result in inadequate emergency access? No d. Would the proposal potentially result in insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? No e. would the proposal result in a potentially significant adverse increase in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? No Brief Explanation of Transportation/Circulation Answers (as necessary): Although Central Avenue will be closed to through traffic for the 3-month construction period, it will be accessible to pedestrians, equestrians, golfers and golf carts. The turn lanes that are part of the project proposal will improve traffic safety and reduce congestion at the Bonita Road/Central Avenue intersection. vn. BXOLOGXCAL RESOURCES. a. Would the proposal result in potentially significant adverse impacts to an endangered, threatened or rare plant or animal species or their habitats (e.g., gnatcatchers, gabbro soils)? No b. Would the proposal result in potentially significant adverse impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, or vernal pools)? Yes, Unless Mitigated. ¡§3:-:f:t, 7--3 ¥ Environmental Analysis Form -6- Project Number: UJ1549 c. Would the proposal result in potentially significant adverse impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Brief Explanation of Biological Resources Answers (as necessary): Because of past and present land uses, the project area currently provides little habitat value. As noted in the Bioloaical SummarY, the project will impact an estimated 0.14 acre of newly planted Willow Scrub upstream in the restoration area and an estimated 0.06 acre of Willow Scrub downstream, with a total of 0.20 acre of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. The water diversion around the construction area will deliver the upstream water to the downstream area so that downstream habitat is not impacted either directly or indirectly through sedimentation. The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: 1- The County DPW will stake and flag, and fence where needed, the construction area, and will monitor construction to ensure that construction limits are not exceeded. 2. Within the impact area of the restoration area of the Park, the County DPW will: (a) mitigate the loss of three mature willow trees near the existing pipes in the Park restoration area by transplanting the trees outside of the APE, away from the vicinity of the new bridge, to locations within the Park restoration area; (b) replace/repair any portions of the irrigation system that are impacted by project construction; (c) replant and hydroseed the impact area within the Park restoration area according to Ca1trans' Modified Planting Plan (HP-8) ; and (d) conduct mitigation monitoring, plant replacement and maintenance for the impact/mitigation area for the remainder of the construction contractor's contract, until approximately March of 1997. Ca1trans will be . responsible for long-term mitigation monitoring and maintenance after this initial plant establishment period when Ca1trans' contractor's responsibilities end. 3. The County DPW will plant willow cuttings just outside the main channel flow and in between the rip rap in the streambed immediately downstream of the bridge within the APE south of Central Avenue. The species will be those used in the upstream restoration area: Salix lasioleuis, Salix hindsiana, Salix Gooddinaii. 4. The County DPW will hydroseed the impact~d slopes and floodplain area outside the main river channel south of Central Avenue with a seed mix comprised of Salix lasioleuis, Salix hindsiana, Salix Gooddinaii, and Baccharis salicifolia. ~-îT'73 - ."'. - -.!:) Environmental Analysis Form -7- Project Number: UJ1549 5. Any impacted slopes associated with the golf course will be hydroseeded with grass seed recommended by the Golf Course greenskeeper. 7. The County DPW will be responsible for mitigation monitoring and maintenance for the area south of Central Avenue for three years or until the mitigation meets the success criteria to be included in the Revegetation Plan and in the State and Federal permit conditions. VIII. HAZARDS. a. Would the proposal present a significant risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? No b. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No c. Would the proposal have the potential to significantly increase the fire hazard in areas with flammable vegetation? No d. Would the proposal expose people to any other demonstrable potentially significant health or safety hazard not listed above? No Brief Explanation of Hazards Answers (as necessary) : The closure of Central Avenue to automobiles for three months during construction will not significantly impact emergency access or evacuation plans because there are other crossings of the Sweetwater River that connect Bonita Road and Sweetwater Road, both of which continue westerly to Highway 805. IX. NOISE. a. Would the proposal expose people to potentially significant noise levels (i.e. , in excess of the levels allowed by the County General Plan or Noise Ordinance)? No b. Would the proposal generate potentially significant adverse noise levels? (i.e. , in excess of the levels allowed by the County General Plan or Noise Ordinance)? No Brief Explanation of Noise Answers (as necessary) : As explained in the Acoustical Analvsis Re'Cort prepared by Dr. Alexander Segal (1996), there will be . temporary noise impacts during construction. These are not considered to be significant because the construction will occur during the hours prescribed by the Noise Ordinance and standards for road projects in the General Plan Noise Element will not be exceeded. ~ 7-30 Environmental Analysis Form -8- Project Number: UJ1549 x. PUBL:IC SERV:ICES. a. Would the proposal create potentially significant adverse effects on, or result in the need for new or significantly altered services or facilities (including a significantly increased maintenance burden) on fire or police protection, schools, parks, or other public services or facilities? No Brief Explanation of Public Services Answer (as necessary) : As explained in number VII (Biological Resources) above, the County will maintain public access during construction and will mitigate, monitor and maintain mitigation areas within the area of impact. . X:I. UT:IL:IT:IES AND SERV:ICES. a. Would the proposal result in a need for potentially significant new systems or supplies. or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas; Communications systems; Water treatment or distribution facilities; Sewer or septic tanks; Storm water drainage; Solid waste disposal; Water supplies? No. Brief Explanation of Utilities and Service Systems Answers (as necessary): N/A XU. AESTBET:ICS. a. Would the proposal result in a demonstrable potentially significant adverse effect on a scenic vista or scenic highway? No. b. Would the proposal result in a demonstrable potentially significant adverse visual impact resultant from landform modification, development on steep slopes, and or excessive grading (cut/fill slopes)? No. c. Would the project have any other demonstrable potentially significant negative aesthetic effect not included above? No. d. Would the project produce excessive light or glare (Le. dark skies)? No. e. Would the proj ect have a potentially significant adverse effect on the existing character of the community? -{J~~'- '7-37 Environmental Analysis Form -9- Project Number: UJ1549 Brief Explanation of Aesthetics Answers (as necessary) : Upon completion of the mitigation measures, the streambed areas both upstream and downstream will have more vegetation and appear more visually pleasing than at present. XIII. CULTtTRAL AND PALBONTOLOGICAL RESOURCBS. a. would the proposal grade or disturb geologic formations that may contain potentially significant paleontological resources? No b. Would the proposal grade, disturb, or threaten a potentially significant archaeological, historical, or cultural artifact, object, structure, or site which: 1) contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions; 2) has particular quality or uniqueness (such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type) ; 3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person; 4) is listed in, or determined to be eligible to be listed in, the California Register of Historical Resources, National Register of Historic Places, or a National Historic Landmark; or 5) is a marked or ethnohistorically documented religious or sacred shrine, landmark, human burial, rock art display, geoglyph, or other important cultural site? No. Brief Explanation of CUltural and Paleontological Resources Answer (as necessary) : Based on Paleontoloaical Resources. County of San Dieao by Thomas A. Demere and Stephen L. walsh (1994), the Sweetwater River area has a low potential for containing fossil remains. This category is assigned to geologic formations that, based on their relative youthful age and/or high-energy depositional history, are judged unlikely to produce important fossil remains. Typically, these areas produce invertebrate fossil remains in small quantities. Archaeological record searches at the Museum of Man and the South Coast Information Center revealed no recorded sites in the vicinity and a field survey by DPW archaeologist David Hanna indicated no evidence of a potential for cultural resource sites. The project area has been highly disturbed over a period of years, and the area of impact con~ists largely of fill material and alluvium. ~::¡n 7-3g Environmental Analysis Form -10- Project Number: UJ1S49 XIV. OTHER IMPACTS NOT DBTAILED ABOVE: Brief Explanation of Other Impacts Answers (as necessary) : N/A. XV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCB. a. Does the project have the potential to 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 of California history or prehistory? No. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? No. c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No. d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantially adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. Brief Explanation of Mandatory Findings of Significance Answers (as necessary): N/A XVI. EARLIBR ANALYSBS. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section lS063(c) (3) (D)]. In this case a discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on any earlier analysis. N/A c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are ·Yes, Unless Mitigated" describe the mitigation measures based on any earlier analysis. N/A. ß:==Z1~ 7-:39 "__.____m... ----- Environmental Analysis Form -11- Project Number: UJ1549 XVI:[ . REFERENCES USED J:N THE COMPLETJ:ON 01" THE DnTJ:AL STCDY CBECltLJ:ST Boquin, Tom, of Caltrans, 1996. Personal communication, March 15, 1996. County of San Diego, 1993. Part XII. Sweetwater Communi tv Plan. San Dieao County General Plan. County of San Diego Department of Public Works, Environmental Services Unit, 1996. Central Avenue Bridae. Bonita Road/Central Avenue Intersection Imnrovements. and Sweetwater Road/Central Avenue Sianalization Proiect. Bioloaical SummarY. Demere, Thomas A., and Walsh, Stephen L., 1994. Paleontoloaical Resources. County of San Dieao. Dickerson, Terri, of California Department of Fish and Game, 1996. Telephone communication, March 27, 1996. Hadley, Brian, of Cal trans, 1995. Personal communication, March 15, 1996. Hanna, David, 1996. Personal communications, County of San Diego Department of Public Works archaeologist. Klos, Pam, of Caltrans, 1996. Personal communication, March 15, 1996. Murphree, Troy, of the Sweetwater Authority, 1996. Personal communication, March 19, 1996. Reid, Doug, City of Chula Vista Environmental Coordinator, 1996. Telephone communications, March 18, 1996 and March 27, 1996. Repasy, Rick, of County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation, 1996. Personal communication, March 15, 1996. Rieger, John, of Cal trans, 1995. Personal communication, March 15, 1996. Segal, Alexander, 1996. Acoustical Analvsis Renort. Central Avenue/Bonita Road/Sweetwater Road Imnrovements. State of California Department of Transportation, 1992. Pro;ect Plans for Construction on State Hiahwav in San Dieao County at Bonita and In and Near Lemon Grove from Jamach~ Boulevard to Palm Street. Webb, Mark, 1996. Personal communications, County of San Diego Department of Public Works biologist. ~ 7-~~ ~---_._._~ Environmental Analysis Form -12- Project Number: UJ1549 Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 19~0. Geoloaic ~~~~~~;ss~~e Study. Central Avenue to Br1arwood Road C r Sweetwater River. San Dieao Countv. California. , Zoutendyk, David, of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1996. Phone communication, March 20, 1996. ~ #?å3~7-L// CIDI'l'RAL Ay_us DIDGB, BOJII'l'A aOAD/CIDI'l'RAL Ay_us III'1'DSBCTIOII IXPa0VBMJD1'1'8, UD 8WBB'1'IIA'l'BR aOAD/CBII'l'aAL Ay_us 8IGDLID'l'IOII Ro.1BCT BIOLC;IGICAL IUlDlUY WA # UJ1549 county of San Diego Department of Public Works Environmental Services Unit March 27, 1996 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed project is located in the unincorporated community of Bonita in the Sweetwater community planning Area, in southwestern San Diego County. The project area includes the portion of Central Avenue between, and including, SWeetwater Road and Bonita Road (see Figure 1). South (downstream) of Central Avenue is the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course (Golf Course) and north (upstream) of Central Avenue is Sweetwater Regional Park (Park). The project is being proposed by the county of San Diego Department of Public Works (DPW). The project consists of three parts: (1) the installation of a traffic signal at the SWeetwater Road/Central Avenue intersection; (2) the replacement of two corrugated metal pipes with a lOa-foot long bridge; and (3) the improvement of the Bonita Road/Central Avenue intersection to: move the traffic signal poles; add a right-turn lane for northbound traffic on Bonita Road; add a right-turn lane for southbound traffic on Bonita Road; add a right-turn lane for westbound traffic on Central Avenue and underground the existing above-ground drainage facilities (see Figure 2). Central Avenue will be closed during construction of the project. The staging area for the project is at the corner of Sweetwater Road and Central Avenue and includes a few scattered acacia trees. The maximum area of potential effect (APE) for the project includes approximately 0.73 acre of the downstream area within the Golf Course property and approximately 0.14 acre of the upstream area within the Park (see Figure 2). However, the actual area of impact south of Central Avenue is expected to be substantially less than the APE shown in Figure 2. The project will take about 3 months to complete, with construction expected to occur in late Summer and Fall of 1996. Water in the Sweetwater River will be diverted during construction. A temporary earthen berm will be constructed just upstream of the Dip section and will divert the water via a temporary pipe beneath the road to deliver water downstream. --- -- ~-- -, . 1 r ~~ r ... 1',1 h U r.... ~ 1-/};¿ r,;"": ' , . , , t ., , ) \\'\'z \,1, /~-'~ - . .' ~I'/ J .... ..'" ·:;'Well -,,' ... __ .. ....- ". ..¿r¡:..~.. ..·..r ;....~........~.; .. .\ '-... ..... ot;. ~ '" . . , USGS National City 7.5' Quad FEET FIGURE PROJECT AREA 1 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT 0'Jf~LlC WORKS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES UNIT .- '5 7-~..3 / II! ~(\ '. :::;:;;.-=-: ¡ ...- ! - II hh q d dl n ; . ~ I~ Ii lì~fBlD r r en i :s I- -- ' ~ --- ~ - < - z ~ . § ¡ .. - "', I -. .~---::.. ~ I.. ø _._ 0 r ~ Z I I I <' ,_ .. ~ i I .___. .. b I . .....- - . -.- ~ ~. I ~ I . i - /..' ' ---" -- .--.--. I~ ---_# -..... ...,. "...::>=-- _.- - -" -- -.- " _ __ 8 " I ! ~ ~ 7--¥-7' - ¡ EXISTING CONDITIONS The APE includes approximately 3.9 acres, nearly all or which has been disturbed to some deqree, most or it permanently. The APE is comprised larqely of pavinq, landscapinq, and c01llJllercial development, includinq the Golf Course. Immediately downstream from Central Avenue is a low-quality riparian corridor alonq the SWeetwater River that is bounded on the west and east by the Golf Course. Water flows year-round in the SWeetwater River through the pipes beneath central Avenue. A concrete drainaqe swale on the east side of the River delivers runoff to 'the River. The wetlands within the downstream portion of the APE consist of low quality willow Scrub with little species diversity. The Willow Scrub is comprised primarily of willow saplinqs (Salix ~) and a small amount of lIIulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) (mulefat). There is also a slllall amount of Arundo, a non-native invasive species. In addition, the riparian corridor associated with the southern half of the APE has low habitat value due to the hiqh level of disturbance by past construction activities and continuinq use of the Golf Course, the sparsity of veqetation, and the lack of species diversity. The Golf Course limits the connectivity to riparian areas upstream and downstream. The upstream area within the APE is part of a 37-acre area known as Sweetwater Reqional Park, Planninq Area 17, and is currently beinq restored by Cal trans and the County. There is a small pond as well as runninq water immediately north of the proposed bridqe location. There are five scattered larqe willow trees within the APE, three of which will have to be removed because of their proximity to the construction. . The habitat restoration was oriqinally initiated as mitiqation for two caltrans road projects. The County of San Dieqo Department of Public Works (DPW) entered into an aqreement with caltrans to reimburse Caltrans for restoration of 2.1 acres in the southwestern portion of the restoration area as lIIitiqation for County projects. The restoration area is expected to provide substantially .more and hiqher-quality habitat in the future with the implementation of the restoration plan. The majority of the land within the northern half of the APE will be restored consistent with the Area 17 Restoration Plan which will include plantinq and seedinq with Salix Gooddinaii (southwestern willow), Salix lasioleÐis (arroyo willow) and Salix hindsiana (valley willow) seeded with a mixture of Baccharis .alici~olia, Salix Gooddinaii, and Salix hind.iana. The portions of the project APE that include the SWeetwater River floodplain, both upstream and downstream, qualify as ·Waters of the U.S.,. and also qualify as wetlands. The project will require a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Enqineers (Corps) 2 ~ 7-45 and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under the federal Clean Water Act. In addition, the work in the streambed will require a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) under Section 1601 of the California Fish and Game Code. :IMPACTS The signalization of the' SWeetwater Road/Central Avenue intersection and the Bonita Road/central Avenue intersection improvements will not impact any native vegetation. The project will impact three mature willow trees within a 0.14 acre erea upstream within the Park and a 0.06 acre downstream within the Golf Course property. Caltrans has completed the planting for the restoration project within the APE but has not yet completed the hydro seeding. Thus, the project will impact an estimated 0.14 acre of a newly replanted area and possibly a portion of the irrigation system. Expected impacts to vegetative communities are summarized in Table 1. A total of 0.2 acre of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted. TABLE 1 IMPACTS TO NATIVE VEGETAT:IVE COMMUNITIES community Upstream Downstream Total Acreage Acreage Acreage Impacts Impacts Impacts Newly planted willow 0.14 0.00 0.14 Scrub Willow Scrub 0.00 0.06 0.06. TOTALS 0.14 0.06 0.20 MITIGATION The project proposes to mitigate biological impacts as follows: 1. The County DPW will stake and flag, and fence where needed, the construction area, and will monitor construction to ensure that construction limits are not exceeded. 2. within the impact area of the restoration area of the park, the County DPW will: (a) mitigate the loss of three ..ture willow trees near the existing pipes in the Park restoration area by transplanting the tree. outside of the APE, away from the vicinity of the new bridge, to locations within the Park restoration area¡ (b) replace/repair any portions of the irrigation system that are impacted by project construction¡ (c) replant and hydroseed the impact area within the Park 3 f;E-d$ 1-40 restoration area according to Caltrans' Modified Planting Plan (HP-S); and (d) conduct mitigation monitoring, plant replac_ent and maintenance for the impact/mitigation area for the remainder of the construction contractor'. contract, until approximately March of 1997. caltrans will be re.ponsible for long-term mitigation monitoring and aaintenance after this initial plant establishment period when Caltrans' contractor's responsibilities end. 3. The County DPW will plant willow cuttings just outside the main channel flow and in between the rip rap in the streambed immediately downstream of the bridge within the APE south of Central Avenue. The species will be those used in the upstream restoration area: Salix lasiole'Ois, Salix hindsiana, Salix Gooddinaii. 4. The County DPW will hydro.eed the impacted slopes and floodplain area outside the lIIain river channel south of Central Avenue with a seed mix comprised of Salix lasiole'Ois, Salix hindsiana, Salix Gooddinaii, and Baccharis salicifolia. 5. Any impacted slopes associated with the golf course will be hydroseeded with grass seed reco_ended by the Golf Course greenskeeper. 6. The County DPW will be responsible for mitigation monitoring and maintenance for the area south of Central Avenue for three years or until the mitigation meets the success criteria to be included in the Revegetation Plan and in the state and Federal permit conditions. 4 -A~âß 7--9'7 ------... I .- .=-. J DPW r ~") r, ~, 13S'S :.1-.\ \.,) V . oJ Environmental Services Unit ., ,- .' , .. ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS REPORT CENTRAL AVENUEIBONITA ROAD/SWEETWATER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Prepared by: Alexander Segal, Ph.D., INCE February, 1996 p-~ 7-4-:£ , TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY .......................................... . ill 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................... . 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIP'rION ................................ 1 1.2 APPliCABLE NOISE STANDARDS AND TERMS .............. . 2 1.3 METHODS OF NOISE ASSESSMENT ...................... . 4 1.3.1 Traffic Noise Measurement ......................... . 4 1.3.2 Traffic Noise Modeling ............................ . 4 1.3.3 Sources of Project Information ....................... . 7 2.0 EXISTING TRAmC NOISE ENVIRONMENT ..................... 9 2.1 RESULTS OF THE FIELD SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ........ 9 2.2 RESULTS OF COMPUTER MODELING ................... . . 12 3.0 PROJECT RELATED NOISE IMPACTS ....................... . 18 3.1 TRAFFIC NOISE ................................... . 18 3.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ............................. . . 21 4.0 FUTURE (BUILD-OUT) TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS ............... . 24 5.0 NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES ............................ 25 6.0 REFERENCES ........,................................ . 28 APPENDIX .......................................... . 29 DPW· CÀlIlTal Ávt1I1II!/Bo1Úta RiJad/Sweetwaler RiJad Impruvem4T1ls . Ü ff~ 7-~'7 , SUMMARY This Acoustical Analysis addresses traffic noise impacts attributable to the proposed Central AvenuelBonita Rœd improvements in Bonita. The project encompasses several tasks including installation of a traffic signal at the Central Avenue/Sweetwater Road intersection, replacement of the culvert beneath the Central Avenue dip section, and construction of a right-turn lane for Bonita Rœd northbound traffic turning east onto Central Avenue. Most of the proposed tasks would not produce noise which can adversely impact "noise sensitive" human uses or "noise sensitive" biological habitat. Installation of a traffic signal at the Central Avenue/Sweetwater Rœd intersection may actually result in some traffic noise level decrease near the intersection. Changes in traffic noise levels at the Central Avenue/Sweetwater intersection, within the area of the dip section, and north of the Bonita Road/Central Avenue intersection would not affect any "noise sensitive" area since there are no such areas in the vicinity of the above sites. The only "noise sensitive" site which can be affected by noise attributable to the proposed road improvement project is the Little Bit of Heaven Christian Preschool ("Li'b Bit Heaven Christian Preschool") located southeast of the Central Avenue/Bonita Road intersection. Most of the Preschool property is currently impacted by traffic noise levels exceeding CNEL=60 dB. However, the east-facing outdoor play areas and the east-facing patio area are shielded from traffic noise by the Preschool building itself. The County of San Diego Noise Element of the General Plan indicates that for County road construction projects, the exterior noise level due to vehicular traffic impacting a noise sensitive area should not exceed CNEL=60 dB, except if the existing or projected noise level without the project is 58 dB or greater, a 3 dB increase will be allowed, up to the maximum permitted by Federal Highway Administration Standards. Analysis indicates that some areas within the Preschool property may be impacted by traffic noise levels that reach or exceed the Federal Highway Administration standard ("Noise Abatement Criteria" or NAC) of 67 dB. However, the existing traffic noise levels do not exceed NAC of 67 dB within the outdoor "noise sensitive" areas (outdoor activities or play areas) of the Preschool. The analysis shows that the proposed intersection improvements may result in a relatively small (within ± 3 dB or less) traffic noise level change at some locations within the Preschool site. Build-out traffic volumes would result in the traffic noise level increase with or without the proposed project. South of .Central Avenue, the build-out noise levels would about 1 dB higher than they are now. North of Central Avenue, traffic noise levels would be about 2 dB higher than they are now. , DPW· CoItral Ave1lUl!/Bontta Rood/Sweetwater Rood ImprovemmlS ill ~ 7-S-{) Within the main outdoor "noise sensitive" areas of the Preschool, the build-out noise levels are not expected to exceed NAC of 67 dB if the existing wood fence along Bonita Road remains and is solid (no CIaCks and openings). Since the existing traffic noise levels within the "noise sensitive" areas of the Preschool site exceed S8 dB; since the forecasted (with project and build-out traffic volumes) traffic noise levels are not ~}'«ted to exceed NAC of 67 dB; and since the noise level change would not exceed 3 dB, the proposed project satisfies the Noise Element of the General Plan provisions for the County road construction projects. Therefore, traffic noise mitigation measures are not required. ¡ DPW - Q1IlTal Åve~/Bo1Úta RoadISweerwazer Road Improvements iv 14.,=53 7-5/ , 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The County of San Diego Department of Public Works is planning to improve the Caltra1 AvenuelBonita Road intersection as part of a larger improvement project for Caltra1 Avenue that includes the installation of a traffic signal at the Caltral Avenue/Sweetwater Road intersection and the replacement of the culvert beneath the Central Avenue dip section. At the Caltra1 AvenuelBonita Road intersection, a right-turn lane' for northbound traffic turning east onto Caltral Avenue will also be added. A right-turn lane will be added to the Central Avenue segment west of the intersection. The project is located in Bonita. About 300 it of the Bonita Road ftontage south of Central Avenue will be affected. The existing land uses, adjacent to the project area, are vacant land, commercial uses and a single family residential property used as a Preschool (Little Bit of Heaven Christian Preschool at 4980 Bonita Road). The Preschool includes 2 buildings. The main building has a patio area behind it. The patio area and adjacent back-yard areas are shielded from traffic noise from Bonita Road by the building itself. During the field sound level measurements at the project site, most of outdoor activities were conducted within these areas. The second, smaller building, is partially shielded from Bonita Road by the main building structure. An old wood fence, about 70 feet long,. is located along part of the Preschool property boundary at Bonita Road. The fence is located in front of the Preschool building nearest to Bonita Road. Chain-link fences and gates are located along the remaining parts of the boundary between the Preschool and Bonita Road. The proposed road improvements will result in the travel lanes being closer to some areas of the existing Preschool site. ¡ DPW· Central AW1III4/Bonita Road/Sweetwaler Road lmprovemlnts 1 1<1::31- 7-5.2 · 1.2 APPUCABLE NOISE STANDARDS AND TERMS Community noise level limits are typically based upon the non-auditory effects of noise such as sleep and speech interference, percentage of people highly annoyed, etc. A number of community noise impact descriptors are used in noise impact asse..mo::nts. Most widely used descriptors are Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), Day Night Sound Level (DNL or Ldn), and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Community noise is typically addressed in the A- Weighted sound pressure level scale. In order to specify potential noise impacts within the project, the following community noise descriptors were used: A-Weiehted Sound Pressure Level (dB or dBA) - sound level with the "A-weighting" frequency correction. This correction weights the contribution of sounds of düferent frequencies so that the response of the average human ear is simulated. Ecuivalent Sound Level iT "") - A-weighted level of a continuous steady sound which contains the same total acoustical energy over the averaging time period as the actual time varying sound. One-Hour Eqµivalent Noise Level Œ.eQ(¡) - Leq over one hour averaging period. DII)'-Nieht Averaee Sound Level IDNL or Ldn) - equivalent sound level for a 24-hour period with a + 10 dB weighting applied to all sound occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Communi\V Noise EQµivalent Level (CNEL) - equivalent sound level for a 24-hour period with a +S dB weighting applied to all sound occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and a + 10 dB weighting applied to all sound occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) are expressed in the A-Weighting frequency scale and often averaged over a 36S-day year. Numerically, CNEL and Ldn are almost the same. Usually the difference is less than 1 dB. The outdoor sound level limits of a CNEL (Ldn) of 60 dB or 6S dB are typically used in the community noise regulations. The County of San Diego Noise Element of the General Plan uses CNEL of 60 dB as an exterior sound level limit for new residential projects. The Noise Element specitks that when noise levels at any noise sensitive area exceed CNEL-60 dB, the development should not be approved unless the following findings are made (policy 4b): A. Modifications to the development have been or will be made which reduce the cxterior noise level below CNEL equal to 60 decibels; or .. DPW· Qnrral AvenuelBonita RDad/SweetWaler Road Improvemellls 2 -#-ð5' 7-53 B. If with current noise abatement technology it is infeasible to reduce exterior CNEL to 60 decibels, then modifications to the development have been or will be made which reduce interior noise below CNEL equal to 45 decibels. Particular attention shall be given to noise sensitive interior spaces such as bedrooms. And, C. If finding WBW above is made, a further finding is made that there are specifically identified overriding social or economic considerations which warrant approval of the development without modification as described in W A W above. The Noise Element of the County of San Diego General Plan specifies that new development should not be approved if noise levels Wat any noise sensitive area will ~ CNEL equal to 75 decibels. W The County of San Diego Noise Eement of the General Plan contains several special provisions for County road construction projects. Policy 4b of the Noise Eement of the General Plan includes Exemption 2 with the fonowing exemptions related to County road construction projects: For County road construction projects, the exterior noise level due to vehicular traffic impacting a noise sensitive area should not exceed the fonowing values: A. Federally funded projects shall comply with applicable Federal Highway Administration Standards. B. Other projects - CNEL-6O dBA, except if the existing or projected noise level without the project is 58 dBA or gttater a 3 dBA increase will be allowed, up to the maximum pennitted by Federal Highway Administration Standards. The existing exterior wNoise Abatement Criteriaw (NAC) established by the Federal Highway Administration for residences, schools and churches (W Activity Category A W) is the A-weighted equivalent sound level of 67 dBA for the noisiest hour of the day. Typically this limit reflects the wpeak_hourw noise level and corresponds to CNEL of 67 dBA. The County of San Diego has special regulations related to construction noise (County of San Diego Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Section 36.410). The above regulations limit the construction noise impact to a Wnoise sensitivew receiver (residential property) to an average Leq of 75 dBA for not more than 8 hours during a 24-hour period. Except for emer¡ency work, construction activities are typically limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during Monday through Saturday. DPW - Central ÀW7IW/Bonita Road/SweetWater Road ImpTOllerrtellts 3 r;Þ!;tp 7-5-Ç · 1.3 METHODS OF TRAFFIC NOISE ASSESSMENT The main facton that affect traffic noise levels arc traffic volume, traffic mix, and traffic speed. Traffic noise decreases when the distance from a transportation corridor increases. The degree of traffic noise decrease depends upon so-called "ground effects." Topography and other features that shield a receptor from a transportation conidor or reduce the angle under which the noise source can be seen (so-called "subtended angles") also reduce traffic noise. Other facton, for example, atmospheric conditions, may affect traffic noise propagation and traffic noise levels, especially, at distant receptors. The basic methods for assessing traffic noise levels arc direct sound level measurements and/or theoretical traffic noise prediction estimates. 1.3.1 Traffic Noise Measurement The field sound level measurements were performed by a Quest Model 1800 Precision Impulse Integrating Sound Level Meter (Serial # HP 4060007), which is a Type 1 instrument in accord with the American National Standards Institute requirements (ANSI S 1.4-1983). The sound level meter was mounted on a tripod five feet above the ground with a windscreen fitted to the microphone. Before and after the noise measurements the meter was calibrated with a Quest Model QC-IO/QC-20 Acoustical Calibrator (Serial # QF 4060038). 1.3.2 Traffic Noise Modeling The information obtained during the field tests was used in the computerized traffic noise prediction model to assess traffic noise impacts from the proposed project. Currently used traffic noise prediction models arc based on the algorithms provided in the FHWA-RD-77-108 FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (Reference 1). The FHWA- RD-77-108 model assesses traffic noise levels based on the information on traffic volume, traffic speed, traffic mix, distance from the noise source to receiver, project topography, ground effects, and some other facton. The computerized version of the FHWA-RD-77-108 model was used in this analysis to assess traffic noise levels. The California vehicle noise (Calveno) reference energy mean --';~';l\11level curves developed in 1985 by Caltrans were used in the calculations. The Calveno curves address typical noise I!mi~sion levels from vehicles used in California. DPW - Central Avelllle/Bonita RoadlSwterwazer Road Improvenu:nts 4 ~=l:H 7-55 Noise reduction with distance was assessed according to the guidelines ¡iven in the FHWA-RD- 77-108 Manual (Reference I). According to this reference, the acoustic theory and the field studies indicate that when the ground between the roadway and observer is acoustically "bard", the site is rcflcctive and the drop-off rate is 3 dB per doubling of distance (3 dBlDD). The Manual also indicates that field studies have shown that when the intervening ground is acoustically "10ft", the site is absorptive and the drop-off rate is 4.5 dB per doubling of distance (4.5 dBIDD). The FHWA-RD-'T1-108 Manual suggests that the user must decide the p.úper drop-off rate to use. The Manual provides the following criteria to help the user make this decision (Table 2 of the Manual): l. The "hard" ground conditions (3 dBlDD drop-off rate) an: suggested in all situations in which the source or the receiver is located 3 meters (about 10 ft) above the ground or whenever the line-of-sight (a direct line between the noise source and the observer) averages more than 3 meters above the ground. 2. The "hard" ground conditions (3 dBIDD drop-off rate) an: suggested in all situations involving propagation over the top of a barrier 3 meters or more in height. 3. The "hard" ground conditions (3 dBlDD drop-off rate) an: suggested when the line-of-sight is less than 3 meters and there is a clear (unobstructed) view of the highway, the ground is hard and there are no intervening structures. I 4. The "soft" ground conditions (4.5 dBIDD drop-off rate) an: suggested when the line-of-sight is less than 3 meters and the view of the roadway is interrupted by isolated buildings, clumps of bushes, scattered trees, or the intervening ground is soft or covered with vegetation. The drop-off rate criteria listed above were used in this analysis to assess the traffic noise propagation with distance. The computerized traffic noise prediction models typically.provide output in the form of a one- hour average (equivalent) sound level. If the one-hour sound level information is available for each hour of the day (24-hour data), this information can be used for CNEL or DNL estimate (with the appropriate evening-time and night-time "penalties" applied). CNEL or DNL can also be estimated based on the 24-hour traffic volume data and the information on the one-hour traffic noise level and corresponding traffic volume. In this case, it is typically usumed that traffic mix and speed an: the same during the day, evening, and night. If the 24-hour traffic noise level or traffic volume data an: not available, other techniques of transferring the estimated one-hour noise levels into CNEL or DNL an: used. One of these techniques was developed by Wy1e Laboratories for assessing traffic noise impacts for the San Diego region (Reference 2). DPW· Ce1llTal Á~/Bo1lita RoadISwtetwaler Road ImpTOVt17lt1lls 5 ~rg- 7-5¿' '.-.--'"'- The methodology given in reference 2 allows detennining DNL based on the information on the average hourly traffic flow during the day-time and night-time hours. According to Wyle Laboratories, if complete statistics on the breakdown of ADT into average hourly flow "are not available, the following has been found to be representative for the majority of the San Diego highway system:" FD = 0.87xADT/lS FN >= 0.13xADT/9 where FD and FN - the average hourly traffic flow during the day-time and night-time hours, respectively. The above implies that 87% of daily traffic occur between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 13% of daily traffic occurs between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Wyle Laboratories report suggests the following equation for assessing Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn): Ldn = 10xlo¡[1I24x(lSxAntilo¡(LilO) + 9xAntilo¡«L,. + 10)/10))) where L. and L" - the average day and night equivalent sound levels that correspond to the FD and FN hourly traffic rates, respectively. The Wyle Laboratories report indicates that "Noise contours developed by CNEL and Ldn procedures will normally agree within 1 dB" (page 21). Due to many uncertainties associated with traffic noise predictions, actual CNEL may be lower or higher than CNEL (DNL) derived from the theoretical estimates. Usually, Ldn or CNEL is 1 to 3 dB higher than the one-hour Leq that corresponds to the average day-time-hour number of vehicles. For the day/night traffic volume distribution suggested by Wyle Laboratories for the San Diego region, the difference is within 2 dB (assuming that average traffic speed and mix are the same during the day, evening, and night hours). The traffic noise .,~sment given in this report is based on the traffic noise evaluation techniques suggested by Wyle Laboratories. However, where the 24-hour traffic distribution data are available, they are used in the analysis for more accurate noise u,-oment. DPW - CmtraJ Áve1lJlt!/Bonita RoadlSweetwaJer Road Improveme7/Js 6 iJ=:.:f4- 7-57 1.3.3 Sources of Project Information The information on the project design, the project topography, and the existing land uses along the transportation corridor under consideration was obtained from the DPW's preliminary plans for the proposed project. Several sources provide information on the existing traffic volumes along the transportation corridor under consideration. . The -1994 Traffic Flow Map (Average Weekday Traffic Volumes Through 1993), San Diego Metlupolitan Area- map by SANDAG shows the fonowing traffic volumes: Bonita Road south of Central Avenue - ADT=26,OOO. Bonita Road north of Central Avenue - ADT=17,OOO. Central Avenue east and west of Bonita Road - ADT=8,OOO. . The latest (January 1995) 24-hour traffic count information is available for Bonita Road at San Miguel Road. This information was collected by the Traffic Section of the Department of Public Works on January 17 through 21, 1995. The results of the traffic counts are as follows: Bonita Road west of San Mi~uel Road: Wednesday, January 18, 1995 - ADT = 12,794 Thursday, January 19 , 1995 - ADT = 12,395 Friday, January 20, 1995 - ADT = 12,623 Saturday, January 21, 1995 - ADT = 10,798 Sunday, January 22, 1995 - ADT = 9,880 Bonita Road north of San Miiuel Road: Wednesday, January 18, 1995 - ADT = 11,264 Thursday, January 19 , 1995 - ADT = 11,266 Friday, January 20, 1995 - ADT = 11,618 Saturday, January 21, 1995 - ADT = 9,694 Sunday, January 22, 1995 - ADT - 9,101 Traffic counts by the Department of Public Works recorded the fonowing traffic mix data: Bonita Road east of Otay Lakes Road - 2.1" medium and O.S" heavy trucks (216191). Bonita Road north of Central Avenue - 2.8% medium and 1.03% heavy trucks (1117/91). DPW - Q1IIral AvenuelBollita Rood/SwutwaJer Rood Imprt1Ve1M1/1S 7 ~ J'-st Bonita Road east of Randy Lane . 2.5 % medium and 0.7% heavy trucks (5/2/88. Central Avenue west of Bonita Road· 2.1 % medium and 0.6% heavy trucks (1/17/91). The posted traffic speed on Bonita Road is 45 mph. The intersection of Bonita Road with Central Avenue is sigr".1i7M. Signalization reduces traffic speed, espec;IIny near the intersection. To obtain more specific information on average traffic speeds in the area of the proposed project and to "calibrate" the traffic noise prediction model, field sound level measurements and traffic counts were conducted. The information obtained during the field tests was used in the computerized traffic noise prediction model to assess traffic noise impacts from the proposed project. . DPW· Ce7llral ÁW1IUI!/Bonita Rood/Sweerwater Road Improvt!mellls 8 ,ff??f-f:7 - 59 2.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT 2.1 RESULTS OF THE FIELD SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The existing traffic noise levels were lSse"seð at the ·noise sensitive· land use (Little Bit of Heaven Christian Preschool) located on the east side of Bonita Road south of the Central AvenuelBonita Road intersection. Both the field sound level measurements and the noise prediction estimAte.' were utilized. The field sound level measurements were conducted on Tuesday, June 20, 1995, between 10 Lm. and 1 p.m. Traffic was counted during the tests. Outdoor activities at the ~hool generate noise that sometimes exceeds the ambient noise leVel attributable to traffic on Bonita Road. In order to eliminate (or minimize) the effects of the Preschool activities noise, some traffic noise level measurements were of short duration. The first noise measurement location (Test Location # 1) was on the east side of Bonita Road at the parking lot of the Preschool. The sound level meter was located 30 ft from the edge of pavement (about SO ft from the road centerline). At the test site, Bonita Road has 2 trave1lanes and a left-turn median. The road elevation was almost the same as the test site elevation and the ground between the road and the microphone was acoustically ·hard.· The subtended angle (angle at which the road was visible from the test site) was about -90 to +90 degrees. Test # 1 started at 10:30 a.m. The test lasted 10.13 minutes and resulted in Leq=66.7 dB. During the test, 203 automobiles and 3 medium trucks passe<! the site. Test # 2 started at 10:50 a.m. The test lasted 10.02 minutes and resulted in Leq=66.9 dB. During the test, 164 automobiles, 4 medium trucks, and 1 heavy truck passed the site. Test # 3 started at 11:58 a.m. The test lasted 10.03 minutes and resulted in Leq=68.6 dB. A total of 210 automobiles, 2 medium trucks and 1 heavy truck passed the site during the test. Test # 4 started at 1:00 p.m. The test lasted 5.43 minutes and resulted in Leq=67.4 dB. During the test, 123 automobiles, 3 medium trucks and 1 heavy truck passed the site. The second noise measurement location (Test Location # 2) was between Bonita Road and the Preschool main building. The sound level meter was placed appro'rimAtp.ty 14 ft from the Bonita Road facing porch of the building. The test site elevation was 2 to 3 ft lower than Bonita Road elevation. A 5 ft high wood fence was lClaltM between the noise measur,ement location and Bonita Road. The fence shielded the view to Bonita Road to between about -60 to +S5 degrees. The land between the test site and the fence was covered by grass and saatt~ trees. Test # 1 started at 11:00 a.m. The test lasted 5.03 minutes and resulted in Leq=63.4 dB. During the test, 99 automobiles, 7 medium trucks and 2 heavy trucks passeð the site. DPW _ Central AwnuelBonila ~etwalÐ' Road Improveme1llS 9 ~ 7-00 Test # 2 started at 11:15 a.m. The test lasted 5.02 minutes and resulted in Leq==62.l dB. During the test, 88 automobiles and no trucks passed the site. The third noise measurement site (rest Location # 3) was between Bonita Road and a 4 ft high brick wall attached to the Preschool building. The sound level meter was placed approximately 12 ft from the northern edge of the wall (about 55 ft from the road centerline). The test site elevation was slightly lower than Bonita Road elevation. The ground surface between the road and the microphone was covered by grass. There was an almost unobstructed view to Bonita Road (subtended angle of -70 to +85 degrees). Test # 1 started at 11:25 a.m. The test lasted 5 minutes and resulted in Leq-63.3 dB. During the test, 89 automobiles and 1 heavy truck passed the site. Test # 2 started at 11:30 a.m. The test lasted 5.02 minutes and resulted in Leq==63.8 dB, During the test, 99 automobiles and 2 medium trucks passed the site. Test # 3 started at 11:36 a.m. The test lasted 5.02 minutes and resulted in Leq==63.2 dB. During the test, 93 automobiles and 2 medium trucks passed the site. Table 2.1.1 summarizes the results of the field tests. It includes information on equivalent (Leq), maximum (Lmax), and minimum (Lmin) sound levels recorded during each test, as well as information on test duration and traffic counts during the tests. The information given in Table 2.1.1 shows that minimum sound levels (Lmin) recorded during the tests were relatively high (within 48 dB to 52 dB). This is typical for urb"ni..~ areas near a major transportation corridor. The maximum noise levels (Lmax) varied from 70 dB to 78 dB. The equivalent traffic noise levels (Leq) recorded during the tests at different locations along Bonita Road and at different distances from the road centerline ranged from about 62 dB to 69 dB. The results of the sound level measurements indicate that at the test locations within the Preschool site the existing traffic noise levels exceed 60 dB. While the measured noise levels at the parking lot sometimes exceeded 67 dB, at the test locations within the Preschool site traffic noise levels were considerably lower than 67 dB. DPW - Cenlral ÁW7IlIe/BonitD Road/Swutwaler Road Improve1llDll8 10 ~ 7-0/ - . Table 2.1.1 Results of the Field Tests Location! Test Number of Vehicles Test Number Length Leq Lmax LInin Auto M.Truck R.Truck Test T .ncation # 1 Test # 1 10.1 min 66.7 76.7 48.9 203 3 0 Test # 2 10.0 min 66.9 71.4 50.1 164 4 1 Test # 3 10.0 min 68.6 71.1 51.9 210 2 1 Test # 4 5.4 min 67.4 76,7 51.9 123 3 1 Test Location # 2 Test # 1 5.0 min 63.4 73.7 51.2 99 7 2 Test # 2 5.0 min 62.1 75.6 49.3 88 0 0 Test Location # 3 Test # 1 5.0 min 63.3 74.1 47.8 89 0 1 Test # 2 5.0 min 63.8 74.4 50.4 99 2 0 Test # 3 5.0 min 63.2 69.9 51.2 93 2 0 DPW - CeTllTal ÁWIIUe/Bo1lÚa Road/Sweetwaler Road Improveme1l1s 11 ~ 7-t.~ 2.2 RESULTS OF COMPUTER MODELING As has been stated before, traffic noise levels depend on many variables, including traffic volume, traffic mix, and traffic speed. At a receiver location, traffic noise level also depends on the receiver's distance from the road; angle at which the noise source (traffic) can be seen from the receiver Jocation; topography configuration; ground conditions between the receiver and the noise source; and other factors. In addition to the above variables, annual CNEL or DNL also depends on daily (24-hour) and yearly traffic flow conditions (traffic volume, mix, and speed); seasonal changes in traffic patterns, etc. During the field sound level measurement, the following variables can be defined: teat dumtion, traffic volume during the test, traffic mix, distance from the noise source to the test site, geometty of the test site, and subtended angles. The ground conditions between the microphone and the road (Wsoft" or whardw site) can also be assessed. The above data can be used in the computer model to determine the average traffic speed that "fits" the estimated noise level with the noise level recorded during the test. This process is typically known as traffic noise model "calibration." Based on information on the average "matching" traffic speed, traffic volume, traffic mix, and other applicable variables, the traffic noise levels can be assessed at any location along the transportation corridor. Since traffic noise prediction models typically address so-called "free flowW traffic conditions, the model calibration is especially important when traffic has Wstop-and-go" conditions attributable, for example, to a traffic signal. These conditions exist near the Bonita RoadICentral Avenue intersection. As has been mentioned before, the Preschool at 4980 Bonita Road is the only "noise sensitive" site which will be affected by noise attributable to the proposed project. The Preschool site is adjacent to Bonita Road. Central Avenue is more than 200 ft from the nearest wnoise sensitivew area at the Preschool site, Topography and surrounding land uses completely shield the Preschool site from the Central A venue segment east of Bonita Road. Topography and heavy vegetation partially shield the Central A venue segment west of Bonita Road as well. The existing traffic volume on Central Avenue (8,000 ADT) is much lower than the existing traffic volume on Bonita Road (26,000 ADT). Bec:an~ of the above, the Central Avenue contribution to the noise enviIonnlent at the Preschool site is much lower than the noise contribution from Bonita Road. Therefore, Central Avenue is not considered in the traffic noise asse1sment for the Preschool. Traffic noise prediction estimates were performed to determine the average traffic speeds which wmatch W the results of the field tests with the results of the esnm!lt..s. The results of the sound level measurements at Test Loa1tion # 1 were used in the analysis. Test Location' 1 conditions (reference distance of SO ft from the road centerline, wlevelw topography, whard siteW lOund propagation) are typical for the test sites used for the traffic noise prediction model verification. DPW - CDltral ÁW:1IU4lBonúa RoadISwtetwater Road lmpr~numls 12 ~-7-¿P3 The traffic noise prediction estimates were performed by the traffic noise prediction computer program SOUND32 by Caltrans. This program is based on the traffic noise prediction algorithms given in the FHWA-RD-77-108 Manual and can account for complicated topography/man-made-barrier conditions that exist at the project site. Table 1 in the Appendix presents the computer input information on the road and site geometry and the traffic flow conditions recorded during Test # 1 at Test Location # 1. Table 2 in the Appendix shows the results of the computer simulation for this test. The information given in Tables 1 and 2 indicates that the "matching" traffic speed for this test is 38 mph (esrim..tM Leq=66.9 dB and the measured Leq=66.7 dB are almost the same). Computer simulations for other tests are given in Tables 3 through 5 in the .Appendix. The results of the rmm..t..., are summarized in Table 2.2.1 which shows the "matching" traffic speeds and the differences between the estimates and the measured values. The information given in Table 2.2.1 shows that the estimated "matching" speeds are not the same even for the same test location. Variations in the "matching" traffic speed can be attributed to many different factors, including, for example, stop-and-go character of the traffic now. The "matching" speeds also address some non-speed related factors, for example, differences in noise emission for the same category of vehicles. Additional traffic noise prediction estimates were performed to determine the average "matching" traffic speed for all tests at Test Location # 1 (average of all tests at this test location). The estimates are based on the logarithmic average of the sound levels recorded during the tests and the information on total number of vehicles recorded during the tests. The results of the estimates are given in Table 6 in the Appendix. The estimates show that the average "matching" traffic speed for all tests at Test Location # 1 is 39 mph. At this speed, the estimated Leq=67,6 dB is almost the same as the average measured Leq=67.5 dB (average of 4 tests). The estimated average "matching" traffic speed is slightly lower than the posted speed for this area (45 mph). This can be explained by the tests site proximity to the sigt'..1i7~ intersection. It should be noted again that the traffic speeds listed above are the average traffic speeds that, when used in the traffic noise prediction estimates, produce results that are comparable to those obtained during the field tests. Based on tho results of the computer simulation, 40 mph average "matching" traffic speed was selected for modeling the existing traffic noise environment at the Preschool site. The information conected during the tests was also used to determine the average traffic mix during the tests. The estimates show that the average traffic mix during the tests included 1.9% medium trucks and 0.5" heavy trucks. This traffic mix is in a reasonab~ agreement with the traffic mix data given in Section 1.3.3. In order to address the worst case conditions, traffic mix of 2" medium and 1" heavy trucks was selected for the traffic noise ,,~,.ment. DPW - Cnltral ÂW1IutllBo1lÌta RomI/Sweetwaler RomI Improwments 13 ~ 7-0¥ , Table 2.2.1 Computer Simulation of the Field Test Conditions at the Test Location' 1 LocationlTest Number Measured Estimated Difference in ).flltt'hi"g Table' in Appendix Lcq, dB Lcq, dB Lcq, dB çeed, mph Test' 1 (Table 2) 66.7 66.9 +0.2 38 Test' 2 (Table 3) 66.9 66.9 0 38 Test'3 (Table 4) 68.9 69.0 +0.1 44 Test /I 4 (Table 5) 67.4 67.7 +0.3 35 Note: +0.1 means that the estimated noise level is 0.1 dB higher than the measured noise level. -0.1 means that the estimated noise level is 0.1 dB lower than the measured noise level. Two more variables, that should be considered in the traffic noise assessment, include the sound propagation rate and the day/evening/night traffic volume distribution. The FHWA-RD-77-108 Manual suggests that the user must decide the proper drop-off rate to use. When the line-of-sight is less then 3 meters, the "hard" ground conditions (3 dBlDD drop- off rate) are suggested if there is a clear (unobstructed) view of the highway, the ground is hard and there are no intervening structures. The "soft" ground conditions (4.5 dBlDD drop-off rate) are suggested when the view of the roadway is interrupted by isolated buildings, clumps of bushes, scattered trees, or the intervening ground is soft or covered with vegetation. While some "soft" sound propagation effects can be expected within the Preschool site, it was assumed that the "hard" site sound propagation would dominate (the "worst case" conditions). As has been indicJteJI in Section 1.3.2, the day/night traffic volume distribution suggested by Wyle Laboratories for the San Diego region (87% of ADT during the day-time and evening-time hours) typically results in CNEL being about 2 dB higher than the average day-time hour Lcq(b). This approximate relationship is used for CNEL estimating when information on a 24-hour traffic volume distribution is not available. Since the 24-hour traffic volume distribution data for the transportation corridor under consideration are available, a more accurate CNEL UIeS,mo:llt can be done. The latest 24-hour traffic count data on Bonita Road west of San Miguel Road (Bonita Road between Central and San Miguel) were used to determine the percentage of day-time traffic and the difference between the average day-time hour Lcq(b) and CNEL. The difference between Lcq(b) and CNEL ("CNEL Cor.rection") was estimlltNl based on percentages of the evening-time and the night-time traffic. ". DPW - Q7Ilral AW1UI4/Bollila Road/SweetWflltr Road /rnprovementl . 14 . 1t~ 7-&;5 . . It was assumed that variables other than traffic volume (traffic mix, speed, etc.) remain the same during the day, evening, and night. Tables 7 through 11 in the Appendix show the results of the I estimates. According to the estimates, typical weekday ·CNEL Con.ection· is 0.9 dB. On Sunday, the ·CNEL Conection· is lower (0.6 dB). The estimates show that the average day- time traffic volume is appfOYimllt~ly 81" to 82" of ADT. To address the ·worst case· conditions, it was assumed that CNEL - Leq(h) + 1 dB. In this equation, Leq(h) addresses the average day-time hour traffic volume (81" of ADT divided by 12). Using the existing ADT data given in Section 1.3.3, the existing average day-time hour traffic volumes on Bonita Road are 1755 (26,000x0.81112) south of Central Avenue and 1148 (17,000x0.81112) north of Central Avenue. The traffic flow and traffic propagation assumptions listed above were used to assess the existing traffic noise levels at the locations, where the noise tests were performed, as well as at several locations within the Preschool site (typical areas of outdoor activities). The computer program input data are listed in Table 12 in the Appendix. The results of the estimates for the ·hard· site propagation conditions are addressed in Table 13 in the Appendix. The ·soft site· sound propagation alternative is addressed in Table 14 in the Appendix. Table 2.2.2 summarizes the information given in the Appendix. The existing CNEL were estimated by adding 1 dB to the Leq(h) values given in Tables 13 and 14. The results of the estimates, rounded to 1 dB, are summarized in Table 2.2.3. Comparison of the information given in Table 2.1.1 and Table 2.2.2 indi""t~$ that the estimated Leq(h) given in Table 2.2.2 are consistently higher than those given in Table 2.1.1. There are many reasons for these differences, including higher average day-time hour traffic volume, higher traffic speed, and larger percent of trucks (the ·worst case· conditions) addressed in Table 2.2.2. data. It should be noted that traffic noise estimates always include some degree of uncertainty. This uncertainty is associated with different sound propagation conditions (·soft· or ·hard· site) during different times of the year; daily and seasonal changes in traffic volume, speed and mix; changes in traffic day/night distribution; and many other factors. Because of that, Leq(h) and CNEL cannot be predicted with accuracy to the tenth of a decibel. Table 2.2.2 shows the esrim!ltM values with preciseness to the tenths of a decibel for demonstration and comparison purposes only. The information given in Table 2.2.3 indicates that the existing traffic noise levels within most of the Preschool site exceed CNEL..60 dB. The only areas reasonably shielded from the traffic noise impacts are patio and play areas located to the east of the main building. Table 2.2.3 also indicates that at some locations at the Preschool site CNEL reaches 67 dB. DPW - ~1IlT'al AW1IUeIBo1lita Road/St.wetwaler Road Improvements 15 1i~ ?-~0 . Table 2.2.2 Estimated Existing Average Day-Tune Hour Leq(h) Average Day-Time Leq(h), dB lÞ<:ation ·Hard Site· ·Soft Site· Test Location fI 1 (Parking lot, 50 ft from CIL) 69.9 69.3 Test Location fI 2 (Preschool site - in front of porch) 66.0 65.1 Test location fI 3 (Preschool site - in front of brick wall) 65.1 64.3 Southern Play Area - between 2 buildings 60.5 59.6 Northern Play Area - behind brick wall 62.3 61.4 Central Play Area - east of main building (patio area) 59,4 58.3 Table 2.2.3 Existing Traffic Noise CNEL Existin CNEL dB g , Location "Hard Site" ·Soft Site" Test ~rion fI 1 (parking lot, SO ft from C/L) 71 70 Test Location fI 2 (Preschool site - in front of porch) 67 66 Test location fI 3 (Preschool site - in front of brick wall) 66 65 Southern Play Area - between 2 buildings 62 61 Northern Play Area - behind brick wall 63 62 Central Play Area - east of main building (patio area) 60 59 . DPW - Ce1llTaJ ÂVflnuelBonita RoadISweetWaler Rliod ImprOWlml!lIls 16 ~. 7-&"7 . . As has been mentioned in Section 1.2, the exterior ·Noise Abatement Criteria· (NAC) of the Federal Highway Administration is the A-weighted equivalent sound level that addresses the noisiest hour of the day. It is typically assumed that Leq during the noisiest hour of the day is the same as CNEL. Therefore, according to Table 2.2.3, at some locations at the Preschool site the existing traffic noise levels reach ·Noise Abatement Criteria· (NAC) of 67 dB. The information given in Table 2.2.3 shows, however, that CNEL (and NAC) do not exceed 67 dB within the ·noise sensitive· areas at the Preschool site. DPW - Cenlral AwmuelBonita Road/SweetWater Road Improveme7l1s 17 ~ -'5ð 7-~g 3.0 PROJECI' RELATED NOISE IMPACI'S 3.1 TRAFFIC NOISE The proposed project will result in an additional travel lane on }Ion¡t!\ Road adjacent to the Pmchool site boundary with Bonita Road. This travel1ane will be used by vehicles turning right from the north-bound travel1ane of Bonita Road to Central Avenue. The plo}lOsed project would result in par1ial removal of the Wsting chain-link fence located between Bonita Road and the Preschool site. Traffic noise levels after project completion were asxssed by the traffic noise prediction estimates. It was assumed that the existing traffic flow conditions (traffic volume, speed and mix) would remain the same as they are now. In order to assess traffic volumes on the new right-turn travel lane adjacent to the Preschool site, the following facts were considered: a. The existing ADT on Bonita Road south of Central Avenue is 26,000. b. The existing ADT on Bonita Road north of Central Avenue is 17,000. c. Difference between the above values is 9,000 ADT. This difference apparently relates to traffic on Central Avenue. d. Assuming that the north-bound and south-bound traffic volumes on Bonita Road are the same (13,000 ADT), at the ·worst case" conditions about 4,500 ADT (9,000/2) could turn right from the north-bound lane of Bonita Road to Central Avenue east. Other 4,500 ADT could turn right from the south-bound lane of Bonita Road to Central Avenue west. Of course, actual intersection traffic would differ from this ·worst case· simplified scenario. Based on the above simplified scenario, it was assumed that the existing north-bound travel lane of Bonita Road would carry 8,500 ADT (13,000-4,500) and that new right-turn travel lane would carry 4,500 ADT. The above traffic volumes as well as modified road and Preschool site geometry were used in the traffic noise prediction estimates. Two road design altematives were considered. The first alternative assumed that Bonita Road would be widened to its ultimate right-of-way (mcluding sidewalk) starting from the northern end of the existing wood fence, and that the exjÚ'Íl\g wood fence would remain. The second alternative was similar to Alternative 1 but it did not include the existing wood fence along Bonita Road. The estimates were performed for all receptor locations considered in Section 2.2. The e.uimat"'$ assumed the ·hard site· IOI1I1d propagation conditions. The computer program input data for Altematives 1 and 2 are shown in Tables 15 and 17 in the Appendix. The results of the estimates are given in Tables 16 and 18 in the Appendix. Tables 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 summarize the results of the estimates. DPW - Central ÁwnueIBo1lÎl4 Rood/SweetWO.ler Road Improveme1lls 18 (,P3t 7~?;7 Table 3.1.1 Average Day-Time Hour Leq(h) with and without the Project (Alternative 1 - wood fence remains) Day-Time Hour Leq(h), dB Location Alt.l Existing Difference (Project) (No Alt.l - Project) Existing Test Location # 1 (Parking Lot) 6S.S 69.9 -1.4 Test Location # 2 (Preschool site - in front of porch) 64.7 66.0 -1.3 Test location # 3 (Preschool site - in front of brick wall) 62.2 6S.l -2.9 Southern Play Area - between 2 buildings 60.3 605 -0.2 Northern Play Area - behind brick wall 61.1 62.3 -1.2 Central Play Area - east of main building (patio area) SS5 S9.4 -0.9 Table 3.1.2 Average Day-Time Hour Leq(h) with and without the Project (Alternative 2 - no wood fence) Day-Time Hour Leq(h), dB Location Alt.2 Existing Difference (Project) (No Alt.l - Project) Existing Test l()C"rion # 1 (Parking Lot) 6S.S 69.9 -1.4 Test Location # 2 (Preschool site - in front of porch) 67.S 66.0 +1.S Test location # 3 (Preschool site - in front of brick wall) 62.2 6S.l -2.9 Southern Play Area - between 2 buildings 61.S 6O.S +1.0 Northern Play Area - behind brick wall 61.1 62.3 -1.2 Central Play Area - east of main building (patio area) SS.S S9.4 -0.9 DPW - Cenlral Áwnue/Bonila Road/SweetwaJer Road Impr01le1N!lIls 19 ß-5L 7-7Þ · Table 3.1.1 compares the estimated traffic noise levels foi the first project design alternative (existing wood fence remains) with the existing traffic noise levels (no project). Table 3.1.1 shows that after the project completion, traffic noise levels could be lower (within 0 to 3 dB) than they are now. This noise reduction is attributable to new road design and redistribution of traffic flow near the project site. It should be noted that the computer model assumea that the existing wood fence as a solid acovstical banier. In real life, the old wood fence is not ·solid· acoustically (contains cracks, openings, etc.). Because of this, the noise Ittell1l"ri()l1 by the existing wood fence is expected to be lower than the noise attenuation by a ·solid· barrier of the same dimensions. Therefore, traffic noise levels behind the fence could be hi¡Þ~ than those shown in Table 3.1.1. Table 3.1.2 compares the estim"~ traffic noise levels for the second project "-il" alternative (no wood fence) with the existing traffic noise levels (no project). According to Table 3.1.2, at most locations the forecasted traffic noise levels would be the same as those at Alternative 1. However, at the receptor location in front of the porch, traffic noise level would be 2 dB higher than it is now. Some noise level increase may occur at the southern play area. It should be noted that fractions of decibels are shown in Tables 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 for comparison and demonstration purposes only. Due to many uncertainties associated with traffic noise estimates, traffic noise predictions cannot be made with precision to a fraction of a decibel. Table 3.1.3 shows estimated CNEL with the project (Altematives 1 and 2) and without the project (existing conditions). Table 3.1.3 indicates that at most of the ·noise sensitive· (play area) locations at the Preschool site CNEL is and would be within or slightly hi¡Þer than 60 dB (60 to 63 dB) and would not exceed the 67 dB ·Noise Abatement Criteria· (NAC) of the FHWA. However, without the wood fence, traffic noise levels may exceed NAC of 67 dB in front of the porch. Traffic noise levels would still exceed NAC of 67 at the parking lot (not a ·noise sensitive" area). Table 3.1.3 CNEL with and without the Project CNEL, dB Location Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Existing (Project) (Project) Test Location # 1 (Parking Lot) 70 70 71 Test Location # 2 (Preschool site - in front of porch) 66 69 67 Test location # 3 (Preschool site - in front of brick wall) 63 63 66 Southern Play Area - between 2 buildings 61 63 62 Nonhero Play Area - behind brick wall 62 62 63 Central Play Area - east of main building (patio area) 60 60 60 DPW - Ce1ltTal AwnuelBonita RoadlSweetWOler Road ImpruwmelllS 20 #~ 7-7/ · .. 3.2 CONSTRUCI10N NOISE Diffem1t construction equipment will be used during the project construction. The noise impact generated by the equipment will vary depending on the type of equipment, operation schedule, and other factors. Table 3.2.1 lists typical noise levels generated by construetion equipment. Table 3.2.2 specifies distances from the operation area to the 7S dB noise contour. Table 3.2.2 shows that construction noise impacts could exceed Leq(h)=7S dB within 250 ft of the construction equipment. AI has been i""icat~ in Section 1.2, the Noise Ordinance establishes the sound level limits for construction activities. According to the Noise Ordinance, construction noise shall not exceed an average of 7S dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period u measured at residential property lines. Except for emergency work, construction activities arc typically limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during Monday through Saturday. The Preschool main building will shield the outdoor activities areas at the rear of the building (patio and play area nearby) from construction noise impacts~ Construction noise would be of temporary character. It is not expected that the project construction would result in a noise emission that is unusual or uncommon for typical road construction sites. Therefore, standard road construction procedures and typical road construction noise control techniques (including limits on duration of noisy operations) should be used to satisfy the construction noise lcvellimits of the Noise Ordinance. DPW - Ce/IITal Á~/Bonila RoadISweerwater Road Improveme1lts 21 p~ 7- 7.;:; Table 3.2.1 Construction Equipment Noise Ranges (at 50 ft from Equipment) Equipment A-Weighted Sound Level dB Earthmovin¡ Compactors (Rollers) 73-74 Front Loaders 72-84 Backhoe 72-93 Tractors 76-95 Scrapers 80-92 Graders 80-92 Trucks 82-93 Pavers 87-89 Material Handlin& Concrete Mixers 75-88 Concrete Pumps 81-83 Cranes (Movable) 75-87 Cranes (Derrick) 86-89 Stationary Pumps 69-71 Generators 71-82 Compressors 7~86 Impact Pile Drivers (peaks) 95-106 lack Hammers 81-98 Rock Drills 91-98 Pneumatic Wrenches 83-88 Other Saws 72-81 Vibrator 69-81 Note: Compiled ftom the information given on Fig. 1 of the wNoise ftom Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliancesw by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1971). DPW - Central ÂWl7IIIe/Bonita RoadISwtetwaler Road Improveme1lJs 22 ~ 7- 7.3 · .. . Table 3.2.2 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Sites Operations Ground Excavation Foundation Election F' . h' Type of Project .n'!l.ng Clearing Distance to 75 dB A-Weighted Sound Level, ft Domestic Housing 130-140 220 100 100-110 220 Office Building, Hotel, Hospital, 140 250 70 160-200 250 School, Public Works Industrial, Parking Garage, Religious, Store, Amusement & 140 250 60-70 140-160 250 Recreation, Service Station Public Works Roads and Highways, 140 220-250 220 80 140 Sewers, Trenches Notes: a) Compiled from the information provided in Tables loa and 1-b of the "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances" by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1971). b) The above distances are from observer to the noisiest piece of equipment. Other equipment is assumed to be at least 150 ft farther from observer than the noisiest piece of equipment. DPW - Central AvenuelBonùa RoaillSweelWOler Road Improvemenzs 23 ~ 7-7¥ . . 4.0 FUTURE (BUILD-OUT) TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Growth in the area would eventually result in traffic volume increase. This would occur with or without the proposed project. According to Steve Denny (County of San Diego Department of planning and I.aDd Use Associate Transponation Specialist, 1995), the forecasted traffic volume on Bonita RaId lOuth of Central Avenue is 32,000 ADT. North of Central Avenue, the fon:c:asted traffic volume on Bonita Road is 25,000 ADT. Assuming that traffic speed, mix, and day-evening-night distribution would remain the laDle as they are now, the forecasted traffic volume increase will result in a traffic noise levd increase of 0.9 dB south of Central Avenue and of 1.7 dB north of Central Avenue. Due to the gradual increase in the traffic noise level and the small difference between the existing and the forecasted noise levels, the anticipated traffic noise level increase would hardly be noticeable. It is expected that within the "noise sensitive" areas at the Preschool site the forecasted traffic noise would exceed CNEL=60 dB. However, within most of these areas the forecasted traffic noise levels would still be lower than the NAC of 67 dB. At some locations within the Preschool site, especially in front of the porch of the main building, the forecasted traffic noise levels may reach and even slightly exceed the NAC of 67 dB (if the existing wood fence would have large cracks and openings). When the road is further improved in the future, additional noise analysis may require replacement of the existing wood fence. DPW - Cmtral Ávmu4/B01ÙtQ Road/Sweerwaur Rood ImprovemelllS 24 p~ 7-75 .. . 5.0 NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES As has been mentioned in Section 1.2, Policy 4b of the Noise Elemtnt of the General Plan specifies that for road construction projects that are not Federally Funded, the ·exterior noise level due to vehicuJar traffic impacting a noise sensitive area" should not exceed CNEL-60 dBA. However,·ü the existing or projected noise level without the project is S8 dBA or greater a 3 dBA increase will be allowed, up to the mn;mum permitted by Federal Highway Administration Standards" (Exemption B). The NoisePlP.mtnt of the General Plan defines "Noise Sensitive Area" as the bn;¡t!;l\g site of any residence, hospital, school, library, or mm;¡n facility where quiet is an important attribute of the tnvironment" (page VIll-19). The "Federal Highway Administration Standards" provide somewhat more detailed descriptions of the "noise sensitive" areas. The current Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) procedures for highway traffic noise analysis and abatement (FHPM 7-7-3, August 1982) specify: a. In determining and abating traffic noise impacts, primary consideration is to be givtn to exterior areas. Abatement will usually be nec~"'ry only where frequent human use occurs and a lowered noise level would be of benefit. b. In those situations where. there are no exterior activities to be affected by the traffic noise, or where the exterior activities are far from or physically shielded from the roadway in a manner that prevents an impact on exterior activities, the interior c:ritetion shall be used as the basis of determining noise impacts. At the Preschool site, the main exterior areas where "frequent human use occurs and a lowered noise level would be of benefit" (play areas) are shielded from traffic noise by the on-site building structures. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 compare the existing and the forecasted (build-out conditions with project) traffic noise levels at six previously described sites at the Preschool property. Table 5.1 addresses the road design Alternative 1 (wood fence remains). Table 5.1 shows that, depending on location within the Preschool property, the differences between the existing and the build-out CNEL range between - 2 dB and + 1 dB. At this road design altemative, the forecasted traffic noise levels would not exceed the NAC of 67 dB at all Prrschool 9fO~ty sites which are considered in this analysis (excluding parking lot). Table S.l shows that the traffic noise impacts associated with road design.Altemative 1 satisfy "a 3 dBA increase" and "S8 dBA or greater" criteria of Policy 4b of the Noise Element of the . General Plan. DPW - Q1IlTal ÁwnuelBonita RDadlSwtttWOler Road Imp~1IlS 2S .ß~g 7-7~ ·" .' The forecasted traffic noise levels, shown in Table 5.1, also satisfy the NAC-67 dB criterion of the Federal Highway Administration ("maximum permitted by Federal Highway Admini.tration Standards") at all "noise sensitive" areas considered in this analysis (parking lot is not a "noise sensitive" area). Therefore, according to provisions of the Noise Element of the General Plan, for this road design alternative additional traffic noise mitigation measures aœ DOt required. Table 5.2 addresses the road design Alternative 2 (wood fence removed). Table 2 shows that, depending on location within the Preschool p.o~tt, the differences between the existing and the build-out CNEL range between - 2 dB and +3 dB. At this road design alternative, traffic noise levels exceed the NAC of 67 dB limit at 2 of 6 sites considered in this analysis (parking lot and the area in front of the porch of the main building). The infonDation given in Table 5.2 shows that the traffic noise impacts addressed in the road design Alternative 2 satisfy "a 3 dBA increase" and "58 dBA or greater" criteria of Policy 4b. However, at this road design alternative traffic noise levels could aceed the NAC==67 dB criterion at one potential "noise sensitive" location (in front of the porch of the IIIaÏn Preschool building) . While no outdoor activities in front of the porch were observed during the field sound level measurements, the'area in front of the porch may be used for such activities. Therefore, this analysis considers this area as being potentially "noise sensitive." According to the project engineer, currently proposed project design does not consider the removal of the existing wood fence. Therefore, it is expected that the forecasted traffic noise levels would be similar to those given in Table 5.1. It should be noted again, that the traffic noise level forecasts assume that the wood fence does not have cracks and opening. According to the field observation, the existing wood fence already has small cracks and opening. The fence deterioration may result in the traffic noise levels behind the fence being higher than the traffic noise levels given in Table 5.1. The existing wood fence can be repaired and the wood boards replaced as necessary, however noise mitigation measures are not required at this time. . DPW - Central Ãwnw/Bollita RoadISwettwQltr Road Improwments 26 1J"ë~ 7-77 --~~.._- , ." - Table 5.1 , Existing and Forecasted CNEL at the Preschool Site (Alternative 1 - wood f=ce rem~¡n~) CNEL, dB Location Future with Change Project Existing (future- existing) Parking Lot (Test Location #1) 71 71 0 At building elevation facing Bonita R.d (POrch) 67 67 0 Between Bonita R.d and brick wall 64 66 -2 Southern Play Area - between 2 buildings 62 62 0 Northern Play Area - behind brick wall 63 63 0 Central Play Area - east of main building (patio area) 61 60 +1 Table 5.2 Existing and Forecasted CNEL at the Preschool Site (Alternative 2 - wood fence removed) I CNEL, dB Location Future with Change Project Existing (future- existing) Parking Lot (Test Location #1) 71 71 0 At building elevation facing Bonita Rd (porch) 70 67 +3 Between Bonita R.d and brick wall 64 66 -2 Southern Play Area - between 2 buildings 64 62 +2 Northern Play Area - behind brick wall 63 63 0 Central Play Area - east of main building (patio area) 61 60 +1 DPW - Central A_!Bonita Road/S~etwaJer Road Improvemellls 27 fÞbs. 7-7t" .. . , 6.0 REFERENCFS l. "FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," Federal Highway Admin;~tration Report FHWA-RD-77-I08, 1978. 2. "Development of Ground Transportation Systems Noise Contours for the San Diego Region," Wy1e Research Report WCR 73-8, 1973. , DPW - Central AYe1llU!/Bonita Road/Sweetwaler Road ImprovemeTlls 28 ~ 7-79 " . APPENDIX CENTRAL A VENUEIBONITA ROAD! SWEETWATER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS The Appendix consists of 39 pages of computer print-outs of noise technical data. Copies of the full noise analysis, including the Appendix, are available for review at the County of San Diego operations Center, 5555 Overland Avenue, Building 2 Information Desk, San Diego, and at the Bonita-Sunnyside Library, 5047 Central Avenue, in Bonita. If you are unable to visit either of these locations and wish to receive a copy of the Appendix, please call Connie Willens at 694-3223. ß-~ 7-fò Revised 6-3-96 5/ included in such insurance, separate errors and omissions coverage protecting both public entities. 5. INDEMNITY. The COUNTY shall indemnify, protect, defend and save the CITY and CITY'S Councilmembers, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all liabilities, claims, suits, actions, damages, costs (including, without limitation attorneys' fees) and/or causes of action arising out of the design, construction or maintenance of the Project, or any other activities under this Agreement except to the extent caused by the negligence or wilful misconduct of the CITY. 6. MAINTENANCE. Upon completion of the Project improvements including, without limitation, the Bridge Improvements, the COUNTY maintain and repair same in perpetuity, at no cost to the CITY, in accordance with COUNTY standards. 7. MODIFICATION. This Agreement may not be modified, amended or otherwise changed unless by amendment, in writing, executed by both parties. 8. TERM. This agreement shall terminate upon completion of the Project, and upon payment of all amounts due under the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, COUNTY's maintenance, repair, general police powers and policing responsibilities hereunder shall continue in effect. 9. PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. COUNTY agrees to construct the Project in conformance with the description set forth herein, subject to such further refinement in the Project plans and specifications as may be reasonably agreed upon the parties. The Project plans and specifications shall include the following elements, to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY: (a) interim plans for pedestrian and traffic flows during Project construction; (b) rip rap on the banks at the southern outflow points of the Bridge Improvements; and (c) permanent feReiR~ handrail on the CITY side of the bridge crossing which adequately separates vehicular, pedestrian and golf course traffic. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the county of San Diego, pursuant to action taken by the Board of Supervisors and the City of Chula vista pursuant to action taken by the City Council. [Next Page is Signature Page] 4 ~;;;i-O 7-P¡ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~ Item /8".3,)" f Meeting Date 6/4/96 ITEM TITLE: Resolution approving a contract for Fireworks Display, and entering into an Indemnification Agreem[:.h the San Diego Unified Pori District SUBMITIED BY, Di""',,, of p",,,,. ~d R'@C REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ ~ (4/5ths Vote:_NoX) The City is in the process of finalizing plans fo he ;;:rth of July Fireworks display to be conducted on the Chula Vista Bayfront. A contract with the vendor supplying and launching the fireworks has been negotiated, and contains hold harmless language, and the City has been asked to enter into an Indemnificalion Agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District as part of their Tidelands Activity Permit. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract for the 1996 fireworks display and to enter into an Indemnification Agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: The Fourth of July Fireworks display will be held on the Bayfront on Thursday, July 4, 1996. The display is scheduled to commence promptly at 9:00 PM, and will last approximately 20 minutes. The contract for the fireworks display, which includes indemnification language, is attached (Attachment "A"). The fireworks will be launched from a barge anchored in San Diego Bay, west of the City's bayfront development, The show will be accompanied by a radio simulcast on a local radio station (KYXY). KYXY is providing $1,000 worth of additional fireworks to augment the City's purchase, and will be providing a substantial amount of free pre-show publicity. The Police Departmenl, Traffic Engineering Division, and Transit Division are coordinating plans to manage the anticipated traffic congestion in the area throughout the day. Traffic control will be handled by the Police Department according to a traffic plan designed by the Traffic Engineering Division, A centralized command post will be established at the corner of "J" Street and Marina Parkway so that Police, Fire, and other personnel involved with the event will know where contact can be made in the event of any unforeseen problems or emergencies. The Transit Division will again be offering free shuttle bus service into and oul of the area from all city trolley stations. Shuttle busses will ulilize special express traffic lanes thai will be eSlablished exclusively for shuttle bus use and emergency traffic. The advertising for the event, utilizing transit bus ads, paid advertising, and multi-media press releases, is being coordinated by the City's Public Information Coordinator. NEf-JG-FIREWORK.96 1 8-- / ~7¡~ Item ~ Meeting Date 6/20/95 Since the event will be laking place on Port District property, the San Diego Unified Port District has been contacted concerning the event. The City is being asked to provide the Port with a Certificate of Insurance naming the Pori as additional insured. In addition, the Port's Tideland AClivity Permit (Attachment "B") contains an Indemnification Agreement. It should be noted that the Port District Activity permit gives Ihe Port Authority righl to a 24-hour cancellation notice, which, if exercised, could prevent the fireworks display from occurring. This could result in the forfeiture of contracl fees with the fireworks vendor and the tug and barge vendor. Such a cancellation is highly unlikely, although a serious emergency in the area could result is such a cancellation. A total of $27,510 was budgeted for the Fireworks event. A tentative event budget is attached (Attachment "C"). FISCAL IMPACT: $27,510 was allocated in Ihe 1995-96 Community Promotions budget to support this event. No additional allocalion of funds is necessary. Attachments "A" Contract for fireworks display liB" Activity Permit - San Diego Unified Pori Dislricl "C" Budget Detail NET-JG-FIREWORK.96 2 8fJ r" " A ~j - --, RESOLUTION NO. I8"J..7,// RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY FOR JULY 4, 1996 AND ENTERING INTO AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT .WITH THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation staff is finalizing plans for the annual Fourth of July Fireworks display to be conducted on the Chula vista Bayfront¡ and WHEREAS, a contract with the vendor supplying and launching the fireworks has been finalized, and the City has been asked to enter into an Indemnification Agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District as part of their Tidelands Activity Permit; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract with San Diego Fireworks and to enter into an indemnification agreement with the San Diego Unified Port District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby approve and authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement between with San Diego Fireworks, Inc. and the City of Chula vista for the annual Fourth of July Fireworks display to be held on the Chula vista Bayfront on Thursday, July 4, 1996, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No. (to be completed by the city Clerk in the final document) . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute a Tideland Activity Permit from the San Diego Unified Port District, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Presented by Jess Valenzuela, Director of Bruce M. Boogaa d, City Àttorney Parks and Recreation C:\rs\fireworks I ~'-Yf ".Ù, ) FIREWORKS DISPLAY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of June, 1996, by and between the City of Chula Vista, a California Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called IICity" , 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 disp~ay for its residents on July 4, 1996, 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 July 4, 1996, in the San Diego Bay, on a barge west of the Chula Vista Marina, in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, one (1) Fireworks Display as set forth in Program "An, attached hereto as Exhibit nAn, incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though set forth in full, including all required tug and barge services, required picket boat security around launch site, and the services of one (1) licensed pyrotechnician to take charge of and fire the Display with sufficient helpers. 1.1 Contractor's Duty to Provide Suitable Launch Site. Contractor shall furnish and provide at their own expense, a barge as a suitable launch site. Suitability of any proposed barge is to be determined solely by Contractor, as long as the City agrees that there is adequate public access for viewing and adequate parking. Contractor shall furnish and provide, at their own expense, suitable barge floats or scows, including provisions for towing and handling of same. 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 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. NET_JG_I'RWKCONT. ~6 1 r- 8'" .Þ /1)4 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 ten percent (10%) of the contract price as a restocking fee and as contribution to costs incurred by Contractor including, but not limited to, technician fees, and permit and insurance costs. 4. postponement. In the event of cancellation by Contrac- tor 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 or any costs incurred by Contractor if the City tenders to Contractor another date for the display prior to 9:00 A.M. on the day of the display. City shall be liable only for the expenses incurred by Contractor due to the postponement if the parties have agreed upon a postponement date, or the City has tendered a reasonable postponement date. S . ASSUMPTION OF RISK FOR WEATHER RUINING EXHIBITS. City agrees to assume the risk of damage to the Exhibit by weather or other causes beyond the control of Contractor, which may affect or damage such portion of the exhibits 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 exhibits, 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. City shall be responsible and liable for any damage or theft of equipment or materials of Contractor caused by the public. NET_JG_F'RI'I(CONT.~6 2 í5"¡' .),!" , __0_______ 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 Errors and omissions insurance in the amount of $250,000. 7.3. Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000. All policies shall be issued by a carrier that has a Best's Rating of "A-II , 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 NET_JG_FRWJl:CONT.96 3 8"7 /1 -~..._.- ...-..- <~) ( 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 the sole negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct of City. 9. COMPENSATION. City agrees to pay Contractor the sum of Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Five ($18,725.00) 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. Nn-m-~~.96 4 ~~ 0~ 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. 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. tlET-JG-FRWKCONT.96 5 ?;( ~ 0,1 v 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: BRUCE M. BOOGAARD, City Attorney San Diego Fireworks, Inc. , a California Corporation By John Peluso Area Manager NET_JG"PRl'iKCOJ>:T.% 6 8',/tl )-\ò . ATTACHMENT 8-1 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT TIDELAND ACTIVITY. PERMIT . PERMITTEE: City of Chu1e Vista USE OR ACTIVITY: Fourth of Ju1v ~frewor~~.v LOCATION FOR WHICH PERMIT IISUED:_Chl1h .nIta Bavfront EFFECTIVE DATES: ~u..'" 4. \q~G . aECURITY DEPOSIT:..tt/A . ~ THIS PERMIT FOR TIDELAND USE IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS: . 1. P.rmltt.. .hall comply with all appllcabl. lawl. NI.I and regulatlonl of "'. DI.trlet Ind oth.r gov.rnm.ntal .ntlti... 2. P.rmltttt .hall kttp the prop.rty end I" .qulpm~nt ultd In oonn.etlon . with thl. p.rmlt In a ollln, .af. and t~nltary mann.r .nd In good r.palr at all - tlm.l. Allor .ny portion of thlt e~curlty ".pollt .hall ... .v.llabll unconditionally to the Dlltrlct 'or thl PUrpOl1 of ol.enlng or repllrln; ""mag'l to the property upon t.rmlnatlon of thll permlL a. Thll permit mlY be canc.lI.d by .Ith.r party by the glvln; of twlnty.four (24) hou,. n011c. In wrltln; to the oth.r party. Such canc.llatlon .hall bl without IIlblllty oflny natur.. . ... ThI. permit ahall ,~! ~ !ra.~t~" or ~!..~.,t". .. P.rmltte. lhall cIef.nd.lndemnlfy, Ind hold harml... Dtltrlct, III offle.r. 8M .mploy... .galntt III ClU... of .~on, for JUCIlel.' rell.f of any kind, for clam.g. to property of .ny kind whltaotv.r, and 10 whom.v.r .'on;In;. Ineludlng '.rmltttt, or InJury to or ....th of any pe,.on or peraona,'lncIudlng .ploytt. of P.rmltttt. Nlultlng dlr.etly or Indlrtetly from IctlYltI.. In _nn.ctlon with the IMuanc. Ind performance of "'II permit or arlalng from the Ut. of the property, faellltl.1 Dr ..rYle.. of Dtltrlet, III offlc.,. or employ.... I ./ . 8"; / I v.-\ . l.. ATTACHMENT B-2 .. Permittee Ihall maintain comp hen.lve public liability (covering operation., products and completed operation.) and blanket contractua' coverage In.urance throughout t!':, turn ~f thl~ permit. The pollcl.. Ihall, a, a minimum. frovlde the fo!IO':'llnn form' I\f cO"e'age: $1 Hi lion combined singfe lr1t. (A) PerlonallnJuryand Boe! lylnJury: One Perlon' . One Occurrence . (8) Property Damag. . Certificate. of luch lneurance, In a form latllfactory to the DI.trlct, Ihall be filed with DI.trlct'l Community Relation, DepartmenL InaL!r!nce certificates filed pUrluant to thl. permit thall contain I non-cancell.tlon-wlthout-notlce Clau.. and IhllI provide th~! ~~!,!8~ ~ ~'.. ~~1~at10'" "~tlc~" Ihall Þt lent to the DI.trlct. 7. The rights and prl"'II"~~' l'~·nct"d "If th~ permit arenon-exclu.lve, . , . e. Permittee ,hall not eng.g.. In IonV ocUvliy ,..'I property of the DI.trlct other than the activity for which this ~ermltll' exprn.ly laIued. t. Permittee Ihall be ~I.:~~~~! !~ ~~~ ~I),..~I:. with .~~ ,peclal condition, attached hereto, . , 10, Permittee ahall comply with ell rO~l!lrem!!tts and dlr,ctlv.. of the Port . . Director of DI.trlct. 11. In the event of failure of Permittee to comply with any provl.lon of thl, permit. thl. permit m.y. at the dl.cretlon of the Port Director. Þt termln.ted Immediately. - IAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT Approved: , Permittee hereby accepta thll permit and egro'5 to comply with an the terml and ooncÐtlonethereof. ....rmltt..·. slaneture Address: City ofChula Vista . 276 Fourth Ave. . Chula Vista. CA 91910 Telephone: John Gates - 585~7/Brian Cox - 691-5140 III I 11 ., II . 8'"" / ;2. v\'t- . " . 08te reqUISI reoeived In CR Dlpt.: Pl.... ~ .ach Item below. ATTACHMENT 8-3 1. Sponaoring Individual or orou~: City of Chula Yista 2, Address and ttlephone number of ccntact ~rson: John Gates - 585-5617, Brian Cox - 691- 1(0 City of Chula Yista Parks and Recreation Department 276 Fourth Ave. " ~a YiS~, CA ~1910 a. type ev.nt a planned? . Fireworks Disp1ay " ., Whtrt txactly on thl b.yfront? Fireworks - Spectators on bayfront between "r-" and "J" Street Fireworks launched frt1ll1 barne in Bay 5. Day and date of tvent: ,.1\ ~ ç.. n ~."' I xU"'f "" \ \'\"1.. . . 8:00 a.m, Finish e. Time: Start 10:00 D.m. - 7. Will traffic be affect.d? Yes, Chub Yista Police Departr..,nt \lill provi~e traffic control in the area throughout.. the day eo How many persona expected to attend? '10,000 - 25,000 I. If large group, what Itcurlty arrengemtnts haw bien made? Chula Yista Police Department will provide security and crowd control throughout the event . 10. "oomn"~ 01' Clltwec:l.-r1, do ~ hl-Ylllablllty lnIurMce ClCMl'a;i? f4/A ....... filum thiI ",**1iII (w'thIn t!l t"C't~~ ~:~ ~ ~~~'! ~~':aII ~ an ~ on Part ....ncI. will be ....ltd. 4'83 /1 .0 . 8"1;> f " f - cln COU~CIl AGENOA STATEMENT - Item~ J~J,2,Ç Meeting Date 06/04/96 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION Approving lease agreements between South Bay Community Services and the City of Chula Vista for office space in the EI Do"do B"'Id'", " '.'5 Fo""h 1f SUBMITTED BY: Comm""'", D",:"opm~" Øf'- t7 REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ 'ova ~- (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No XI Council Referral No. _ BACKGROUND: The City of Chula Vista purchased the office building located at 315 Fourth Avenue (Eldorado Building) from the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency in September of 1995. All leases for the building must be approved by the City. Leases with South Bay Community Services (SBCS) for office space in the building that SBCS currently occupies were recently finalized and are attached for Council consideration. City Council approval is required for document execution. Provisions of the leases are highlighted in the following report. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve leaseswith South Bay Community Services, Inc., for Suites D, E, F, H, R, T, U, K and L and for Suites I and J at 315 Fourth Avenue. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: South Bay Community Services currently occupies nine office suites (D,E,F,H,R,T,U,I,&J) in the Eldorado Building with a total of 6,931 sq. ft. Two separate leases have been prepared for FY 1995-96 and will expire on June 30, 1996. Both leases include a one year renewal option for FY 1996-97 which will begin on July 1, 1996. The rental rate for the first lease which began on July 1, '1995 for suites D,E,F,H,R, T & U is a flat $61,200 (about $.90/sq. ft.imonth). This amount coincides with the Community Development Block Grant that was approved by the City for SBCS during the 1995-96 budget session. The second lease is for Suites I and J which began on October 15, 1995 and will be paid by South Bay Community Services, Inc., with funds other than those granted from the City. The rental rate is $.90/sq. ft.imonth. In both cases, SBCS pays for and supplies their own utilities and janitorial services. Because it is so close.to the end of the fiscal year, payment for the 1995-96 leases will be lump sum and due on or before June 30, 1996. If the leases are renewed by SBCS for 1996- 97, payment from SBCS will be due on a monthly basis. 9-/ , v\~ - .--_._-.---- Page 2, Item i Meeting Date 06/04/96 It should be noted that in July, SBCS will be vacating Suites R, T & U and will be relocating those offices to Suites K and L (recently vacated by F.W. Meyer Company). The square footage is almost an even exchange. Provisions for this change have been included in the lease documents. FISCAL IMPACT: The two leases will result in a total of $70,380 rental revenue for FY 95-96. Of that amount, $11 ,050 will be allotted to the Redevelopment Agency (rental income prior to the sale of the building to the City) a.nd $59,330 will be allotted to the City. The City Council approved CDBG funding for the lease of Suites D,E,F,H,R, T, and U in the 1995-96 budget. Once the lease has been approved, funds from the CDBG will be transferred to the appropriate City and Agency accounts. SBCS will pay $9,180 from non-city sources. Suites D. E. F. H. R (T. U. K & l) Redevelopment Agency - 7/1/95 to 9/5/95 $11.050 City of Chula Vista - 9/5/95 to 6/30/96 50.150 $61,200 Suites I & J City of Chula Vista - 10/15/96 9.180 Total rent for FY 1995-96 $70,380 If SBCS executes the one year options for FY 1996-97, lease revenues to the City for FY 1996-97 will total $74,160. SBCS has a current request in for the City to approve a CDBG grant for $61,200 in the FY 96-97 budget to pay the rent for suites D, E. F, H, K, & L from July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997. SBCS will pay $12.960 for Suites i.and J from non-City sources. Suites D. E. F. H. K. & L - 7/1/96 to 6/30/96 $61,200 Suites I and J - 7/1/96 to 6/30/96 12.960 Total rent for FY 1996-97 $74,160 [c:wp511buchanla113sllease,a13] . 9 - ø2.. 't-\\; RESOLUTION 1?;1:¿> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING LEASE BETWEEN SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES. INC.. AND THE CITY FOR OFFICE SPACE AT 315 FOURTH AVENUE WHEREAS. the City of Chula Vista owns the EI Dorado Building located at 315 Fourth Avenue; and, WHEREAS. South Bay Community Services, Inc. desires to lease office space at 315 Fourth Avenue. NOW THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find. order. determine and resolve as follows: the City Council authorizes the Mayor to enter into a lease (on file in the Office of the City Clerk and known as Document ) with South Bay Community Services for the use of office space at 315 Fourth Avenue. PRESENTED BY: @L·S~ Chris Salomone Bruce M. Boogaard Community Development Director City Attorney [c:\wp51 \buchan\resos\sbcslees .rso] 9-.3/1 v(\ ~7 lEASE OF Suites D, E, F, H, R, T, U, K, and l 315 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 This "Lease" is made this 3rd day of June , 1992 between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (Agency). hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Landlord", and SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES. INC., hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Tenant". landlord hereby leases to Tenant and' Tenant hereby hires from Landlord, subject to the provisions of this Lease, those certain premises commonly known as 315 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITES "D, E, F, H, R, T, U, K, and L", CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Premises", together with the right, in common with others, to the use of all common entranceways, lobbies, ramps, drives, stairs and similar access and service ways, and common areas in and adjacent to the building of which the Premises are a part. A ·floor plan showing the location of the Premises is attached hereto as Exhibit" A" and made a part hereof. 1. TERM: Suites D. E, F. H. R. T and U The initial term of lease for Suites D, E, F, H, R, T, and U (5,731 sq. ft.) shall commence as of July 1, 1995 and shall be retroactive to that date and shall expire as of June 30, 1996. One Year ODtion. Tenant shall have the option, with the consent of the Landlord, to extend the term of this lease for Suites D, E, F, and H, and may add to the term of this lease Suites K and L on a month to month basis for a period not to exceed one year. If the Tenant exercises said option prior to June 30, 1996, the term of the additional option year granted shall end one minute before midnight on June 30, 1997. Lease may be terminated by either Landlord or Tenant effective upon a 30-day written notice. 2. RENT: The rent for the Premises during the initial term hereof shall be Sixty-one thousand, two hundred dollars ($61.200.00) annually. Said rent shall be payable in a lumc sum due and cavable on or before June 30. 1996. One Year Oction In the event the Tenant exercises the option to extend the term of this lease on a month to month basis as provided in Section 1 above, the Tenant shall pay rent of five thousand, one hundred dollars ($5,100) monthly and shall be made § éj-5 to the Landlord (or Landlord's authorized agent) no later than the 5th day of each month for each of the twelve months, commencing on July 5, 1996. Any payment of rent not received by ten days after the due date shall be subject to a late charge of 3% per month until received. Rent paid by checks not honored by the bank will not be deemed paid until check is made good, and may be subject to a returned check charge at the rate charged by Landlord's bank at option of Landlord. Possessory interest tax may be due and payable under the California Taxation and Revenue Code. Tenant shall be responsible for any and all possessory interest tax that may apply to the leasing of premises. 3. SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Landlord and Tenant respectively shall furnish and pay for services and utilities as set forth in Exhibit "8" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Utilities and services paid for by Landlord shall be furnished to the premises only during reasonable building hours as the same may be determined from time to time by Landlord, and while Tenant is not in default under any of the provisions of the Lease, and subject to the regulations of the building. Landlord shall be the sole judge as to the amount and kind of services and utilities to be provided under the provisions hereof. Any additional services or utilities required by Tenant shall be at its sole expense. Tenant agrees not to connect to or alter any utilities or equipment provided by Landlord without the written consent of Landlord. If. in the sole judgment of Landlord, Tenant wastes or uses an excessive amount of air conditioning, heating, gas, electricity or water, Landlord reserves the privilege to charge Tenant for such waste or excess amount of gas, electricity or water, which charge Tenant agrees to pay within 30 days of a receipt therefor. All janitorial service for the leased Premises shall be performed during non- business hours (between 6:00 p.m. and 8:30 a.m.). All persons or firms performing janitorial services must be approved by Landlord prior to commencement of work. Landlord shall not be liable for any failure to furnish any of such services or utilities when such failure is caused by accidents, strikes, lockouts, other labor troubles or other conditions beyond Landlord's reasonable control, and Tenant shall not be entitled to any damages nor shall any such failure relieve Tenant of the obligation to pay the full rent reserved herein or constitute or be construed as a constructive or other eviction of Tenant. $' C/-b 4. USE: Tenant shall use and occupy the Premises for Professional Offices for social service to clientele and will be responsible for maintaining proper conduct of each clientele when using the premises and common area. Tenant shall not use or occupy the Premises in violation of law or of the certificate of occupancy issued for the Building of which the Premises are a part, and shall, upon (5) days written notice from Landlord, discontinue any use of the Premises which is declared by an governmental authority having jurisdiction to be a violation of law or of said certificate of occupancy. Tenant shall comply with àny direction of any governmental authority having jurisdiction which shall, by reason of the nature of Tenant's use or occupancy of the Premises, impose any duty upon Tenant or Landlord with respect to the Premises or with respect to the use or occupation thereof. Tenant shall not do or permit to be done anything which will invalidate or increase the cost of any fire and extended coverage insurance policy covering the building and/or property located therein and shall comply with all rules, orders, regulations and requirements of the Pacific Fire Rating Bureau or any other organization performing a similar function. Tenant shall within 30 days from receipt of a bill therefor reimburse Landlord for any additional premium charged for such policy by reason of Tenant's failure to comply with the provisions of this paragraph. 5. CONDITION OF PREMISES: Tenant acknowledges that neither Landlord nor any agent of Landlord has made any representation or warranty with respect to the Premises or the building or with respect to the suitability of either for the conduct of Tenant's business. The taking of possession of the Premises by Tenant shall conclusively establish that the Premises and said Building were at such time complete and in satisfactory condition (except for latent defects) unless within thirty (30) days after such date Tenant shall give Landlord written notice specifying in reasonable detail the respects in which the Premises or the Building were not complete and in satisfactory condition except for any work to be completed by the Landlord as set forth in this Lease. 6. ALTERATIONS - EQUIPMENT: (a) Tenant shall make no alterations, additions or improvements to the Premises without the prior written consent of Landlord, and Landlord may impose, as a condition of such consent such requirements as Landlord in its sole discretion may deem reasonable or desirable, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, requirements as to the manner in which, the time or times at which, and the contractor by whom such work shall be done. All such alterations, ~ '1-7 additions or improvements shall become the property of the Landlord, and shall be surrendered with the Premises, as a part thereof, at the end , , of the term hereof, except that Landlord may, by written notice to Tenant given at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of term, require Tenant to remove any or all partitions, counters, railings and other improvements installed by Tenant, and to repair any damages to the Premises from such removal, all at Tenant's sole expense. (b) All articles of personal property and all business and trade fixtures, machinery and equipment, cabinetwork, furniture and moveable partitions owned by Tenant or installed by Tenant at its expense in the Premises shall be and remain the property of Tenant and my be removed by Tenant at any time during the Lease term when Tenant is not in default hereunder. Landlord may, by written notice to Tenant upon the termination of this Lease require Tenant upon the termination of this Lease require Tenant to remove all of such property and to repair any damage to the Premises or the Building caused by such removal, all at Tenant's sole expense. 7. LIENS: Tenant shall keep the Premises and building, and the property on which the Premises are situated, free from any mechanic's liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished or obligations incurred by Tenant, and failure by Tenant to immediately reimburse Landlord growing out of any such liens shall be a material breach of this Lease. S. CARE OF PREMISES: Tenant shall take good care of the Premises and fixtures therein and shall reimburse Landlord for all repairs thereto or to the building which are made necessary as a result of any misuse or neglect by Tenant or by its agents or employees or by its visitors while in the Premises. 9. MAINTENANCE: Landlord shall repair and maintain the Premises and the building including the plumbing, air-conditioning and electrical systems, windows, floors (excluding floor covering), parking areas, landscaping, restrooms and other common areas and facilities, and all other items which constitute a part of the Premises and are installed or furnished by Landlord. Landlord shall not be liable for any failure to make any repairs or to perform any maintenance unless such failure shall persist for an unreasonable time after written notice of the need for such repairs or maintenance is given to Landlord by Tenant. Except as provided in Article 4. 9-! 16 hereof there shall be no abatement of rent and no liability of Landlord by reason arising from the making of any repairs, alterations or improvements in or to any portion of the Building or the Premises or in or to the fixtures, appurtenances and equipment therein that merely causes Tenant some minor inconvenience during the tenancy. 10. ENTRY AND INSPECTION: Tenant will permit Landlord and its agents to enter into and upon the Premises upon reasonable advance notice during normal business hours for the purpose of inspecting the same, or for the purpose of protecting the interest therein of Landlord, or to post notices of nonresponsibility, or to make alterations or additions to the Premises or to any other portion of the Building in which the Premises are situated, including the erection of scaffolding, props or other mechanical devices, or for maintaining any service provided by Landlord to Tenant hereunder, without any rebate of rent to Tenant or quiet enjoyment of the Premises, or inconvenience thereby occasioned, and will permit Landlord, upon reasonable advance notice within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this Lease, to bring upon the Premises, for purposes of inspection or display, prospective tenants thereof. 11. HOLD HARMLESS AND NON-LIABILITY OF LANDLORD: Tenant agrees to hold Landlord harmless from and to defend and indemnify Landlord against any and all claims arising from injury to persons, loss of life or damage to property occurring in or about the Premises and from and against any and all costs, expenses and liabilities incurred by Landlord in or in connection with any such claim or any proceeding based thereon, to the extent such injury, loss of life or damage arises out of the willful act or negligence of Tenant, or its officers, employees, servants, agents, contractors, invitees or licensees. Tenant agrees at all times during the term of this Lease to keep in full force a liability insurance policy satisfactory to Landlord with single limit liability of not less than Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) and naming Landlord as an "also insured." Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for any damage to the Premises or for any loss, damage or injury to any property of Tenant therein or thereon except as specifically herein provided. 12. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION: Each party hereby waives its right of recovery against the other for any losses insured against under the standard form of fire insurance policy with extended coverage endorsement approved for use in California by the Pacific Fire Rating ..s. f-£! Bureau or its successor, provided this is permitted by its insurance policies, or by endorsement thereon which such waiving party may obtain at no cost and without invalidation of the policies. 13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING: (a) Tenant shall not. either voluntarily or by operation of law, assign, encumber, pledge or otherwise transfer all or any part of Ter;¡ant's leasehold estate hereunder, or permit the Premises to be occupied by anyone other than Tenant or Tenant's employees, or sublet the Premises or any portion thereof without Landlord's prior written consent in each instance. Any collection or acceptance of rent by Landlord from any person other than Tenant shall not be deemed a waiver of any provision of this Article, nor shall any such acceptance of rent on behalf of Tenant be construed as Landlord's consent to any assignment or subletting. (b) No consent by Landlord to any assignment or subletting by Tenant shall relieve Tenant of any obligation to be performed by the Tenant under this Lease, whether occurring before or after such consent, assignment or subletting. The consent by Landlord to any assignment or subletting shall not relieve the Tenant from the obligation to obtain Landlord's express written consent to any other assignment or subletting. Any assignment or subletting which is not in compliance with this Article shall be void. 14. TRANSFER OF LANDLORD'S INTEREST: In the event of any transfer or transfers of Landlord's interest in the Premises or in the real property of which the Premises are a part, other than a transfer for security purposes only, the transferor shall be automatically relieved of any and all obligation and liabilities on the part of Landlord accruing from and after the date of such transfer, provided such obligations and liabilities are assumed in writing by the transferee. 15. DAMAGE-DESTRUCTION: Except as provided in Article 8, if the Premises or the Building of which they are a part are damaged by fire or other casualty of the type insured against under the standard form of fire insurance policy with extended coverage endorsement, the damage shall be repaired by and at the expense of Landlord, provided such repairs can, in Landlord's opinion. be made within ninety (90) days after the commencement of repairs without the payment of overtime and other premiums, and until such repairs are completed the rent shall be abated in proportion to the part of the Premises which is unusable by Tenant in the I s: <1-/0 conduct of its business (but there shall be no abatement of rent by reason of any portion of the Premises be unusable for a period equal to one day or less). If the damage is due to the fault or neglect of Tenant or its employees, or agents, there shall be no abatement of rent. If Tenant can reasonably continue to occupy and use the Premises in its course of business, then Tenant shall continue to pay rent. landlord shall be given 90 days from the occurrence of the damage to make repairs. If such repairs are not completed within the 90-day period, landlord, shall begin abating Tenant's rent until such repairs are completed or if landlord elects not to abate Tenant's rent, Tenant shall have the right to terminate the remaining portion of the lease. landlord's election to make such repair must be evidenced by written notice to Tenant advising Tenant within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of the damage whether or not landlord will make such repairs. With respect to any damage which landlord is obligated to repair or elects to repair, Tenant waives the provisions of Sections 1932 (2) and 1933 (4) of the California Civil Code. If landlord does not elect to make such repairs, then either party may, by written notice to the other, cancel this lease as of the date of the occurrence of such damage. A total destruction of the Building and/or the Premises shall automatically terminate this lease. 16. DEFAULTS: The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this lease: (a) The vacation or abandonment of the Premises by Tenant for more than (10) consecutive days. (b) A failure by Tenant to pay the rent, or to make any other payment required to be made by Tenant hereunder, where such failure continues for ten (10) days after written notice thereof by landlord to Tenant. (c) A failure by Tenant to observe or perform any other provision of this lease to be observed or performed by Tenant, where such failure continues for thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by landlord to Tenant; provided however, that if the nature of such default is such that the same cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty-day period, Tenant shall not be deemed to be in default if Tenant shall within such ~ f-// period commence such cure and thereafter diligently prosecute the same to completion. (d) The making by Tenant of any general assignment for the benefit of creditors; the filing by or against Tenant of a petition to have Tenant adjudged a bankrupt or if a petition for reorganization or arrangement under any law relating to bankruptcy (unless, in the case of a petition filed against Tenant, the same is dismissed within sixty (60) days); the appointment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of substantially all of Tenant's assets located at the Premises or of Tenant's interest in this Lease, where such seizure is not discharged within thirty (30) days. Landlord shall not be deemed to be in default in the performance of any obligation required to be performed by it hereunder unless and until it has failed to perform such obligation within thirty (30) days after written notice by Tenant to Landlord specifying wherein Landlord has failed to perform such obligation; provided, however that in the nature of Landlord's obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for its performance then Landlord shall not be deemed to be in default if it shall commence such performance within such thirty-day period and thereafter diligently prosecute the same to completion. 17. REMEDIES: ¡ In the event of any such material default or breach by Tenant, Landlord may at any time thereafter, at Landlord's option and without limiting the Landlord in the exercise of any other right or remedy which Landlord may have by reason of such default or breach, with or without notice: (a) Retain and exercise any right or remedy permitted by law for such material default or breach of Lease by Tenant including all expenses, commissions and charges, including reasonable attorney's fees, which Landlord may have paid or incurred in connection with such action. (b) Give written notice to Tenant of Landlord's election to terminate this Lease, re-enter the Premises with or without process of law and take possession of the same and of all equipment and fixtures herein, and expel or remove Tenant and all other parties occupying the Premises, using such force as may be reasonably necessary to do so, without being liable to any prosecution for such re-entry or for the use of such force. In such event, Landlord shall thereupon be entitled to recover from Tenant the worth, at the time of such termination, of the excess, if any, of the rent and other charges required to be paid by Tenant hereunder for the balance of the term hereof (if this Lease had not been so terminated) I 't. '/- /2 over the then reasonable rental value of the Premises for the same period. 18. REMOVAL OF PROPERTY: Whenever Landlord shall re-enter the Premises as provided herein, Landlord may remove any property of Tenant from the Premises and store same elsewhere for the account, and at the expense and risk of Tenant, and if Tenant shall fail to pay the cost of storing any such property after it has been stored for a period of ninety (90) days or more, Landlord may sell any or all of such property at public or private sale, in such manner and at such times and places as Landlord, in its sole discretion, may deem proper, without notice to or demand upon Tenant, for the payment of any part of such charges or the removal of any such property, and shall apply the proceeds of such sale; first, to the cost and expense of such sale, including reasonable attorneys fees actually incurred; second, to the payment of the cost of or charges for storing any such property; their, to the payment of any other sums of money which may then or thereafter be due to Landlord from Tenant under any of the terms hereof; and further, the balance, if any, to Tenant. 19. WAIVER OF DAMAGES FOR RE-ENTRY: Tenant hereby waives all claims for damages that may be caused by Landlord's re-entering and taking possession of the Premises or removing and storing the property of Tenant as herein provided, and will save Landlord harmless from loss, costs or damages occasioned Landlord thereby, and no such reentry shall be considered or construed to be a forcible entry. 20. COST OF SUITS: (a) If Tenant or Landlord shall bring any action for any relief against the other, declaratory or otherwise, arising out of this Lease, including any suit by Landlord for the recovery of rent or possession of the Premises, the losing party shall pay the successful party a reasonable sum for attorneys fees in such suit and such attorneys fees shall be deemed to have accrued on the commencement of such action and shall be paid whether or not such action is processed to judgment. (b) Should Landlord, without fault on Landlord's part, be made a party to any litigation instituted by Tenant or by any third party against Tenant, or by or against any person holding under or using the Premises by license of Tenant, or for the foreclosure of a lien for labor or material furnished to or for Tenant or any such other person or otherwise arising out of or resulting from any act or transaction of Tenant or of any such !- '1-/.:3 other person, Tenant covenants to save and hold Landlord harmless from any judgment rendered against Landlord or the Premises or any part thereof, and all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred by Landlord in or in connection with such litigation. 21. WAIVER OF BREACH: The waiver by Landlord of any breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by Landlord shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Tenant of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, other than the failure of Tenant to pay the particular rental so accepted, regardless of Landlord's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent. 22. SUBORDINATION: Tenant agrees that upon written request of Landlord, this Lease shall be subject and subordinate to any mortgage, trust deed or like encumbrance hereafter, placed by Landlord or its successors in interest upon its interest in said Premises to secure the payment of moneys loaned, interest thereon, and other obligations. Tenant agrees to execute and deliver, within ten (10) days of demand of Landlord any and all instruments desired by Landlord subordinating I in the manner requested by Landlord this Lease to such mortgage, trust deed or like encumbrance. 23. RULES AND REGULATIONS: Such reasonable and non-discrimatory rules including but not limited to those set forth in Article 34 herein and other reasonable regulations as may be hereafter adopted and published by written notice to Tenant by Landlord for the safety, care and cleanliness of the Premises or the Building and the preservation of good order therein, as expressly made a part hereof, and Tenant agrees to comply with them, Landlord's remedies for any failure by Tenant to comply with them, Landlord's remedies for any failure by Tenant to comply with such a rule or regulation shall not include termination of this Lease. Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for any violation of such rules and regulations by any other Tenant; 24 DEFINED TERMS: The words "Landlord" and "Tenant", as used herein, shall include the plural as well as the singular. Words used in neuter gender include the masculine and ~ 9-1"1- feminine and words in the masculine or feminine gender include the neuter. If there be more than one Landlord or Tenant, the obligations hereunder imposed upon Landlord or Tenant shall be joint and several. The marginal headings or titles to the articles of this Lease are not a part of this Lease and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part thereof. 25. ALTERATIONS. ADDITIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS BY TENANT: (a) TENANT IMPROVEMENTS: If any alterations, additions or improvements are to be installed by Tenant or its contractors, such work shall be done in compliance with the following: (1) . No such work shall proceed without Landlord's prior written approval of (i) Tenant's contractor, (ii) Certificate of Insurance from an approved company, furnished to Landlord by Tenant's contractor, in an amount acceptable to Landlord for public liability and automobile liability, endorsed to show Landlord as an additional insured, and (iii) detailed plans and specifications for such work. (2). All such work shall be done in conformity with a valid building permit when required, a copy of which shall be furnished to Landlord before the work is commenced, and any work not acceptable to the Chula Vista Department of Building and Housing, or not reasonably satisfactory to Landlord, shall be promptly replaced at Tenant's expense. Notwithstanding any failure by Landlord to object to any such work, Landlord shall have no responsibility therefor. (3). All work by Tenant or its contractors shall be scheduled through Landlord. (4). Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for any extra expense incurred by Landlord by reason of faufty work done by Tenant or its contractors, or by reason of inadequate cleanup. (5). Tenant or its contractors will in no event be allowed to install plumbing, mechanical. electrical wiring or fixtures, acoustical or integrated ceilings, or partitions over 5' - 10" in height, unless approved by Landlord. (6). All data processing and other special electrical equipment shall be installed only with prior written approval of and under the supervision of Landlord or its electrical contractor. (7). Landlord hereby approves installation by Tenant of moveable office a- 1-/5 partitions not less than 5 feet 10 inches nor greater than approximately 7 feet in height. 26. PARKING AND COMMON AREAS: landlord grants to Tenant during the term hereof the right of non-exclusive use, in common with other tenants of the building, of all automobile parking areas provided for the Building for the accommodation and parking of pass,enger automobiles of the Tenant, its .officers, agents, employees and customers, landlord's designation of any specific tenant parking spaces, including those of Tenant, shall be in consultation with, and subject to the approval of, Tenant. Tenant and its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, eml!lloyees, agents, customers and invitees shall have the non-exclusive right, in common with landlord and all others to whom landlord has granted or may hereafter grant rights, to use the common areas as designated from time to time by landlord subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as landlord may from time to time impose, including the designation of specific areas in which cars owned by Tenant, its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees and agents must be parked and including the right to assign specific parking spaces to various Tenants. Tenant agrees after notice thereof to abide by such rules and regulations and to use its best efforts to cause its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees, agents, customers and invitees to conform thereto. landlord may upon reasonable prior notice close temporarily common area to make repairs or changes therein or to effect construction, repairs, or changes upon the site where the Building is located to prevent the acquisition of public rights in such areas, or to discourage noncustomer parking, and may do such other acts in and to the common areas as in its judgement may be desirable to improve the convenience thereof. Tenant shall upon request promptly furnish to landlord the license numbers of the cars operated by Tenant and its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, and employees. Tenant shall not at any time interfere with the rights of landlord and other occupants of the Building their subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees, agents, customers, contractors and invitees to use any part of the parking areas and other common areas. Tenant, its subtenants and concessionaires shall not solicit business or display merchandise within any of the common areas or distribute handbills or other advertising material therein. landlord reserves the right to have any vehicle impounded at the expense of the owner if said owner is parked in violation of any rule regulating said parking. ~ f-/" 27. MERGER: The voluntary or other surrender of this Lease by Tenant, or a mutual cancellation thereof, shall not work a merger, and shall, at the option of the Landlord, terminate all or any existing subleases or subtenancies, or may, the option of Landlord operate as an assignment to it of any or all such subleases or subtenancies. No provision of this Lease shall be construed in such a manner as to make the Landlord a partner of Tenant, it being expressly agreed that the relationship between the parties is and shall remain at all times that of Tenant and Landlord. 28. HEIRS AND ASSIGNS: Subject to the provisions hereof relating to assignment, mortgaging, pledging and subletting, this Lease is intended to and does bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of any and all of the parties hereto. 29. TIME OF ESSENCE: Time is of the essence of this Lease. 30. SURRENDER: The Tenant at the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and subject to provisions hereof, will surrender and deliver up said Premises to the Landlord, or those having the Landlord's estate therein, in the same condition as the Tenant now receives the Premises, ordinary wear and tear and damage by fire and the elements alone excepted. 31. INVALIDITY OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS: If any term or provision of this Lease shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extend permitted by law. 32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This instrument along with any exhibits and attachments hereto constitutes the entire agreement between Landlord and Tenant relative to the Premises herein described, and this agreement and the exhibits and attachments may be altered, amended or revoked only by an instrument in writing signed by both Landlord and Tenant. Landlord and Tenant agree hereby that all prior or contemporaneous oral agreements relative to the leasing of the Premises are J5- 9-/7 _......·_M_.·..·._ merged in or revoked by this agreement. 33. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE: Tenant shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to Landlord at any time within ten (10) days after request by Landlord, a statement in writing certifying, if such be the case, that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there have been modifications that the same is in full force and effect as modified), the date of commencement of this Lease, the dates to which rent has been paid, and such other information as Landlord shall reasonably request. It is acknowledged by Tenant that any such statement is intended to be delivered by Landlord and relied upon by prospective purchasers, mortgagees, beneficiaries under deeds of trust or assignees thereof. 34. RULES AND REGULATIONS: Tenant agrees in the exercise of the rights granted Tenant by the terms hereof that: (a) No sign, placard, picture, advertisement, name or notice shall be inscribed, displayed, printed or affixed on or to any part of the outside or inside of the Building without the written consent of Landlord, first had and obtained, and Landlord shall have the right to remove any such I objectionable sign, placard, picture, advertisement, name or notice, without notice to and at the expense of Tenant. (b) The bulletin board or directory of the Building will be provided exclusively for the display of the name and location of Tenant only; and Landlord reserves the right to exclude any other names therefrom, and also make a reasonable charge for each and every name, in addition to the name of Tenant, placed by it upon such bulletin board or directory. (c) When wiring of any kind is introduced, it must be connected as directed by Landlord and no boring or cutting for wires or exposed wiring will be allowed except with the prior written consent of Landlord. The location of telephones, call boxes, and other office equipment affixed to the Premises shall be prescribed by Landlord. Any installation in violation of this paragraph may be removed by Landlord at Tenant's expense. (d) Tenant shall not allow anything to be placed against or near the windows, in the doorways or in the halls, corridors, walkways or balconies. The exterior doors of the Premises shall be kept closed at all times, except when in actual use for ingress and egress. ~.- '1-/ i (e) The entries, passages and stairways shall not be obstructed by Tenant, or used for any other purpose than ingress or egress to and from their respective offices. Tenant shall not bring into or keep within the Building any animal or vehicle without the prior written consent of Landlord. (f) Tenant shall see that the doors of the Premises are closed and securely locked before leaving the Building and shall exercise extraordinary care and caution that all water faucets or water apparatus are entirely shut off before Tenant or Tenant's employees leave the Building, and for any default or carelessness Tenant shall make good all injuries sustained by other Tenants or occupants of the Building or by Landlord. (g) No furniture, freight or equipment of any kind shall be brought into or removed from the Building without the knowledge of Landlord or its agent; and all moving of same, into or out of Building, by tenants or their agents, shall be done at such times and in such manner as Landlord shall designate. Landlord shall have the right to prescribe the weight, size and . position of all safes and other heavy property brought into the Building, and also the times and manner of moving the same in and out of the Building. Landlord will not be responsible for loss of or damage to any such safe or property from any cause; but all damage done to the Building by moving or maintaining any such safe or property shall be repaired at the expense of Tenant. (h) Landlord reserves the right to exclude or expel from the Building any person who, in its sole judgement, shall in any manner do any act in violation of any of the rules and regulations of the Building. (i) The requirements of Tenant will be attended to only upon application at the office of the Building. Employees of Landlord shall not perform any work or do anything outside of their regular duties unless under special instructions from the office, and no employee will admit any person (Tenant or otherwise) to any office without specific instructions from the office of the Building. (j) Rooms used in common by Tenants shall be subject to such regulations as are posted therein. (k) Landlord reserves the right to install security gates or doors and to close and keep locked all said doors of the Building during such hours as Landlord may deem to be advisable for the adequate protection of the Building. All Tenants, their employees, or other persons entering or leaving the Building at any time when it is so locked may be required to sign the Building register when so doing, and the watchman in charge 1';ž ¿l-/ý : may refuse to admit to the Building while it is so locked, Tenant or any of Tenant's employees, or any other person, without a pass previously arranged. Landlord assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable for any damage resulting from any error in regard to any such pass or from the admission of an unauthorized person to the Building. (I) No awnings, window shades or draperies will be installed or permitted to be installed by Tenant without prior written consent of Landlord.. (m) All approved signs or lettering on doors or windows shall be printed, painted. affixed or inscribed at the expense of Tenant by a person approved by Landlord. (n) Tenant shall not place or allow anything to be placed near the glass of any window, door, partition or wall which may appear unsightly from outside the Premises. (0) The toilet rooms, urinals, wash bowls and other apparatus shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which they were constructed and no foreign substance of any kind whatsoever shall be thrown therein and the expense of any breakage, stoppage or damage resulting from the violation of this rule shall be borne by the Tenant who, or whose employees or invitees shall have caused it. I (p) Tenant shall not overload the floor of the Premises or mark, drive nails, screw or drill into the partitions, woodwork or plaster or in any way deface the Premises or any part thereof. (q) Tenant shall not store or keep in the Premises or the Building any inflammable or combustible fluid or material, or use any method of hearing or air conditioning other than that supplied by Landlord. (r) No vending machine or machines of any description shall be installed, maintained, or operated upon the Premises without the written consent of the Landlord. (s) Tenant shall not create nor permit any excessive noise or other nuisance detrimental to the other occupants of the Building or the surrounding area. (t) Tenant shall not disturb, solicit, or canvas any occupant of the Building and shall cooperate to prevent soliciting or canvassing by others. ..Bi 9-,;(0 ---- ---.."- 35. NOTICES: Any notice, demand, or communication under or in connection with this Lease may be served upon Landlord by personal service, or by mailing the same by registered mail in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid, and directed to Landlord at 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite E, Chula Vista, CA 91910, and likewise may be served on Tenant by personal service or by mailing the same by registered mail in the United States Post Office, postage paid, and directed to Tenant at 315 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista. CA 91910, or at such other place or places as either party may from time to time designate in writing. :a 'Î-.:{j Signature Page I CITY OF CHULA VISTA SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES. (LANDLORD) INC. (TENANT) By: By: Shirley Horton Ranie Hunter Mayor Chairperson By: Approved as to form by: Kathryn Lembo / Executive Director , ~ Bruce . Boogaard City Attorney I (c: Iw pwi n Ibuchan Idocumentl9 6lease] J:B ..¡ -..:{:? .=....--- Ú) 188118 .::I ........ 01 "11"11 -0 :Oc (j):JJ -;-; - "11:r: . r» 0< 0' JJfT1 Z -..1------ c...:J C ~ ~ ~. m .x; ,., lJ. ... )--' . -.¡... 0 .1\ " r= ~ / ~ -¡ '" -- ::T ./ » / < / CD :;¡ r= CD . . 0 '. . ..Jude. A r",fd, . ",to. t'. : -"W k-D . . I . . . i I . ~:1t)()'~.F: . . ~. - ¡zC?o ~. F. , Center Street' . . ··c}-A3·· .. . .. . . . .....,'.. . .,. . . '.. .. . '.- . . . '. . .--'. :.......: \,~. ;·;t···;········;-··· ..~..,:.:... . . ~ ~. . EXHIBIT B UTILITIES AND SERVICES: . LANDLORD ILl and TENANT ITI agree that each shall furnish and pay for services as indicated below before delinquency: Electricity ...............................0......······· . ( T ) * Air Conditioning & Heating Maintenance ........................1 L) Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) Rubbish Removal (from common receptacle) ........... . ... . .. . ... ( L ) Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( T ) Janitor Service . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT) Window Cleaning (external) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) Window Cleaning (interior) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( T ) I ¡ Common and Parking Areas Cleaning ............ ... ... ..... . .. . ( L ) Common and Parking Areas Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) Landscaping and Gardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) * Tenant shall use air conditioning, electrical fixtures and any other Landlord furnished services only during normal working hours and/or in normal use. Landlord shall pay for all expenses related to maintenance of air conditioning units which is considered the result of "normal wear and tear". Tenant shall pay for any expenses caused by other than normal use, negligent use or willful misconduct. (c:\wp51ISBCSIJ.agml ~ - f '¡-~f -_.~- LEASE OF I and J 315 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 91910 This "Lease" is made this 3rd day of June. 1 99~ between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Landlord", and South Bav Communitv Services. Inc. . hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Tenant". Landlord hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant hereby hires from Landlord, subject to the provisions of this Lease, those certain premises commonly known as 3 1 5 FOURTH AVENUE. SUITE "I and J", CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the" Premises", together with the right, in common with others, to the use of all common entranceways, lobbies, ramps, drives, stairs and similar access and service ways, and common areas in and adjacent to the building of which the Premises are a part. A floor plan showing the location of the Premises, consisting of approximately 1 .200 SQ. ft. is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. 1. TERM: The initial term of this lease shall commence as of October 15, 1995. shall be retroactive to that date and shall expire as of June 30, 1996. One Year ODtion. Tenant shall have the option with the consent of the Landlord, to extend the term of this lease on a month to month basis for a period not to exceed one year. If the Tenant exercises said option, the term of the additional option year shall end one minute before midnight on June 3D, 1997. Lease may be terminated by either Landlord or Tenant effective by a 30- day written notice. 2. RENT: The rent for the Premises during the initial term hereof shall be based on $ .90 per square foot of floor area Der month. Nine thousand, one hundred and eighty dollars ($9,180) shall be payable in a lump sum payment on or before June 30. 1996. One Year ODtion. In the event the Tenant exercises the option to extend the term of this lease on a month to month basis as provided in Section 1 above, the Tenant shall pay monthly rent for each month of the term at a rate of .90 per square foot of floor area per month. Payment of one thousand and eighty dollars ($ 1,080) per month shall be made to the Landlord (or Landlord's authorized agent) no later than the 5th day of each month for each of the twelve months commencing on July 5, 1996. ~ 1'-,;(5 ------------- -...------ Any payment of rent not received by Landlord within ten days after date due will be subject to a charge of 3% per month until received. Rent paid by checks not honored by the bank will not be deemed paid until check is made good, and may be subject to a returned check charge at the rate charged by Landlord's bank at option of Landlord. Possessory interest tax may be due and payable under the California Taxation and Revenue Code. Tenant shall be responsible for any and all possessory interest tax that may apply to the leasing of the premises. 3. SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Landlord and Tenant respectively shall furnish and pay for services and utilities as set forth in Exhibit "8" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Utilities and services paid for by Landlord shall be furnished to the premises only during reasonable building hours as the same may be determined from time to time by Landlord, and while Tenant is not in default under any of the provisions of the Lease, and subject to the regulations of the building. Landlord shall be the sole judge as to the amount and kind of services and utilities to be provided under the provisions hereof. Any additional services or utilities required by Tenant shall be at its sole expense. Tenant agrees not to connect to or alter any utilities or equipment provided by Landlord without the written consent of Landlord. If, in the sole judgment of Landlord, Tenant wastes or uses an excessive amount of air conditioning, heating, gas, electricity or water, Landlord reserves the privilege to charge Tenant for such waste or excess amount of gas, electricity or water, which charge Tenant agrees to pay within 30 days of a receipt therefor. All janitorial service for the leased Premises shall be performed during non- business hours (between 6:00 p.m. and 8:30 a.m.). All persons or firms performing janitorial services must be approved by Landlord prior to commencement of work. Landlord shall not be liable for any failure to furnish any of such services or utilities when such failure is caused by accidents, strikes, lockouts, other labor troubles or other conditions beyond Landlord's reasonable control, and Tenant shall not be entitled to any damages nor shall any such failure relieve Tenant of the obligation to pay the full rent reserved herein or constitute or be construed as a constructive or other eviction of Tenant. 4. USE: Tenant shall use and occupy the Premises for Professional Offices for social .i; '1- .:?6 service to clientele and will be responsible for maintaining proper conduct of each clientele when using the premises and common area. Tenant shall not use or occupy the Premises in violation of law or of the certificate of occupancy issued for the Building of which the Premises are a part, and shall, upon (5) days written notice from Landlord, discontinue any use of the Premises which is declared by an governmental authority having jurisdiction to bè a violation of law or of said certificate of occupancy. Tenant shall comply with any direction of any governmental authority having jurisdiction which shall, by reason of the nature of Tenant's use or occupancy of the Premises, impose any duty upon Tenant ot Landlord with respect to the Premises or with respect to the use or occupation thereof. Tenant shall not do or permit to be done anything which will invalidate or increase the cost of any fire and extended coverage insurance policy covering the building and/or property located therein and shall comply with all rules, orders, regulations and requirements of the Pacific Fire Rating Bureau or any other organization performing a similar function. Tenant shall within 30 days from receipt of a bill therefor reimburse Landlord for any additional premium charged for such policy by reason of Tenant's failure to comply with the provisions of this paragraph. 5. CONDITION OF PREMISES: Tenant acknowledges that neither Landlord nor any agent of Landlord has made any representation or warranty with respect to the Premises or the building or with respect to the suitability of either for the conduct of Tenant's business. The taking of possession of the Premises by Tenant shall conclusively establish that the Premises and said Building were at such time complete and in satisfactory condition (except for latent defects) unless within thirty (30) days after such date Tenant shall give Landlord written notice specifying in reasonable detail the respects in which the Premises or the Building were not complete and in satisfactory condition except for any work to be completed by the Landlord as set forth in this Lease. 6. ALTERATIONS - EQUIPMENT: (a) Tenant shall make no alterations, additions or improvements to the Premises without the prior written consent of Landlord, and Landlord may impose, as a condition of such consent such requirements as Landlord in its sole discretion may deem reasonable or desirable, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, requirements as to the manner in which, the time or times at which, and the contractor by whom such work shall be done. All such alterations, additions or improvements shall become the property of the Landlord, and shall be surrendered with the Premises, as a part thereof, at the end of the term hereof, except that Landlord may, by written notice to ~ 9-':<7 Tenant given at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of term, require Tenant to remove any or all partitions, counters, railings and other improvements installed by Tenant, and to repair any damages to the Premises from such removal, all at Tenant's sole expense. (b) All articles of personal property and all business and trade fixtures, machinery and equipment, cabinetwork, furniture and moveable partitions owned by Tenant or installed by Tenant at its expense in the Premises shall be and remain the property of Tenant and my be removed by Tenant at any time during the lease term when Tenant is not in default hereunder. landlord may, by written notice to Tenant upon the termination of this lease require Tenant upon the termination of this lease require Tenant to remove all of such property and to repair any damage to the Premises or the Building caused by such removal, all at Tenant's sole expense. 7. liENS: Tenant shall keep the Premises and building, and the property on which the Premises are situated, free from any mechanic's liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished or obligations incurred by Tenant, and failure by Tenant to immediately reimburse landlord growing out of any such liens shall be a material breach of this lease. S. CARE OF PREMISES: Tenant shall take good care of the Premises and fixtures therein and shall reimburse landlord for all repairs thereto or to the building which are made necessary as a result of any misuse or neglect by Tenant or by its agents or employees or by its visitors while in the Premises. 9. MAINTENANCE: landlord shall repair and maintain the Premises and the building including the plumbing, air-conditioning and electrical systems, windows, floors (excluding floor covering), parking areas, landscaping, restrooms and other common areas and facilities, and all other items which constitute a part of the Premises and are installed or furnished by landlord. landlord shall not be liable for any failure to make any repairs or to perform any maintenance unless such failure shall persist for an unreasonable time after written notice of the need for such repairs or maintenance is given to landlord by Tenant. Except as provided in Article 16 hereof there shall be no abatement of rent and no liability of landlord by reason arising from the making of any repairs, alterations or improvements in or to any portion of the Building or the Premises or in or to the fixtures, . 9-.:J, <; appurtenances and equipment therein that merely causes Tenant some minor inconvenience during the tenancy. 10. ENTRY AND INSPECTION: Tenant will permit Landlord and its agents to enter into and upon the Premises upon reasonable advance notice during normal business hours for the purpose of inspecting the same, or for the purpose of protecting the interest therein of Landlord, or to post notices of nonresponsibility, or to make alterations or additions to the Premises or to any other portion of the Building in which the Premises are situated, including the erection of scaffolding, props or other mechanical devices, or for maintaining any service provided by Landlord to Tenant hereunder, without any rebate of rent to Tenant or quiet enjoyment of the Premises, or inconvenience thereby occasioned, and will permit Landlord, upon reasonable advance notice within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this Lease, to bring upon the Premises, for purposes of inspection or display, prospective tenants thereof. 11. HOLD HARMLESS AND NON-LIABILITY OF LANDLORD: Tenant agrees to hold Landlord harmless from and to defend and indemnify Landlord against any and all claims arising from injury to persons, loss of life or damage to property occurring in or about the Premises and from and against any and all costs, expenses and liabilities incurred by Landlord in or in connection with any such claim or any proceeding based thereon, to the extent such injury, loss of life or damage arises out of the willful act or negligence of Tenant. or its officers, employees, servants, agents, contractors, invitees or licensees. Tenant agrees at all times during the term of this Lease to keep in full force a liability insurance policy satisfactory to Landlord with single limit liability of not less than Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) and naming Landlord as an "also insured." Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for any damage to the Premises or for any loss, damage or injury to any property of Tenant therein or thereon except as specifically herein provided. 12. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION: Each party hereby waives its right of recovery against the other for any losses insured against under the standard form of fire insurance policy with extended coverage endorsement approved for use in California by the Pacific Fire Rating Bureau or its successor, provided this is permitted by its insurance policies, or by endorsement thereon which such waiving party may obtain at no cost and without invalidation of the policies. 5 '/-~LJ 13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING: (a) Tenant shall not, either voluntarily or by operation of law, assign, encumber, pledge or otherwise transfer all or any part of Tenant's leasehold estate hereunder, or permit the Premises to be occupied by anyone other than Tenant or Tenant's employees, or sublet the Premises or any portion thereof without Landlord's prior written consent in each instance. Any collection or acceptance of rent by landlord from any person other than Tenant shall not be deemed a waiver of any provision of this Article, nor shall any such acceptance of rent on behalf of Tenant be construed as landlord's consent to any assignment or subletting. (bl No consent by Landlord to any assignment or subletting by Tenant shall relieve Tenant of any obligation to be performed by the Tenant under this lease, whether occurring before or after such consent, assignment or subletting. The consent by Landlord to any assignment or subletting shall not relieve the Tenant from the obligation to obtain Landlord's express written consent to any other assignment or subletting. Any assignment or subletting which is not in compliance with this Article shall be void. 14. TRANSFER OF LANDLORD'S INTEREST: In the event of any transfer or transfers of landlord's interest in the Premises or in the real property of which the Premises are a part, other than a transfer for security purposes only, the transferor shall be automatically relieved of any and all obligation and liabilities on the part of landlord accruing from and after the date of such transfer, provided such obligations and liabilities are assumed in writing by the transferee. 15. DAMAGE-DESTRUCTION: Except as provided in Article 8, if the Premises or the Building of which they are a part are damaged by fire or other casualty of the type insured against under the standard form of fire insurance policy with extended coverage endorsement, the damage shall be repaired by and at the expense of landlord, provided such repairs can, in Landlord's opinion, be made within ninety (90) days after the commencement of repairs without the payment of overtime and other premiums, and until such repairs are completed the rent shall be abated in proportion to the part of the Premises which is unusable by Tenant in the conduct of its business (but there shall be no abatement of rent by reason of any portion of the Premises be unusable for a period equal to one day or less). If the damage is due to the fault or neglect of Tenant or its employees, or agents, there shall be no abatement of rent. fi '1-$/J -r - _~__.'__m_....._' _ __.._. : If Tenant can reasonably continue to occupy and use the Premises in its course of business, then Tenant shall continue to pay rent. Landlord shall be given 90 days from the occurrence of the damage to make repairs. If such repairs are not completed within the 90-day period. Landlord. shall begin abating Tenant's rent until such repairs are completed or if Landlord elects not to abate Tenant's rent, Tenant shall have the right to terminate the remaining portion of the Lease. Landlord's election to make such repair must be evidenced by written notice to Tenant advising Tenant within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of the damage whether or not Landlord will make such repairs. With respect to any damage which Landlord is obligated to repair or elects to repair, Tenant waives the provisions of Sections 1932 (2) and 1933 (4) of the California Civil Code. If Landlord does not elect to make such repairs. then either party may, by written notice to the other, cancel this Lease as of the date of the occurrence of such damage. A total destruction of the Building and/or the Premises shall automatically terminate this Lease. 16. DEFAULTS: The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease: (a) The vacation or abandonment of the Premises by Tenant for more than (10) consecutive days. (b) A failure by Tenant to pay the rent, or to make any other payment required to be made by Tenant hereunder, where such failure continues for ten (10) days after written notice thereof by Landlord to Tenant. (c) A failure by Tenant to observe or perform any other provision of this Lease to be observed or performed by Tenant. where such failure continues for thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by Landlord to Tenant; provided however, that if the nature of such default is such that the same cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty-day period, Tenant shall not be deemed to be in default if Tenant shall within such period commence such cure and thereafter diligently prosecute the same to completion. (d) The making by Tenant of any general assignment for the benefit of creditors; the filing by or against Tenant of a petition to have Tenant .!¡. f-3/. adjudged a bankrupt or if a petition for reorganization or arrangement under any law relating to bankruptcy (unless, in the case of a petition filed against Tenant, the same is dismissed within sixty (60) days); the appointment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of substantially all of Tenant's assets located at the Premises or of Tenant's interest in this Lease, where such seizure is not discharged within thirty (30) days. Landlord shall not be deemed to be in def~ult in the performance of any obligation required to be performed by it hereunder unless and until it has failed to perform such obligation within thirty (30) days after written notice by Tenant to Landlord specifying wherein Landlord has failed to perform such obligation; provided, however that in the nature of Landlord's obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for its performance then Landlord shall not be deemed to be in default if it shall commence such performance within such thirty-day period and thereafter diligently prosecute the same to completion. 17. REMEDIES: In the event of any such material default or breach by Tenant, Landlord may at any time thereafter, at Landlord's option and without limiting the Landlord in the exercise of any other right or remedy which Landlord may have by reason of such default or breach, with or without notice: ) (a) Retain and exercise any right or remedy permitted by law for such material default or breach of Lease by Tenant including all expenses, commissions and charges, including reasonable attorney's fees, which Landlord may have paid or incurred in connection with such action. (b) Give written notice to Tenant of Landlord's election to terminate this Lease, re-enter the Premises with or without process of law and take possession of the same and of all equipment and fixtures herein, and expel or remove Tenant and all other parties occupying the Premises, using such force as may be reasonably necessary to do so, without being liable to any prosecution for such re-entry or for the use of such force. In such event, Landlord shall thereupon be entitled to recover from Tenant the worth, at the time of such termination, of the excess, if any, of the rent and other charges required to be paid by Tenant hereunder for the balance of the term hereof (if this Lease had not been so terminated) over the then reasonable rental value of the Premises for the same period. ~ 9- 3,J - ------- _._m~.___ _~_______"._ 18. REMOVAL OF PROPERTY: Whenever landlord shall re-enter the Premises as provided herein, Landlord may remove any property of Tenant from the Premises and store same elsewhere for the account, and at the expense and risk of Tenant, and if Tenant shall fail to pay the cost of storing any such property after it has been stored for a period of ninety (90) days or more, landlord may sell any or all of such property at public or private sale, in such manner and at such times and places as landlord, in its sole discretion, may deem proper, without notice to or demand upon Tenant, for the payment of any part of such charges or the removal of any such property, and shall apply the proceeds of such sale; first, to the cost and expense of such sale, including reasonable attorneys fees actually incurred; second, to the payment of the cost of or charges for storing any such property; their, to the payment of any other sums of money which may then or thereafter be due to Landlord from Tenant under any of the terms hereof; and further, the balance, if any, to Tenant.. 19. WAIVER OF DAMAGES FOR RE-ENTRY: Tenant hereby waives all claims for damages that may be caused by Landlord's re-entering and taking possession of the Premises or removing and storing the property of Tenant as herein provided, and will save landlord harmless from loss, costs or damages occasioned Landlord thereby, and no such reentry shall be considered or construed to be a forcible entry. 20. COST OF SUITS: (a) If Tenant or Landlord shall bring any action for any relief against the other, declaratory or otherwise, arising out of this Lease, including any suit by Landlord for the recovery of rent or possession of the Premises, the losing party shall pay the successful party a reasonable sum for attorneys fees in such suit and such attorneys fees shall be deemed to have accrued on the commencement of such action and shall be paid whether or not such action is processed to judgment. (b) Should landlord, without fault on landlord's part, be made a party to any litigation instituted by Tenant or by any third party against Tenant, or by or against any person holding under or using the Premises by license of Tenant, or for the foreclosure of a lien for labor or material furnished to or for Tenant or any such other person or otherwise arising out of or resulting from any act or transaction of Tenant or of any such other person, Tenant covenants to save and hold Landlord harmless from any judgment rendered against Landlord or the Premises or any part thereof, and all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, 9 '1-:.33 incurred by Landlord in or in connection with such litigation. 21. WAIVER OF BREACH: The waiver by Landlord of any breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by Landlord shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Tenant of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, other than the failure of Tenant to pay the particular rental so accepted, regardless of Landlord's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent. 22. SUBORDINATION: Tenant agrees that upon written request of Landlord, this Lease shall be subject and subordinate to any mortgage, trust deed or like encumbrance hereafter, placed by Landlord or its successors in interest upon its interest in said Premises to secure the payment of moneys loaned, interest thereon, and other obligations. Tenant agrees to execute and deliver, within ten (10) days of demand of Landlord any and all instruments desired by Landlord subordinating in the manner requested by Landlord this Lease to such mortgage, trust deed or like encumbrance. 23. RULES AND REGULATIONS: Such reasonable and non-discrimatory rules including but not limited to those set forth in Article 34 herein and other reasonable regulations as may be hereafter adopted and published by written notice to Tenant by Landlord for the safety, care and cleanliness of the Premises or the Building and the preservation of good order therein, as expressly made a part hereof, and Tenant agrees to comply with them, Landlord's remedies for any failure by Tenant to comply with them, Landlord's remedies for any failure by Tenant to comply with such a rule or regulation shall not include termination of this Lease. Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for any violation of such rules and regulations by any other Tenant. 24. DEFINED TERMS: The words "Landlord" and "Tenant", as used herein, shall include the plural as well as the singular. Words used in neuter gender include the masculine and feminine and words in the masculine or feminine gender include the neuter. If there be more than one Landlord or Tenant, the obligations hereunder imposed upon Landlord or Tenant shall be joint and several. The marginal headings or l'Ð_ 9'- 3 LJ' titles to the articles of this Lease are not a part of this Lease and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part thereof. 25. ALTERATIONS. ADDITIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS BY TENANT: (a) TENANT IMPROVEMENTS: If any alterations, additions or improvements are to be installed by Tenant or its contractors, such work shall be done in compliance with the following: (1) . No such work shall proceed without landlord's prior written approval of (i) Tenant's contractor, (ii) Certificate of Insurance from an approved company, furnished to landlord by Tenant's contractor, in an amount acceptable to landlord for public liability and automobile liability, endorsed to show landlord as an additional insured, and (iii) detailed plans and specifications for such work. ..... (2). All such work shall be done in conformity with a valid building permit when required, a copy of which shall be furnished to landlord before the work is commenced, and any work not acceptable to the Chula Vista Department of Building and Housing, or not reasonably satisfactory to landlord, shall be promptly replaced at Tenant's expense. Notwithstanding any failure by Landlord to object to any such work, landlord shall have no responsibility therefor. (3). All work by Tenant or its contractors shall be scheduled through landlord. (4). Tenant shall reimburse landlord for any extra expense incurred by landlord by reason of faulty work done by Tenant or its contractors, or by reason of inadequate cleanup. (5). Tenant or its contractors will in no event be allowed to install plumbing, mechanical, electrical wiring or fixtures, acoustical or integrated ceilings, or partitions over 5' - 10" in height, unless approved by landlord. (6). All data processing and other special electrical equipment shall be installed only with prior written approval of and under the supervision of landlord or its electrical contractor. (7). landlord hereby approves installation by Tenant of moveable office partitions not less than 5 feet 10 inches nor greater than approximately 7 feet in height. 13. '/- 35' 26. PARKING AND COMMON AREAS: Landlord grants to Tenant during the term hereof the right of non-exclusive use, in common with other tenants of the building, of all automobile parking areas provided for the Building for the accommodation and parking of passenger automobiles of the Tenant, its officers, agents, employees and customers. Landlord's designation of any specific tenant parking spaces, including those of Tenant, shall be in consultation with, and subject to the approval of. Tenant. Tenant and its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees, agents, customers and invitees shall have the non-exclusive right, in common with Landlord and all others to whom Landlord has granted or may hereafter grant rights, to use the common areas as designated from time to time by Landlord subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as Landlord may from time to time impose, including the designation of specific areas in which cars owned by Tenant, its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees and agents must be parked and including the right to assign specific parking spaces to various Tenants. Tenant agrees after notice thereof to abide by such rules and regulations and to use its best efforts to cause its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees, agents, customers and invitees to conform thereto. Landlord may upon reasonable prior notice close temporarily common area to make repairs or changes therein or to effect construction, repairs, or changes : upon the site where the Building is located to prevent the acquisition of public rights in such areas, or to discourage noncustomer parking, and may do such other acts in and to the common areas as in its judgement may be desirable to improve the convenience thereof. Tenant shall upon request promptly furnish to Landlord the license numbers of the cars operated by Tenant and its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, and employees. Tenant shall not at any time interfere with the rights of Landlord and other occupants of the Building their subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees, agents, customers, contractors and invitees to use any part of the parking areas and other common areas. Tenant, its subtenants and concessionaires shall not solicit business or display merchandise within any of the common areas or distribute handbills or other advertising material therein. Landlord reserves the right to have any vehicle impounded at the expense of the owner if said owner is parked in violation of any rule regulating said parking. 27. MERGER: The voluntary or other surrender of this Lease by Tenant, or a mutual 112 9-3h - ---,--" cancellation thereof, shall not work a merger, and shall, at the option of the Landlord, terminate all or any existing subleases or subtenancies, or may, the option of Landlord operate as an assignment to it of any or all such subleases or subtenancies. No provision of this Lease shall be construed in such a manner as to make the Landlord a partner of Tenant, it being expressly agreed that the relationship between the parties is and shall remain at all times that of Tenant and Landlord. 28. HEIRS AND ASSIGNS: Subject to the provisions hereof relating to assignment, mortgaging, pledging and subletting, this Lease is intended to and does bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of any and all of the parties hereto. 29. TIME OF ESSENCE: Time is of the essence of this Lease. 30. SURRENDER:· The Tenant at the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and subject to provisions hereof, will surrender and deliver up said Premises to the Landlord, or those having the Landlord's estate therein, in the same condition as the Tenant now receives the Premises, ordinary wear and tear and damage by fire and the elements alone excepted. 31. INVALIDITY OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS: If any term or provision of this Lease shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extend permitted by law. 32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This instrument along with any exhibits and attachments hereto constitutes the entire agreement between Landlord and Tenant relative to the Premises herein described, and this agreement and the exhibits and attachments may be altered. amended or revoked only by an instrument in writing signed by both Landlord and Tenant. Landlord and Tenant agree hereby that all prior or contemporaneous oral agreements relative to the leasing of the Premises are merged in or revoked by this agreement. 1S 1'-3)7 . 33. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE: Tenant shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to landlord at any time within ten (10) days after request by landlord, a statement in writing certifying, if such be the case, that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there have been modifications that the same is in full force and effect as modified). the date of commencement of this lease, the dates to which rent has been paid, and such other information as landlord shall reasonably request. It is acknowledged by Tenant that any such statement is intended to be delivered by landlord and relied upon by prospective purchasers, cnortgagees, beneficiaries under deeds of trust or assignees thereof. 34. RULES AND REGULATIONS: Tenant agrees in the exercise of the rights granted Tenant by the terms hereof that: (a) No sign, placard, picture, advertisement, name or notice shall be inscribed, displayed, printed or affixed on or to any part of the outside or inside of the Building without the written consent of landlord, first had and obtained, and landlord shall have the right to remove any such objectionable sign, placard, picture, advertisement, name or notice, without notice to and at the expense of Tenant. (b) The bulletin board or directory of the Building will be provided exclusively I, for the display of the name and location of Tenant only; and Landlord reserves the right to exclude any other names therefrom, and also make a reasonable charge for each and every name, in addition to the name of Tenant, placed by it upon such bulletin board or directory. (c) When wiring of any kind is introduced, it must be connected as directed by landlord and no boring or cutting for wires or exposed wiring will be allowed except with the prior written consent of Landlord. The location of telephones, call boxes, and other office equipment affixed to the Premises shall be prescribed by Landlord. Any installation in violation of this paragraph may be removed by landlord at Tenant's expense. (d) Tenant shall not allow anything to be placed against or near the windows, in the doorways or in the halls, corridors, walkways or balconies. The exterior doors of the Premises shall be kept closed at all times, except when in actual use for ingress and egress. (e) The entries, passages and stairways shall not be obstructed by Tenant, or used for any other purpose than ingress or egress to and from their ..- 9-3% respective offices. Tenant shall not bring into or keep within the Building any animal or vehicle without the prior written consent of Landlord. (f) Tenant shall see that the doors of the Premises are closed and securely locked before leaving the Building and shall exercise extraordinary care and caution that all water faucets or water apparatus are entirely shut off before Tenant or Tenant's employees leave the Building, and for any default or carelessness Tenant shall make good all injuries sustained by other Tenants or occupants of the Building or by Landlord. (g) No furniture, freight or equipment of any kind shall be brought into or removed from the Building without the knowledge of Landlord or its agent; and all moving of same, into or out of Building, by tenants or their agents, shall be done at such times and in such manner as Landlord shall designate. Landlord shall have the right to prescribe the weight, size and position of all safes and other heavy property brought into the Building, and also the times and manner of moving the same in and out of the Building. Landlord will not be responsible for loss of or damage to any such safe or property from any cause; but all damage done to the Building by moving or maintaining any such safe or property shall be repaired at the expense of Tenant. (hI Landlord reserves the right to exclude or expel from the Building any person who, in its sole judgement, shall in any manner do any act in violation of any of the rules and regulations of the Building. (i) The requirements of Tenant will be attended to only upon application at the office of the Building. Employees of Landlord shall not perform any work or do anything outside of their regular duties unless under special instructions from the office, and no employee will admit any person (Tenant or otherwise) to any office without specific instructions from the office of the Building. (j) Rooms used in common by Tenants shall be subject to such regulations as are posted therein. (kl Landlord reserves the right to install security gates or doors and to close and keep locked all said doors of the Building during such hours as Landlord may deem to be advisable for the adequate protection of the Building. All Tenants, their employees, or other persons entering or leaving the Building at any time when it is so locked may be required to sign the Building register when so doing, and the watchman in charge may refuse to admit to the Building while it is so locked, Tenant or any of Tenant's employees, or any other person, without a pass previously ~ ý-3f -"---- ---..--- arranged. landlord assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable for any damage resulting from any error in regard to any such pass or from the admission of an unauthorized person to the Building. (I) No awnings, window shades or draperies will be installed or permitted to be installed by Tenant without prior written consent of landlord. (m) All approved signs or lettering on doors or windows shall be printed, painted, affixed or inscribed at the expense of Tenant by a person approved by landlord. (n) Tenant shall not place or allow anything to be placed near the glass of any window, door, partition or wall which may appear unsightly from outside the Premises. (0) The toilet rooms, urinals, wash bowls and other apparatus shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which they were constructed and no foreign substance of any kind whatsoever shall be thrown therein and the expense of any breakage, stoppage or damage resulting from the violation of this rule shall be borne by the Tenant who, or whose employees or invitees shall have caused it. (p) Tenant shall not overload the floor of the Premises or mark, drive nails, screw or drill into the partitions, woodwork or plaster or in any way deface the Premises or any part thereof. (q) Tenant shall not store or keep in the Premises or the Building any inflammable or combustible fluid or material, or use any method of hearing or air conditioning other than that supplied by landlord. (r) No vending machine or machines of any description shall be installed, maintained, or operated upon the Premises without the written consent of the landlord. (s) Tenant shall not create nor permit any excessive noise or other nuisance detrimental to the other occupants of the Building or the surrounding area. (t) Tenant shall not disturb, solicit, or canvas any occupant of the Building and shall cooperate to prevent soliciting or canvassing by others. 1!£. 'l-9C 35. NOTICES: Any notice, demand, or communication under or in connection with this Lease may be served upon Landlord by personal service, or by mailing the same by registered mail in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid, and directed to Landlord at 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite E, Chula Vista, CA 91910, and likewise may be served on Tenant by personal service or by mailing the same by registered mail in the United States Post Office, postage paid, and directed to Tenant 315 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista. CA 91910, or at such other place or places as either party may from time to time designate in writing. -. ~ 9-/1/ Signature Pag~ ¡ CITY OF CHULA VISTA SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES. (LANDLORD) INC. (TENANT) by: By: Shirley Horton Ranie Hunter Mayor Chairperson By: Kathryn Lembo Executive Director Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney Ie: I wpwi n Ibu chen Id ocumentllease i &j] 3- --1-7'.:1 ~~ , Ú) ~88J~S .:l -.L Ül Ï)Ï) -0 :Oc (/):0 <J.. -l-l ~ . Ï):r: , - r» ... . it 0< O· 1) :om z ~--~ -- I...J C <é:,... m Ïl cs '.. x ,.. "\-. ~ 0 .'1\ (\ c r<\ / -$- -c ./ -- ::T ./ » / < / <D ::J C <D . 0 - '. - . ..1U1 re. A ,f<eB . ",I<. I!. :~kD . , , . . I I _ ~;~()'~.F: . - ~. - ,zC?o ~. F. : - Center Street' . . .' ., .. , '9/f3' '. - ,. '-. -. " . ... - .. . ... - "" ... ... .- , . .. .:. ..' . . " . ..- .." '.' . ,., .'. . - " . . . . .." ..' . :..~.:.:-\,;:.. ;·;t·';~···'· '.;-: .' . .~....-,:.: ... . : - , --- ~-~..__..__._". EXHIBIT B UTILITIES AND SERVICES: . lANDLORD III and TENANT IT) agree that each shall furnish and pay for services as indicated below before delinquency: Electricity -............................................ . I T I * Air Conditioning & Heating Maintenance ........................( l) Water . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( l ) Rubbish Removal (from common receptacle) ......................( L) Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( T ) Janitor Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( T ) Window Cleaning (external) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) Window Cleaning (interior) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( T ) Common and Parking Areas Cleaning ...........................( L) Common and Parking Areas Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) Landscaping and Gardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I L ) * Tenant shall use air conditioning, electrical fixtures and any other Landlord furnished services only during normal working hours and/or in normal use. landlord shall pay for all expenses related to maintenance of air conditioning units which is considered the result of "normal wear and tear". Tenant shall pay for any expenses caused by other than normal use, negligent use or willful misconduct. (c:\wp51 \SBCSIJ.agm) .. 9-~f" LEASE O.F I and J 315 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 91910 This "Lease" is made this 3rd day of June. 199~ between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA. hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Landlord", and South Bav Communitv Services. Inc. , hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Tenant". Landlord hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant hereby hires from Landlord. subject to the provisions of this Lease, those certain premises commonly known as 3 1 5 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE "I and J", CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Premises", together with the right, in common with others, to the use of all common entranceways, lobbies, ramps, drives, stairs and similar access and serviceways, and common areas in and adjacent to the building of which the Premises are a part. A floor plan showing the location of the Premises, consisting of approximately 1 .200 sa. ft. is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. 1. TERM: The initial term of this lease shall commence as of October 15, 1995, shall be retroactive to that date and shall expire as of June 30, 1996. One Year Ootion. Tenant shall have the option with the consent of the Landlord. to extend the term of this lease on a month to month basis for a period not to exceed one year. If the Tenant exercises said option. the term of the additional option year shall end one minute before midnight on June 30, 1997. Lease may be terminated by either Landlord or Tenant effective by a 30- day written notice. 2. RENT: The rent for the Premises during the initial term hereof shall be based on $ .90 per square foot of floor area oer month. Nine thousand, one hundred and eighty dollars ($9.180) shall be payable in a lump sum payment on or before June 30, 1996. One Year Ootion. In the event the Tenant exercises the option to extend the term of this lease on a month to month basis as provided in Section 1 above. the Tenant shall pay monthly rent for each month of the term at a rate of .90 per square foot of floor area per month. Payment of one thousand and eighty dollars ($1,080) per month shall be made to the Landlord (or Landlord's authorized agent) no later than the 5th day of each month for each of the twelve months commencing on July 5, 1996. 10 Ý-¥5 Any payment of rent not received by Landlord within ten days after date due will be subject to a charge of 3% per month until received. Rent paid by I checks not honored by the bank will not be deemed paid until check is made good. and may be subject to a returned check charge at the rate charged by Landlord's bank at option of Landlord. Possessory interest tax may be due and payable under the California Taxation and Revenue Code. Tenant shall be responsible for eny and all possessory interest tax that may apply to the leasing of the premises. 3. SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Landlord and Tenant respectively shall furnish and pay for services and utilities as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Utilities and services paid for by Landlord shall be furnished to the premises only during reasonable building hours as the same may be determined from time to time by Landlord, and while Tenant is not in default under any of the provisions of the Lease, and subject to the regulations of the building. Landlord shall be the sole judge as to the amount and kind of services and utilities to be provided under the provisions hereof. Any additional services or utilities required by Tenant shall be at its sole expense. Tenant agrees not to connect to or alter any utilities or equipment provided by Landlord without the written consent of Landlord. If, in the sole judgment of Landlord, Tenant wastes or uses an excessive amount of air conditioning, heating, gas, electricity or water, Landlord reserves the privilege to charge Tenant for such waste or excess amount of gas, electricity or water, which charge Tenant agrees to pay within 30 days of a receipt therefor. All janitorial service for the leased Premises shall be performed during non- business hours (between 6:00 p.m. and 8:30 a.m.). All persons or firms performing janitorial services must be approved by Landlord prior to commencement of work. Landlord shall not be liable for any failure to furnish any of such services or utilities when such failure is caused by accidents, strikes, lockouts, other labor troubles or other conditions beyond Landlord's reasonable control, and Tenant shall not be entitled to any damages nor shall any such failure relieve Tenant of the obligation to pay the full rent reserved herein or constitute or be construed as a constructive or other eviction of Tenant. 4. USE: Tenant shall use and occupy the Premises for Professional Offices for social ~ ~-¥¿. _ _ __._._.____~_~n_"~..__.___.._.__. service to clientele and will be responsible for maintaining proper conduct of each clientele when using the premises and common area. Tenant shall not use or occupy the Premises in violation of law or of the certificate of occupancy issued for the Building of which the Premises are a part, and shall, upon (5) days written notice from Landlord, discontinue any use of the Premises which is declared by an governmental authority having jurisdiction to be a violation of law or of said certificate of occupancy. Tenant shall comply with any direction of any governmental authority having jurisdiction which shall, by reason of the nature of Tenant's use or occupancy of the Premises, impose any duty upon Tenant or Landlord with respect to the Premises or with respect to the use or occupation thereof. Tenant shall not do or permit to be done anything which will invalidate or increase the cost of any fire and extended coverage insurance policy covering the building and/or property located therein and shall comply with all rules, orders, regulations and requirements of the Pacific Fire Rating Bureau or any other organization performing a similar function. Tenant shall within 30 days from receipt of a bill therefor reimburse Landlord for any additional premium charged for such policy by reason of Tenant's failure to comply with the provisions of this paragraph. 5. CONDITION OF PREMISES: Tenant acknowledges that neither Landlord nor any agent of Landlord has made any representation or warranty with respect to the Premises or the building or with respect to the suitability of either for the conduct of Tenant's business. The taking of possession of the Premises by Tenant shall conclusively establish that the Premises and said Building were at such time complete and in satisfactory condition (except for latent defects) unless within thirty (30) days after such date Tenant shall give Landlord written notice specifying in reasonable detail the respects in which the Premises or the Building were not complete and in satisfactory condition except for any work to be completed by the Landlord as set forth in this Lease. 6. ALTERATIONS - EQUIPMENT: (a) Tenant shall make no alterations, additions or improvements to the Premises without the prior written consent of Landlord, and Landlord may impose, as a condition of such consent such requirements as Landlord in its sole discretion may deem reasonable or desirable, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, requirements as to the manner in which, the time or times at which, and the contractor by whom such work shall be done. All such alterations, additions or improvements shall become the property of the Landlord, and shall be surrendered with the Premises, as a part thereof, at the end of the term hereof, except that Landlord may, by written notice to '3' 9--9'7 Tenant given at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of term, require Tenant to remove any or all partitions, counters, railings and other improvements installed by Tenant, and to repair any damages to the Premises from such removal, all at Tenant's sole expense. (b) All articles of personal property and all business and trade fixtures, machinery and equipment, cabinetwork, furniture and moveable partitions owned by Tenant or installed by Tenant at its expense in the Premises shall be and remain the property of Tenant and my be removed by Tenant at any time during the Lease term when Tenant is not in default hereunder. Landlord may, by written notice to Tenant upon the termination of this Lease require Tenant upon the termination of this Lease require Tenant to remove all of such property and to repair any damage to the Premises or the Building caused by such removal, all at Tenant's sole expense. 7. LIENS: Tenant shall keep the Premises and building, and the property on which the Premises are situated, free from any mechanic's liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished or obligations incurred by Tenant, and failure by Tenant to immediately reimburse Landlord growing out of any such liens shall be a material breach of this Lease. ) S. CARE OF PREMISES: Tenant shall take good care of the Premises and fixtures therein and shall reimburse Landlord for all repairs thereto or to the building which are made necessary as a result of any misuse or neglect by Tenant or by its agents or employees or by its visitors while in the Premises. 9. MAINTENANCE: Landlord shall repair and maintain the Premises and the building including the plumbing, air-conditioning and electrical systems', windows, floors (excluding floor covering), parking areas, landscaping, restrooms and other common areas and facilities, and all other items which constitute a part of the Premises and are installed or furnished by Landlord. Landlord shall not be liable for any failure to make any repairs or to perform any maintenance unless such failure shall persist for an unreasonable time after written notice of the need for such repairs or maintenance is given to Landlord by Tenant. Except as provided in Article , 6 hereof there shall be no abatement of rent and no liability of Landlord by reason arising from the making of any repairs, alterations or improvements in or to any portion of the Building or the Premises or in or to the fixtures, . 9-//f appurtenances and equipment therein that merely causes Tenant some minor inconvenience during the tenancy. 10. ENTRY AND INSPECTION: Tenant will permit landlord and its agents to enter into and upon the Premises upon reasonable advance notice during normal business hours for the purpose of inspecting the same, or for the purpose of protecting the interest therein of landlord, or to post notices of nonresponsibility, or to make alterations or additions to the Premises or to any other portion of the Building in which the Premises are situated, including the erection of scaffolding, props or other mechanical devices, or for maintaining any service provided by landlord to Tenant hereunder, without any rebate of rent to Tenant or quiet enjoyment of the Premises, or inconvenience thereby occasioned, and will permit landlord, upon reasonable advance notice within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this lease, to bring upon the Premises, for purposes of inspection or display, prospective tenants thereof. 11. HOLD HARMLESS AND NON-LIABILITY OF lANDLORD: Tenant agrees to hold landlord harmless from and to defend and indemnify landlord against any and all claims arising from injury to persons, loss of life or damage to property occurring in or about the Premises and from and against any and all costs, expenses and liabilities incurred by landlord in or in connection with any such claim or any proceeding based thereon, to the extent such injury, loss of life or damage arises out of the willful act or negligence of Tenant, or its officers, employees, servants, agents, contractors, invitee:; or licensees. Tenant agrees at all times during the term of this lease to keep in full force a liability insurance policy satisfactory to landlord with single limit liability of not less than Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) and naming landlord as an "also insured." landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for any damage to the Premises or for any loss, damage or injury to any property of Tenant therein or thereon except as specifically herein provided. 12. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION: Each party hereby waives its right of recovery against the other for any losses insured against under the standard form of fire insurance policy with extended coverage endorsement approved for use in California by the Pacific Fire Rating Bureau or its successor, provided this is permitted by its insurance policies, or by endorsement thereon which such waiving party may obtain at no cost and without invalidation of the policies. . ;1-41 13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING: Tenant shall not, either voluntarily or by operation of law, assign, I (a) encumber, pledge or otherwise transfer all or any part of Tenant's leasehold estate hereunder, or permit the Premises to be occupied by anyone other than Tenant or Tenant's employees, or sublet the Premises or any portion thereof without Landlord's prior written consent in each instance. Any collection or acceptance of rent by Landlord from any person other than Tenant shall not be deemed a waiver of any provision of this Article, nor shall any such acceptance of rent on behalf of Tenant be construed as Landlord's consent to any assignment or subletting. (b) No consent by Landlord to any assignment or subletting by Tenant shall relieve Tenant of any obligation to be performed by the Tenant under this Lease, whether occurring before or after such consent, assignment or subletting. The consent by Landlord to any assignment or subletting shall not relieve the Tenant from the obligation to obtain Landlord's express written consent to any other assignment or subletting. Any assignment or subletting which is not in compliance with this Article shall be void. 14. TRANSFER OF LANDLORD'S INTEREST: In the event of any transfer or transfers of Landlord's interest in the Premises or in the real property of which the Premises are a part, other than a transfer for security purposes only, the transferor shall be automatically relieved of any and all obligation and liabilities on the part of Landlord accruing from and after the date of such transfer, provided such obligations and liabilities are assumed in writing by the transferee. 15. DAMAGE-DESTRUCTION: Except as provided in Article 8, if the Premises or the Building of which they are a part are damaged by fire or other casualty of the type insured against under the standard form of fire insurance policy with extended coverage endorsement, the damage shall be repaired by and at the expense of Landlord, provided such repairs can, in Landlord's opinion, be made within ninety (90) days after the commencement of repairs without the payment of overtime and other premiums, and until such repairs are completed the rent shall be abated in proportion to the part of the Premises which is unusable by Tenant in the conduct of its business (but there shall be no abatement of rent by reason of any portion of the Premises be unusable for a period equal to one day or less). If the damage is due to the fault or neglect of Tenant or its employees, or agents, there shall be no abatement of rent. j: ~ ;/-50 : If Tenant can reasonably continue to occupy and use the Premises in its course of business, then Tenant shall continue to pay rent. Landlord shall be given 90 days from the occurrence of the damage to make repairs. If such repairs are not completed within the 90-day period, Landlord, shall begin abating Tenant's rent until such repairs are completed or if Landlord elects not to abate Tenant's rent, Tenant shall have the right to terminate the remaining portion of the Lease. Landlord's election to make such repair must be evidenced by written notice to Tenant advising Tenant within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of the damage whether or not Landlord will make such repairs. With respect to any damage which Landlord is obligated to repair or elects to repair, Tenant waives the provisions of Sections 1932 (2) and 1933 (4) of the California Civil Code. If Landlord does not elect to make such repairs, then either party may, by written notice to the other, cancel this Lease as of the date of the occurrence of such damage. A total destruction of the Building and/or the Premises shall automatically terminate this Lease. 16. DEFAULTS: The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease: (a) The vacation or abandonment of the Premises by Tenant for more than (10) consecutive days. (b) A failure by Tenant to pay the rent, or to make any other payment required to be made by Tenant hereunder, where such failure continues for ten ('0) days after written notice thereof by Landlord to Tenant. (c) A failure by Tenant to observe or perform any other provision of this Lease to be observed or performed by Tenant, where such failure continues for thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by Landlord to Tenant; provided however, that if the nature of such default is such that the same cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty-day period, Tenant shall not be deemed to be in default if Tenant shall within such period commence such cure and thereafter diligently prosecute the same to completion. (d) The making by Tenant of any general assignment for the benefit of creditors; the filing by or against Tenant of a petition to have Tenant 11 9-5/ adjudged a bankrupt or if a petition for reorganization or arrangement ) under any law relating to bankruptcy (unless, in the case of a petition filed against Tenant, the same is dismissed within sixty (60) days); the appointment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of substantially all of Tenant's assets located at the Premises or of Tenant's interest in this Lease, where such seizure is not discharged within thirty (30) days. Landlord shall not be deemed to be in def\lult in the performance of any obligation required to be performed by it hereunder unless and until it has failed to perform such obligation within thirty (30) days after written notice by Tenant to Landlord specifying wherein Landlord has failed to perform such obligation; provided, however that in the nature of Landlord's obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for its performance then Landlord shall not be deemed to be in default if it shall commence such performance within such thirty-day period and thereafter diligently prosecute the same to completion. 17. REMEDIES: In the event of any such material default or breach by Tenant, Landlord may at any time thereafter, at Landlord's option and without limiting the Landlord in the exercise of any other right or remedy which Landlord may have by reason of such default or breach, with or without notice: (a) Retain and exercise any right or remedy permitted by law for such material default or breach of Lease by Tenant including all expenses, commissions and charges, including reasonable attorney's fees, which Landlord may have paid or incurred in connection with such action. (b) Give written notice to Tenant of Landlord's election to terminate this Lease, re-enter the Premises with or without process of law and take possession of the same and of all equipment and fixtures herein, and expel or remove Tenant and all other parties occupying the Premises, using such force as may be reasonably necessary to do so, without being liable to any prosecution for such re-entry or for the use of such force. In such event, Landlord shall thereupon be entitled to recover from Tenant the worth, at the time of such termination, of the excess, if any, of the rent and other charges required to be paid by Tenant hereunder for the balance of the term hereof (if this Lease had not been so terminated) over the then reasonable rental value of the Premises for the same period. .J.. 9-5.:1 18. REMOVAL OF PROPERTY: Whenever landlord shall re-enter the Premises as provided herein, landlord may remove any property of Tenant from the Premises and store same elsewhere for the account, and at the expense and risk of Tenant, and if Tenant shall fail to pay the cost of storing any such property after it has been stored for a period of ninety (90) days or more, landlord may sell any or all of such property at public or private sale, in such manner and at such times and places as landlord, in its sole discretion, may deem proper, without notice to or demand upon Tenant, for the payment of any part of such charges or the removal of any such property, and shall apply the proceeds of such sale; first, to the cost and expense of such sale, including reasonable attorneys fees actually incurred; second, to the payment of the cost of or charges for storing any such property; their, to the payment of any other sums of money which may then or thereafter be due to landlord from Tenant under any of the terms hereof; and further, the balance, if any, to Tenant. 19. WAIVER OF DAMAGES FOR RE·ENTRY: Tenant hereby waives all claims for damages that may be caused by landlord's re-entering and taking possession of the Premises or removing and storing the property of Tenant as herein provided, and will save landlord harmless from loss, costs or damages occasioned Landlord thereby, and no such reentry shall be considered or construed to be a forcible entry. 20. COST OF SUITS: (a) If Tenant or landlord shall bring any action for any relief against the other, declaratory or otherwise, arising out of this lease, including any suit by landlord for the recovery of rent or possession of the Premises, the losing party shall pay the successful party a reasonable sum for attorneys fees in such suit and such attorneys fees shall be deemed to have accrued on the commencement of such action and shall be paid whether or not such action is processed to judgment. (b) Should landlord, without fault on landlord's part, be made a party to any litigation instituted by Tenant or by any third party against Tenant, or by or against any person holding under or using the Premises by license of Tenant, or for the foreclosure of a lien for labor or material furnished to or for Tenant or any such other person or otherwise arising out of or resulting from any act or transaction of Tenant or of any such other person, Tenant covenants to save and hold landlord harmless from any judgment rendered against landlord or the Premises or any part thereof, and all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, J.. 9-53 incurred by Landlord in or in connection with such litigation. 21. WAIVER OF BREACH: I The waiver by Landlord of any breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by Landlord shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Tenant of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, other than the failure of Tenant to pay the particular rental so accepted, regardless of Landlord's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent. 22. SUBORDINA nON: Tenant agrees that upon written request of Landlord, this Lease shall be subject and subordinate to any mortgage, trust deed or like encumbrance hereafter, placed by Landlord or its successors in interest upon its interest in said Premises to secure the payment of moneys loaned, interest thereon, and other obligations. Tenant agrees to execute and deliver, within ten (10) days of demand of Landlord any and all instruments desired by Landlord subordinating in the manner requested by Landlord this Lease to such mortgage, trust deed or like encumbrance. 23. RULES AND REGULATIONS: Such reasonable and non-discrimatory rules including but not limited to those set forth in Article 34 herein and other reasonable regulations as may be hereafter adopted and published by written notice to Tenant by Landlord for the safety, care and cleanliness of the Premises or the Building and the preservation of good order therein, as expressly made a part hereof, and Tenant agrees to comply with them, Landlord's remedies for any failure by Tenant to comply with them, Landlord's remedies for any failure by Tenant to comply with such a rule or regulation shall not include termination of this Lease. Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for any violation of such rules and regulations by any other Tenant. 24. DEFINED TERMS: The words "Landlord" and "Tenant", as used herein, shall include the plural as well as the singular. Words used in neuter gender include the masculine and feminine and words in the masculine or feminine gender include the neuter. If there be more than one Landlord or Tenant, the obligations hereunder imposed upon Landlord or Tenant shall be joint and several. The marginal headings or 1!!S 9- 3 .t/ ----^_._- -~--.._--_._,._-,.. titles to the articles of this Lease are not a part of this Lease and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part thereof. 25. ALTERATIONS, ADDITIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS BY TENANT: (a) TENANT IMPROVEMENTS: If any alterations, additions or improvements are to be installed by Tenant or its contractors, such work shall be done in compliance with the following: (1) . No such work shall proceed without Landlord's prior written approval of (i) Tenant's contractor, (ii) Certificate of Insurance from an approved company, furnished to Landlord by Tenant's contractor, in an amount acceptable to Landlord for public liability and automobile liability, endorsed to show Landlord as an additional insured, and (iii) detailed plans and specifications for such work. . (2). All such work shall be done in conformity with a valid building permit when required, a copy of which shall be furnished to Landlord before the work is commenced, and any work not acceptable to the Chuta Vista Department of Building and Housing, or not reasonably satisfactory to Landlord, shall be promptly replaced at Tenant's expense. Notwithstanding any failure by Landlord to object to any such work, Landlord shall have no responsibility therefor. (3). All work by Tenant or its contractors shall be scheduled through Landlord. (4). Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for any extra expense incurred by Landlord by reason of faulty work done by Tenant or its contractors, or by reason of inadequate cleanup. (5). Tenant or its contractors will in no event be allowed to install plumbing, mechanical, electrical wiring or fixtures, acoustical or integrated ceilings, or partitions over 5' - 10" in height, unless approved by Landlord. (6). All data processing and other special electrical equipment shall be installed only with prior written approval of and under the supervision of Landlord or its electrical contractor. (7). Landlord hereby approves installation by Tenant of moveable office partitions not less than 5 feet 10 inches nor greater than approximately 7 feet in height. 11 9-55 '. 26. PARKING AND COMMON AREAS: Landlord grants to Tenant during the term hereof the right of non-exclusive use, in common with other tenants of the building, of all automobile parking areas provided for the Building for the accommodation and parking of passenger automobiles of the Tenant, its officers, agents, employees and customers, Landlord's designation of any specific tenant parking spaces, including those of Tenant, shall be in consultation with, and subject to the approval of, Tenant. Tenant and its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees, agents, customers and invitees shall have the non-exclusive right, in common with Landlord and all others to whom Landlord has granted or may hereafter grant rights, to use the common areas as designated from time to time by Landlord subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as Landlord may from time to time impose, including the designation of specific areas in which cars owned by Tenant, its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees and agents must be parked and including the right to assign specific parking spaces to various Tenants. Tenant agrees after notice thereof to abide by such rules and regulations and to use its best efforts to cause its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees, agents, customers and invitees to conform thereto. Landlord may upon reasonable prior notice close temporarily common area to make repairs or changes therein or to effect construction, repairs, or changes ~ upon the site where the Building is located to prevent the acquisition of public rights in such areas, or to discourage noncustomer parking, and may do such other acts in and to the common areas as in its judgement may be desirable to improve the convenience thereof. Tenant shall upon request promptly furnish to Landlord the license numbers of the cars operated by Tenant and its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, and employees. Tenant shall not at any time interfere with the rights of Landlord and other occupants of the Building their subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees, agents, customers, contractors and invitees to use any part of the parking areas and other common areas. Tenant, its subtenants and concessionaires shall not solicit business or display merchandise within any of the common areas or distribute handbills or other advertising material therein. Landlord reserves the right to have any vehicle impounded at the expense of the owner if said owner is parked in violation of any rule regulating said parking. 27. MERGER: The voluntary or other surrender of this Lease by Tenant, or a mutual l1! /. 9-.56 --- _.~---""-~-_.- . . cancellation thereof, shall not work a merger, and shall, at the option of the Landlord, terminate all or any existing subleases or subtenancies, or may, the option of Landlord operate as an assignment to it of any or all such subleases or subtenancies. No provision of this Lease shall be construed in such a manner as to make the Landlord a partner of Tenant, it being expressly agreed that the relationship between the parties is and shall remain at all times that of Tenant and Landlord. 28. HEIRS AND ASSIGNS: Subject to the provisions hereof relating to assignment, mortgaging, pledging and subletting, this Lease is intended to and does bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of any and all of the parties hereto. 29. TIME OF ESSENCE: Time is of the essence of this Lease. 30. SURRENDER: The Tenant at the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and subject to provisions hereof, will surrender and deliver up said Premises to the Landlord, or those having the Landlord's estate therein, in the same condition as the Tenant now receives the Premises, ordinary wear and tear and damage by fire and the elements alone excepted. 31. INVALIDITY OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS: If any term or provision of this Lease shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extend permitted by law. 32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This instrument along with any exhibits and attachments hereto constitutes the entire agreement between Landlord and Tenant relative to the Premises herein described, and this agreement and the exhibits and attachments may be altered, amended or revoked only by an instrument in writing signed by both Landlord and Tenant. Landlord and Tenant agree hereby that all prior or contemporaneous oral agreements relative to the leasing of the Premises are merged in or revoked by this agreement. Ie 9-:57 33. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE: Tenant shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to Landlord at any time within ten (10) days after request by Landlord, a statement in writing certifying, if such be the case, that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there have been modifications that the same is in full force and effect as modified), the date of commencement of this Lease, the dates to which rent has been paid, and such other information as Landlord shall reasonably request. It is acknowledged by Tenant that any such statement is intended to be delivered by Landlord and relied upon by prospective purchasers, ~ortgagees, beneficiaries under deeds of trust or assignees thereof. 34. RULES AND REGULATIONS: Tenant agrees in the exercise of the rights granted Tenant by the terms hereof that: (a) No sign, placard, picture, advertisement, name or notice shall be inscribed, displayed, printed or affixed on or to any part of the outside or inside of the Building without the written consent of Landlord, first had and obtained, and Landlord shall have the right to remove any such objectionable sign, placard, picture, advertisement, name or notice, without notice to and at the expense of Tenant. (b) The bulletin board or directory of the Building will be provided exclusively ; for the display of the name and location of Tenant only; and Landlord reserves the right to exclude any other names therefrom, and also make a reasonable charge for each and every name, in addition to the name of Tenant, placed by it upon such bulletin board or directory. (c) When wiring of any kind is introduced, it must be connected as directed by Landlord and no boring or cutting for wires or exposed wiring will be allowed except with the prior written consent of Landlord. The location of telephones, call boxes, and other office equipment affixed to the Premises shall be prescribed by Landlord. Any installation in violation of this paragraph may be removed by Landlord at Tenant's expense. (d) Tenant shall not allow anything to be placed against or near the windows, in the doorways or in the halls, corridors, walkways or balconies. The exterior doors of the Premises shall be kept closed at all times, except when in actual use for ingress and egress. (e) The entries, passages and stairways shall not be obstructed by Tenant, or used for any other purpose than ingress or egress to and from their W. 9-5t' respective offices. Tenant shall not bring into or keep within the Building any animal or vehicle without the prior written consent of Landlord. (f) Tenant shall see that the doors of the Premises are closed and securely locked before leaving the Building and shall exercise extraordinary care and caution that all water faucets or water apparatus are entirely shut off before Tenant or Tenant's employees leave the Building, and for any default or carelessness Tenant shall make good all injuries sustained by other Tenants or occupants of the Building or by Landlord. (g) No furniture, freight or equipment of any kind shall be brought into or removed from the Building without the knowledge of Landlord or its agent; and all moving of same, into or out of Building, by tenants or their agents, shall be done at such times and in such manner as Landlord shall designate. Landlord shall have the right to prescribe the weight, size and position of all safes and other heavy property brought into the Building, and also the times and manner of moving the same in and out of the Building. Landlord will not be responsible for loss of or damage to any such safe or property from any cause; but all damage done to the Building by moving or maintaining any such safe or property shall be repaired at the expense of Tenant. (h) Landlord reserves the right to exclude or expel from the Building any person who, in its sole judgement, shall in any manner do any act in violation of any of the rules and regulations of the Building. (i) The requirements of Tenant will be attended to only upon application at the office of the Building. Employees of Landlord shall not perform any work or do anything outside of their regular duties unless under special instructions from the office, and no employee will admit any person (Tenant or otherwise) to any office without specific instructions from the office of the Building. (j) Rooms used in common by Tenants shall be subject to such regulations as are posted therein. (k) Landlord reserves the right to install security gates or doors and to close and keep locked all said doors of the Building during such hours as Landlord may deem to be advisable for the adequate protection of the Building. All Tenants, their employees, or other persons entering or leaving the Building at any time when it is so locked may be required to sign the Building register when so doing, and the watchman in charge may refuse to admit to the Building while it is so locked, Tenant or any of Tenant's employees, or any other person, without a pass previously ,¡¡ 9-5~ arranged. Landlord assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable for I any damage resulting from any error in regard to any such pass or from 1 the admission of an unauthorized person to the Building. (I) No awnings, window shades or draperies will be installed or permitted to be installed by Tenant without prior written consent of Landlord. (ml All approved signs or lettering on doors or windows shall be printed, painted, affixed or inscribed at the expense of Tenant by a person approved by Landlord. (n) Tenant shall not place or allow anything to be placed near the glass of any window, door, partition or wall which may appear unsightly from outside the Premises. (01 The toilet rooms, urinals, wash bowls and other apparatus shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which they were constructed and no foreign substance of any kind whatsoever shall be thrown therein and the expense of any breakage, stoppage or damage resulting from the violation of this rule shall be borne by the Tenant who. or whose employees or invitees shall have caused it. (p) Tenant shall not overload the floor of the Premises or mark, drive nails, screw or drill into the partitions, woodwork or plaster or in any way deface the Premises or any part thereof. (ql Tenant shall not store or keep in the Premises or the Building any inflammable or combustible fluid or material, or use any method of hearing or air conditioning other than that supplied by Landlord. (r) No vending machine or machines of any description shall be installed, maintained, or operated upon the Premises without the written consent of the Landlord. (s) Tenant shall not create nor permit any excessive noise or other nuisance detrimental to the other occupants of the Building or the surrounding area. (t) Tenant shall not disturb, solicit, or canvas any occupant of the Building and shall cooperate to prevent soliciting or canvassing by others. ~ 1-6¿') ---- ~ -"""...----. 35. NOTICES: Any notice, demand, or communication under or in connection with this Lease may be served upon Landlord by personal service, or by mailing the same by registered mail in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid, and directed to Landlord at 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite E, Chula Vista, CA 91910, and likewise may be served on Tenant by personal service or by mailing the same by registered mail in the United States Post Office, postage paid, and directed to Tenant 315 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista. CA 91910, or at such other place or places as either party may from time to time designate in writing. -.- W 9-&/ Signature Page , ¡ CITY OF CHULA VISTA SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES. (LANDLORD) INC. (TENANT) by: By: Shirley Horton Ranie Hunter Mayor Chairperson By: Kathryn Lembo Executive Director Bruce M. Boogaard City Attorney [c: I wpw i n\buchanld ocumentllease i &j J ~ 9-6.:< ~~ CD ¡f38J1S ::l -.I.. 01 .," -0 :uc C/):u -1-1 .,:I: . - r» - 0< . O· Ìì :om z ~--."} -- ~ c ~- m ïJ x µ ~ ~ 0 .'" (\ c ('\ / "$-- '""'( '" ...... :J / » / <: / CD ~ c: CD . - 0 . '. - . ..1"" re. A r.urd~ . .uf<.t!. :~k-D . , , . ,I . . ;(Y¡L~o'~,F: . . . IZ<:.?O~.F. -. - ; Center Street' . . ·'1-~3 '. .' ., .. , . " , , . " - ."':, . .' ." ':',' "'::'~,., .. :~. ~':'".' '.. '.--. ~ .:. , . . .. . , - . . ':,,~<.,:.~~. :';:".'.', ."" ~,;-. .' . ~~.: : : , -, .", . ' . EXHIBIT B UTILITIES AND SERVICES: . LANDLORD (L) and TENANT (T) agree that each shall furnish and pay for services as indicated below before delinquency: Electricity ............................................. (T) . Air Conditioning & Heating Maintenance ........................( L) Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ( L ) Rubbish Removal (from common receptacle) ......................( L) Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( T ) Janitor Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . ( T ) Window Cleaning (external) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) Window Cleaning (interior) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( T ) I Common and Parking Areas Cleaning ...........................( L) Common and Parking Areas Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) Landscaping and Gardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) * Tenant shall use air conditioning, electrical fixtures and any other Landlord furnished services only during normal working hours and/or in normal use. Landlord shall pay for all expenses related to maintenance of air conditioning units which is considered the result of "normal wear and tear". Tenant shall pay for any expenses caused by other than normal use, negligent use or willful misconduct. (c:lwp5 1 ISBCSIJ.agm) 1:8 9- ?/f' . -....--.. .. ~.. J , ~BBJ1S .::l EXHIBIT A . ~ . , ÌlÌl -0 :UC . , C/)::u ~. . -i-i . ,,:r . .... :' r» ~ 0.<::::: , O· 1} . ::urn 2: ~--.}"--l . C m Ïl jJ. "t- o .1\ (\ ..~ '.~ c (\\ ., -- ::T » <:: CD :J C CD . . . . . 0 . . . ..... - . . . . . '.....,.. . '';i - .1"'-'re A Ifd~ . ",""-I!. ¡-"Wk./)" . . . . . f . ..' '. L . . .. ,. - . , ~*o·~.¡:::: . . .. . . IZqo ~.F. - -. - . : . . . . . . Center Street' . ITEM (/9 . LEASE OF I & J . . . . . . ., . . , ." . i. "S . . ". ., . ,. .., '. ~& " . ..........' .. . . ·-~>~<·.',>..~;::;;1~;:~~.}.\>.:·::.~:;,:<.·.:.....,··~: ' '.' .::' . . . . .... .. . EXHIBIT B . UTILITIES AND SERVICES: . . , . , LANDLORD (L) and, TENANT (TI agree that each shall furnish and pay for services as . indicated below before delinquency: Electricitv 404O4O4O4O..4O........................... e. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ( T ) · Air Conditioning & Heating Maintenance ........................ ( l ) Water .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ( L ) Rubbish Removal (from common receptacle) ............................................ ( l ) ....- Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ( T ) Janitor Service . . . . . . . . . . . ..; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ( T ) Window Cleaning (external) .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) Window Cleaning (interior) . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ( T ) Common and Parking Areas Cleaning .... .. ........ ........ .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ( L ) Common and Parking Areas lighting . ., . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( l ) landscaping and Gardening ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( l ) - . Tenant shall use air conditioning, electrical fixtures and any other landlord . furnished servÎces only during normal working hours and/or in normal use. Landlord shall pay for all expenses related to maintenance of air conditioning units which is considered the result of "normal wear and tear". Tenant shall pay for· any expenses caused by other than normal use, negligent use or willful misconduct. (c:\wpS1\SBCSIJ.agml ..m 9-&0 --.----_..- . . ¡aaJ¡S ~ EXHïslT ¡~ Ïl ' :TIo :uc , (J) :u ~ ' ~~ ~ . - rÏ1:J:· . ",..,. . » ... ',' .~. 0 .~ '. ,.',' .."'. .. - . ", . .: ",.,. ,:,,1_.. ;,--- . O·~ '. '::t·. m "r}':b' :u z ---"--- . ...¡ .:. .... C ~;. f ;' ; 1f m Ïl Þ. ., -I- p o .'1\ (\ . c .. ., ; .:," (\\ -- , :::T .... » < CD ~ . - c ~~. Dc. . ",. .,"..~ ?:~: '~:' / . - .'. o . . ~fe A rf"f? . . . . . a . . . ·,,1- .. ~;"f"Vo·~.F: . __ ..: . . '. . Center Street' . . . . , . .. .. . 9- ~ '7. ...' '. .. ITEM #9 . . .. . ." . ,. . ..'. .'. . ." '. .... . LEASE Of D, E, f", H, R, U, .". ··::::·:~:.;;·.~:;::·S;,;;"·~.;..',<~:.~:~·. :./:,:.:;............;' ',' ..___~T" K', L .: ~/~P . . . ~aal~S .:1 ú) --L (f)<J1 . mï¡ -0 °0 C> . . . Oc (} ~ . Z:u 0-; £\ ï¡I . r» 0< Om . :u. :z: ------- c r: m Ã1 ~ . ïJ ',,~... 0 c (). f . . ~ ..... I . ::r 1J . » . '< ·t jf . . . () - ::J (> t '- f. . c: . () t . -4s=~ . 0 . . . .. " II . . CQUI : . . ~ß -' ..'~ . ~~ ~ - !!'\. . ~- ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . M" · . · tv· · . . r · .' . . I~~.~··. . . . . . . . - . i"':'" ~;'~,:.,....:.',.".~ ·C: ··t· ··St ;···t;· '. ...... . .' . -.. ~<;..¡,' -.', 'f::' /"",,, ~ '. ~^:. :,',':' :.<}. ,., .en eI:~·. r-ee:.. ;'''~ ". ,. . . . . ., . . : ·..-:·.~~·,+\"··~.f-:i~.;~i.f"!..;Z.:;~E~;":~~é::~~:-,.,:'.' ·":~~~::",:~··r.,~~~·:j.!i~·;.:·< ~':.'?:' ,,,:'f..:',:· . :. .. " -.. ~.;,,:Š?~"~~:,f;¡J:" \!.;~~"'.l.:.;;,<~..~~~ 'oc.;'~....~~...~.:,":,~<:..;.:,.... ......~...., . . : . . . . . - ..' ....'........ - . ~ '. . ..... ~.""".....".... . ,0' .. . .'_" )o..~1:~ ...~-Õ,f.~.".)"..?,.:~::.o;~~.;.:~_..; ..:~~:tl'·w:'f..~~~-. . 0', 0.. ~....~~:'!:L:.~-.::~t,. ~'(~~ ": ',þ..!>~ .":. '-. :.'. ..,;~_:. . . . ' . . .. . n" '.' . . _. .. . _ . . _". .. . '. . ---------------..-- . EXHIBIT B UTILITIES AND SERVICES: . , . lANDLORD (L) and TENANT (T) agree that each shall furnish and pay for services as . . indicated below before delinquency: Electricity ............................................. ( T ) · Air Conditioning & Heating Maintenance ........................ ( L ) Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) Rubbish Removal (from common receptacle) . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) .. Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ( T ) Janitor Service. . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ( T ) Window Cleaning (external) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) Window Cleaning (interior) . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ( T ) Common and Parking Areas Cleaning ...........................( L) Common and Parking Areas Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) Landscaping and Gardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( L ) . Tenant shall use air conditioning, electrical fixtures and any other landlord furnished services only during normal working hours and/or in normal use. landlord shall pay for all expenses related to maintenance of air conditioning units which is considered the result of "normal wear and tear". Tenant shall pay for· any expenses caused by other than normal use, negligent use or willful misconduct. (c:\wp51 \SBCSIJ.agm .~ ~f COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item It? Meeting Date 6/04/96 ITEM TITLE: Report: Chula Visla Live Steamers Request to Amend Rohr Park Master Plan and Expand Track System into Western Area of Rohr-Sweetwater Park SUBMITTED BY: DIT"W of "''" "" R~~ REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ ~_ (4/5th Vote: Yes _ No ..xJ The Chula Vista Live Steamers (CVLS) are requesting an amendment to the Rohr-Sweetwater Master Plan and authorizalion to expand the railroad tracks 10 Ihe western area of Rohr-Sweetwater Park. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Amendment to the Rohr-Sweetwater Park Master Plan for the western expansion of the CVLS railroad tracks. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission at their March 21, 1996 meeting approved to amend the Rohr-Sweetwater Park Master Plan and allow for the western-end expansion of Ihe railroad tracks (Attachment "A"). DISCUSSION: Since 1974, Rohr Park has served as the site for the CVLS. This group operates the only miniature scale (Ph ") railroad in San Diego Counly. The railroad at the San Diego Zoo is a 4" scale train, and was built as an amusement ride. The trains run on the second weekend of every month along the 4,000 feet of track constructed by the club. The CVLS shares its passion for trains by providing rides to approximately 8,000 visitors annually. In 1990, the City granled the CVLS permission to solicit a $0.25 donation for rides. These funds are used to offset repairs materials, and increased liability insurance cost. In April 1986, the City adopted the Rohr-Sweetwater Master Plan. The Master Plan preserves the CVLS railroad line as it exists, and identified a future eastern extension of the line for a maintenance/headquarters building (Sunrise Center), The CVLS have reconsidered their future plans and request that the rail lines run west versus east. This modificalion triggers a change in the original Master Plan and requires Council's authorization to amend the Master Plan, The original Master Plan required the following improvements to occur before CVLS could proceed on the project. 1. The construclion of a new park maintenance facility at Ihe eastern end of Rohr-Sweetwaler Park; 2. The renovation of the Park Employees Lounge, conversion of the building for a recreation facility; and 3. The construclion of a plaza fronling Rohr Manor. In light of the requested change to rail alignment, the above improvements are no longer necessary. However, staff recommends western lrack expansion should be contingent upon Master Plan [NETWORK:mc-Al13-CVLSTRCK.RPT-May 22, 1996] /1)"'1 v(£ Page 2 Item_ Meeting Date 06/04/96 improvements in the western reach of the park, i.e., elimination of softball fields and additional park picnic shelter improvements constructed within the next three years. New ballfields will be constructed at the eastern end of Rohr Park. Slaff recommends approval of the Master Plan amendment because: 1. The original Master Plan may have established a potential liability for park users on the recreation trail. Specifically, in order to access the steaming bays by the Sunrise Center, vehicles must access the pedestrian trail to unload the engines; 2. There is no certain time for the City to complete the construction of a new maintenance building and renovation and conversion of Ihe employee's lounge 10 make suitable for a recreation building; 3. 11 will enable the CVLS to plan a future work plan to keep their members interested and motivated; 4. 11 will save the CVLS considerable monies by not having to move and rebuild their sleaming bays; 5, The Department will retain Sunrise Center as a viable recreation facility, thus lessening the impact to the many recreation classes and activities conducted at the Center; and 6. The proposed area of expansion is a low use area which was contemplated to be an exercise course or jogging trail. Their proposal would expand the tracks westward along the perimeter of the park/golf course fence with a return loop (Attaclunent "B"). The Club estimates this expansion will take approximately three years to complete at an estimated cosl of $8,000 - $10,000 dollars (this does nol include Ihe donation of materials) . The project in the firsl year would be devoted 10 the planning of the expansion, surveying the area, etc, and the gathering of the equipment and materials needed, The second year would entail the re-work necessary for the inside track at the current site. Finally, the third year, actual laying of track westward would occur. This will provide a transition period to gradually phase out the existing softball fields. All of the above work will be scheduled in the Fall and Winter to minimize impact to park users. All expansion, schedules, construction plans will be approved by the Department. FISCAL IMPACT: All cost will be the responsibility of the CVLS. The Department's support will include minor cost for utilities i.e., water and electrical power during the construction phase of the project. Attaclunenls: "A" - Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of March 21, 1996 (Excerpt) liB" _ Chula Vista Live Sleamers Proposal for Track Expansion [NETWORK:mc-Al13-CVLSTRCK.RPT-May 22, 1996] /ð".2. \.Æi Attachment A1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PAGE 4 March 21, 1996 Mr. David Samudio replied that the Palomino Logo is part of the organization, but that they played on a larger scale. Motion to accept the Colt League Proposal and develop the permanent field at Rienstra Field, Palma / Sweetwood (7-0) B. Chula Vista Live Steamers Proposal- Director Valenzuela gave a brief background on the Rohr Park Master Plan. The Chula Vista Live Steamers (CVLS) proposal calls for modification to the Master Plan, which includes: establishing a bay by Sunrise Center where work can be done on trains; and expand the train track to the west (southern end of Rohr Park) along the fence. The CVLS train tracks would be a nice a enhancement to Rohr Park, and the Department utilizes the Sunrise Center for Recreation classes. The long range Master Plan for Rohr Park calls for a passive area to the west of the Park, which includes all softball fields in the western end of Rohr Park to be removed and replaced with picnic facilities. These softball fields would be re-established at Ihe eastern end of Rohr Park. In terms of timing of the project, it will have to be consistent with any Capital Improvement project effort the City has; and the Department would have to generate sufficient funds to move the fields (easlern end of Park). Scott Lewis of Chula Vista Live Steamers presented a video on their organization. Mr. Lewis commented Ihat this project will take a couple of years in planning and organizing. Commissioner Helton inquired about losing any area in Rohr Park. Mr. Lewis replied that the area would be along the fence. Chair Sandoval inquired how much the train ride costs. Mr. Lewis replied it was a $0.25 per ticket. Commissioner Helton asked how long this price has been in effect. Mr. Lewis replied Ihis price has been charged for 5 years. Motion to endorse amending the Rohr-Sweetwater Park Master Plan and allow for the western-end expansion of the railroad tracks. Palma / Helton (7-0) C. Parks and Recreation Commission Budget - Director Valenzuela gave a brief overview on the Parks and Recreation Commission Budget. Director Valenzuela briefed the Commission on two options which include: reducing the Travel Budget by $155 or Membership and Dues by $150. Motion to approve Option #1: Reduce the travel hudget by $155 10';1 ------.....-- -- --.-........-.-..-..-...----.-.---- j CHULA VISTA LIVE STEAMERS INC. P. O. BOX 369, CHULA. VISTA, CA 91912-0369 A PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA re: our letter of Sept. 25,1995 on the proposed westward extension of the track February 15, 1996 TO SWEETEN THE POT 1.) :The old Chamber of Commerce building which we have been promised for years, floods out every heavy rain, The front door has to be Sand Bagged! 2.) The City says we would have to wait 5 years or more before even thinking about moving into the building. The master plan was written ten years ago which means fifteen years of waiting. 3.) The following is a list of the tasks involved in the relocation to the old Chamber of Commerce building: a. We would have to move the Yards to a smaller location. b. We would have to move all the Steaming Bays, the Hoist and all it's related equipment, including the Pump House, c. We would have to move the Container. f. We would have 10 move all Electrical, Air and Water Lines 10 the conlainer, g. There will be a Problem with parking trucks and trailers on busy weekends in the park, especia1Iy with the limited parking spaces available. h, Loading and unloading railroad equipment from the trucks and trailers will innconveuience pedestrians in the park. WHAT IF WE GA VB UP THE BUILDING IDEA IN EXCHANGE FOR: I.) Keeping all existing facilities the same. 2.) Adding the new Hoist and steaming bays. 3.) Adding our full western extension. 4.) The addition of another container after the year 2000. This will be our new 5 year 110 year plan. /O-i t\ j CHULA VISTA LIVE STEAMERS INC. P. O. BOX 369, CHULA VISTA, C4 91912-0369 February 15, 1996 City of ChuJa Vista. Parks and Recreation Department 276 Fourth Avenue ChuJa Vista, CA 91910 Attn: Parks and Recreation Commission Dear Commissioners: The ChuJa Vista Live Steamers wish to bring to your attention our desire to amend the Master Plan with an expansion project to the west end of the park (as referenced in item [2a]). The concept we envision calls for a new line leaving the mainline at approximately the Midway siding area (see arrow on Item [3a] ), angling south-wesl towards the golf course fence line, then running in a westerly direction, paralleling the golf course fencing, and looping back on itself around the treeS at the south-western comer of the park. Enclosed is a copy of our proposal to the city Item [I], original park Master Plan, Item [2], Western track expansion proposal is item [2a], Item [3] is the current track schematic, and Item [3a] is the track schematic of the proposed Western extension. We wouJd need a ten to fifteen foot-wide right of way to build this new line, The line itself falls within your planned jogging trail located along the southern fence line as noted in the "Master Plan" for this park, We see no incompatibility with this jogging trail as there.has been no real conflict with the joggers who run through our existing facility. The proposed looping portion of the 'line wouJd not disturb the grove of trees at the west end of the park (see item [2a] ) as we have noted in our preliminary survey of the line. This expansion project does not entail a cost to the city, Expenses reIated to the expansion project such as grading, fill, and the track will be borne by our organization. We wouJd not however turn down any donations offill dirt or decomposed granite shouJd you have some of this material available. We have sought community support for this expansion project and hereby submit some 200 card we have already collected. Our club has been associated with the city for some twenty-one years now and wish to continue growing with you. This letter serves as a notification of our desire to begin this expansion and a request for approval of our expansion plan. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely Yours, ~~ Scott Lewis CVLS Representative Phone 420-2390 /IJ:r (c"' - ------ ----- - ~---_.- --_.__...._~--_._~"~ ~@l) ~@ IWJ @WJ IüJg I~ 0;1 ¿V ~g '@ 51 @J 8 ,2] (ill CQ) ~ ~ I ~ ~ '~ - 81 ~ D C ~ II D :!- .. ID ~, ID GI I frl~l j~ ",I"" 'J..J ;...:c......__----' ItJ~¡' (: 1-;) I '" ~~¡¡¡~i C6 ~ 6~ ~ ID II DI' ~ .. >= a: 0( :I @1 a: II ~! ~ I? = ~ , I ~ ~ @J @ ~ 8 @J ,~ ill] ~ ! ill] [TI] ~ [!QJ /¡J) - 7 v\ ? --~ ---- - --~_.. .----- ~ . "'h'<r1'O.::r....~~- ~~ ~~ t:. ¡¡.~~ F"~ " g ..... gc-. ¡ ~::.:... ~ D- U\. ß- !!."'U ~ .,....:.. ..... ~ A þ-_Q t"" ¡r:: ;;- 1= -- ~ III! .. -- ~ .. fill ... :s . _ Q f"1'o _....~;o";o ! "', è.- <A ¡... :t: è... r ë ;P;,..~.CD~~ "" C;- U\ ~ Ut ~ --Q .z: ~ ~:! g <r~_f:1J "Z ... ......... '" ... _... .... ~ 'iF - Z If I: .. L ;. _ '^ ;! ~ .......t: ~... .. ...{ -+- -.'-'. r: .. - --- ~~" -' ,-' ..., ®- c A L':'oJl ~~- <t::;:~;1J.- 'f'''' &r;¡:~=:=!: [~ ,^þ-:l~~""'- ~.. ;!.~!ê.~:S:J ,.-- =- ~.:-.. 1:>-.. __ ~ PC' ~ .._ ~.: .(1t;¡;" ~~ ;J f11;rt .... -' ".. -" . ;. .. _"';::S ~,4.. ~~:. "" ~ I' ,"GO.. w- ,. _. ..... ..' 0 ~ ::i¡;¡" r:: g- ¡,; ~ c ,. ~C iF- :-?i. J...~ ...=' it. '" ~ ... ... :t. ::Ir"" ~f\ _~ .tL..." ~~ ;: _h _. " - <> .... Il- ~ ð ~¢> @) ., " .. " r ~:!E: CI" ;:0 ë:i~ I:j .... ~ ~ C> ¡; ~ 1'1 f<J ¡;:~ r- ¡;¡: ~ .... c.:.. ò =E ,¡¡o . .... 0 3: <:: S! c:: ="''"" 70 ~ ... i!: _1D m '" G'\ . "" . ",'2 ¡Ja.... '" ~ fa)" . 'I:: . ';Z ..!i;~f W "" z: . -.. :'" :-I ~ -:-:zl.~ , ~ þ :?} ...-~~ CD ;: VI '" CD>, U'I n a cn~ c: ::an; ~ ... III o:cl fn .... r> , c:1 ;,,::: J p ~!j;! ~f- FQ r- rn ¡¡:S! ~~ ;:z: ,- "'!!II ¡o'iI"~ ~ ~~ ('»!~>~ zr-" .'" · c:- - " II · ... s;;ii e:o!:: r- n ~ · ~. < ",.... · !?j!!l ~¡., -< c.n c: ¡: -..... - ,.. · oe:: ., · ..ç;! .... ~ r-;o .., rq ~s::i ~ I ~ ::t::. ~ r.> !:!II, ~ rr-, .. ... :"JÞ: :3 , <> y.~ .... ~ s:- !_I ~~- ~ ~ $! .. z~ r- ^~ " "01 ;a::.. Ii: N., ;;æ m ItJ-8" ~..oII"tW . ...--..,.- -¡I>''¡' '"1" {fl . , ' ( 11- i"f) , , 3, :e:D ~ . ~~ ,~ I L..c-J ~ t ~-, cI? ~ð¡ t ¡() I Þ L..W ~ ,~' ~ .9 '~' I t.t ~€ ' , <:.-.) !< cr') >- ~ ' ...... ~ w' --.J -a.. ~ >, , .... ~ ~-' . ~ ë:i~ ,-'; j · ~, :< Ð · I I...U ~ ~ l!ii: '" · ;:= ,W ¡> I " · , "'!ïI '~: of' · )c L.a.J --Ï 'wi: · (2:1 >.~ ~!õ' · f , n c.J ~ ' ... <5 ~ j \ ¡- :3 ~ 0 ~ ,- , ~ , \, / \ 'I ~ \ \ \ , \ \ , , 0' , , g 0 \ \ \ , 4--~_ . I , 1 ~l - n -,---~.,,".- \ \ "¡IH·"I..HI" . .. . \ , ~, ~ , ::t-- \ ~!,' ~ \ ... . .' . ~ I ~ ~'.q ~ , \ ~ 1 '~-- " ~ ¡,..... \J v.;}-l'- '5 .j'- , (f)~ .;. i I l ~ - -. --.. --.. , , =". ' "- '·0: . I " \ , i i I \ i I ! ' I I , I I , ~ \ I I , I \ 0-. I I I I " : / , . / -. -- I .m i ¡ i ! ¡ j >II ~ '. ~ . " . ~,; . I .-4. -~ ~--......... '~ tó," , , - '.' I , \ ! p. I t , I , / , - . .- r ), --¡...-- i ' - I . .H~ . j(\ k \ "----- -." . ! . +... e .. S> o- Il ~ " I '/ ' V, [] /'~~ . ~ ~ t / ~ " '" ~ / t , - ~. ~ . \. . ~! .' l ~ ~ ~-......... ( ~ ~ -. Ip"J/ ()' "{ . .. 0 . --- _ __ ..____n' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item -1L- ~ Meeting Date 06/04/96 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION \i.3 Approving the Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Year 1996-97 including both the FY 1996-97 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investmenl Partnership (HOME) program budgets and authorizing transmittal of the FY 1996-97 Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director C _c; I REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes _ No L) BACKGROUND: The City Council held a public hearing on May 7, 1996 to review and receive public comment on the draft Consolidated Plan for fiscal year 1996-97 and to review all projects and programs being considered for CDBG and HOME funding. The 30-day comment period to review the draft Consolidated Plan began on April 18, 1996 and ended May 17, 1996. All public comments received by staff during the 30-day comment period have been considered and, if deemed appropriate, integrated into the final version of the Consolidated Plan. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the Consolidated Plan which includes staff recommendations for both the CDBG and HOME programs for 1996-97. These recommendations can be found in the Consolidated Plan and are also described in this report. The City of Chula Vista is eligible to receive $2,103,000 in CDBG entitlement funds from HUD for 1996-97. In addition to CDBG, the City will receive $754,000 in HOME funds from HUD for 1996-97. Combining both CDBG and HOME, the City will be able to invest into the community a grand total of $2,857,000 in HUD funds for 1996-97. RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution approving the Consolidated Plan Fiscal Year 1996-97, including both the 1996-97 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program budgets, and authorizing transmittal of the Consolidated Plan for fiscal year 1996-97 to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: A CDBG Ad-Hoc Committee consisting of members from the Commission on Aging, Human Relations Commission, Child Care Commission and Youth Commission has reviewed the CDBG public service funding and have made funding recommendations (see Exhibit 1). The committee's recommendations are also repeated in this staff report when the individual public service funding requests are discussed. The Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) reviewed the housing-related proposals and made funding recommendations (see attached minutes, Exhibit 2), In addition, the HAC reviewed the draft Consolidated Plan on May 22, 1996. Ii-I f ~) Page 2, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 DISCUSSION: This report will discuss the following topics: · Part A: The Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Year 1996-97, the HUD-required planning document and annual application document for the City's CDBG and HOME programs (Exhibit 3). · Part B: The proposed 1996-97 CDBG Budgel, which includes funding for the categories of Public Service Funding, Capital Improvement Projects, Community Projects, and Administration and Planning. A summary of this proposed budget is attached as Exhibit 4. · Part C: The proposed 1996-97 HOME Budget, which includes funding for the categories of New Construction, Rehabilitation, Acquisition, Tenant Assistance, CHDO Operation, and City Administration. Please note that substantial detail on all of the comDonents of the CDBG Budget is Drovided in the CDBG Notebook that was distributed to the Council for the Mav 7. 1996 Dublic hearing. PART A CONSOLIDATED PLAN - For FY 1996-97 (Draft document attached) In 1995, the Consolidated Plan introduced a new consolidated process from HUD that replaced all current planning and application requirements of four formula programs with a single submission. These programs are the CDBG, HOME, Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing For Persons With AIDS (HOPW A) programs. Because the City of Chula Vista is an entitlement jurisdiction for only the CDBG and HOME programs, it is these two programs only that will be consolidated under the Consolidated Plan. This does not preclude, however, the City or any local non-profit organizations from applying during the Plan period for ESG and HOPW A funds on a competitive basis with other jurisdictions. HUD is requiring that all jurisdictions submit a Consolidated Plan for FY 1996-97. This plan must be approved by HUD before any federal HUD funds will be made available for expenditure by the City. It is hoped that through this document and other efforts HUD is implementing that jurisdictions will be relieved of repetitive and burdensome planning and reporting requirements. This process will also assist jurisdictions to coordinate and manage all federal resource programs under one consolidated approach. In 1995 the Consolidated Plan replaced the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). Much like the old CHAS, the new Consolidated Plan is a planning document that identifies Chula Vista's overall housing and community development needs, outlines a five-year strategy to address those needs, and describes a one year action plan for the expenditure of all Federal HUD resources. Again, for the City of Chula Vista, these resources are the CDBG and HOME programs. 11-:1. \~O Page 3, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 Per HUD regulations, the City musl hold a 30-day comment period for the public to review the Consolidated Plan - Annual Plan and make comments or suggest changes. This 30-day period started April 18, 1996 and ended May 17, 1996. All comments and/or suggestions received orally or in writing from the public will be recorded in the appendix of the document whether utilized in the final version of the document or not. PART B PROPOSED 1996-97 CDBG BUDGET Please see Exhibit 4: CDBG Budget for a summary of the various funding categories and specific proposals for CDBG funding. It is hoped that this exhibit will help the Council in evaluating any desired modifications to the staff-recommended budget. For the 1996-97 CDBG program, the City of Chula Vista has total estimated revenue of $2,103,000. The staff-recommended CDBG budget is summarized as follows: CDBG BUDGET 1996-97 Funding Category Number of Requests Recommended Funding Public Service Requests 22 $315,450 Capital Improvement Projects 10 $1,223,300 Community Projects 6 $226,750 Administration & Planning 6 $337,500 TOTAL 44 $2,103,000 In order to be eligible for funding, a project or service must address at least one of the CDBG national objectives, which are (1) benefi~ primarily low and moderate income families; (2) aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; (3) meet other community needs having a particular emergency (disaster, etc.). All of the projects recommended for funding meet the national objective of primary benefit to low and moderate income families, except for the SBCS Graffiti Eradication Program, which meets the national objective to aid in the prevention of slum and blight. In 1995 the City adopted the Community Development Plan (see Exhibit 5) which is recommended to be adopted for the 1996-1997 Fiscal Year Program. This plan outlines the City's specific community development goals and objectives for the CDBG program and serves as a guide for making allocations. All of the CDBG projects and services recommended for funding in this report meet the goals and objectives of the Community Development Plan. The attached resolution addresses this requirement. 1\-3 I \ , v __ ~____.__ "_n_ ~.____.~...__ Page 4, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDING REOUEST $315,450 The recommended budget for Public Services is $315,450. The City received 22 eligible requests for social service funding from non-profit community organizations, totalling $485,202. Public Services funding is restricted by HUD regulations to a maximum of 15% of a jursidiction's annual entitlement and program income. Thus, reductions in other categories of CDBG funding would not increase the amount available for Public Services, which is recommended at the allowable Cap. Programs that are eligible for public service funds are those programs run by non-profit organizations that provide a direct public or social service to low income persons of the community. Staff recommendations for public service funding, along with the CDBG ad-hoc committee's recommendations, are summarized below. In 1995-96, a total of 23 public services programs were funded with $324,300. For 1996-97, a total of 17 are being recommended for funding with $315,450, and 5 organizations are not being recommended for funding. Funding percentage reductions for 1996-97 in individual organization funding is based on approximately a 3 percent reduction in CDBG entitlement funds received from HUD, Columns have been added in Exhibit 4 to display the 1995-96 funding levels. Methodology for Making Recommendations: In developing staff recommendations, staff utilized the following principles: 1. The recommendations of the CDBG Ad-Hoc Committee constituted a valuable guide from citizens conversant in the categories of public service need in the Chula Vista community and should be the starting point for consideration of funding levels, while recognizing that some significant exceptions might be appropriate where important infonnation might exist which fell outside the nonnal preview of the Ad-Hoc Committee. 2. Recommended funding levels for public services should not be below levels that make the offered CDBG-eligible activities infeasible. 3. Funding preference should go to programs which best meet the criteria of providing new services to Chula Vista, providing services from a local base, not duplicating existing services, and having a successful track record. These criteria can sometimes be in conflict, and their application requires a careful balancing. The above principles were utilized as follows: 1) Staff used last year's approved funding level for each program as an initial basis from which to make recommendations. 2) Staff reduced all public services requests by approximately 3 % from the actual funding in 1995 and rounded off, except for City Council priority programs such' as collaborative proposals and the COPS program, 11-1 J' V Page 5, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 3) Staff took into accounl lhe recommendations of lhe CDBG Ad Hoc Coinmittee which often varied substantially from lhe amounts requested by lhe organizations. 4) As per Council direction, staff gave priority to locally-based organizations which are proposing to primarily service Chula Visla residents. Funding Recommendations: All of the programs requesting funds are identified below. The information provided includes lhe amount of funds requested, lhe funding recommendation of lhe CDBG ad-hoc committee, and lhe staff funding recommendation. If a program is recommended for funding, then staff has determined that it is a viable program at the recommended level of funding. Please note lhat the CDBG Budget Notebook previously provided to the Council contains detailed information about the requesting organizations and their programs. Chula Vista Youth Services Network (Notebook - Tab #1) Staff Recommendation $101,347 Request $116,900 Committee Recommendation $60,500 Prior Year Funding $101,347 Staff recommends $101,347 in funding. This agency submitted a collaborative funding request which includes South Bay Community Services, Chula Vista Police Department Police Activities League, Soulh Bay Family YMCA, Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista, Sweetwater Union High School District, Vista Square Healthy Start and the Chula Vista Cluster Coordinating Council, MAAC Project, and the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Department. The Chula Vista Youlh Service Network proposal amount of $116,900 represents last years funding level for all agencies listed above plus the Chula Vista Connection Child Care (CVCCC) program which was funded at $12,000 last year. Even though CVCCC did not apply for FY 96-97 funding, lhe collaborative included the $12,000 as part of lheir request wilh lhe idea of using lhese funds to increase lhe service level of lhe child care component of lhe collaborative. Staff does not agree with this position because it sets a precedent of blanket approval of previous funding levels by Public Service categories and could diminish the emphasis that Chula Vista has always placed on the effectiveness of specific agencies. The Ad Hoc Committee recommendation of $60,500 was based on the committee's concern that this proposal did not provide specific information on how the funds were to be distributed and that it was vague on measurable outcomes. l-.5 " '. ') \) Page 6, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 Staff recommendation of $101,347 represents the actual amount received last year by each of the organizations involved in the proposed collaborative without reducing it by 3 % due to its coalition effort. Staff will require this collaborative as well as all other organizations receiving CDBG funds to provide detailed information to the City on the specific use of funds, benefits provided, recipient data, and other accountability requirements as per City and HUD regulations, No funds will be released to the collaborative until the Council approves a sub-recipient contract which stipulates the specific use of funds. Adjustments during the year will require City approval. Staff has assured the Ad Hoc Committee that these requirement will be enforced. MAAC Project - Nosotros Youth Services (Tab #2) Staff Recommendation $0 Requested $2,000 Committee Recommendation $0 Prior Year Funding $0 Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee recommends no funding for this program due to concern that use of funds to buy educational video and materials is duplicative since such materials are available at public libraries and schools. San Diego County SER/Jobs for Progress, Inc. (Tab #3) Staff Recommendation $0 Requested $15,000 Committee Recommendation $0 Prior Year Funding $0 Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee recommends no funding for this program due to program not being based in Chula Vista and services not being readily available to local residents. SD Workforce Partnership-Hire A Youth Internship (Tab #4) Staff Recommendation $0 Requested $12,758 Committee Recommendation $0 Prior Year Funding $0 Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee recommend no funding for this program due to very limited service level provided at a very high per case cost plus recognition that this program has received full federal funding for this year. Southwestern College - S. C. Career Center (Tab #5) Staff Recommendation $6,000 Requested $20,000 Committee Recommendation $4,000 Prior Year Funding $0 Southwestern College - The Ad Hoc Committee recommendation of $4,000 is based on the committee's concern that the proposed services are already available through other agencies, Staff has discussed this matter with the applicant and has determined that such a proposal is consistent with the City's efforts to encourage collaboratives and that it has unique characteristics which will provide services to over 360 Chula Vista residents. In an effort to find a creative way to fund this collaborative program, staff has taken a closer look at the program and at the federal CDBG regulations. As a result, it has been determined that the program can be structured in such a way that it can be funded out of two CDBG categories: Public Services and Community Projects. The activities that are aimed at general Il -" ,\ \., - _._--~-_._- -_.~- --...-"-.- Page 7, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 job placement can only be funded from Public Services, and il is recommended that $6,000 from thai category be given to the collaboralive. The activities that are targeted to specific businesses and specific jobs are eligible to be funded from Community Projects as "special economic development projects," and it is recommended that $10,000 from Community Projects be given to the collaboralive for that purpose. In order to fund the collaboralive, staff recommends that the Capital Improvement Project for ADA Curb Cuts be reduced to $40,000, which will still allow the City to make reasonable progress in those ADA modifications. Jobs for Youth (Tab #6) Staff Recommendation $3,000 Requested $3,100 Committee Recommendation $3,100 Prior Year Funding $3,100 Staff recommends funding for this program due to the fact that it provides a valuable service of securing summer jobs for youth. This program is very "lean" and well run; and it does not have other practical sources of funds. Senior Adult Services - Meals on Wheels (Tab #7) Staff Recommendation $10,000 Requested $12,000 Committee Recommendation $11,000 Prior Year Funding $10,353 This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing home delivered meals to seniors. Adult Protective Services-SB Health Care Center (Tab #8) Staff Recommendation $6,000 Requested $12,000 Committee Recommendalion $12,000 Prior Year Funding $7,020 This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing adult day care. Staff feels these services are not duplicative with the Alzheimer's Center proposal due to geographical area served. Adult Proteclive Services mainly serves the southwestern portion of the City. Alzheimer's Family Centers - Day Care (Tab #9) Staff Recommendation $5,000 Requested $12,200 Committee Recommendation $10,466 Prior Year Funding $5,850 This program successfully provides a much-needed service by providing adult day care for patients with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. Staff feels these services are not duplicative with the Adult Protective Service's proposal due to geographical area served. The Alzheimer's Center mainly serves the northwestern portion of the City. 11- ? I] ~ Page 8, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 Lutheran Social Services - Shared Housing (Tab #10) Staff Recommendation $3,500 Requested $8,182 Committee Recommendation $8,182 Prior Year Funding $4,095 This program successfully provides an much needed service by providing services that match low income seniors looking for housing. Access Center of SD-Pathways to Self-Sufficiency (Tab #11) Staff Recommendation $2,500 Requested $7,500 Committee Recommendation $3,500 Prior Year Funding $5,202 This program successfully provides assistance to disabled persons and addresses the unique needs such as peer support, personal attendant care, and independent living skills. Level of staff recommendation is based on program having a limited presence in Chula Vista. CV Family Violence Prevention Coalition (Tab #12) Staff Recommendation $31,590 Requested $40,000 Committee Recommendation $20,500 Prior Year Funding $31,590 The purpose of this coalition is to eliminate family violence, including child sexual abuse, in the Chula Vista Community. This program is a collaborative effort; the following agencies include South Bay Community Service (fiscal agent); Chula Vista Police Department; the Center for Community Solutions; YWCA Domestic Violence Services; and YMCA Family Stress Counseling Services. The Ad Hoc Committee also had accountability concerns similar to the proposed youth collaborative, As previously indicated for the Chula Vista Youth Services Network, staff will require strict reporting and accountability requirements of this and all other programs. Staff recommendation is based on funding at last year level and in recognition of the collaborative effort which is proposed. AIDS Foundation of SD - Social Service & Case Management Expansion (Tab #13) Staff Recommendation $2,000 Requested $5,850 Committee Recommendation $3,000 Prior Year Funding $5,850 The AIDS Foundation of San Diego is the only organization which provides services to persons with AIDS/HIV in Chula Vista. Level of staff recommendation is based in program having limited presence in Chula Vista. }/-? ~\" Page 9, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 Episcopal Community Services - (Tab #14) Outreach Health Education Staff Recommendation $6,000 Requested $6,435 Committee Recommendation $0 Prior Year Funding $6,435 This program successfully provides a much needed service by providing health education services and information to the atay Community. The Ad Hoc Committee did not feel that this program would benefit Chula Vista residents, However, staff has discussed this concern with the applicant, and, based on last year's funding, the need for such services and actual services provided, the proposed funding is recommended. Chula Vista Police Department - COPS (Tab #15) Staff Recommendation $80,000 Requested $102,742 Committee Recommendation $80,000 Prior Year Funding $80,000 The COPS program offers an opportunity for the City of obtain the community-enhancing services of four new community service police officers if the City is able to match federal funds, with the only practical source of funds being the CDBG public service category. In 1995 Council approved funding this 3-year program at $80,000 the first year, with the recognition that the funding has to increase over the next two years as per program regulations. The request for $102,742 reflects the increased level required as per federal regulations. However, due to overall budget constraint and demand on CDBG, it is recommended that only $80,000 (similar to last year) be allocated this year from CDBG and that the balance of $22,742 be funded out of other sources. The Ad Hoc Committee has also recommended $80,000. The Housing Advisory Commission has made the recommendation for the City to consider using other sources of funds for this program. San Diego Home Loan Counseling Service (Tab #16) Staff Recommendation $0 Requested $7,000 HAC Recommendation $3,500 Prior Year Funding $0 The Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) recommended $3,500 in funding. The Ad-Hoc Committee did not recommend funding. Staff also recommends not funding this program due to the fact that the services offered are duplicative of services already provided by private lenders under CRA requirements and by South Bay Community Services. Woodlawn Park Civic League - Woodlawn Park Community Center (Tab #17) Staff Recommendation $16,000 Requested $22,800 Committee Recommendation $23,000 Prior Year Funding 16,788 This program successfully provides a much needed service by providing recreational and other activities to low income youths and seniors. 1l-7 " , / , \~ ' "-."-.--------..--.-. Page 10, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 Lutheran Social Services - Project Hand (Tab #18) Staff Recommendation $10,000 Requested $20,000 Committee Recommendation $20,000 Prior Year Funding $10,530 This program successfully provides a much needed service by providing emergency food and clothing assistance to the homeless. Chula Vista Library - Literacy Team (Tab #19) Staff Recommendation $16,500 Requested $19,889 Committee Recommendation $19,000 Prior Year Funding $17,375 This program successfully provides much-needed literacy services to the entire community. McAllister Institute - South Bay Community Video Library (Tab #20) Staff Recommendation $0 Requested $10,000 Committee Recommendation $0 Prior Year Funding $0 Staff and Ad Hoc Committee recommend no funding for this program due to similar material readily available through the public library and schools. SBCS Services - Thursday's Meal (Tab #21) Staff Recommendation $2,800 Requested $5,000 Committee Recommendation $5,000 Prior Year Funding $2,925 This program successfully provides much-needed hot meals to the homeless. Chula Vista Therapeutics Program (Tab #22) Staff Recommendation $13,213 Requested $16,585 Committee Recommendation $16,585 Prior Year Funding $0 This program continues to be the only program of its kind in the County. The program is for the benefit of developmentally disabled and physically challenged children, teenagers and adults throughout the South Bay. Conducted at the Lauderbach Center, Chula Vista Women's Club and Parkway Community Center, the therapeutics program offers a positive recreational experience for the participants in this active program. Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee agreed that this program is a very unique and much needed program which provides services primarily to Chula Vista residents. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS $1,223,300 The recommended budget for capital improvement projects is $1,223,300. All ten of the following recommended projects have been or would be funded on a multi-year basis. The amount requested may not actually represent the total amount needed by the project in its 11- IÒ \ c( of ..--. Page 11, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 entirety. There is no HUD restriction on the amount of the CDBG entitlement that can be used for Capital Improvements. Staff recommends funding as follows: Americans with Disabilities Act - Barrier Removal (Tab #23) Staff Recommendation $0 Requested $1,100 Prior Year Funding $0 PURPOSE: The Americans with Disabilities Act Barrier Removal project is a Federal mandate through California Law. The funds requested will be utilized to survey the Chula Vista sites for ADA access through the hiring of a consultant. RATIONALE: It is recommended that no funds be allocated at this time for this program due to other demands on limited CDBG funds. Teen Center/Club (Tab #24) Staff Recommendation Not To Exceed $33,600 Requested $250,000 Prior Year Funding $0 PURPOSE: The funds will be used by South Bay Community Services to purchase and/or renovate an existing facility in Chula Vista. RATIONALE: Staff does not recommend the full $250,000 since a specific suitable facility has yet to be identified and the funding request is premature. However, since SBCS rent for the current facility has been increased, staff recommends that until a new facility can be located that funds be used to pay the landlord's required increase in rent for the current facility for one year. This will allow the successful teen center to remain in operation during the search for a new facility. SBCS is currently negotiating the most favorable rent increase level on the existing facility, and the staff recommendation is to approve the amount needed to fund the increase amount being asked for by the landlord, with the expectation that the amount may be reduced through negotiation. Insectary Restoration (Tab #25) Staff Recommendation $25,000 Requested $180,000 Prior Year Funding $0 PURPOSE: Funds will be used by the Chula Vista Cluster Coordinating Council for restoration of a historical building located at 511 "G" Street in Chula Vista, This capital outlay project will restore a significant agricultural historical building for multi-purpose educational use by the Chula Vista community while maintaining its historical agricultural use by the County of San Diego Department of Agriculture Weights and Measures. 11- " c, \9' .--.-.-.....-,.- Page 12, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 RATIONALE: It is proposed thai this be considered a multi year project, with a first year allocation of $25,000 to cover design and planning costs. Gymnasium Floor Rehabilitation Project (Tab #26) Staff Recommendation $18,000 Requested $18,000 Prior Year Funding $0 PURPOSE: Funds will be used by the Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista to restore the hardwood gymnasium floor at their Oleander Center located at 1301 Oleander Avenue. A complete renovation of the floor has never been done since its construction in 1984. RATIONALE: The Gymnasium hardwood floor at the Boys & Girls Club Oleander Center, 1301 Oleander Avenue, is in great need of renovation. Because of extensive use of the hardwood floor and the gymnasium facility over the past 12 years, increasing damage is becoming evident that will cause shortening of the overall life. A compete renovation will allow the floor to be maintained in a safe condition and extend its life for another 10 to 12 years. The gymnasium floor is currently used by over 250 children a day involved in regular Club programming. After hours and on weekends the use of the facility continues, with over 150 additional youth participating in a wide range of programs including: Special Olympics, Boy Scouts, High School Sports Teams, and Community Youth Sports leagues. Dtay Family Health Center (Tab #27) Staff Recommendation $0 Requested $86,303 Prior Year Funding $0 Staff recommends not funding this project at this time due to other higher priority projects and demands on limited CDBG funds and the magnitude of the request. Eastern Aquatic Complex (Tab #28) Staff Recommendation $50,000 Requested $50,000 Prior Year Funding $50,000 PURPOSE: These funds will assist in financing the construction of lap, instructional and therapy pools, as well as exercise rooms and training facilities. These facilities will be open to all Chula Vista residents. RATIONALE: The YMCA will provide classes and activities in the facilities at reduced or no cost to seniors and lower-income residents. This project received approval in 1994 for a total of $250,000 to be covered in increments of $50,000 a year for 5 years. ADA Modifications (Tab #29) Staff Recommendation $114,000 Requested $114,000 Prior Year Funding $108,000 ) 1- 1:1. (\v , Page 13, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 PURPOSE: Fiscal Year 1996-97 appropriations would provide for modification to Cily facilities as required by the ADA, making them accessible to individuals with disabilities. Modification includes signage, doors, public access routes and restrooms. RATIONALE: Staff views compliance with the ADA as a high priority. This project and the curb cuts will further the City's progress towards meeting ADA goals. ADA Curb Cuts (Tab #30) Staff Recommendation $40,000 Requested $111,440 Prior Year Funding $50,000 PURPOSE: 1996-97 appropriations would provide for the construction of concrete wheelchair ramps at an estimated 47 different locations in the City. Curb Cuts are a requirement of the ADA. The City has funded this program for 10 years to date. RATIONALE: Staff views compliance with the ADA as a high priority. This project and the ADA modifications above will further the City's progress towards meeting ADA goals. In order to fund the Southwestern College Career Center collaborative, staff recommends that the Capital Improvement Project for ADA Curb Cuts be reduced to $40,000, which will still allow the City to make reasonable progress in those ADA modifications. Otay Park Gymnasium (Tab #31) Staff Recommendation $924,200 Requested $924,200 Prior Year Funding $953,225 PURPOSE: The City Council approved a Master Plan for Otay Park on May 24, 1994. FY 1996-97 appropriations are for the construction of the first phase of improvements, including the design and construction of a 16,000 square foot gymnasium. RATIONALE: Parks and Recreation Department studies and surveys have documented the fact that there is a deficiency of recreational facilities and activities in the southwestern portion of the City. Additional funding will be needed from CDBG or other sources in future years. Parkway Complex Renovation (Tab #32) Staff Recommendation $18,500 Requested $18,500 Prior Year Funding $0 PURPOSE: This project will finance the second phase of improvements to the Parkway Center Complex. These improvements include heating/air-conditioning and ventilation for the Center, office renovation to include two offices and computer terminal center and modifications to restrooms and other rooms to accommodate ADA. RATIONALE: The complex office area has no source of heat or windows for cooling. This project will also provide for ADA modifications to the building. 11-13 , "1\ Page 14, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 COMMUNITY PROJECTS SUMMARY $226,750 The recommended budget for Community Projects funding is $226,750. It includes the following types of eligible activities: (a) Neighborhood Revitalization/Interim Assistance; (b) Special Activities by Community-Based Development Organizalions (CBDOs); (c) Special Economic Development Aclivities; and (d) RehabiIitalion Activities. Staff has determined that these proposals are eligible for CDBG funding, will primarily benefit low-income households, and do not fit the category of public services which are subject to a 15 % funding cap. There is no HUD restriction on the amount of the CDBG entitlement that can be used for Community Projects. The six recommended projects are as follows: N ei!!hborhood Revitalization/Interim Assistance Graffiti Eradication (Tab - A) Staff Recommendation $35,000 Requested $35,000 Prior Year Funding $30,000 PURPOSE: South Bay Community Services (SBCS), in partnership with the Chula Vista Police Department, is requesting funds to continue their community effort to eradicate graffiti painted on private businesses and residences. Youth offenders and community volunteers provide the labor. Funds are applied to staff salaries, volunteer expenses, supplies, mileage and insurance. RATIONALE: This program has demonstrated greal success in the community and has developed an excellent track record during the last several years. Staff recommends full funding. Caring Neighbors (Tab - B) Staff Recommendation $24,000 Requested $24,000 Prior Year Funding $24,000 PURPOSE: Lutheran Social Services is requesling funds to conlinue providing health and safety home repair to seniors, Most of the labor is donated by local south bay contractors. RATIONALE: This program continues to meet the overwhelming demand from Chula Vista seniors for this type of assistance. The program has been of great assistance to City Housing Rehabilitation staff in response to requests from the public for small and/or emergency repairs. Staff recommends full funding. Special Aclivities bv Communitv-Based Development Or!!anizalions South Bay Community Services Office Space (Tab - C) Staff Recommendation $61,200 Requested $61,200 Prior Year Funding $61,200 } , - JLf /l'd-- I Page 15, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 PURPOSE: Funds are being requested to pay office rent on 5,100 square feet of office space al 315 Fourth Avenue. These offices house South Bay Community Services (SBCS), which provides a host of social services which benefit low-income households in the City. RATIONALE: Based on HUD regulations related to Community Based Development Organizations (CBDO), under this calegory SBCS qualifies as an "umbrella" organization which offers community and economic development activities. This proposal benefits the City in thai rents would be collected for the General Fund from SBCS for the office space they occupy in the El Dorado Building at 315 Fourth Avenue. Special Economic Development Activities SBCS Community Development Program (Tab - D) Staff Recommendation $46,550 Requested $70,112 Prior Year Funding $32,412 PURPOSE: The mission of this program is to initiale economic development for the extremely low, low, and moderate income residents of Chula Vista. Efforts include developing affordable housing, performing neighborhood improvement projects, and creating economic advancement options, The City has funded this activity by SBCS for the past five years, and the result has been that the City and the Agency has become a partner with SBCS on such projects as the short-term and transitional housing facilities on Fourth Avenue, the Cordova affordable apartment project planned for Rancho del Rey, and the Trolley Terrace affordable housing and day care project. This effort by SBCS also has resulted in the KIDSBIZ program, which teaches youth to start small businesses. Next year this program will add to its efforts the Rental Assistance Program (RAP) which is designed to assist over 50 families who are unable to pay their rent due to temporary setback. RATIONALE: Staff is recommending that this program be funded with both HOME and CDBG funds. HOME funds can be used to build the capacity of Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) or non-profit developers creating affordable housing. The balance of funds necessary to fund this project ($23,562) will come from the HOME Program. Border Environmental Commerce Alliance (BECA) (Tab - F) Staff Recommendation $50,000 Requested $75,000 Prior Year Funding $50,000 PURPOSE: Funds will be used to capitalize a Micro Loan program from which to make loans to the Border Environmental Business Cluster (BEBC) tenants. The BEBC facility, located in Chula Vista offers inexpensive and flexible spaces and development services and counseling for 20 to 25 start-up businesses RATIONALE: The creation of a Micro Loan program will strengthen the City's ability to assist business and to create jobs. This program, approved by the Redevelopment Agency on May 25, 1996, will help the BEBC to be more successful, and would be used to assist BEBC tenant and (- 15 ~ ~¡') Page 16, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 graduate companies. This program would encourage graduate companies to locate permanently in Chula Vista by providing financial assistance in the form of loans. The program received $50,000 from FY 95-96 CDBG funds, Staff feels that the additional $50,000 added to this program will cover the program needs for FY 96-97. Southwestern College - Career Center (Tab 5) Staff Recommendation $10,000 Requested $20,000 Prior Year Funding $0 PURPOSE: Program proposes to serve approximately 360 Chula Vista residents withjob search assistance through a collaborative effort between Southwestern College, Employment Development Department, Sweetwater Union High School District, San Diego Job Corp, and others. RATIONALE: Staff determined that the program can be structured in such a way that it can be funded out of two CDBG categories: Public Services and Community Projects. The activities that are aimed at general job placement can only be funded from Public Services, and it is recommended that $6,000 from that category be given to the collaborative. The activities that are targeted to specific businesses and specific jobs are eligible to be funded from Community Projects as "special economic development projects," and it is recommended that $10,000 from Community Projects be given to the collaborative for that purpose. Rehabilitation Activities Home Security Rehabilitation Program (Tab - G) Staff Recommendation $0 Requested $150,000 HAC Recommendation $0 Staff Recommendation $0 Staff does not recommend funding at this time due to magnitude of request and limited CDBG funds. Applicant has indicated that such program will require a minimum of $80,000 to be viable, which was determined by the HAC to be too expensive to recommend for funding. ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING SUMMARY $337,500 -- The proposed budget for 1996-97 includes $250,000 for program administration. These administrative costs represents approximately twelve percent of the total budget and includes staff costs for coordination, accounting, monitoring sub-recipients, environmental review, and reporting requirements. 11- lip , If\. , --...-- ----~.,-_.__._,---- Page 17, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 In addition, staff recommends funding for six organizations who are requesting funding for planning and administration activities, as follows: Fair Housing Council (Tab - G) Staff Recommendation $38,000 Requested $40,626 HAC Recommendation $36,000 Prior Year Funding $35,825 PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive fair housing program, including education and outreach, a tenant-landlord hotline, follow-up on discrimination complaints, and fair housing assessments. RATIONALE: This program is designed to fulfill all of the City's responsibilities and obligations for fair housing education and enforcement as required by HUD. Chula Vista Human Services Council (Tab - H) Staff Recommendation $28,000 Requested $28,000 Prior Year Funding $24,000 PURPOSE: The Human Services Council builds coalitions among Chula Vista area social service providers in order to bring more funding for needed services into the South Bay. RATIONALE: The Human Services Council, through Project CARE, a community effort to check on elderly persons who are isolated in their homes, has demonstrated its ability to make coalition projects work and to bring more resources to South Bay agencies. The funds are requested to employ two part-time persons and miscellaneous office supply cosls. The amount of funding recommended is the same amount as last year. MAAC Project - Lead-Based Paint Testing (Tab - I) Staff Recommendation $5,500 Requested $50,000 HAC Recommendation $5,500 Prior Year Funding $5,500 PURPOSE: Funds are to provide written assessments of lead contaminated homes in the City. MAAC Project is EP A qualified and state certified for Lead Base Paint Abatement. RATIONALE: The recommended amount of funding would provide enough assessments so that lead-based paint testing could be integrated into the City's housing rehabilitation program. Although a City-wide program is viewed as valuable, its high cost is considered prohibitive at this time. This program is required by HUD for CDBG funding. United Way - Task Force on the Homeless (Tab - J) Staff Recommendation $1,000 Requested $ 1,000 HAC Recommendation $1,000 Prior Year Funding $1,000 PURPOSE: The Regional Task Force on the Homeless (Task Force) builds regional cooperation among local governments and the private sector in addressing homelessness issues. The Task Force also conducts and publishes special studies which are regularly incorporated into local 11""7 ¡ /1'" !' Page 18, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 documents such as lhe Housing Element, Consolidated Plan and grant proposals for federal and state funding. RATIONALE: Staff recommends full funding due to minimal amount requested and value derived from assistance wilh reporting responsibilities. United Way - Measurement of Community Service Results in San Diego County (Tab - K) Staff Recommendation $0 Requested $15,000 HAC Recommendation $0 Prior Year Funding $0 PURPOSE: The Measurement of Community Service Results program will altempt to define and provide regular measurement of the status of human welfare throughout the county. RATIONALE: It is recommended that no funds be allocated for this program due to higher priorities and due to limited CDBG funds, Parks and Rec.Human Services Coordinator (Tab - L) Staff Recommendation $15,000 Requested $15,000 Prior Year Funding $15,000 PURPOSE: To coordinate information and referral by human services agencies at the Norman Park Senior Center and facilitate the provision of social services. RATIONALE: About one-third of the Human Services Coordinator's time will be devoted to activities which assist human service agencies; this funding level will cover one-third of her salary . PART C PROPOSED 1996-97 HOME BUDGET The Federal HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME Program) allocates funds by formula directly to state and local governments to promote affordable housing. Participating jurisdictions are able to provide this assistance to both for-profit and non-profit housing developers or directly to qualified homebuyers or renters. The assistance may take lhe form of grants, loans, advances, equity investments, and interest subsidies. To date, the City has been allocated $3,311,000 in HOME funds since 1992 when the program was created. HOME funds may be used to provide affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities through new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and tenant- based rental assistance. In addition, HOME funds can be used to fund operational cost for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). A CHDO is a non-profit, community-based organization that has, or intends to retain, staff with the capacity to develop affordable housing for the community it serves. Currently, South Bay Community Services is the only designated CHDO in the City of Chula Vista. }t, I~ '+1 Page 19, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 The City is required 10 provide a 25 percent match for HOME funds used for rental assistance, housing rehabilitation, and acquisition of standard housing. A 30 percent match is required for new construction. Some examples of allowable matching contributions would include Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds, land value (donated or a loan), on and off-site improvements, waiver of local and state taxes or fees, or voluntary labor in connection with site preparation. If a project exceeds the required match, the excess credit can be applied to future projects. For 1996-97, the City of Chula Vista will receive $754,000 in HOME funds. The following is the proposed budget for 1996-97: ESTIMATED 1996-97 USE OF HOME FUNDS CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1 ACTIVITY TOTAL HOME $ RENTAL $ OWNERS $ New Construction $327,519 $327,519 $0 Substantial Rehab $0 $0 $0 Other Rehab $0 $0 $0 Acquisition $327,519 $327,519 $0 Tenant Assistance $0 $0 $0 CHDO Operation $23,562 $0 $0 City Administration $75,400 $0 $0 The following is a brief description of the above HOME activities being recommended for funding: New Construction New construction funds can be used to assist a non-profit developer or a for-profit builder or a combination of the two to construct rental units for households earning 60 % or less of the area median income, or homeownership units for households earning 75 % or less of the area median income. A possible new construction project under this category is being considered to satisfy the Eastlake Affordable Housing Requirements and other new development projects. Acauisition Funds in the acquisition category are envisioned to be used to assist with the acquisition of real property to be used for the development of affordable housing. 1 The City has the option to modify the amounts by category in the future without HUD approval if the need arises. 11- 11 /(1 Page 20, Item Meeting Date 06-04-96 CHDO ÜDeralion The $23,562 proposed for CHDO operation costs is earmarked for South Bay Community Services, the only organization in Chula Vista to be designated as a CHDO. Currently, staff is recommending that the City fund their Community Development Program with $46,550 in CDBG funds. By utilizing HOME funds to fund the SBCS Community Development Program, the City will free up CDBG funds that can be used for other aclivilies to benefit low and moderate income households. The Community Development Program has been funded by the City for the past five years, and during that time have become a well respected affordable housing producer. Last year this CHDO operation was funded from both CDBG and HOME funds. Citv Administration The City can allocate 10% or $75,400 of its HOME funds for administration. These funds will be used for overall administration and coordination of the HOME Program as well as staff time devoted to individually HOME-funded projects and programs. HOME funds used for administration do not require a match. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will receive $2,103,000 in CDBG entitlement funds for FY 1996- 97. The 15 percent cap on social service funding will limit the social services allocalion to a maximum of $315,450. In addition, the City will receive $754,000 in HOME funds for FY 1996-97. The grand total of FY 1996-97 funds to be received from HUD will be $2,857,000. M:\home\commdev\alicia-h\cdbg97 .113 II-~Ò c¿ -'7 EXHIBIT 1 CDBG AD HOC COMMITTEE PUBLIC SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS 1, C.V. Youth Services Network - Bad budget not clear where money will really go. Reduced funding based on late vague response "same as last year". Committee felt that they just wanted money without accountability. 2. MAAC Project Nosotros Youth Services - Same materials are available for check out from Chula Vista Library. 3. San Diego County Ser/Jobs for Progress - Program centered in Pacific Beach not readily available to Chula Vista residents or employers, no benefit to Chula Vista. 4. San Diego Workforce Partnership (Hire a Youth) - Too much administration. Feds have since agreed to fund Hire A Youth for this year. Too much money for too few kids. Not clear how applicants will be selected. 5. Southwestern College (South County Career Center) - No good use of money. Lots of similar services- already available. 6. Jobs for Youth - Lots of service for little money. All to benefit Chula Vista youth. 7. Senior Adult Services/Meals-On-Wheels - Clear measurable objectives - uses lots of volunteer hours. Good accountability. 8. South Bay Adult Day Health Care Center - Measurable objective - i.e. bus transportation to and from center from home. 9. Alzheimer's Family Centers - Use of-CDBG money not clearly stated. Non- profit status not clear. How much money to administer and/or client services. How are clients subsidized? 10. Shared Housing - CDBG money will be leveraged through agency subsidy. All services directly for benefit of Chula Vista residents. 11. The Access Center of San Diego - Limited presence in Chula Vista programs not accessible to general Chula Vista population. 12. Chula Vista Family Violence Prevention & Intervention Coalition (SBCS) - Same objections as Chula Vista Youth Service Network. Need measurable outcomes or at least possible outcomes! 11- "'I /1'1 - ----_.~ 13. AIDS Foundation San Diego - Did not feel that much CDBG money would be used to benefit of ChulaVista area. The LSS/AIDS foundation food pantry is only program specific to Chula Vista. 14. Episcopal Community Services Outreach Health Education - Not a realistic use of money. Proposal calls for things (e.g. degree nurse) that will not be delivered according to the individual who made presentation. Committee did not feel that this would benefit many Chula Vista residents. 15. COPS - Compromise based on Chief's presentation. 16. San Diego Home Loan Counseling Service - Services that are generally provided by real estate agents and loan officers - not enough stock of affordable housing in Chula Vista to justify expenditure. 17. Woodlawn Community Center - Good volunteer aspect. Recommend that they look hard at insurance costs. 18. Lutheran Social Services (Project Hand) - Good use of money. Almost all goes to client services. 19. Chula Vista Literacy Team Center - Uses lots of volunteers. Money seems well spent for program coordination and supplies. 20. Options for Recovery South Bay Community Video Library - Did not appear to be a good use of CDBG money since similar materials are readily available through public library and other agencies and local universities. Way too much money for too limited benefits. Could actually delay client's re-entry into mainstream. 21. SBCS (Thursday's Meal) - All volunteer staffing. Use lots of donations of goods and services. Clear budget request for measurable service - i.e. storage. 22. City of Chula Vista Therapeutics Programs - Much needed program. Specific to Chula Vista. JI-~ ,,-{) · .' EXHIBII '2- CITY OF CHULA VISTA MINUTES SPECIAL HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION Wednesday April 10, 1996 Community Development Department 3:30 p.m. Legislative Building CAll TO ORDER/ROll CAll - 3:35 p.m. PRESENT: Chair Madrid, Members Helton, Flaugher, Lopez-Gonzalez, Worth ABSENT: Alonso-Massey STAFF: Housing Coordinator Arroyo, Community Development Specialist I Schott, Administrative Office Specialist Hernandez EX-OFFICIO: Lembo (Abstaining), Mavfield (absent) 1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT HOUSING RELATED PROPOSALS - The applicants requesting CDBG funds each gave a 5 minute presentation on their proposals. (Helton/Flaugher) to approve $36,000 to Fair Housing Council of San Diego. (5-0-1 Alonso-Massey absent). (Flaugher/Madrid) to approve $5.500 to Lead Based Paint Abatement Program (MAAC), (5-0-1 Alonso-Massey absent). (Worth/Madrid) to approve $8,182 to Shared Housing. (5-0-1 Alonso-Massey absent). (HeltonlWorth) to approve $24.000 to Caring Neighbors Program (Lutheran Social Services!. (5-0-1 Alonso-Massey absent) r"o. (HeltonlWorth) to approve $3.500 to S.D. Home Loan Counseling Service. (5-0-1 Alonso-Massey absent). (Lopez-Gonzalez/Madrid) to approve $1,000 to United Way of S.D. County (Regional Task Force on the Homeless). (5-0-1 Alonso-Massey absent). (Flaugher/Worth) not to approve funding to Labor's Community Services Agency Home Security Rehabilitation Program (5-0-1 Alonso-Massey absent). Member Flaugher try to contact 7 people that Labor's Community Home Security Rehab listed in their brochure and finally got a hold of 1 person in San Diego. He was told how to get in touch with President of the company. which he couldn't get hold of. The first 6 people in their brochure are not listed in the phone book. Member Il-'3 ~\ ---.--- - - Helton stated that the OCSA are going to donate the administration cost and the alarms are going to be donated by the agencies. So if the materials are being donated by the people who make them, the $150,000 they are requesting is for just labor? Chairman Madrid commented that the way she looked at it is 3 full time paid positions at $50,000 each. Commission members commeted that SDG&E provide similar services and also Christmas in July does the same thing. /I, "Y < r',I!' '-1 . ---------..--".-. , ~ // DRAFT Exhibit 3 City of Chula Vista Consolidated Plan Fiscal Year 1996-1997' //-,;/,5 *'~ --'"~-, , City of Chula Vista's Consolidated Plan Fiscal Year 1996-1997 This Consolidated Plan dtlineates the City's plans for use of funds during fiscal year 1996-1997. The Plan descn'bes: 1) the resources available for program implementation; 2) activity to be undertaken; 3) monitoring; 4) homelessness; 5) IJlti-poverty strategy; IJId 6) coordination. A. HOUSING AND COMMUNI1Y DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES FiDancing Resources Financing resources for addressing housing IJId community development needs are fairly limited for the City. To ultimately reach the goals of the City, a variety of resources must be used to achieve each objective. Table 1 describes the eligible activities of a variety of resources identified in this section, The limited City resources must be leveraged with additional funds from private IJId public sources IJId programs. Partnerships with banks, nonprofit, IJId private developers are needed. Achieving these goals requires community volunteer efforts to raise funds. solicit grlJlts IJId donate time. The City can facilitate the use of developers and potential homeowners of tax-exempt financing (bond issuances). low income tax credits, IJId other tax credit programs, The City IJIticipates using the following federal programs for implementation of the Consolidated Plan: . Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - the City is IJI entitlement City IJId receives an annual grant from the federal government. These funds can be used for public facilities, services, or housing for low income (80"10 IJId below the median County income) persons. 0 HOME Program - the City also receives IJI annual grant from this HUD program through a jurisdictionally competitive process. The funds can be used for new housing construction, housing rehabilitation, rental assistance or to assist first~time homebuyers, 0 Section 8 Rental Assistance - the Housing Authority of ChuIa VISta will receive federal (HUD) funding for the next five years to provide rental usistance for low income families (50"10 of median County income). 0 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Act - a variety of programs are available to fund homeless transitional housing programs IJId emergency shelters. 0 HUD 202 Prog¡mn - funds are for new construction of senior housing. The Housing Authority in conjunction with a nonprofit organization could possibly apply for funding under this program, 0 Federal tax exempt housing revenue bonds - the Housing Authority can issue bonds which are low interest for the acquisition and construction oflow income housing projects. Ci1y of CIuda Visla A1IIUIDl Pliln: Consolidated Pliln l' OnI-YetIT Vu D/ Frmds //-,;{b ------.---'..-.-... -..---- , , , 0 Low Income Housing Preservation & Resident Homeownership Act (LIHPRHA) - funds can be applied for through HUD to retain subsidized housing projects whose Federal assistance is expiring Also, funds canbe used to sell to purchaser that will keep it for low-income persons. The City also plans to use funds through the following State or local government programs: 0 Redevelopment Agency 20% Set-Aside Program - every year, the City's Redevelopment Agency sets aside twenty percent of the tax increment revenue it generates trom its five redevelopment areas to be used for the development and rehabilitation of affordable housing. 0 BEGIN Program - the City also plans to apply for BEGIN fimds which would be used to assist first-time homebuyers. 0 Mortgage Credit Certificate Program - tax credits for first time homebuyers. 0 Reissue Mortgage Credit Certificate Program - would allow existing MCC holders to refinance their loans and maintain the benefit of the 20"1Ó tax credit. The City supports the application of other entities within the City for programs which would assist the City in reaching the goals of the Plan. These programs include Emergency Shelter Grant, Supportive Housing, Housing for Persons with AIDS, low income housing tax credits, and mortgage revenue bonds, (See Table 2: Support of Applications by Other Entities.) As other programs from the State and Federal government arise during the five year planning period which will assist the City in reaching the goals and objectives of the Plan, the City will pursue those resources. Non-profit Resources 0 Non-profit housing developers and service providers are a critical resource to the City. The following developers and service providers are some of the non profits who have been active in the City and play an important role in the Plan. 0 Savings Associations Mortgage Company (SAMCO) - Permanent financing of multi- family rental and limited equity housing cooperatives. 0 Loca1lnitiative Support Corporation (LISe) - Residential, commercial or mixed-use projects serving low-income. LISC offers non profit capacity building and pre- development grants and loans, 0 California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRe) - Permanent financing of multi-family rental and limited equity housing cooperatives. City of ChMltI ViSla AIIIIIIIl1 Pliln: Ctmsolidllted Pliln ~ OM·flQT Use of FIWls //-':<7 , "1 t~ "6"" ~ ~ ~:g J JIJ it~ iJ t; ! ~ , ~ ,8 i ,I l J olJ 'f L f~ I i~i~ 1.ijJ f- . ~ J ji ~ f~ . ~ I ;8 j~N~i~ rI:I 1"1 ~i 1~.! .~:r..~ 1~~ ! ~~::c"'~ . . . ts,- I~ . i~' or 8 =< ] o~ 00 .! ~u ¡if ~~ I U~ ~J mj~!11 . <1oiI >::E ¡~ 11 h f J <A. J . .= rI:IS i 1. ~ lJ 1 8 § g'~ 1i i5 or> ' ..!! Û DC . r¡ IJi~il JI1J 'B ~.5 Jl~ "'OCl Ii:JJ ~rI)~ ...Ii ~tì.. ~ .. ~~~ §. '8 < ~ ¡¡¡ ~~ ~~ U'> I .... ! ~ ~ ... . , .~ ¡; z: 00 E 'ª _ .5 I! CCl I! .! !ê]~ zz r « Do ~ ,~~§ '~ ~~ ~- ~~... ·n ~ ~æ o~ ~-;j ~ ~rI) ::c;::. ~... ::Cø. ::c II.¡;;¡ g i ! 1 J J ; I t I ] ~~ 110 .. .. ... .s'" .i I U:!! 'ë¡o"¡¡ ~~ cð //-.;?,f ..-..--. . , "1 ~ .. _Ii; "'õ- ~ .. ~~ I; § Ht.tl ~ j IdU liU ~ I l~J] Ij ! ! ~$!u ] ! . ¡ 11' 1 .~!ø.:. .~!ø.: fI) , , ~~ j¡ Ð ' .t' 11!..~ ... §- § ; i ~ 1 j 11 !~ .~p]£ =< j ~i-j . h , ~~ ~ ~ J:E ." ~~ 1. ~s; Co ~< ii~~ IJ HU1 ¡. i] ~ ¡ t ~[0;1 ~oa. 11;¡; ! lš.11 ë ~ ~ 1 § .~ <~ fl)9 's!~ ~J oalš ~~h sl' I I! jJ j t)¡: l~ ~1t ] h.l§ !~]! Joat ~[0;1__ Eoa... 'S .~ j ~ ....OQ~ ... I¡;fI) ~ 6' ~~Ë~ '" \!:, ~¡:~B I ~ <:E'-" . ;:E z .Ii I j .æ A.8 ~ ø.. ~Q r f ..! ~ N - .. U ~ õõ <~ jj} .Ii j j ~~ ~ ··QS ~fI) A.5 = I ø: ! e } h ~~ .Þ i1 ð~ 'õ-~ ~t! cð //- ;<LJ , ;;1 .!! Q,,~ è~ ~ " ~:g '" I; § - ~ I~ ~ J t I 1 J I ! ~ j ~ J Co 'B 's l.~ !!I :i]i I HUmndJ! :I! I 'i¡ ill IOiI ~1.:¡.~~i~f;'~~1 l' ~~1 {I.) . ~~ .. ti jSt ." f~j . .6 1 '6.~ =< j 1~ !! 1J j- hifi ( ~¡.. D. ~1·'6 <iZ 'C .. :¡,2 II . 1111 wul >r.;¡ ! 11-1 <~ r~ {l.)S rU ]{II Jt!¡fi !j~ . 1ft gr.;¡,-. ...oc:q¡ I ... I,¡,¡{I.)~= J ëà ¡::¡ ·s 1 ~¡:~s I ~ Ii. <::\!- . IJ io.~ ;::\! :z. ~ 11 ! I 1<1 11.8 ~ r ~i ~= Do. ]~ I ll~ J~ <~ i ð { . II ~'" ,.;~ ~{I.) II.~ 0 = 1 IIC: ! i I . I 11 I J ]. ~! . .Þ , ... Jll J'¡ u'" 'è''' ðð , /-3{) -- - -- ---'..--.,- .--..,.---.-~.,,-------_.- , iii Q:~ ";J,,& !~ i i Is i ! ~ ~ ! ~ ~ h~ ~ .II I I I I i ~ l~ 1",< CIJ . . . . . ~~ .s~ 11 1'"" ""j¡.s 05 t .s .s~'~ ~.!"" 8.s1 oò §' =\.1 j Ij~·1 1~iJ~. 'II!t I Ii ~~ ¡ 1$ ~ i ¡ "I e J e - :s i ,- 1 . <z ~ilj. ~jl.li 1i ]i'l ~ >f¡¡¡ ! <~ i] ~1 ¡ '51j~!1 . "~~.:!!.s .s ClJO ~~ SH J~t¡U 1ldb1 d iE_ ueJI_u ] i.. ~t. ~~ M ...0=1 . ¡¡¡CIJ~= 1 ¡¡¡~_.s .e .1 ~ ~ u 1~ ~¡:~s ! I ~ ~ <::E'-' "" :z. "-",, '1 1~ ~~ J """6 u l~ ~ 1 :x II ~= :x~l u Jû <~ .~:x ~ ~l ~ [1 I !~ :8'¡' !:1~ ï~ ~~ ð< E~ 0 = ~ ! I J l~ J1 ~~ ~ Ñ .9] ði! ~.::: ~~ ùð /1- 3/ .. ......... ..- _.__._-~-- , ;;1 à! .. -I<; "'ê;- . ~š . t 1 1'1 J t! I ~ ill ~ Ih~lUl J1W1 I ! !!~] J] flt~¡ i ~~ i fI) . . . ~I to" fh1 ~l~ ~ì~~j ~ I =< j ~ ri!~ JJ!i s 15 ~~ 'a 1 r¡ J~~ tj" .i I ¡. j~1 lJ ~f;o;1 ! lint. 'a~l I i ~~. <~ lil ~li ~·f 11 11:' fl)S iJIJli ~tf ~. ~E,", i¡jj~1 ¡:¡ 'Q'~ ! g.~ ...OCl'i .~ ~ (¡¡fI)~:; =s~ ! ~l .. lt~ ti I ~ ~¡:~š I :¡ ~ëi ~ 1 . <~- - ,,-"" Ii I z Jl~ I i¡~ is I c>:~b 1~ J ~CI r ~ icl U } .. .~ f? <~ J! > . ~~ ~ ~ -¡ 'i! U ð< ~~ u ~ ø.~ i 1} ø: i e }f J J. II 1'1 ] ~J ...~ .... ,.¡ .. , ~ :11 ui ~- ~~ /-32 , J1 ~Ii; 1; '"&. !~ f~ ] ! J ~ t j 'l.Jj U j I::> . . 1 1.!1 .J 8 Þ~¡h!j -I oC J: f I~ :s J ~~h ~ !J1 J~ . . . . UJ J! ~~ ~11 fl~1~~ .!I 8 j '" ]~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~I sJj~I' =< j jj~ 1, II ]f~ ~ II ¡~I ~~ t ~~j ¡Um i hi ~(0;1 ! -~¡J!~.§ <~ co. &b J! _ 11ilftJ It; !JI, I~Jlt ~g t,,¡~ ...~ ~ OIl ~(0;1_ ....OQ'2 ~ AI, I&;UJ~= o.,J~ ~ ~ =. 'il ~ zc: ! j~ jg ~¡:;¡8 J~ i :I~ <:IE..... z Š ~~ ~ ~I'U ] . J z ~ ';Jg l.,t,,¡ l i J II ~Q !fj u <~ ð~~ t,,¡~ .Þ " :3!:j E~ = ! )1 CIC e JII] !! 6 s:a:: ij u'" ... ~" ~ð /1- 53 "1 ~tf ã.... .. " ~~ "0: I; ~ ~ I 1 ¡ t ~ fI'J~ 1.g \is! '3 ~ ~1 ~ ~ = ~ ~ j n! ¿;z; -!' n-iii1 ~~ .! H.q . < II. ill!!~ B ~ t~ ir[ ~~..... ... 0 c:q¡ ~flJÌ'" æ J ;à[;Jci 'i ~¡:~! j ~oo ~ ~ E II f 0 Z! ~= -= ~ I ~~ ~~ 1¡ ~ t.:I ¡,.,< ~~ "0 . : ! 1 ~ ¡.: l ! ~~ ~ ~ I .¡) :I~ iæl ~1 '~ð · u / II -3~ Table 2 U.S. Department ofHousin! and Urban Development CPD Consoladated Plan Support of Applications by Other Entities Report FUDCIing Source Support Application by Otbe.r Entities? A. FonnuWEntltlement Programs ESG y Pubfic Housing Comprehensive Grant y B. Competitive Programs HOPE 1 Y HOPE 2 Y HOPE 3 Y ESG y Supportive Housing y HOPWA Y Sefe Havens y Rural Homeless Housing y Sec. 202 Elderly y Sec. 811 Handicepped y Moderate Rehab SRO y Rental Vouchers y Rental Certificates y Public Housing Development y Public Housing MROP y Public Housing ClAP y UHTC y . City of C1ww Vista An1uuJl Pliln: ClIIuDlidøted Pliln JfJ OM·Year Use of Fiurd.s //-·35 . , B. ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN Table 3: Funding Sources illustrates the City's CDBG and HOME ellocations and program incomes available for the coming fiscal year. Table 4: Listing of Proposed Projects identifies the projects requesting financial assistance &om the CDBG and HOME programs. C. MONITORING Careful evaluation of the housing and public service delivery system can be the most effective tool in detecting gaps and making appropriate modifications. Chula Vista monitors its subgrantees, conducts in-house reviews of progress reports and expenditures and performs on-site visits to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Agreements made with subgrantees encourage uniform reporting to achieve consistent information on beneficiaries. Technical assistance is provided when necessary, D. BOMELESSNESS The City of Chula Vista will continue to support the efforts of South Bay Community Services' transitional and short-tenn housing projects which assist the homeless and in addition, will fund the foUowing projects to help the homeless in FY 1996-97: · South Bay Community Services Thursday's Meal Program · San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless · Lutheran Social Services Project Hand · South Bay Community Services Casa Nuestra · Rental Assistance Security Deposit Guarantee Program E. ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY As part of the City's Anti-Poverty· Strategy, the City will endeavor to integrate social services and housing activities for households below the poverty line. These efforts include, but are not limited to the foUowing: · South Bav Community Services KIDSBIZ ProlZl'am: This program teaches "at-risk" youths to use their entrepreneurial skills in a positive way. Teenagers are taught to develop their own business plans and to run their own business. · 'FAmed Income Tax Credit Pro~: SBCS bas also hired a program coordinator to do outreach and education people about the Earned Income Tax Credit. This coordinator will also assist qualifying citizens in applying for the tax credit. The goal of this program, operating &om November I, 1993 to May I, 1994, is to have 200 families receive the tax credit. Eligible families are working parents with children, earning under 523,050 per year. City of Chula Vista ÁMIIQl Pion: Corrsolidllted Pion II OM-reM Uu ofFIUIIIs //-3~ . . . Park Villalle Apartments: On-site day care and job-training services are offered at this recently completed 28-unit very low income apartment project, . C...... Nueva Vida I & n - Residents are required to secure an income and save money for their first month's rent plus security deposit. They are referred to outside job training agenåes for help in securing a job. Independent living skills are taught in areas of health, nutrition, immunizations, parenting, and other pertinent issues. Also individual and family counseling is offered. F. COORDINATION The City will coordinate and implement its strategies through the following activities: Activity: Target available CDBG funding to those areas and population exhibiting the greatest need. Activity: Encourage social service providers to work with developers and CHDOs to provide "service-enriched housing," Services include health care referrals, financial counseling, and case management. Activity: Assist county, state, federal, education, and private organizations involved in economic development and job training in targeting their efforts towards those areas of Chula Vista exhibiting the greatest need, . '. City of CJuúa Vista ÁIUIIIDl Pliln: Consolidated Pliln Jj One-fear U,e of Funds 1/-37 , Table 3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development CPD Consolidated Plan Funding Sources Entitlement Grant (includes reallocated funds) 2,857,000 Unprogrammed Prior Year's Income not previously reported 0 Surplus Funds 0 Return of Grant Funds 0 Total Estimated ProllTam Income (fÌ'om detail below) 0 Total Funding Sources: S2,857,000 Estimated Program Income Description Grantee Subrec:ipient 1. 0 0 2. 0 0 3, 0 0 4, 0 0 5. 0 0 Total Estimated Program Income SO . Ciry of Chula Vista ÁIIIUIQl Pliln: Con.solidDted Pliln D OM- Year Use of Fu1Ids //-3Ý " ___n__ . _'_~.m.__;_ .. _._...____. . ,--.- -_._-~--~----.----~--------- . j ! l.ã ~ .! - .t I ~ < GlOOO GlOO II 0 o Ii: ìIí Z an . . . CD 10 ~ en en ~ I ffi ~ Q .. z ¡ ~ 00..... ... .. i ~ s c: 0 w ..;¡; ..~~ ~ .... .t c::: ~ .- :%: ~ I!! Q ~ ct ~'g.., .. : z c:::':¡ ~ w ~ O.õ!! ~ > !:!! t'IIc:::t i~C)/i: !iictï¡¡ ~ !; d f#'ê' 0011)0 :I:%:" ~ it 0 ;J""15; U:%:w:%: IIIIL... ~ ~1 _ c::: ...1 - ~ . N., ~ _:2 - 5 3 Q '§1~ i! ~! ~. QQ¡;" U·- Jlo :> ="... U .c::N ... - Q þ- 0 1:; c:i 0 "'~DI) .~.. an Õ,.. ~ co..!;= 0 >in _ ~U~ w- N I '~ <I-< . "H' ..'g'g :¡¡ Wo ...... ., - Ci!; IDIIDID =- .. -.- ~ - '!õ .u .ø'~ ~ ~ ~ CI ~ ~ ~ :Ii- t 1~~~~~t~ 1iJ mmm ~IE Q ... -:"."cB1ij:%:8> is,'" »> an . ~ ID....Ü..!CD. ="CI ~ .. ZI__ ~~'5 0.... .. . ;ao -- IDCD"c ... I) C -- - -.. I>UI>:>~u ".- 0 .. cy CD lit c.> D'= _. =J ~ ~ ~~!IIIÜ~ ~B~ ~ 0 ! ~ 'S. I> I> U IL ~ . ¡ .. ,~ i .~ 'i J e U ~j ~ lI):..t~¡5;' ill> c e Ii ¡ .c::d!1>.f5 .5... z c:: ~ ~ ~ II) ~.c::o>..~~u~ ...~ ~ ¥ 15; ~ >~Jd!~¡l~~ =~~. :% ~ 6 i~l üõu~o õ..1 li- ~ ~Õ¡~~J:]I ~~~~~ I ¡ Ji~ .; _'2._.:> "!!-'I! 1 ~ J ...-- > I> ü..- -.c:: z~s ~ ð~"¡...c::~g~ E:;&~ ! i~~ - 6 ~~ð~6;~ð~ ~~~~ fff B~~ - .. S1 -au !J - //-39 , 1 .. ë. l~ 0 ~ .E~ 0 '" j C') NOOO NOO N 0 . ~ ~ Z N rÞ rÞ .,; ... ~ ~ I ! it >- W ......". ....... . Z DII ! W i = 0 ID .- .;J~~ ~ W ~ ... ~ i = c'- :!: ~ ~ r: ~~'" .. 41: O,i! .;J .. OW ~ ¡! >- W ~ ;.... ID~O ID 41: .~ ~ ::; 0 ~¡S:.E 00(1)0 :;)iECO ~ if U U:!:w:!: en 41: ~ ~1 Ii -'1 - - ~ ~:5! - = 0: ::; .. . =- tU .2 .. 0 1ii '§ ~.E '815 E m 0 :> >=:: ~ :!ø... to) .- o 0: 0 .. ~to) -'- N ] to) ø .. 0: . ...- :!: .- 0 9 'IS Q DII .¡;: II In E ~ ,... U ..... ø...E .- - 0 W~In , =to)~ 1j~ !S -g ~ ~ <!- ~ ~ .. ã5 .. 0_]", m .. - 0: 0: >- ~ ãí .. ~.. .. II!! C'II U i E S : 0 ~ .. . ~ C"'!e- ð ~ u ~ :! =' 000 00:_ .. ë. 0: co ....0_ tt3 :0 cþ II) S zzz InZ- 8 1ii ~ :E U . ¡;;¡ co _ co - ! ;! Ii ! ë II = ~ 0 = .2 o ~ë. .. 0 ..:¡~ ~ i ... - !-'S. (I) ... r! - .. - i! co i u Jj j ~Þu= I¡~ 1 K'8.c:~~ .- 5 _ ! ~ õ . J! - U ;Ili:r 'E E 0 ! !UU ll~ 1 ~.. .. ïi.!!~ ~ æ ,J Z.&j ~i r¡ .è .. i fff ¡BI- enu o U èi U(l),9 l!~ l~ In /¡-.Ilt) .__M.___.____"_·,·..··.·~,_ , ¡ 1~ .c - ~ tf Q §. > < - .- ....000 !fIOO !fI ~ - - - ~ - ~ 0. !fI .... !fI U Q I ~ I .... ! ...,...,...,..., ...,...,..., ..., DI) ~ co OD .c~ 0 = <c.. ~ i :g .- ::c .. °ffi < ¡"1!1! ~ If o~ ~ g.a'l;; ~ .. CQ i=i ~~.- 0 CQ o=- g if v.> 6°v.>0 v.>=-~ SJ ., ~ ".... ::cu,¡::c ~5:~ 1!1 -- -Q = ° " " - = Q "'~ u:2 cu.; S 'Ü' ~ c:- '8-; >'þo:= 11~ t.>= Oco =9 -'ëN :!t.>'S »t.> ::c c.._ 0 ,! -- set'- O.......N "fu .; Q .,., u,¡¡...,., ~!5~ o = .- - 0 )t.>! ~= ~Q1..rf ._~:¡ <¡.. 1~l¡jo¡: '8:= ov.>~ I co~ ~ r¡~8: -N I " :Ê1J-¡¡ .;~¡:iiJ 000 ¡2!5 "- fA -co8ë t~ zzz "'.,.,Zu ! .2 =- iif£ .. z . I llEf1 ~l¡~ ~ (I.) .. ;) - ! .!IS F51. ! -·i ~uf .. t ltü]'ùi ! ø 0 I] 1·'; ¡.. Co 1 ~.š. "! oB.. 0 ;, 11! r :tÞ '-1S;:; -E. ï" ~ >< . '~Ii is B,! a! CQ . :;: tJ 0 .. a. .š ~ J .. f '1 ¡ l.š s ..; Ql~j Do Do Do .c .§ -8"5..2 ~ u ~ 1 ~~~ uu~ ... ... èi i~ l! \C) /I-.tl/ ___<.u_ I l~ i Æ,Q. '1:1 u J iiJ N > <"I <"I .- <"1000 ~OO ~ ~ :1 8 = ò = ... ... - Ur:Q - ~ I :i ~ ~ MMMM I19MM 119 t eI) ~ fSP c: <.-:¡:: ~ od - .. '1:1 1-<1! ,.;¡ ~ ~ ~ c: ~ ~.a1 ~ If ~ ~ ~ =- r:Q ~ .¡¡; 5 " if -= Ii·~ 00",,0 ;;¡=-< ~!:t u:¡::¡'¡¡:¡:: II) ...:I -0 '=11 8.- 0 Iii -c: .~ eI) ._ ~ .2 ]~ ~ ·11 t 1! cg U .- !s~ U ,! =u'S f-;; < jro- 0.-1"1 ... f eI) II') II') ~8¡'¡¡ o c: .- - o _ ._~~~ r~ ~= o . ~ C'l:l <I-< ... ~ u""g ... 6 0'- Iii ..8 f ~ ~._.~ c ...~&!:~ i ~~S:¡¡~~c.l§ 00 00_ ~ . ou'I:I ~'ii"'" ~zz .t;;zu ! U"=S c ..c C: "'C .!! -= ~ 0,- 0 1 5 .. z . ~ '="iþ",]r¡... ... II) II) .. ~ ¡;;¡ - ~ iiiLIU: B -!8 ¡:¡, , 1t~~5!~i1! i..¡ ij § ·p11!æ l ~ ! (jJil j Q . '¡oil ~ 011,:= - ~ t;.:. i !soW 1 j f (0111 r:Q '" ~ !:~:~!¡! ., J ~~ o~I]I . J 1111 ~ £le! ~ Q.D.D. . ,] il!i!i! uu~ -1 Su i l! r0- Il- ¿j.2 ---- . J 1= >- Æo. 'õ: u J "0 ¡¡¡ u 0 "" N > .. ...000 $:100 $:I ~ N oc II!. II!. -t: \D' >0 >0 ~ uffi I u= ::I i ~i ~ ... ... ... ... ......... II'! = DI) ~ÞQÞO I c:: .. "0 <c.. .. ::é ~ c:: < 1-"0 .. od If 0="0 ,.;¡ ic::i t:)~ ~ I-.a~ ~ ~ .. =ot:)~ =:ii'. 0 ~ CI·~ ;;¡ .. :!SE:~ 8::é~::é rIJ!:I.< 'C !:I. "01 i 1;1 .. ,..¡ . u!! - c:: 8 -0 . 11~ tJ .2 ~~ 0 '81; -~ t.)~ !5~ ~ ::éu'ë; ~U ~-; < 'G~ c::O ¡U "" "7! .. - 0 rIJ_ U~ '1:1= O......N ~ <I- ~ '6 0 ~oö"~j!~" u ~6rIJ -.. = 8'¡;¡ .~ 5-= '·iJ~ f"O ~...~"O - ..101 . < ¡¡¡C>.~ oo¡;:¡oe g ¡;. C>.=BË -1 ;0 -~éo < = !5 .S! B r¡ f-§¡ .f! <I:: 000 -~z~ U fI5 -= ¡;.ãJ:11J CQ·¡¡..1 zzz ¡ ;;) 5 u·~ C I ~ .. - "0.. C>. -1 § ¡¡¡ s rIJ z :> ~t rIJ ~ .. ~ I s¡¡¡1u Ir!š ::é I 8 :; .5 '61 i 8 s .§ i I) 'G II ~ i~1uë 1!~ïš I 'iI .. ; J rlJU ·='1 e~'li11i~ ·is 1...1 . "0 6,= Ii.. 0 .. - ... õ~ -; o'ß.ij 'is ~..I>< I II'. = ¡¡ .;- ! ø:;U '6'60:=81 Ii . -:1 ,::-= U~5~'Þ I e!U .... .. '15. 'I!' - 0.l~1 0 ~~ '.5: G-'6 -- ... ...... ... 0.0.0. ~ë.!.sa.s aesu 'il1i1i .~'8 ãi === UUrIJ -gu I l! oc /1-"/3 ,--- , :¡ ~ ~ 1 ~ .g l:g, < C> Æ ~ ~ ;. < .- ~ooo ~oo : ¡ _~ 00 ~ \Cl ¡¡: ~. oñ on uffi ~ .. .::.¡¡ I ~ MMMM ~MM M i þ~ C:\. DI) ~CD5P::E ~ .2.5 ~:s::c .. ~ Ou ~ 1 < OC1 ~ >- 0 !:¡ ¡¡ ~ ~ t:) ~ t ~ .! g .g ê æc~ e0V,)s;2 ~ø.~ ¡. ø. ~ . -ef'ê' ::c~... ~ ~ ~ -0 "a1!1 '" ° æ¡ -5 ]8~ III~ DI)._ & ._ _ ~ ~i~ ~! 0 cO Ic~ u._.:;~ ~~ =13';$ þ~ ::E 1~ o~~ "'~DI) .~& ~::c_ x o V,) °l~~ ~~ '~~gtl~i~' -,!~ ~ ~ ·j~~.£>!§·ii:!2Ð -~c!:o ! æ I!.:a o!'ë s j ¡:Q ;; Z III . "'~ -~ - {IJ '" c> .s 1 c> WI "0 .. ;; :OJ ) inii~§1.1 ! ~ IJ, 1';0. ~{ t'11'''~~ ..,~ ~ i ~ ~ æ .8 i J ~ i 1 i i 1. J.I is C) ~ ~ is; . ãI .5 8':> 16 1 ... E·. ¡ ;.;.. 1- J~ !~ ~~~~!.8§ !~~ uU~ - & 8ð i- l! ~ '/ L.."/ / - / 7 , :J 11 » 1i &E( ¡¡¡ 8 I) -< .., :> .- 0000 000 0 ~ 00 10 10 :1 0.. 0- 0- ..; ~ f'i' 1'1 ~ I)¡:g J g i :~ tf.) """""""" ~..,"" ~ U .. ~ I: ~coco .- -<c.. ~ i '= ¡..'- :t ~ od I: .. If -< ~"8¡¡ ~ ~~ at cEt; ¡:5 I .. ëo~~ =~.- 0 'flel ~ 'C ;:¡E: :t~:t ~~~ ~ . '=1 fit¡l .. -t::I - I: 8 u:5! i'S ]~ 0 .:- .~ 'GJ Ii t t¡ ~å'S u= 5~ at ;.,t,,) cO ""CU .. - -< .~~ -;1~ o ~ .: -;:1) .,.. ~;a 0 <'-I "- 0.-.1'1 It,,)! -<¡.. ] illiJ! ~6¡¡¡ '-iJ~ g <'-I ;g » I) ] <'-100 "~é~ .~ li¡!!~l¡!! I ~ZZ .&;Zt,,) fI.Í .. ;;i - J: IJ' ~ . rf. Z ~g 6 ·r .. s I co .. ~ i. I 'fi "j] 0 f.[·5 .. iJ · ·-f:t{ I..~ ð ] .5. j 'S 0 ~ .f i ~ ¡.iI 1 JI; 0 "Eli ð f Ilfj ". :¡ ·1 [.81 c= 1* .. . IS. '1! oS .~ ] i 1 ii:5'1 'I a-s t::I:I]1 iCl.CI. ~:t ..'š¡i.š "Co¡¡ === uuJ! èi I 1!~ l! 0 - 11- "/5 --r-- ----_.~--_._-~._--_._-_._- .:¡ æ II.> p "S. ~ ~ I 8 IL> - > .- 8000 ~oo ~ ~ :! VI Ñ Ñ N IL>~ 1!! ~ t- :i i ! .., .., .., .., ..,..,.., .., ~ .. DÐ ..::I co co c: <C'" ~ od .- .- ::c ~ ~ S1!1 c: < ~ ~ i r: ¡:,~ ~ ¡".::!1;; ~ .. =~.¡¡; 0 ~o~o 'C J æ.S' 6::c¡.¡¡::c ~~< ~ . ;5E:&t ~~ -~ æ il .",- 0 - c: IL> os~ ÞI3:2 c. '4>' ~ .2 c. c:~ .~ 1 cE 1-; OS",,-, UII.>- u= .- (,)0 "7! .",.- N ~t,)'S »t,) c:~o .. - ~ ..11.>.... O.-N 'SelDÐ .¡;: III VI ::Cv.>VI Mc:¡'¡¡ .- - 0 xo~ I~j 1j= "8cl" .- ~:1i <¡.. ~ sl ¡ B.š.g <2 ~ ov.>~ > ¡.. ~~ê<~ "~ê So ~ c;'å¡ ~~~ ~~~ os~~ü ! ð '!l~F ~~~æ .. z v3 (I) , r¡ ;¡;¡ 1 = Db .. ~ ;) - ~ 15 tis S$i 8- B .!!§ F::s. c: ~ r¡ ... B Co I..~ os", ~i!o0ø. _ Jj Ð.8 lil§ ~=l!~ JI: 0 ¡~ U'Ei.,2<;:il=G]-8 Uv.> -s.øJ! ~ .... "E'. t.. 10 = 'M' II Ili.i:¡ ·:f1~ -:i ..''1! . oS -!! ~ .8 ] j « < re'Ej ~ D.D.D. ~ ~1 ~t~ s]::: 51101 11 '¡I '¡I . = === uUv.> ..... III S1 i~ I! - - ¡I-II¿- . i 1~ £ 1- " ~ I ~ < ~ III 0 11I00 0 Z 11I000 0 "':. o "':. 0 ... 0 CO) ò CO) '" ~ .. >- ... = .. ... ... ~ ~ c............ 0 tI:I '" ~ DII ..~.. ~ c:t. = -' ._ :t: :: C._ C",_ .. > - ~ I-I:w -' .. = CO"! C ~ ! ~ &: .~ f ~~¡ ~ ¡ .. ~o~~ ~.< . "=.~ u:t:w 'f~e ~ ~ - ~¡l :! i tiI - = .!:! œ .,,~! ¡.~ 3 =i5~._ ·'0 N 'Ii!=_ ,," O'N . · -" '·0 . ..~ ~- .., . .. "''' ~..:o ~ i~. .. >~t~.!, H ... Q = '-... '.. g .1:: ,.. § ë .. , ,.. ....- - ".., .. =~"~ ~~ .il""~~ ¡'i'I!! æ~~ ~o - ....... ~ '"0," > ·ë-n..~"CI)CI) ~8-B.'-i! .. .o...:!:!.", ·-e.!~....c .. 5 " > -0.- I: 1:_, .~ .. '" =.. - '- - : .i··.I. -~.'.fi: '. ~ '1: fCl) o:!! · -:IS .. '"' " ... CII u .....!!. '-" -. õ.!!". Ie . °Eo ">. ... ." C tI:I - " 0 r. '" u U ë".& e oj ;; .. i.u., .., , ~! · '~ìS!!i -.tl}l! 1...~ i .....g. ë >011 :>oûj 0;¡i5.:.." I: 0 't! 1: · =e'~'~!; ~o 0 > _. 0 C '.. '" ~;¡ . > --- h. '. ... - · '1·'~<t '",0 5. .', .~ < .U,u~. ···.ti. I J ~!ë ~ · 'óí"·E.¡> ou.... '-¡ z.-o ¡ 'l uu~~ n,¡ J . · '!it~.. i,_¡~.. .., !~~ ~ ð~~i~1] ~]~~~£! ff: UCl) .~ ~;; d! ¡:'!; :: CI) .. ... .. e'8 i~ l ~ " II. 47 i P II) Q. is I ~ .,.. II) \0 > .- §OOO §OO ~ ¡ :1 . N Ñ N ~ 1I)c:Q I t- ~ ! MtIH,~ M :~ ~~..,~ ~ D/) .. = ~ ~¡¡p j i ] ~:;s::c .. ¡¡ od t:¡~ ~ ~~1 ~ >- I c:Q t:¡ ~ = :2 'Ii! !5 6 i ;.... 'C ¡;¡E:t 8§!!ß:¡:: ¡;;~< ~ ~ '=11 '" -0 II Ii 11 = 6"" 0 '= .... "'~ r-- Q,I = ._ II) -;;- 1:; ... '-' "'- =~ sit t.>:!: ~o N = t.> 'S » t.> rIJ . ~~ 0 ~ê 'S f D/) ~-;:; .,.. o""N I .5 'ij" 0 ~6¡¡¡ t.>:eJ <~ ~ ·;fi1! ë.rli11 . ._~.¡~ ~ ~ 'õ. 0 :> M l~ .11 ~ ..~rI,J~ .~ 6 ~ rIJ '" Iã rIJ . c ! ¡ ~.~]¡: 1$ "'611'5 ~~~ "'~~u rIJ e! U '1:1.._ .. . 1 ~$ ~o~ ga pos~ t .. Z rIJ (I.) ;) .... .. ~ ... i ~ bO."!. 5i I ~i. @ j Iªi ~I~~¡;j ä CI ~ JJ I..; o ¡¡ 0' i ~~:R ~ r:a8~ jl.. ~ it I ~ 1 S· 611 '11¡ is I""' ~~. ~~~i t¡fi" & .... c:Q .. I. .. ; .. 'S, '1! . -s-s 0.6]1 ~ ~ ~ § I ~;.~ ~ '5 1 iË D,D,Q;, ! '11'11'11 .::s === UUrIJ .... ... 81 i~ l! ... - I/--'lt _____.___n___ . . :i = ~ .!! 1.= Q. S,:! ~ ~Do 0 .. ~ i : > < .- ~ooo ~oo ~ °z _I ~ :q '1. ~ ~ ~ u \0 ..~ ~ .. .....~~' ~ = ~ ~ ~... ... ... ... ~ ... ... "" g ..þ 8' 011 ~coco ~ ...:I 'is;g ~~æ .. ~ ou ! = < O~1i ~ >- Q Ii i &: g ~ t:J ~ t; ~ .~ S ·8 ê ..Þ1i~ QO~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ..¡; ~ u::t::¡¡;¡ ...:I Jf ~ ~ -Q ~~1 ~ 0 !~ So ";! .8:;; .~ ·Ii~ 11; ~õ c:O c:~ u=.."C">! ...:I. =... U "0 .0 =u = þ- ~ 1:;; 0Ñ'';;:¡¡;¡ "'I?IDII ¡::.. o::t::_ X08 ...1= 0 ¡ t!< ~ .= t' c; S ~'=1"1 ~ .¡J! ~ i5' .- ~'i ~ .~ c.> Õ< "CJ-õi~' o~~ - !'!. ~ '0: ° Q. "CJ "CJ .. _ C">! ' t: Þ t: ~::t::.¡:;.., E Iã § ë 0 0 g_ Ii 8 .5 ¡:a ~ t] Iã 8 r¡ ~ g ~ ~ z '" 1;; z u ! . ]u~]O~~ ~N~ ~ rI5 II -S~8J!¡¡i1J!~!'J .. rs z . - .~ 1;:< ff Q. - ~i E ~ .. H ] .8~~1l! ~·fi'H ~l I I 1"1) ~ =~.æ "CJ~i ;gr' 'II..~ .1 '¡:'Ii '5 ~ co!~ 8' tiS.5 ! E = t:J E. ~ c: .¡: i! eŠ ~ a. ° "iI 'S I 011 'II -= 8'~ !ÕI.š'i1-I0J5·1 ~ if; ~ .1~ I! ~h:~IÌ· H n ~!;. "UI j~ ~88¡ðS f~. ~Iã ~=~ uu~~ -i Su 11 l] '" 1/-4r ---- - -- - Q) 1 ! § l~ ô Æ=- II'> - J u ;. §ooo iOO ! !f .- :1 o' = oc 00 ~ I uCX ! MMMM MMM M I =i 01) ,:j coco c: .- '1:1 «C'" ~ i c: < ¡..:a:r:: ,:j ~ od rf oc¡¡ o~ ~ ¡..<E!1;; ~ I of fi.~ CX o~ =<.. .. QO",O ;;¡:r::'" 0 ;;¡!:Æ u:r::w:r:: fI:¡~< æ 'I:I¡ !~l '" .... .... c: 8 -1:1 c:- 1.2 .~ .- 'û' 0 at '1 ~ Æ !! - '-' "'~ u .. CI)"- ~ ==... ~ ...~o ~ 0 f~ .- c ('<II c:0 '¡ f 01) II'> :Ci!!0 ..:i .... .5 .. - 0 If '-'~ . ¡u! ~~ 0.- <¡.. '58 §< ~ 1í~ .- '" .... oc =- E~ 0 ! "NU~ i õI . !f0o °6 ct5 g~i zz "'~Z~ ::i .... .. .!! c: S "i -§¡ fI:¡ z .. ~ is .2 1~J B '!. iJ c: .. "'g] B = l :¡ :æ 1·'; J 1~.8 01.1: 0 .I: .. .8~B .. E ¡: CQ 'Ï~ I~ i = su 6 CI) "'.~ c:IIJ ~ ]!j!E =- '5 '5 =-=-=- u ro.....o "11"11"11 81 === u~J! i:: l! II'> - 1/ - 50 , 4> ~ 1 I:\. 0 '" co U Iii 10 ~ tl ,co 0 0 è cooo ... > - "'I. - ..... \0 ..... \0 ... .- \0 - .c - .... f u iI!I ... ... iI!I tilt M .. M .. co ~ 4> ..:I ~.. ~ .~ , ~:a:::Z:: ,:j ~ :.å1 ~ 6 .c~ I C) ~ = ~ .¡¡; 0 it offi = C)I:\. ;¡ < ¡.. egæ!E rnl:\. e = " Q :s ~ J e .. - ! r: 8 iei .~ 'û' -0 U'""__ rn'ii!- ..~ .ccel u~~ ;!5E: :=~o .c .... g 111 '" tf -- '" .. CD -8 o " "1 ~ I ~ c . C..:I .. ce u~>- :a", I~ u:2 'Ij ~ 1 ~¡:r~of eõ ~ ~:j '11£ o:::-c: t.> "- .!! of ='. II .8 I:\. CD '" .5 '13 Xorn ;...t.> "~rn :!ð'õ ....- 1 .8 õ i .. ~ '§¡.c .~ ~ .. --! ~ -¡¡: ., "áJ > ~"'S g·Iib.å R ~ .c ... Q DI) .. -= ~ '1) .. 1:: ~ rJ .. Ii ....~s!:o u o ;.. .E t.- . c ~-8 i.Ë >- 1 ~ 15 IU~ .c¡" rn ~o~ t ! ~ > e I¡:: .::¡ ~~~ ..",z 3 ]1! ~ C>. ~ 'ii!' i :> u ~ :!! 1~11 eJ! I i.~~ .. z .. ce rn _ C>. .. ~ ð ! -. ¡¡ i 0 i' r" l~ . U .. 5 :E! ! 15 l' . "~·llli8 ~ rn - ¡;j ~ 8 ~. 111 f .~ ( I·,; ~ ~ ~ H h~.1~hl Boll C) i ] ....]i = l~ ~ l 1 U :g ¡ ð 1 81.Ë .5 "S ~ rJ.- >- iH "~]I = ~I:\. ..~ -t Do Do !I '11 '11 .- J! === UU I .... - - II Sð im l! /1- 51 , :¡ = u IË â i ø. ~ ~ u ~ Ñ > < .- ~ooo ~oo ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ u~ uCQ ~ ¡¡¡ .. oJ .... ~ '-'~ I ~ MMMM IoI'IMM 101'I 5 .cZ e- DI) ,:j ÞI) ÞI)::E e¡ ~ = <c'" = oJ i:a ¡..:a::c ,:j ¡¡ ou .. = < Oc¡¡ >- ~ ~ &:: t:j!fl ~ ¡;...s!1;; ¡:5 .. i ~ CQ~t:j~ ~~.- 0 ~ .ci~ QO~::c ~~J ¡;.. ~ .". u='" ~ .. ;¡ ~ Q ~i!l "'-. -0 aI -.= 8 . r;g u~ .~'""'~ ~ 'II~ ã8 ~]~ r:g :u c.t>-. ~~g o~ ... CI DI) .~.. "'0 ~ ---'" N ¡¡¡ c~= .-; . x8 1! u :i ~ ¡:: 1;; ,,; ~'ii ¡¡ S I!!~ ~] ._ ~ ~ I .J .¡¡¡ 1:.ë ÏÍ'';.!II '" -¡;: 0 ¡¡ .... ... -cs "'Nt.) 't: 0:1 c ~ c:ir: ~ ~ ~~~gi~~æl ~~~ .~£~ .. II :I)!..¡:: e ¡;; .u ~ ~ !! .c .Õ O! g,; ~ u .. ct.3 .~ .2 oS .. 'C:.~ II 6 oS ~~ Z -: - ~ ~'J::,,; I -= S'[5 'õ ~ - ..= ... ¡> 'õ If", II ~~ g 1~] i51J~ I ~ 11 '5 '\> Ie :ë ~ g't:'! 5 'i j -I., ¡ l! ~ it~J~~!11 Ji~ t:j I 1-~1~!JI~ -Ii CQ ~* ~ æ1 "ìú 111 !0II i ..'¡s,'ët S ~~fj~~i~~ ¡!~ QJ]t ~ II. ~:; Ë ~~j¡ !i!i! uu~~ -.. sã 11- l! ~ //-:;,;1, '" :- JS c ._ I Ë :J ~ = ~ - "1:1 is. -< &tl ~ .. ~ '" ~ooo ~oo ~ °z _I 00 00 00 00 00 . . \&i '" .þ ~ - - :Q ~ .. o~ 1!::I t' ~ Ë ~ """""""" 11'I"""" 11'I 5 IN) .. "'" i' c: ~~fi!J..,; ..¡ ] J ~ ~~i ~ ~ _~ ¡;;¡:¡ .. o~........ 'iii po. Is ê ! ;.~ !§g~g ~~~ ~ ¡f .~ 'IoE:¡t U ..¡, ;!l "'..... r:§ ;.a -c: 8 DII := .. oS .~ 'iì' ° ~ .~ i t. "8! en ~:::' g Š IS... {.) C .!:! ~t ~ ._ ..¡ ={.)o J:;>_ :¡s 0 I QDII -.:.. on;l..... -. 'S þ.¡ r: .- ;: 0 ~ .....on ... ~ ¡¡¡ 1! tJ ¡ ~ t: ; J:! S.š t'.~ -æ'~ .5 ~ '§ ~ ~ 2! ..¡ Ei - ... I" õ!'1: f... t! . 0 -e 11 :> . ~ !! 5 4j ~ 8. I! .- ~ '" >- N ~ tj~5~]~~.~8~OO~ Zgz5B r=. .. -= U ....- '" r¡ = of 8 Z Z ~ on ~ i ~!~1~11~§u~ ~ ~ J! 8 :.J,: j <].5 ~ r=.li 1 J.1'" Ë ~ == - ,t¡' ~ ~ .a I! ~ CI)'I I ~ ÞO< 15. ] -š .. 8 ìiI i.-· t' 1 i ~ ~ l~ ~ i] ~ i fi E Ë ¡ 0 .E! :š 0. î.-.,:~.e I'J ~;::¡:ä! ':'11: æ J~i~~'I"j18-Ši _Eli = I.... ~ 6'J!!¡-' f "1:11°"'12 .II'" 0;;- ¡¡ a.~ oö ... ° iii . II) II . .' 'æ" ~ 1~f11i:~ 1~~l !~~ Qj]~ : ~ <:ä!~~~¡-.~1~~1~ ~~~ UU~~ e~ I 11 l] ~ //-.53__ , :¡ Ii u ë5. is r:I. 0 £1 '" .., u 0\ - < > .- ..,000 ¡OO ~ ~ :1 -.r ~ 00 rf Ñ N ~ .,CQ I ~ ~ j "''''... '" :~ ... ... ... ... C DII .. ~ c C ~ÞDÞD 'ii <c'" od :s .- :I: ~ ~ ""~ .. ~ i c < ~ rf ~~ ~ Sc21 ~ I CQ ~r:I. =~.¡;¡ 5 of Ii·~ e~æ~ ¡;;r:I.~ ¡: if ;:;¡!:A: !II "'- -0 - c '" 0 ~.2 ., ,...., .~ -- ciA: 1~ - ~ ~ 15 ur¡- ~;:::: s"'o cO =~'õ þ~ .~ t'! '7~ U o 0 r.r .¡; II '" I"- 0,....,"'" .- - 0 :I:<I)", ~6¡¡:¡ 1j= U!i <"" .¡,. "~1··1& .- oi'ii ~ ~ '" t.sa .c '" 1 II 11 'OUg1::s'~ -~<I)~ ! ~ c 1ii.5·"; '0 .8 ¡ ~~~ .~ju 8 5 It) 'Iii f'ë 113 .~ jJj ¡~}! .. z ~ ;;j - .. ~5 B ï:¡, <I) :.el]~æt~. . .. I··i I] 1 .~ ii 81~tl~ 1 'Of ¡r~w Ji: ~ 8 ~ ~i.8 lë Iii CQ }* ~ ~ r 'tl'l 11 ... ¡( J CQ 1 ~.~~ l::õ .... e_ Q:~.::s] J ~ ! ~ .1:> 0 .i 1 0.0.0. iliIi! UU<I) - II e1 i~ l] - , ..... / / - .34 " :3 c: 11 ~( < Ø>ooo Ø>oo Ø> 0 co CD CD Z M C'!. M ..; M ..; - .. .. 1! ~ .. ! ~ -- -- ..,..,. . >- u !! ~ ~ c: ~~:i'? 0 .. .- ~ ë >c ~ i = c'- ~ ~ .. ~ ...'g'a : u c ~ ... ~ o = .. > It ClW ~ - - ~ Iii C'~ ~ w ë -ë i.~ CD~CI 0 z J OOenO ;:) ¡¡: .. 0 if w ~!:~ U~W~ C/ C ... CD >c'¡ c w i~l 'a- a: ... DÐ:5! - c: .. c ; ~.2 e. 0 " c:- e. a; i! "¡;; i ~ 1~ 0 .. - ~ l. :I c: u= U ..- :!ð'S ;...t.> ._ ~ 0 "D ._ N ~ ...- " ~ ò 'SI5:U -;: .. It> .. ..... -:'g .. ..,., .5 .- - 0 ~enlt> ... ts= -N = et.>J <Eo< - Ü . .. -" i ~ .. - s.g en ., 1O~.!2 .. E > t:" = couen '" ~ð!~ .. I!! - .- ü E ~ iii ... ~ & ._ g ." CUe .zit;. 'cO 0 o ta - 1ft C 000 000 ~ .~ 0') II) ., If) ø 0 &;zc CL ca .- II) ., ~ ... ''¡:¡ zzz .. rI5 " e£:oÞ:,c.'C! ~ 0 ;:;j .~ ~c~u.;!._ & :> - .- ::I . U .. ... eft . ID &.- J!i .. ., .. ~ .!i~.:!~!i ~ F:i. u ... .. .. ... C/ is a: ·-c.o~"'.! I a II u 8.:iiJ:!~'" i .: '; ..i!~~·~! ...: ~ & !£lr!r~~ ð I!! ~ O~'$O .~& IIi 0 ~ ië~ u -.eKE! c. i .. JI.. !.oòi~ ~ !! È 'i ~ !! .. .. :> i'!~2i& .. ¡I ~- z·- ~ .5 - .. iU., i ~~¡·;~~i Ilf o~g u ID "CI." uen... èi 1!~ l! N N //-6'5 ->---.------ · 11 Ë 1'51 .. D. E.~ < 8000 800 § i .. ... . ... ... .. r¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ I = .. z ~ 0000 000 0 ! ~ .. 0 W o - œ ~ ~ - c: umen ~ ~ -- ~ c 'C C:e;::t:;¡ ~ = ~C:¡ .. ., W ~ ~ C O=~ ~c > _ :¡ - w:ö!: ~_.,.. ~ Ii t ~ ~ c¡ Ii: III C'1ii b .0 (,) f~'~ B~æ~ ~æ~ ~ æ ~ ;¡ £ ~ ~'EI"- ::¡ Ii~ -= ~ C . u;! Go>.2 .~ m ~ 1=1~ 1! J!=¡:: '> £ t.J··..0 :> " U ., N 0 ="'S~"" ::c:o ~ .... ~- ~.,~ , 'Sfr :~~ ~ æ!2oø S ~ 1t.J¡!~ m £!"i~:'~~i~ ~ ~ ..;¡ > 't¡~c:_~= = IDo ,.. o ... .- Co ., ... E .,., II "oE8 "!~c: tD J;~ -;I> 0 ::I ~ ~ ~;œ~Bo"~~l 000 ~z(,)o .. ~c:~., ., o~ ZZZ a. ! 'Ë ¡'§ ÉFË~1s.2 .. fI5 .. ~!2":E.. t: c: ~ - 2 Ii.,..l~t.,~§ -B ...,. u >o.~._ ,... !i C £~~.: !~i ~ @ ~(,) i=i. :I !2..,.-: ~..~ l!i i¡ ~ lli§~iI~¡~ . ~ ~! ~ 2!¡~t&1i~f ~~! £ -5 "c:~~!,8~ -& jfi- ! ¡il~!¡~~11! I J i~~ Ii jo .o~i ~o _I z!g U E'lijls. ~~ = i~¡ ) ~_8! il~Ji fff BI~ e~ i- l! ~ 1/-..5 ( . , ¡ '" is. 0 1= l 8 ~I an ,.: - < 8000 iOO 8 0 co co Z ..¡ ~ ~ ... 1 ~ .... I It ;;. LU .....- ......... ... Z IN) ~ II! -¡¡ c: 0 - ..CÐff LU ~ ~ :E ~ i r:: -' C -' c'- :z: . ~ = c .......... '" f¡r;, o § '" .:.; '" c¡LU ~ ~-1i) :: >- LU -ë i·... m:ECI CD « ï¡¡ . ::; 0 ~¡:~ 001/)0 :I ~ .. ~ if u U:Z:LU:Z: III « 0 })l ~ - :E - c: .. ::; ...s . '" 0 "G!~~ '816 ~ - " C " 0 "'- ii... u= u~ ~ ;..,tJ 0 =tJo J:.N ~ . ¡U' ...- 0 "0 0 .- ~ .. ... 0.... -:'! .- - 0 >-an tJ;¡ ~~ _N ..:I !::!c ii .2 en ¡¡ ..,¡.. æ"'U) '" ft :~ i~.s o~w 'ö; g NI/)CI: :> « 'cO UN iC. 000 ~OO '" U .~ 'Ñ J:. 0 an U:; - ZZZ anZ« ] 113 :E ",~ãi'E ~ . ~ "'_0 0 U ~ - ~ ~ - CD> tD ë .!!i .. ~ . >- iii '" 0 U ~~i'2¡'" '¡O ~ ~i. .~ ... . :jr!~~ )J .t:: '" U I) I/) I/) l: ...Ott¡;'" ~ I '§ lŠ ~i .. i· " '" g~ .. .. ~ =!J:.!:Ei I:z: }.- Ë'! I'! lIt '20.: ~ U . ¡ ~ >-'U -8 ~ '" ¡i §~.. i Iii;'; If ~i ð .- e.!! 'I . 11 z:§.g an ~il~t~i - ~i~ ... iii 1/).... U " g - .. :z::z::z: 1/)-, Sð 11 l] 'It N //-57 i .. Q. l~ 0 ~ 'a. & £fi - < &000 ~oo ~ i III ~ III N N ~ ~ Ii: w I ;.:. ~ 5 .. .. 00..,. ct) 00 !!! w VJ 0 ....J U .. CD ~ ~ ~ e c::: ....J C::t: ~ æ 'ii .- c .- .. '0 ~~... ;¡ .. ::; . c::: < > ~ i r: o :J! g ~ U C)~C)f - .. ID < ïii 0 Q :;):t: .. if ~ 11:I0 (/)0 I/)~< ~ ~ æ·~ S:t:w:t: ~ ;!5E:£ ::; .. - Q J! IiI ~... .. o .. 0 .. ë c _._ :; - š o ~ti- ~ .!! u:i II ._ .~ O'~;N ·C:::1£ '8-; .-t= >- 2" CD ::I 0 ~~6 Ie... u:=: = ¡;; .. E N þ:: ~:::õíE"'ó -N . =~e w i-§if 0 C[;; ~c; ...¡:u .¡;: II ., a:~ u_ ¡¡ ·8 I!! i"! .- - - iõ - ... 1j:: .. c: ~ II:I~I/) <po. 0 !'al/)C) ... .~ .2 co :e óc- ~ -og :: OOi ....0_ .. .- 0... ... .& ZZ IIIZIII .. Q ~.... .- - tD . ID ! =g~o 1u .. .. ë ~ ~~i~ ~i1i ~ 0 ~ . ... 8 tI:I - :; U~E.<: ~iõ .!! ... a ;;¡ ~i - ~.-.!!.. ._-~ I!! ".- iw,- u. I ~i. ]g ~ ..:t: l!!5:ë.. 2 ~8 ~ ~.~ 111! 1 I] :z; 6~ c§u.:;) '<:O~:I 0 .~.~ 3ð! l!!i1~ ! ~! ~õ .. 2.!~~ 2 1,1 ii~ it âHI ~f ¡ I :§.ë a:o t~~ 8. 1 .. z¡j ~~ (j '61/1 U ~ g Ii ~U]t ~8.{¡g ~ fff UI/)....J .5 Ü .!!._ . è II ð 11 ] l '" N /1- jS . , 1 l~ .r. ... :> 0 £1 > <Ø - .... < .¡ §ooo gOO g 0 z a5 a5 a5 - - - I I .... ....... . >- IN> ~ = ..~~ 0 .- ~ -= ~ i = ët .- :I: ~ &: ...].., .. « .:.; .. Oo2! > ClW ~ Iii « ïii ~ ~ .= R·~ ID~CI 0 OOcnO ~ iE III 0 if ~5:~ III « ... .. U:I:w:I: ~ -=1 :> !~l - .. - = r! :2 II .2 II U . =- ... - ·1 i ~ '8! c u .. ..- f.) .- u- Ê =ð'S 0 t~ .r.N ~ 0 :;0 '¡fIN> M 0.... !~ 1 .5 i= 0 >Ln ~i f.)! <i- ~ '1 ~ i ~ .0.., ~o CI. ... .=: 12 c c!: U &a _ CD ct) 000 OM .. ca. CI C ¡¡ ZZZ Z- . "0 eo .c 0 iii fI. It II ...",¡:; >- ~ ... ~ .- ~ ~ - C .- ':O]~ ~g 0> !iii8ò ~ oj¡ s ... ï:¡, -..- ).! 6 ~ð ...'i...~i ij :¡; lc=-š:> ~ ..... 'i 0 ·8 ~ ~ ~ ~ l a;.J:J .e .. .- ...¡¡ ~3 -:§1.è! ~ ou 0 o " It.., g !.- .!! g tit it~ §ï5 .. ~ ",.- It ... ~ e'- ., I) .] l"S. Ë ~ ~ ,I '5,- I!! II CI~.!1c Z·- ~ l~ ~~s¡·¡ fff 1i!1~ CI.B o :> g ucn-' - ... 8'8 if.) l! <Ø N //-59 ---~.._-...~ , J ~ 'ü J~ If I .11 :s æ §OOO §OO § 0 z Ò Ò g It> It> I ~ Ii: is tIJ >. w .cn-_ 41) 41) ..... ... .. Z III) ! w '¡ = 0 III ;¡; .:; go ~ 2 w ~ -' ~ i = 0( .- X ~ ~ : 0( ~]... .. .:; I> t!w ~ Oo2! :! > w ~ Ii.... 1II~t! Iii <.¡¡; ~ ::; 0 ~E:Æ 00<1)0 :I iE '" ~ it U UXwX 1/1 < 0 "O'iJ ~ Ii 1; I ...- 2 u:S - = 0 ::; . =- ~ .e 0 0 llÆ 'i<;;¡ ~ û ~ 0 0"'- t..>= .D .! Õ ~ =ðos ;.,t.I ~.~ N ¡u ;1:- w .~ =u ò o .. ~ ... '" I> ...... -'!I> .- - 0 Z...1t> , 'C: t.I:e¡ ~= -NS ..;¡ <¡.. ~ C:'E 1.5 - 0 ~ '., ~ ce ... > .; ~ :;: E .E.~ õ.!!! Q, - ~ NI/II> ! > <13:= Ò C 1;; ~ U ca ~ c,) 000 .... 0 .. . 'ü :i";caof ZZZ IDZW tIJ If > - i·11 ~ - õ -Š 0 ~ ë c 1;; ca .!! Š ~ o .. 6- 0 'O ....- ~''¡:; I) CID ... J! ¡:;~ , ... ~ )( .¡¡; u! c: u f] I> .. 5 .- .. ~ ~ jJ i is. .. I> c: E o c: g I> ... 0 .- 0 1] .~~ U Ix :z; u 0 1 .. I> .. ll~ .!ëll:- it ~ - .. < = I ~ 1;; i 1 > ,I --].. z15.'ë ]~g- Ii! i ¡. .. æ~&!ð fff W 0'" u -... uci!.9 8'i 1!~ I! GO N / (- I/O . , :¡ II i! ~ .c .. :! ¡.r... ~ Do u &1;1 :ã S æ u < > §ooo ~oo ~ ~ - ~ .. ~I - - - ~ ~ - u _ ~ u~ I = .. ~ Do ~ .., .., .., .., 611 611 .., 611 ~ .....~ C DIJ .. 0 'ii.s "';¡coco"'.Þ t -= <c",,,, C § < ~i= ~ ~ d Ii ~ ~ ~¡;¡ ~ S..a1! 0( >" ° .l:JC~ ~:::E~ø.. ~o(.! ~ ...0 ~ ....~ 60c;no ..= '" ° . ~E&I; =~= <l)ø..< ~ ~ -=1 Ii <¡I ....-..... ...¡ ... r-= -c 0" -'" .- c'" ...... 'i~ ".- = ,..., ° 1c&l; '8! 11!",~ ..~ 00 ~.- ......0 ~ = ~ 'õ >. ~ 5 :E .~ ~ C ° ...~:--.. u....o o r ¡;:" 0 .....r-- ...¡ I .- ï:pe - ø:<~.,., o~ !3 < ~:¡ ._~ ~ II ~ ~ eo .- 0 Ì"" C ~ 000 ~~g~ . r:! ZZZ ...,.,z~ <I) ~ ~ .. "I >. <I) Z ¡¡.1:: .. e:! t-i. U B < ~j.... c ~ ~ 0< B 0 I J as! 1~¡ ~ i~ Ji.c ~ $ ~... ~&: ! 1:[ I~¡ ~...ï* < _ _.c.c ",el' ~l -~~ ...0 'þ Q Do DoDo .;¡] < '1I'1I'ii .;¡=' _ " === ~Uc;n 8'8 t!~ I! ~ 1/- Ccl - - - - -- -~_._-_.. ---- , :¡ II Ii :~ ItJ .. .. ¡¡. - u ~ Co .. ~ ~ 0 < ;. §ooo §oo § ~ - ê é· ..I .,., on ~ u .. ~ olQ ~::I ., ~ ¡ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ I -~ oS eI) .. 0 II.S ~CÐCÐ"",þ ~ -= <=ItJ "'" ! = !-<'.::C ~ Ii ~ rf ~~ ~ S]1 ~ ~ od ~~l ëg~g ~æ~ s æ ~ 111 ....-- ..:i eI)::! -= O:;! -0 " c: - t.I .2 ::s ,-., 0 "fJi~ 1! o¡¡¡~"'~ ..~ !i U- ~-~o ~ = U 'S ~ U ~ :.ë .~ ~ = 0 ....Cel) i!~ ¡¡~t;¡g ..:i ~CI..e:e= ~ ~<IQ.,., I IU! <ï= rg o~ ¡¡;¡~ o .- fill .~ ~ ! 1ij 000 "~gb rI5 1! ZZZ ".,.,Zu ;;j - Ê .. II = tI:I Z =o.g .. 8 ¡:¡, g, U < i'þ ~ ¡ ~ l' Æ s '11 .. ~ " .... EU= ã B~ !'11~ 0 .0 .o·ï lE~.. .. .. 0 _ .. ::I B .II!! - 'Wi' U ·ü ..õ ...'2: < <Ð 55 OJ1]O 5! 5! .¡ .A. Co Co :e l "11"11'11 .iI::I _II === UUtI:I e1 iU I] g //.-?;2. -1 -.----.---~---.---- . 1 ì l~ ! Æ.Q, u J ~ ., :- 8000 goo 15 ~ .- M "'I. "'I. .. ~ ... ~ M N 0- 0- 0- U .. ~ ., I ! MMMM 61'1........ 61'1 t- .~ III) .. ~ c: ~ÞÐÞÐ þ~ II .- i '1:1 <c.. c: ~'-:I: ~ ~ offi &: < 0'E¡¡ Ii i ~~ ~ ~.a1;; ~ .. þ Ii·~ c:Q ~ø. c:Q~.- 0 c:Q :!SE~ 00<1)0 ~ .. ~ .¡:: < 'I:I'¡ct U:I:¡¡¡:I: {l.)ø.< ø. ~ Ii ~ 1 - .,- .:2 - c: .. -0 1iÆ. ~.i ~5~ 0 1~ 2 e · .~ f..)~ 0.;:;;- =ð'S "00 ~ ~~ :-¡)~ c:O r~ .~ II ~ <I:~O ...:I .- - - u.so~ I U1;; 1j~ 0,...., <~ - ;:¡ ~ X rn .- ~ U) < ~ ~ Q, u ! 0 ~~~ ..t'>!~0 ~ .. .~Z~ . :> {I.) .~ e ¡;;j - .. . II c: 'ü t {I.) z ::ä - ~ .. ~ ~.- . B u £-o'S. 100 e .. ij 1 Ë ~ J I cst 'iI.'¡ II..: ~ I ..: .. J .§ ~ -Si = 1.;- ü§ I~ i .. '6. 'ë' - ~ t- D.": ..: 8] 0 $ 8] - - o'! ] - Õ 11II.11II.11II. 'iI'iI'iI ãi === uö~ it.) I I! - M //- 43 , J5 ~ ~ l~ 'ü II ... u I.=- ~ J 8000 ~oo ~ 0 '" z cD cD cD ..- ..- .... I ~ ~ 5 It W V) <0"''' 4t) .. '" '" .. ¡,:. z ø DII ! ~ ¡ = eo œ ~ ° :¡; ~ ~ ~ ~ ... c = c'- :%: ~ ~ rf ~~." II C .:; II ~ t:W ~ o ~ ., >- ~ 7;; ~ ~ ::; J fi.~ IX>~t: CD c( ë¡ ° ~E:&t 00",0 :) iE .. 0 if U U:%:w:%: I/ « ~ 0 '=1 ~ fi1å1 .,,- ~ ell:$! -= ° ::; =- IU.S ° 0 .. 'I i &t 11å ~ ¡; 0 õø- ~ =5... u= &J .! õ ~ ø ;o.,~ ~.~ N ... CI DII ...- W .~~ Ó -¡: IU '" ., II.... -;'~ j!¡¡¡ ,. - 0 z...'" ~;:: -N ;::¡ <Eo< !:! c ¡¡; :ëj'" 6 .!: 'Ð IX> '" o W =- ;; ~ C N IE: ! >- CI CD ., . è 0 ca... §...", 000 o 0 ~~¡~ ;¡;E. zzz r;;zc fI5 "'E !_o« ;;j - c °lCDIDCD&g~ ~ .!ti ° ~:~~.!I~!., .., .. 1;,'" = - -; is¡, ~ .! oUo" ... _o.Ê.S! '~-1 jJ - i'c _ = .t=;¡; .. U ., ., Ë ~ ë .. C 1 lj IE: ~ ~o.,:..8~ " , !" Y U Ii! .. u 11 .!! " ,.:1 .::=.!lu ... ., = Jè.!! 0'11 :zr ~ Q. 'i .,~~! s 0 ~ Iii U l¡~ - IIi I U 11~ .!If!~ >- .. I";¡;i~!!;¡;~ ,J ~ t! -ti- -i.! i 'ii' !! ., ° - III l. ~ u._>..uo o.gg U"'... èi i~ Ë~ N '" II - ~ ~ -f... _om___ ----.--.----------."---."--- . . j r¡ ;i 1= .~ 100 tl .2 :is l. I) < > §OOO .. §OO ~ ~ .. .,.; ur I() ... 1"1 1"1 .., I ~ I) ! ~MM~ iI'IM~ iI'I t- .~~ DÐ ~ co co ~ Þffi I: .. ~ <CtI> I: I-'Õ:C ~ tQ £ < OI:1 .:.s O~ ;I:i Cì~ ~ I-.at;; ~ tQ Cì~ - ~ CI·~ 00,,-,0 ~~,. ~ 0 :!Sltt "-'~~ 'C U:C¡,¡¡:C ~ ~ . ~ã! ;-;1 - u:i - I: - _..J "lit Q,) .2 5'Cj' Ee '&-; ."-' S~ I:~ :!c... U~ ~ u c f~ I)-N ... c::I DÐ '8~o ~~ Co. I: .,., u¡,¡¡~ IU~ i= - O-.N ;:s <l- .. 6 -I:¡'¡¡ .. XO~ Ii OJ ··f~ C'I ¡ '8 1:1, "N~~ ! 15. ~~~ '1: 00 fI5 .~ 1 ·~zu e ;j - ~ .. I) I: fI. Z - C 8 G . .. ~ i: .. m "S. .6·~ ].., i) II ~ Ii ,¡ m l I) 'OS .. ~ ~1§ 1"= 0 0-1.11 Cì ~ ~'Õ .II .. -Ii ·to ~! 101) tQ i* 11 .., õ . -: B ..'6, 'i!' !t 1:1,.11.11 o.~·~·g , - .. aJJ 1:1,1:1,1:1, 'OS'OS"iI .~-§ ~ _CI> === UU"-' s'& I it,) l] < I/-~.i) , i! IË ~ f Æ=ä. "'" ¡¡¡ J 8 ., N > §ooo gOO ~ ~ .- :1 ~. . .. .. N N N ~ ... .,= I = :i ~ lilt tilt ... ... "'M'" '" f DI) ,.:j coco ~ c: .- '= <c:", c: < 1-<"6::r: ,.:j ~ od If ~C:"B ic:i t:¡~ ~ .at;] ¡:5 >- = t:¡CI. ~~.- .. I ~ ".~ 0 ~¡s:;~ e~g¡~ f/)CI.~ ~ æ '=1 i 1;1 ...-....... u:5! - I: .- -Q cu.s .t:JC: I:i~ ::J¡¡¡ 0 at '81; all I'';: .~ Jð'S t'.):: ..c:~ii~ I:~ þ~ co.", N !f.~ < II c'- . -¡: IoJ ~ ._ r¡ ~ "7~ .- - - C:O::f/)C:O::", I~! 1j:: O.....N <I-< .. 8 oj §<g¡¡: .¡¡ '-~'i~ !" .~ ~ ! ...~f/)~ I 88- ~~~ ·C 00 v.) .- ., ·¡;;z~ :¡::s ;:j - 6 :1 .. ., S :s .- f/) :z; '= ! ,2"'" .. ~ &: .. B 'ð. e1 iJ ~ ~ rš II .. .~ E 0 .8 '§ ~..~ f/) 11= ¡¡¡ 81 .i : t:¡ j 13 "'Ii =..1* II t'- I~ I . ~ Q:III .,g 0.:: . Io.S 0.0.0. ~~~ èi === ~~J! 11:: l! /:Q I/-{P(., , .:J = IË .!! i1 C>. = 2 ~I ~ Q ....: ~ 8000 100 I 0 - ~ ~ ~ Z ~~ - ........ Ii: ~ ~ ~ u~ ~ ~. Q~ ~ = .. ~ ¡ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ r -~ c u .. 0 'ii.5 ";¡coco "'" .r:> IÞ '1:1 <=",,0:; ! ã < E-'p:: ,:j Ii d ; ~ ~ I.:ì~ ~ :..a1! < >- 0 &I ¡.~ ~~c:¡ø. :Q<.~i E- 5 ~ ..... 0 Q 0 tn 0 ¡;;;¡ :.: 0 '¡: P'"'1t U:.:'"':.: VJø. E- III. '1:1'2'1:1 i"i~ "'_ ..:I u'l:l ~ - c: 8 - ~ .~ 1 ~ i i .~ -~ · ~ ~ IS 0... ue¡ ~1õ ~ = u 0 ;., .- ~ N = 0 .......... -. '!I:~u ... .r:> 0 ,.;¡ w C .c J::! V') f""'. .... ._ ...... 0 if. __'" . è?> I U 1i! ... - O_N ;::¡ ....:!-< = Ng'"' o _~.~-~ ~ . ~ m ~u 0 .e- ~ = ....N~~ ~ ~ tntno o=c ~ ~< ~~z .~~u ~ - 8 01! .. .. c: '!> ~ = VJ Z ;e .e ~ C>.~ .. e ¡:::-a, VJ 0'" ¡ < II 1 i~ i~~ o ~~ Ji~ c:¡ U e¡ ....E·~ i ¡t IJ ~ i* ~ '" EQI "IV t:: "S! 8 Do~ ~ ,.., g. .S! , 5 5-. Do Do Do .....~ ... VJ ~'" 'ii'ii'ii s=3 _ .. === UUtn:3 6'8 -at.) l! U I 1/-(/7 -------_..._~ ---------- . , :¡ = ., Ii is. ¡¡ ~ E,,=- 8 J 00. t) - > .- ONOO NOO N ~ 11'\\0 - - :1 N..OO.. - - . . ;:q c c ... ... ~ .,CQ - =~ I j ~ ... ... ... ... ~ ... ... ~ DC ~ÞÐÞO = ~ -- <='" -= .- ::r: .. ~ od ~ ~ ! < ~1!¡¡ ,.;¡ o~ ~ !-.at;; ~ ; .= Ii -~ !o¡;;¡s =~.- ~ 6 ~1tE. u::r:~::r: ~~~ ;f "C:Ii !~l - = ,8 -Q ~.I~ 0 . =- ~ .5': OI~ -II E. 1,; u=: 2"'0 ~ =u'5 ~~ e<"! cO ~ Q.O -;1~ rl -þ: ., o~... -; - ::r: ~ O......N Ut;; ~~ ., CI)'O ~g~ :s 1! ~.~ ¡ .. --~.~~ "~~b g 'ë' ~ t ~.g 'c ~~~ 00 Q.. ""="Q., OI!;;ZU ¡¿ ~ 'õ ~~ .- ;) - [ I ..~ ~ Z .. I: .- o rf Q. i! - 0 ~ o:¡ 11 ~-- ~ II ~ i) B 1!"'O ,..- ¡ l .¡ '0 ~.§.~ E .. 0-1.= 0 J ~ 11 .= .. IIi CQ i.;¡. -:1 ' CI).8 CI) .. 's. 'ë! ¡c = .=.= Q:11j . . fI) '51 o§¡.~ .. - ~ J g·s ~ i=-=- ,.¡¡ fI) .= U === UUfI) - .. S1 i~ l~ Q //-?s , . I .. :.! Ii .. II) c '¡¡¡ £Q. c5 J ..,. II) N > .- §ooo gOO ~ ~ .. o' ~ 0= 0= IT> on on U ~ II) I ~ ! ,.., 6o't6o't6o't6o't ~6o't6o't ~ com .. ~ .Dt: ! c: ,.;¡ co co .- <c"' ~ ", .- ::c c: < ¡.~ ,:j °ffi f SC-g Ic:i c¡~ ~ .a~ ~ X c¡~ ~~.¡¡¡ 5 X '¡:'''l OOrn::c ~ 'C rIJ :!5E: u::cw V,).< . ë "'1 11;1 .. .... -0 .... c: e-II) 0 u:5! GoJ.2 II) g .~ . c- .. .. '§ 1£ '81; c~ u~ ~.- ~ =!ð'ë; c .. cO þ~ U :>< ..:I 'ë;Q- ';: .. 00 .- II! I I~~ ;3= - ::E ._ c.. ~ <!-< t · c U ! U .5 X ~ 1í S;;ffi ffi~ ._~ 00 0 ! U ~]X~xg "'NU~ '6, i$.s ~ - ~~~ °5 !:J 5 E -;;;- f¡j'¡¡¡ .s .r;;Zu , .~ .s.g f¡j.!2 :¡ 5 .' rIJ ;;;i .... .. .. C"c-s ~ Z II> c: c5 ]~1~it .' - 0 E ~i. I.,~ II 1 iJ~~1- ¡ ! § l~ t ë ¡¡. ¡'" ~ f¡j' .s IIi! c¡ . t.3~··.81· ¡r; X ï* W co§':::5!; -- '.~ .; iiI t> .. 's. 'e' tU -- '" . a.ee 5'&¡ c ~~ ~~'¡i8 ] .¡o.o. o:~Js] ,.¡¡ X ø:E..u U === UU~ .... .. 8'8 i~ I! ¡¡. 1/-·&9 - - ----------_.~-_._-~.,~'---- ----r . ' 11 ., Ë i5. 1-= B II> :I., = § ~i . g ~ ., < ~ §eee Ice I ~ - . .. ...1 DC III III '" Of! Of! u ... ~ ., = Ð I: .. ~ i ~ "'''''''''' "''''''' '" ~ '~E c IDIJ .. 0 ~ O¡¡.5 ':3 ifff ~ .Dw . '= ..... .- ... = .. I: ""'..,.... .. ¡¡ ..J ~:,¡ &: ~¡;J ~ ¡:~1 ~ > ou .D = ~ = ::E e,:¡ :I., = < .- "'" :5 ~ ~~Ë eg~g ~~~ ¡: ~ '=1 11&1 ÞÐ"'O' ..J III) '= - = .5 ., - ·t::ë ~ - ~ = .- '" 0 '" .- NOla '§1~ 1! j.~ ~g .~ · 00 IJ·- ....>ts.,., :> = ' \ ... IJ .-., _ ;;;> ....0 þ_ ..-Eo..... =0 '; Q III) .~ '" e·o; u œ ~ c. ..J (!; ... A. .E ~ '= N (.J. < ,-"N ~ 0 I ~ IIJ 'II! ... .- ....." ;::¡ < ¡.. >S ~ ~ ~.§ ¡¡¡~ ~ .¡¡ il>S .- · 11 Ii ",0 lÐ Q, 5'6'1:1 _NV,» ! i~~ 000 gg~ tI5 ,.... .t:Ë if ZZZ ·.,.,ZU ..; - g ÞÐ~'~ .. - = I: ==¡¡ fI) Z ! 0 O'¡;J õ! - .. 8 t:i. u ë:tsl3 i! < -e'~ if::c 8'Þ = .. l! j! l~ . Iii ·Iii . šlf! J "II -= ~ ¡¡. ij .., :~ ... Ei i .. i ~ 5"1t [J'" = i.;¡. :.I: õ 'iI i! J! .! . -:a. "æ" ~ --- ...... QI]~ 'I:Ii! '" Q,Q,Q, . ~ <.å Sf! "11"11"11. I:'li _ '" === uuV,),3 81 t~ l! e,:¡ //- '10 -.._-_..~---~_..__._.__.- ~-_.- . ., 1 ! § I;! ô '" ~Ê - J ., :- §ooo gOO g~ 0 .- z "t: rtÔ ~ .. .. N N N uffi ~ 1 .,CQ ! ~~~~ ~~~ iI'! t- =i a!> ~CÐCÐ ~ 'is c: ~ i :e <C"" c: < ~~:I: .:s ~ od &: ~~1 o~ ~ ~ .. I 'fil ~o~~ =~.- 0 ~ "" 'C ;¡E: u:I:UJ:I: fI.¡~< ~ ~'2 ·"1 - ,- r;g - c: -0 fU.i 0 1~~ 1" ff'" "'~ u~ ~ =0'" ~~ .~~ u ° c:o '¡fa!> .~ .. ~ -.... -;1! ...... .5 -- ~'" ¡u! -c= O......N <~ 8::! Nc:UJ XO~ '~~ '-i] .. ~ ~ - ~g ..to!.!:~ .~ ~~~ 00 . 8 e; ",r;;zu fI.¡ . .s;> ;¡ - u .. fI.¡ z .. = g :¡ä..!! ~ ~i .. .~ Isë B ij fI.¡ r.¡:¡c: I I; I J .- ..¡ ~ff .~ II-s .s¡ 0 ; '" 0 Ii - .-. E 0 ~ CQ 1* ;> ~.J! ~ rill II III .. 'ë., 'a' '" '¡> ~.- ~-s -s o ,g lL~ ] . e CÐ1 i~~ ,¡.s ~ u ~"'- 'õ3O¡ -.. === uu~ 81 i~ I I! :I: II - '7/ _.__u. -------._---,-~~_..._-_....., · " :¡ '" II - ;§ CID C .¡;; ~f :I ~ ., .,., < - > 8000 goo ~ ~ .- .,., It) -t: vi' oñ .. It) ~ c¡ffi I .,CQ ! ~~~~ ..,~~ .., t- :~ u ~ CIDCID ~ C .- '1:1 <c'" ~ i c < ¡.:a:r:: ~ ~ od : ~..§1 c¡~ ~ ~ I CQ c¡ø. .. ~ ¡..... =~.- 0 :!5E:t 8g~g ¡;;¡ '" 'C v.iø.< ø. '1:11'1:1 ¡ 1; I "':¡'I:I- u:s! - c :g~., -0 =- ~.i 0 .. lice 11; "':r:: - OI~ 01 OIN u=: CQ ~o ~ =~'S .t-~ o N "5 .~,.~ 0 cO roE .~ G.J - "7~ ~ ,..:¡fI¡...!;; :e= - ~1i! <¡:: O.-.N ;:s "B~ !:<6I>J - .- ._~.~~ 01 '" C :I e:&. .~ ,g -~'1~ ! ~~~ 'c c'" 00 fI5 CID ~~ OI!;;ZU C ;;;) - i¡ 'I:IU .. J/= J!.;¡ v.i Z ... 0 ¡... .. ~ ¡::¡, c o'¡ .. II i] 'Ii - . = .. ø. IH iI 0 l ~ '11 .. ¡ ør !B~ c¡ :3 'Ie:&. 6 ~'11_ - E'- .::; IO~ ~ r 0 r¡,5.~ -:1 ~ '1:1 - ..' ¥ '~ ~:s e:&." .. 6' 0 - ... 0:1 ] ø. .~.1 e:&.e:&.e:&. '11'11'11 81 === {..n,)~ i~ l] - //- 7d2; ~,- "--'''-'- . , . i .. l~ 1 t.~ t:I. J 0 .. > .- §.ooo gOO i ~ ..r;: . ... - ... u~ I ..= I '" I :¡ tI) tit tit tit tit '" tit tit U .:5 ÞQ co r: ~ i -- <co> '1:1 ¡..'Õ:C ~ od r: -< ,:j r: OC1 t:¡~ i:t ¡..<E!1iJ ¡:5 I = t:¡@¡ ~~.- 6 of i-~ oOc.n:c c.nt:l.J! ¡: !: ;¡Et. u:c¡¡¡ '1:11 !~l -- -0 --= 0 IU.S ..~ 1:1£ '8'; cc'" lð'S t.)=: .~~ r:g ~u lão ~~ 'Sf: ~~ ~ _I'-- -. ': t:I.'" O.-.N i~! 1:1 .- ~5¡¡¡ <¡.. 5 r¡:¡aõ ._~.~~ "'1;; .s ~ !!!... C . :.:: Iã "~~i: .. §'- ! å!- oc.no 'c ¡¡. ""C>. 00_ ~ :61~ z~z ..&:;zu u3 .- ~ - 1 1 j~ r rI) z !t .- ~ ø J) I ~ =: t~;e'i 'II .- ; ~ ~j1 11.11 t:¡ ð¡ °lic:!' .II .. c 0 ..ei = l~ i] .·E 'iij l~ I ..' ¥ Õ 0 ~ ~lê -s-s 5) 0 Iã :c = o·~ B ~~~ o:~] J! 0'ã '11'11'11 u}... u._ === uuJ! è1 t!~ l! ... /1- 73 ---.-- ---_.._--_.~----- ._~-_.--------- . " , 1 l~ U 1 ~I ~ 0 U < :- .- §OOO ~OO ! ~ :1 ",' oñ - - - ~ I = ! ................ V'!........ .... t- ~i C Î DII .:5 tIC ÞC ~ C :¡; <cO> .- ::r: ~ . < 1-<-0 ~ d £ OC1 fi.i ~~ ~ I-<.e,,; ~ .. -~ = ~~ =~'r;¡ 0 of cu·.... e~~~ 'C ;;J¡S:;~ ~~< ~ ~1 fi ~ I - .:cid....... ..:I 01:2 - . .. C C "0 . 11~ lI.a U 0 0 ~~ ... E ...r0= c~ uUib" u.:::: C :.~ 'ª ~ og =t.J'S ;.,t.J < C .. N 'S f r ....- U"õ8° ..:I .;: " - ~~ t.J~ ._ I ~ i= N N r~ <I-< Ñ' 8~ g iiCfJ"'C -x g'~ Iã ~ .¡~ .~ ..~ .~ ::¡ C 000 N 1~ ! en ~.g zzz zg <'I;i fI3 Iã õI .. .. '" zt.J E .~ .,,; fI'J ;) - t'e .. ~ ~t :f ijÊ ! os t.J ¡¡ . II .. 8 86 ~ ! 0 Ii ] :;;11 1'~ 'is .. ; ~ li ~.~ II :; = .... s·. is !~ i E.i I 0 i I !~:t i* i.=.. t.J ~1 .... .... g l¥ ....:zt.JJ:. CI.CI.CI. ~1 !!.E i 'is'iS'iI 11 ~t.J === .1:: 81 U it.J l! ..:I / /- 7~ _.... . " . 1 l~ " ! &to. J e §eee ¡ee i !l ô ~ ~ 11'\ ~ N N N ... ~ i ! MMM6I't "'...... '" ~ þ) ~CDCD ~ I: j :e; <C'" .- ::c ~ § < p..'Q .. ~.å1 .;¡ = i ¡&. ~~ ~ ~ .. of =."" ~o~~ =~.- 0 ;;¡ '" ~ if ;¡¡;~ u::C¡,¡¡::C VlII.< '=1 = 'i 1 - ..:cld-- '= -I: '" c c .. ,.- ~ 0 " 0 11~'8j .. e .'- I) tJ-i'! ° ° u·- c ~.- 'Õ ¡g = \,,) os þ~ "'..N os &: þ) .~ < ";g8O .! ið - ~~ u&:; 1 \,,) !J .- N . <p.. f ~ .;¡ 'c . It s~ 000 ! .~ t zzz ë":¡ u3 .. 0 ;i .§ .§¡ ~ '!Q ~ - .. .- 0 :> o!i i .. .. u~ '" II i=i. 'e l~ II .. i~1 ~ I..¡ IJ 'Ë . .. ~ "i 1 )1.11 I ! ~ i 00 =- "'Ii 1.....= N e e~ IOu ~~UHi -:. II. ·Ii .11.11 0 .. .. if'! c~1O. ~ fCl.CI. ð~ 1111 e~d~~ ~ u === - .. S1 -g\,,) I l] ~ 1/ - 7.5 .' _'__""_'_·'_'_H~·_.""..,".··_m.__ Éi B ð 0 0 0 0 0 C c ø (S 0 C C C c -Ii; " - / .... 0 0 0 0 0 0') 0 0 co '" 0 0 co 0 ... «> «> «> «> 0 co '" co '" 0 '" co 0') 0 0') ~ 0') q co 0 '" "'- co ... 0 ~ M Ò .... aD .¡ co ~ aD <D Ò co c 0 «> «> «> «> «> M «> «> co '" W «> «> «> .;, ... «> '" « '" u ~ 0 > ...J ...J u.. « 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 '" 0 0 0 co '" 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 '" co 0 0 0 M ... '" 0 0 .... 0 ~ 0 0 '" ~ co 0 0 ... .... <D Ñ aD Ñ Ò M ",' ",' Ñ co .... Ò Ò <D ",' .... ~ «> ~ ~ '" «> ~ ~ ~ «> «> ... ~ «> 0 '" ... ~ «> «> «> «> «> «> «> «> ~ , '" «> '" co w '" => '" 0 ~ w > a: u.. ~ ~ U <3 E '" '" <3 " -.; u.. - '" .'" E ,; Û .<:: '" - 3 :;; ò Û '" E 0> ¡¡; 0. <3 " <3 '" Û 0 - " 0 oj i5 '" « '" 0 - E .<:: - '" u <; à: 0: '" N " " i5 ~ Q ;; ,; ;;: '" 0 '#. <; :E '" '" '" .¡:¡ " co '" - '" ~ u :;; " '" :;; '" ';; - '" '" " ::: z '" .¡, " 0 > .<> " 0> :;; " 0> 0 2 '" Õ '" 0 to u 2 " :;; à: .¡:¡ '" '" õ .;; '" 'ñ '" w u :::! ~ CJ ~ " u U .~ a: U :;; '" ::> " '" 0 ::> :> b w .<:: '" > 0 '" u '¡:¡ '0 '" " ~ .¡:¡ CJ I U '" '" U ~ ::> ~ " '" w a: '" u '" '" 'Õ <; '" 0 '5 '" '" '0 '" '0 .<:: W ~ ~ > ~ 0> '" '" Õ " '" .<:: à: - '" '0 0 <; '" ::> ~ '" ~ " '" '" <; « à: <ö u :> 0 ;; 0- U ::> ::> ~ ~ '" .<:: u u.. '" 0 ::; 0 U 0 .<:: - <; ~ CJ '" « > I '" > « u ~ '" '¡: '5 ch Ë '" ch u > « ::> .<> '" '" C > ¡r C C 0 0 '" '0 .<:: '" .<:: '" ;;: U U ~ '" '" '" -, '" « ... ...J ... u.. w u Ñ M ... ..0 <Ò ,...: 00 en 0 ~ Ñ M ... ..0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /f- 7~ TIle San Diego Home Loan Counseling Service ..,/ .- 110) f- m Œ .tw_}s ,r~~' j I .( ;' I" " 'P i: ' ViüiKOI'JH'ftIøl I I' 4 ct.oirpøstm May 28, 1996 ItjLJ i J~ - 1996 H_&nÑI/I'·fAIfIIriaJ L _n_nn ! ___.-J C"" '"I'--j' - ::, ",,' "', DøviII(.~ C' \. __.. m. "'__'M'_ .' ...._'.. ~ To: Mayor Shirley Horton, Council Members John Moot, ._---.. _·fAIfIIriaJ Scott Alevy , Steve Padilla, Jerry Rindone and TDM""""" Assistant, Armando Buelna of the City of Chula VJCf.' PrøÜÑlfl Vista VøIk.. Orø_ Mary Otero Gonzalez, Executive Direcfõ~V~\éJ LylHlø __ From: rr...."..,. San Diego Home Loan Counseling SeIVÌce, SDHLCS GrlØSlfttHll BtuJk D"S-ø¡¡ØII Subject: CDBG Funding Application Support S«rø.", -... TtujIt 01 ÚHIIJ Mtwy 1>1. Otørø The reason SDHLCS is requesting $7,000 to expand its seIVÌces /WcrIIive D/nctør to the Chula Vista Community is due to the immense interest of M_An_ your constituents utilizing our San Diego office. AIIUriauoS......._ _ T/Jriftol ÚHIIJ In today's market who can afford to put a 20% downpayment? _øfA.....w:. SDHLCS is the only one of its kind that is HUD certified, Fannie CøljfDmÍII F....øI Bønk I>øMwq s..;",. Mae approved to present the Community Homebuyers Seminar 'lntl___ certificate. TIús program allows the First Time Homebuyer to put flø¡¡,hip 1.....01 SøMtt' _ C~FUøølB""k a downpayment as low as 3%. O,...w......._ Grø..""" BIIIIk Hilld.NI F__ SDHLCS proposes to provide 3 homebuying seminars in the City H_ Sø>ûtgr .f AmeTic. of Chula Vista and to provide one on one counseling with follow Ld JøIk_ 1'ølúø1lÚl_ up to those who attend the seminars. The seminars will be RtJIIICI¡,,, S4M1. I<è TItriþ & Loon marketed through local newspapers, real estate offices, Rtutdto v... NIIIÎINIøl Btmk -1Mtt. I....., community agencies and the Housing Community Development u__ Dept. of the City of Chula Vista. ,"'... (".. Bønk Wd/r I..... Bønk w..... "~/S.Wn.. BIIIIA By supporting SDHLCS you receive the following benefits: ChtuUr Manbør r..,- /I....try · SeIVices are made more accessible to the residents Nei.giborlltHHl HOfØ. A..DCÙItÍDII Implementation of a 1st time Homebuyer Program Slut Diqo Urhn u.glU · .1IIiUfdøI SIIp¡wnør · Underserved individuals receive credit & budget counseling p- S.D. HDlØÏII¡ COI'II"¡"ioIt to prepare them for homeowemship lkM/odDr: · Stabilization of neighborhoods FllllllidlM Spøløør: · A referral source for those seeking homeowemship, M.G.I.C. refinancing, home improvement loans and default counseling. llUD C~ C......dúJ. A&>""'Y We hope that you recognize the value of developing a partnership with SDHLCS. Please call me at 624-2330 to further discuss this request. 2859 El Cajon HouIeva,d, ,"uite lA * San Diego, CA 92104 * (619) 624-2330 //-77 .._._._·.___._~._.'___M" The George G. Glenner ::ff// ALZHEIMER'S FAMILY CENTFRS, INc:.<!) Hilkresl Cenler E,cnndidn Center 1M6 Fnurlh Avcnue, San Diego, CA 9~103·4'106 2017 Fellcit., Fscondidl), CA Q2025·6·10J Phone: (M9) 541-4704· Fa" (61Q) 29,,·10)4 Phone: (619) 480·2282' Fax: (619) ,180· <1432 --_..~ East County Cent.r South HolY l:enter 4$$ Church Way, EI Cajon, CA 9'W'2n·27QO 2011 Saylor Drive, Chul" Vista, CA '}i'JI0·1R49 Serving Since _1982 Phone: (6'1') 4M·141Q· Fax: «(,19) 464·6449 Phone: «('19) 420·1703' Fax: (619) 120·01% --. IIotIrd 0' O'reckM. F(Wi1d.r Oearg. G. OI,Mer, M. D. /f,..,ldQnIlCI.O 31, Joy GI."n~' May 1996 Af"laot O.\rid N. oalr.y, M.O,· wef Ptocld.ttI Judy B.", Honorable Mayor and City Council Membérs, SKrvt,'y P:.trld.'Roth. E\J.O"R.N,· rfH~U'" The George G. Glenner 1\.lzheimer's ~'amily Center Wigbe,f Wiederholt, M.D.· LèfalMvI'OI.t in Chula vista, located at 280 Saylor Dr. is a private Edward J 8.Þ.rman, F.'1'1 non-profit day care facility providing therapeucica11y I..uann C. Øeb.,man, Ea<¡, A".mnry ('AlMdlmttcJr designed activities for Alzheimer's patients. Day care Judi Copel~IKJ enhances the mental, physical, and social stimulation ()IrfI(J,!)r.; SU.~11 Adofn.a1O needed to keep the patient functioning at a hiqher level l&il·)IJI\C.1I1:1h.'1J1 Thom.. A. Collins for as long as possible. Enabling the patient to remain Mlrtlta Em.r.ld Kuey emmllll in the home is very cost effective. Oennia W. Frédt!tkeol'l Mi(lh¡)r)1 'hI'); Uonl.1leZ, E!q. Maførit Goodrich, Pn.O.· The George G. Glenner AlzoeimEH' I S Family Center also Philip M. t<1.1uhor Cheryl Mitche" leads two free support groups a week open to the public MIc:h::¡$IO'Crady with addittona.l free one-on-one counciling, information, Mfchael A. P~rry Julie PU(otr, and referral. Gary c. RtII t Pamél« 5rT'1l"" J\,"e V,n Heet our families and community rely on our services to Captain John A. WOltor ¢.)jole"" Williams provide necessary respite and support for both the patient M.dlcal AdvIsory Soard· and the caregivers. One family member was quoted as saying C1lØ;fm." J~m)~ ßrO1I'\V. M.O. "Attempts to try and connect with agencies who could care Dominick Additfiu. M.D. for mama when we could not, was way beyond our means. We Mich.,,1 J. Da".Y, con. MCUSN Ruth coven. M.D. were praying for a miracle. Rut miracles do happen. After 'r.d H. a.ge. Ph.D. Ron;)'II tlõ"fingt(¡I', M.D. one can to The George G. Glenner Alzheimer's k'amil y Center, J. EdW=1rd Ja<:k,Qn, M.D. we had a ray of sunshine that gave us hope and couraqe to CtHII!IIO~h.r KhOUt7., M,O. Kti'lne' Khf)IJfY. .D. continue" . W¡"ium N3f1h, Capt.. MCU3N Thomn L. r.tterson. Ph,D ~nryC. F10wII!III. M.D. We can only hetp your citizens together as a community Jof) nllmM"lI, M.D. Marc Schucklt. M.D. to serve this ever increasing population. The $10,466.00 J.1i 5IJfJU"lillðr. M.D. in CDDG funds would provide for low .income families who Donald L. Slrobl, M,t). Honorary DlI'.ctors are desperatety in need of support. The city of Chu1a Vista Hon, Pota Wllso., has been a very strong supporter in the past ¡¡nd on behalf QO'\(ernor, California Rich3rd C. Atkln.on Of our Board of Directors, the staff, th<? families, and Pt4ald.n1, Unlv, of UI\ most importantly, the Alzheimer's patients, please accept Hen. Lucy Kllles CA SIó.1.~ SeMtlt our combined thank you for all of your support. It is our Hon. Oelrd,e AI:IIIJrt C^ $Iato A$!lombly sincere hope that once again, you wiU be able to assist us Jnhn Alk~nu, M,O. Oean, U.C,S.O School of ....t.liC¡,·lId n sharing the caring. CI",uI tfetty. U. Ulv. 'au.v I"In8S Ctlfj'jlian Chun.:h F..tI., Joe CanQI! SincorelY, 51. Vincent De Paul ~/1~/d----> William Kolend.r Sher~lt, S,O, County n...OM Rid.nO'lr, MClJSN c.o.. Nat. U,S. NOlI¡¡\1 tfOlp. O.,le". V S:h.1.y colleen Brennan Community Philanltuopts' CWII4III".,.t Center Manager Tenance A. Meador, Esq. Dlr.ctor 0' Op.ratlons ....... JudiNeubuuer Director of Dew.topmen' A nonprofit, tax exempt organization dF.!dìr:Ht~d 10 Family SONlce and Resenrr.h. Judy Du'gu~~ Director 0' Training Afflllafed with the Unlv.,slty 01 Call1ornia, San Diøgo, School or Medicine. Jean MasOr' Slthman. M.A.. A.C.C. Z : lid tZ:IU %/E8/98 þl:J(-þl:J / /-7f' fiq 'J.uas x"J : "H __. _.__.__~._., ITEM 13 Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING This analysis recommends that actual conveyance occur as follows: The applicant shall convey fee title, or upon the consent of the POM an easement restrictinq use of the land to those permitted bv the RMP. to the POM upon the recordation of each final map for an amount of land equal to the final map's obligation to convey land to the Preserve. Where an easement is conveved.the applicant shall be required to provide the necessarv consent and subordination of anv prior lien holders in order to ensure that the POM has a first prioritv interest in such land. Where fee title or an easement is conveved. eEach fiHal tentative map shall be subject to a condition that the subdivider shall execute a maintenance agreement with the POM stating that it is the responsibility of the applicant to maintain the conveyed parcel until the Habitat Maintenance District has generated sufficient revenues to enable the POM to assume maintenance responsibilities. Where an easement is qranted. each final tentative map is subiect to a condition that fee title shall be qranted upon demand bv the POM. ·...ReR tRe Habitat J1aiRtoßafiÐc Ðiûtriet has ercßcratcà û1affie.icRt rc~..."cnucato e.Aaèle 'the ran te aaûum.c maifltcflarlee rCÐ130nûibility. Otay Ranch Page 65 February 5, 1996 //- 7<7 ^~-".._,."'.~,....._,.-_._-_......- ITEM 13 CONDITION NO. 69 The applicant shall convey fee title, or upon the consent of the POM an easement restrictinq use of the land to those permitted bv the RMP. to the POM upon the recordation of each final map for an amount of land equal to the final map's obligation to convey land to the Preserve. Where an easement is conveved. the applicant shall be required to provide the necessarv consent and subordination of anv prior lien holders in order to ensure that the POM has a first prioritv interest in such land. Where fee title or an easement is conveved. eBach fißal tentative map shall be subject to a condition that the subdivider shall execute a maintenance agreement with the POM stating that it is the responsibility of the applicant to maintain the conveyed parcel until the Habitat Maintenance District has generated sufficient revenues to enable the POM to assume maintenance responsibilities. Where an easement is conveved. each fiflal tentative map is sub; ect to a condition that fee title shall be qranted upon demand bv the POM. .¡hCR the Haeitat t!aißtCrlaR6C Ðiotriet has Efcflcratcà s'=1fficicRt re7Cßuca te cRable t.he ran ta aOÐ101JftC maißtcRaflec rC91gefloibilitv. I/-g¿; ·T·_···~ RESOLUTION '~.3/~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR FY 1996-1997 INCLUDING BOTH THE FY 1996-97 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSillP (HOME) PROGRAM BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE FY 1996-97 CONSOLIDATED PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (IRJD) WHEREAS, Ihe City of Chula Vista has prepared a Consolidated Plan for FY 1996-97 per HUD Rules and Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Cily of Chula Vista will receive a 1996-97 CDBG entitlement of $2,103,000; and WHEREAS, Ihe City of Chula Vista will receive $754,000 in HOME funds for FY 1996- 97; and WHEREAS, Ihe City has followed its Cilizen Participation Plan and held a public hearing on housing and community development needs on May 7, 1996; and WHEREAS, Ihe City has prepared Ihe Community Development'Plan and has detennined that all of Ihe proposed activities are consistent wiIh said Plan and meet Ihe CDBG national objectives to benefit primarily low-income households or aid in the prevention of slums and blight; and WHEREAS, Ihe City has determined that it is necessary and appropriate to fund special activities by certain subrecipients to implement neighborhood revitalization and community economic development projects in order to meel the goals and objectives of the Communily Development Plan. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby Ïmd, order, detennine and resolve the approval of Ihe Consolidated Plan for FY 1996-97 (on file in Ihe City Clerk's Office and known as Document No. 95-278), Ihe "Staff Recommendation" as set forth in Ihe proposed FY 1996-97 CDBG Staff Recommendations (Exhibit A), and HOME budgets (Exhibit B) copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein. BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED Ihat Ihe City Council of the City of Chula Vista approves the Communily Development Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Development Director is auIhorized to transmit Ihe Consolidated Plan for FY 1996-97 to Ihe U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). PRESENTED BY: :f! Chris Salomone ruce M. Boogaard Community Development Director City Attorney /1-11 ........". --- --- ------------- c::z:: __ _ ~o 0008 00000 0 00 oooogoo~o __ ~ ~~ ~~OO 00000 m 00 owaO~0oN~ _ W M 0 ~ OOOlOlO 1.0 00 a 00 Þ OJ -v ~ 0ø ~ ID~ OID~~Ñ ~ Nm å IDÔ~ Ñ~~ ~ Zz 0 ~ ~~~~~ M ~~ 00 ~~~ ~~~ ~ w...... ~ ER- ER- Eo'tER- C"') ::::c :;: 15 ... ... :;:2 >< O~ bJ¡."I u W a:: :;: - < Z 00 0000 OOIDNO 0 00 0800000l.OM ~ Q gEA- EA-gEA-~ gg~~g ~ gw g~gggEA-g~~ (! Uf- - - - - - - . - - - -M - - - - - - o ~~ 0 "I:t M ......NOOJM 0 M 0wMom lOIDM ~ ~O ~ fA- fA- ~~~EA-EA- ~ fA- ~ ~~0 ER-0g ~ ÕZ fA- f- OW z :r::;: ó1! 0 t5 (! c( U ~ W U a:: o æ IDO ~o 0000 MOOlON 0 OlO OOOOOlOOlOOO mW "I:tEA- EA-EA-EA-O lONlOIDO m lOM OEA-QJM~EA-NEA-ID 0 f-z ~~ ~ ~ ~q~q~ lO ~~ q ~~~ ~ ~ .~ m~...... M O~l.OvlO ...... lOW 0 IDO~ N OJ ~ W mO 0 fA- ......EA-EA-EA-EA- M EA-EA- OJ .................. fA- 0 & 0 ~ ......0 ...... fA- fA- fA- EA-EA-EA- M W 1.0 D.....JEA- EA- -"I:t o ~-' r¡ on- ...J « 0 M w 0 ... > 0 .. W ~~ 00 00000 OOONa 0 01.{) NOOOOaOI.ON Ö 00 Q ~OO 00 OlOOQ OONOJO a OM "¢OOOOJOOOJO ...... ~ IDw 00 o~o...... OON......I.{) 0 OV ~OQJOQJOOI.ON fA- 00 > ~~ åÑ ~Ñò~ ÑÑÑm~ å ow Ñ~Ñömå~ID~ ~ w ~ Wo NEA- ............Nfh ...................EA-EA- v ......fh OEA-NN............W......QJ _ ~ Z...... ...... EA-EA-EA- ER-EA-EA- fA- fA- ...... EA-EA-EA-EA- EA-v 0 0 :J >W fA- fA- fA- "C W ::¡; U. a:: c: a:: '" :;: ~ W o 0 U U 0 - o > ,... <Ô c::: en ... W ~ - CIJ , w U :g ~ - ~ - ...J ... ~ [!J > ., :::> LL (f) a. I _ ~ £ ~ l' ã:' S ü :gO :!!: <3 .§: E a.~ C 0.... cnu."'. ~.,-' Z:;$?, C Q) - 0 CD :J ~ -_ ï:: æ tJ) C CD -g «" LL S WUO> ~ 1ü ~ 0 :] -1 C :ß~U s Eo '2: 'C 4: W en ~ ......... C) - 0 ., c:- ., > w......, -- 0 ., c:. ..,- Q) ,,, .... ...J _ C - ~c 00 .- ~ C) (f)m ~ _ ~ C)::¡ ~ (ij.2 CD !Ii! a:: §¡ ~.g.u muic( '" 2 ,E~ c:- ~ w., 2 ::æ W ~ .e ~ I ~ 8;¡; (f) ffi æ c: æ ...J ~ g ëã [.0 ëi O rn Z CÞQ)Q) '::;:Ct»Õ > CJ)o co ._~Q) e.a z " .cc:'" "I:.C: ., _.- "'.- -'>"" ^ ~ o ......, (/) 0ta> OQ)Q)£........ o~ o.~ I~ ~~- W ~ Q) ~m~ ·~cn~~2 a.. cO uo~g2~tJ) Q)~ ~ a::: ~.~ D:::1l.() Q)Q) .05] ~ .Q-5 c-cro-g.alã".2 ~c: ~ a. ~õ ~~E= (f)~(!:r:u c: roW ~",:r:a.~'C~ œ~ c( cn.~ O....Q)~ ~Q)Q)~.,cn ~ ~c:£ ...J1l.~mc~Q)c. .c0E:;: o ~ ->- C) en 0 ~,^ C.,--~ _ ~.... c~(/) ~~""~Q) ">- :]m v~Q)~~(/)....~<t'I me X ~Il. ~....Q),- <....o~o Om a..E~05Q)~ø =0 0 au og~.e 5a..~cn~ ~ ~I Oo~~<u~w~ 8~ a::: >c( u>_w .-"" , ï~ (f)rJ¡ u:r:o'-;;;'uf- a. >~ ooS~ ~~~~~ '" gu >og~È~[!J>u ô~ ~ u~ (f)(f)(f)~ (f)C(f--'f- u. C(W U(f»-,U~(f) ~~ ~ .. .... .. .d~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ci~~ ~N M~~ID ~rom~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~NNN Il-ß -- .... . -~.._. .-.-'.- c 00000000000 oooaoagg 00000008 8' W ~ooo~oaoooo aoo~~oo~ oaoo~oa~ 0 <DOO oaONlO('t) CONI,{) 0 ~ ~ 001.00 00 ~ _ °zø ri~ro å~Ö~roM ~~~ID ó~re ooro~~ ~å~ a z ('t)N~ l,{)~vN~N MNCDv I,{)~N ('t)N~~ ~I,{)('t) ~ w_ ~~~ ~~~m~N ~000 0 0 00 0N0- ;2Q 0 tR- ...... _ 0 N ~z 0 ~ 0 0:J oLL W a:: Zoo 0 000 o 0 1ft 0 OOER- ¡::: ~ ~ LO~O_ - V <D I,{)...... ;:!:; N M tß-yt ~ "'''' OZ 4;W :J:::¡; ::¡; o o W a:: I--- (DO 000000001.00 000000 lOoaaooN mW ututtß-tß-tß-OOONtß- 000000 NOOOtß-OO ~~ aOON aONCD 0 ~OIOO ON m~ å~ÖM Ò~~M 0 ~~~~ ~~ mü lO 01.0 I,{) MNCDN I,{) MNuttß-......Ø ......0 yt......ytm uttß-ER-tß- tß- ytut 0...... ....J yt tß- tß- t~ ~ 4; '-- O>~~ OOOOMOOOOOM OOONce N CDOOOOOOCD ('t) .00 ooooooo~oov 000......00...... NooooaON ø O>CDW ......_0_0.0.('1').0_0. _"'-1.0.1,{). O_~"'-T"'_a_o_ M. cc_a_o_~a_qo_~ CD_ II) O>~ ......OOroCDOv......vroM I.Ov......OOlO I,{) OØO......l.OlOoœ ('t) ~ O tß-I.OØ......rol.O............N......1.O MN<D~I.O~...... vNI.00............0v a 0 -w N......tß-tß-tß-__myt~ tß-tß-ytyt......yt v ytytyt yt0NM a .a >- utut tß-yttß-,.... yt tß- ER-fßo M U)$ ~æ 0 tß- ~~ .a_ WO ....J ...J ....J ...J :::?i:8 4; 4; <I; <I; o' f'- f'- f'- f'- J: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡¡~ OJ CD oo.t:ü :J => =>~"'CI en en en 8; 00 ~ -0 ° NO - Q:' m ~ID c. c: ri~ E ~ O<C :.a Ncn c: m U ~ ~~ en o~(/) ~ - 0 g õ'- ~ '--E(/) œ ~ ~ ~o ~ O ~= Q~ 0 m 0 c: CD() ~ 0 C ~ ~ C\I m 0(1,) w =mEa> O-{j' c: - ~E~c æu ..., ..c- ..cLLmE ~c Om (!) E~CD>.Q ãiD 0- U m->m Cw '-O~UJ-,C::J: a:::: rn .=! - ~ .c: 0 0 > c m œ ~ Z 8!. LL::J ~ CI C)Q. a. >oc:ow°c..e ~ E« w z ~mC:1i) .5.5'" °E~o£a:::O-Ea. m a.w ~ Z 13~(/)Q)m.- 'O'O~ a.. W+'LL.I-E > en £0 m <c cW('I]"II::E.E ~~c: - wEm œx _ 0 W·- U ~ ::J(/)~~::JE ~~::J: ° a:::wi!;E:s:!.!2.g~ ffi t; (ij~ ã;~ I a. oÆUJUJ:I:-c õõ~ (¡;Oc:ð(Da.ã5~ c::: w i!;o cÆ CD -x _0-c:ßmEC« cc'O .-c:w IE '- ..., E..c œ- ""V '-UJ _ O. .Q.QC I:::Q)C::: I ~o I en- '0 .c:1:'~:=>. Q) Z gCDmWO+,co 1::1::.2 '" Q ~ Q 0 UJ X Q) c> Q .- ~- = 0 E 0 ca ~ 0 0 () (D L. œ..... ~ c: I m c::: C:::.- c: c: 0 0 ::J .- ...J 0 '5 CD (/) Q. Q.,C r--c::JC:uo - a. wC:::::J::J U - O~I 0'-·- C)C) I 'ã50~:;:I:;:Ij9Ea. EZwEE ~ OQ)~:I: g> mm.E 55<3I.!!1.c:~~8ð~ ~ ~g~~E ~ èi g>en.~~~a::::~ 88~ _~~~~~:.a€~O Z øioo8 1i) ~ ·æ~e§§~.c:o ~~~ o(:UJ CD O::Jm>- => 1(.)11 W - ::JEa.»~ ææE .i?:'en.2cð:J: ~::¡;oa.!¡1 ::¡; en' enen-E4;~ ~ ~~o"''''&õ ~~E C:OO"'en-4;4;>-.5<: ::¡; OenOOoO- ::¡; ~~4;22 0.0.8 5aJ>ì5'o¡{Joo.J9èü 0 aJenaJaJ-gw5 0 ïõ>~'ëï=>~ æææ oenOaJww4;4;Oa. 0 en~enen~aJen 4; LLO~:J:JOO M -q: ..0 cD r---: aj 0) 0 ~ N . . . . . . . ". . . . ___ C\I N N N N N N ('t') ('I') ('t) « (D ü c W LL 10 ø :I: ....: ..., :x::: ...J :! ~£i!2 ) ( -C- EXHIBIT B 1996-97 HOME FUNDS BUDGET Activity Total Home$ Rental$ Owner$ New Construction $327,519 $327,519 $0 Substantial Rehab $0 $0 $0 01her Rehab $0 $0 $0 Acquisition $327,519 $327,519 $0 Tenant Assistance $0 $0 $0 CHDO Operation $23,562 $0 $0 Cily Administration $75,400 $0 $0 Jt-b ,', "I' \.-,¡ -, ~.__..~ ....~.._,,_.- .._.~_.'-'---'- .'....---- EXIDBIT C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FY 1996-97 The City of Chula Vista will utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds primarily to benefit low and moderate income persons based on the needs, goals, and objectives established in this Community Development Plan. A minimum of 70% of the funding will be utilized for this purpose. NEEDS: The City has identified the following community development needs: 1. To revitalize and improve deteriorating neighborhoods. 2. To provide adequate public facilities throughout the community. 3. To expand economic opportunities 4. To presèrve, improve, and increase the supply of affordable housing. 5. To enhance the provision of human services. GOALS: The City shall: 1. Plan, design, and construct capital improvements in deteriorating neighborhoods. 2. Construct public facilities, such as parks, libraries, and community centers in neighborhoods deficient in such facilities. 3. Assist in the provision of human services to senior citizens, youth, and families in need. 4. Promote decent and affordable housing for all residenls and prevent housing discrimination. OBJECTIVES: 1. Provide assistance 10 organizations serving the varied needs of senior citizens, including housing, nutrition, health, transportation, and related services. 2. Provide assislance to organizations which provide counseling and support to adults recovering from substance abuse or involved in domestic violence. 3. Provide assistance to organizations which provide basic needs assistance and/or assist people who are homeless, unemployed, or disabled to become self- sufficient. 4. Provide assistance 10 organizations serving the varied needs of youth and their families, including prevention and counseling programs for substance abuse, child àbuse, and juvenile delinquency. 5. Provide assistance to organizations which promote adult literacy, 6. Conslruct public improvements to alleviate public hazards and revitalize deteriorating neighborhoods, including street, drainage, and lighting improvements. 7. Construct public improvements to enhance the quality of life for residents , including parks, community centers, libraries, and other public facilities. 8. Promote small businesses and the creation of jobs through planning studies, infrastructure improvement, technical assistance, and financial programs. 9. Provide assistance to neighborhood and community based organizations 10 initiate neighborhood revilalization, economic development, and affordable housing programs, 10. Furnish fair housing information, counseling, testing and mediation services. II-Ç ,\ c( _.._.,~ -~.__.._-- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item /.,2, Meeting Date 6/4/96 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-94-04; Consideration of a street name change for the segment of East Orange A venue between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road. Resolution approving a street name change for the segment of East Orange A venue between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road to "Olympic P"kw.y" tÎf SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~" ,(,<It (:;~d'v REVIEWED BY: City Managelt! ~ ~ì (4/5ths Vote: Yes No ---X) City staff and EastLake representatives are still in the process of negotiating proposed amendments to the "Nypro Agreement". Therefore, staff is recommending that this item be continued indefInitely. Once amendments are completed and signed by EastLake Development Company, this item will be readvertised. However, if the negotiations are not concluded within 60 days from the date of this memorandum, staff will prepare a project status report for Council information. lol - / /)!' P:'. ) · CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMO Item:.ll Meeting Date: June 4. 1996 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: John Go§, City Mæmg~¡jt1-o ~ FROM: -----' Jerry Jamriska, Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch . SUBJECT: Otay Ranch SPA One Plan ISSUE: SPA One Errata and Updated Conditions of Approval BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: Staff has identified six minor amendments to the project that need to be included in the approvals based on the current proposed project and City Council direction given in the tentative decisions reached at the May 14 and 28, 1996 Council meetings. These changes are necessary to reflect the current project recommended for adoption by the City Council. Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) Errata The current Biota Monitoring Program is based on a calendar year starting in 1996, This proposed errata to the Phase 2 RMP starts the first year of the monitoring program ITom the adoption of the SPA One Plan instead of January of this year. The errata proposes that the yearly tasks be initiated ITom the SPA One date of approval. Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) Errata The PFFP needs to be amended to reflect the trigger points for on-site improvements of Paseo Ranchero, La Media and East Orange Avenue as required in the Conditions of Approval, This errata gives the City Engineer the authority to adjust improvement requirements based on the trigger points and not on phases as currently proposed in the PFFP. Condition #31, Neighborhood Park This modification to Condition #31 places a time limit of six months on the construction of the first phase of the first neighborhood park. It allows the project applicant to continue to pull building permits during that six month period after which they cannot have a deficit in neighborhood park acreage and improvements. The modification addresses a concern raised by the project applicant. CC64MEM.DOC /3-} I "Þ',' _n__" -------~-_.-..,.- --..-".- Condition #44, Reserve Fund Program Condition #44 requires that the reserve fund program be established and indicates negotiations are in progress on the Tax Agreement. The errata indicates the Tax Agreement negotiations have been complete and the reserve fund program established. Condition #45, High School Site Identification This amendment to Condition #45 reflects the modifications agreed to by the Sweetwater Union High School District that were presented to the City Council last week. The condition requires City action on a General Development Plan Amendment to move the high school site from Village Seven to the area west of Pas eo Ranchero in Village One or the northern portion of Village Two prior to 1,400 dwelling units. In addition, the requirement to deliver the school site by 2,650 units has been modified to allow the district to request the site earlier, but not before 1,800 units. Floating Community Purpose Facility (CPF) Site in Neighborhood R-15 At the May 14, 1996 City Council hearing, staff indicated that, in reviewing the tentative map for SPA One, we have determined that additional flexibility in locating the 4.7-acre CPF site in Neighborhood R-15 would be desirable. This amendment will locate the future CPF use within R-15 based on project design. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The project applicant supports all the errata amendments and updated conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council include the proposed errata and updated condition in the project approvals. CC64MEM.DOC /3'-~ /i - -~._.._-- JUN- 4-86 TUE 9:52 CITY OF CHULA VISTA FAX NO, 6195855612 ~,u<:: . . 31. Neighborhood Parks: The Applicant shall pay PAD fees based on a formula of 2 acres per 1,000 residents for the first 500 dwelling units. The Applicant shall commence construction of the first neighborhood park in SPA One, in a location determined by the Parks and Recreation Director, no later than issuance of the building permit for the SOOth dwelling unit. The level of amenities required in the first phase of construction of the first neighborhood park shall be determined by the City in conjunction with the park master planning effort required by the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. Said level of amenities shall be equivalent to five acres of neighborhood park improvements as described in the PLDO ordinance and the Park Master Plan as approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. The ap"licant shall complete construction of the first "hase of the first neighborhood Dark within six (6) months of commencin~ construction of said park. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the 1150th dwelling unit, the Director of Parks and Recreation shall determine the level of amenities required for the second phase of construction of this park consistent with the PLDO and the Park Master Plan, or in licu of the second phase, require the construction of another neighborhood park at a different location. the location of the other neighborhood park, if any, shall be determined in conjunction with the phasing study noted below. At no time following comDletion of construction of the first phase of the first neighborhood park after Ï3sl!t\lIee ef imilàillg I'erlllits fer t£e 500tl1 àweHillg allit shall there be a deficit in "constructed neighborhood park" based upon 2 acres/l,OOO residents. Applicant agrees that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits should said deficit occur, For purposes of this condition, the term "constructed neighborhood park" shall mean that construction of the park has been completed and approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation as being in compliance with the Park Master Plan, but prior to the mandatory 9-12 month maintenance period. This condition is not intended to supersede any of the City's maintenance guarantee requirements. The Applicant shall provide a maintenance period in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. The 1.7 acre Town Square in Village Five shall receive 100% neighborhood park credit if constructed consistent with the criteria contained in the General Development Plan and if improvements constructed within the Town Square receive the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation. The 7.3 acre neighborhood park (P-2) currently indicated in Village One south of Palomar Street on the SPA plan shall be relocated easterly within Neighborhood R-12. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the Parks Master Plan, 1:3-3 r·"- .-- ---. ,-. ----_.~-"'--_.._._------' .-_. 44. A reserve fund program has been shall be established by Reso1ution No. 18288 ÍQI ::c=:: ;: the Otay Ranch :;¡o:~ General De>.·elepffieat FlaB '::hieh ree¡lIires tIIat ~;~~=t I::t~~~r~~t 5::s~~~.iS:ft¡1 ~e\J:rr~t ":HR t~e ~~~~~~~·~:~~~7~~~:P:\.1a~ ~'S ~í;:;;"t "....;0. "';00. ,,~ ;; ~ ~ ~E E ~ ~~e~~ ~::~~=:iï ~~lieaftt \iftders~å5 and agree.s t~:t f~~~~:: ~ta~~ :~~ e d' 1 ~ erere 5e esIRbh5I\ed èy me C1W 1ft eeRJ\JAetleA ·::ItA fiAM ftf'prBVaJ. Bf me PrBpefty Ta-J¡ f.greemeRt. The Applicant shall fund the Reserve Fund as required by the Reserve Fund Program. . 45. !be acplicont sl;¡gJ) creDore ond submit. an occlicotiQnJor on ~~~j;et~j~::: o~aY -.Ranch Gener~l Deve19pment ,P.J5m !b k.. 9.. e Villa Sev n H~ locatIon w~ ~~ ~~:~f~~~ °It~~~o ~anchero In VillaQe One, o.r tne no~ ~rtl ... a_ Tj1e c~.Jssue b!.lik,ilna oermltLfQr p,~r;ts~~~~~~~ts within SPA One untilJ.he City has actad on tb§ r DO ndment un~ consenf.1jQ.1he fu~ jssuance ofJ.!&,h oermib., The applicant' shall deliver to the School District a graded high school site including utilities provided to the site and an 011 weather access road acceptable to the DIstrict prior to Issuance of the 2.650th building permit (504 students) or upon written request by the District not prior to 1.800 permits. The 011 weather access rood sholl also be acceptable to the Fire Deportment. This schedule Is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. /3-1 . --ï- - __.··OU" ._~_._.""_"____.__.~. .._....____._.____~.__.._ ~_._..___._.______ , RESOLUTION NO. 18286 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) AND ADDENDUM FOR THE OT A Y RANCH SECTION PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN AND APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN (PCM 95-01). WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN, REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT, PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUPPORTING PLANS, NON- RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND THE GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT WHEREAS, an application for adoption of the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department in July, 1994 by the Otay Ranch L.P. ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan also includes the following documents: Overall Design Plan, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan and Supporting Documents, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Regional Facilities Report, Phase 2 Resource Management Plan and Supporting Plans, Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, Ranch- Wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan and the Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report (all documents referred to herein as "Project"); and WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan project area includes all of Village Five and the portion of Village One east of Paseo Ranchero and is comprised of approximately 1,061.2 acres of land located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future alignment of SR-125 ("Project Site"). The area west of Paseo Rancho has been excluded from this SPA One Plan due to the difficulty in master-planning a village with a major roadway, Paseo Ranchero, bisecting it. In addition, habitat in Village One, west of Paseo Ranchero, needs further analysis; and WHEREAS, a GDP amendment was required to process this SPA without the area west of Paseo Ranchero due to a requirement in the GDP that stated that all villages must be master-planned as a unit; and WHEREAS, a GDP amendment was approved by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on May 14, 1996, to allow the SPA to be processed without the area west of Paseo Ranchero; and WHEREAS, the SPA refines and implements the land plans, goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on October 28, 1993, and amended on May 14, 1996; and 13-5' ^, - --'--'---'~-"---- ,----.----------- Resolution 18286 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and tenants within 1 ,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearings were held at the time and place as advertised on November 8, 1995 and November 15, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission. Said hearings were continued to March 27, 1996, April 10, 1996, April 24, 1996 and May 1, 1996 by a motion of the Planning Commission at which time, said hearings were thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, a Second-tier Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 95-01, a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and Addendum, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Second-tier EIR 95-01, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) ElR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update ElR 94-03 as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993, and the Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Chula Vista certified ElR 95-01 as adequate in compliance with CEOA at a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 1996 and recertified said EIR on May 21, 1996 to assure compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21 092,5(a). The City now desires to once again recertify this document as adequate in compliance with CEOA; and WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to complement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts this resolution approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are references in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Chula Vista held a workshop on April 30, 1996 and a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 1996 regarding the Project. The public hearing was continued to May 28, 1996 and June 4, 1996. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: 13-~ (;'\l . .. --.--.-" "..-.---..---------- Resolution 18286 Page 3 I. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The proceedings of all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission and City Council at their public hearings on the Draft EIR, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum held on November 8, 1995, November 15, 1995, March 27, 1996 and March 28, 1996, their public hearings held on this Project on November 15, 1995, March 27, 1996, April 10, 1996, April 24, 1996, May 1, 1996, May 14, 1996, May 28, 1996 and June 4, 1996 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6 subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA) claims. The comments, oral and written submitted, as made either by EastLake or their attorneys, Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, that relate to CEOA's procedural and substantive compliance were withdrawn by EastLake and their attorneys and are not a part of this record of proceedings. II. FEIR 95-01 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered the FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01 and Addendum, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEOA, the State EI R Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the FEIR 95-01 and Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council. V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to paragraph VI of this Resolution and the conditions, set forth in Exhibit "D", attached hereto. VI. PHASE TWO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVAL The City Council does hereby approval the Phase Two Resource Management Plan subject to the following conditions: said Plan shall apply to the processing and conveyance of preserve lands associated only with SPA One; no other village or SPA shall be approved until the Phase Two Resource Management Plan is reevaluated and amended by the City of Chula Vista; the property owner of SPA One and/or applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to the tentative map approval for the SPA, to implement the terms of said Plan. /3-7 '" ____......_ ___.u.__._.___..._.,·..·,. _..______._. Resolution 18286 Page 4 VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: A. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan reflects the land uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan. B. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALlZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The SPA One Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain provIsions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The Public Facilities Financing Plan specifies the public facilities required by Otay Ranch, and also the regional facilities needed to serve it. C. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with a grade-separated open space buffer adjacent to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay Ranch Planning Area One, four neighborhood parks will be located within the SPA One area to serve the project residents, and the project will provide a wide range of housing types for economic levels. A comprehensive street network serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties, The proposed plan closely follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report. VIII. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Adoption of Findings of Fact The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and everyone of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Attachment "A" known as Document Number C096-056, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 13-~ ,.-.,.-;:1\ ,..( " Resolution 18286 Page 5 S. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution known as Document Number C096-056, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEOA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. C. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution known as Document Number C096-056, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the mitigation measure regarding habitat noise mitigation described in the above referenced documents is infeasible. D. Infeasibility of Alternatives As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and in the Findings of Fact, Section XI, for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution known as Document Number C096-056, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEOA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified as potentially feasible in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum were found not to be feasible. E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, City Council hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in Attachment "S" of this Resolution known as Document Number C096-057, which is one file in the office of the City Clerk. The City Council hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the permittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties and the successors in interest implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Program. F. Statement of Overriding Consideration Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEOA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Attachment "C", known as Document Number C096-058, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City clerk, identifying the specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. 13-1 ~-f\...\ ..__·..__·_·_···___T_····_··_ Resolution 18286 Page 6 IX. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. This document along with any documents submitted to the decision makers shall comprise the record of proceedings for any CEOA claims. X. ATTACHMENTS All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full. Xl. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The property owner and/or Applicants shall execute the document attached as Exhibit "0", said execution indicating that the property owner and/or Applicant have each read, understand and agree to the conditions contained herein. This does not provide the property owner and/or Applicant with any "vesting" of entitlements to this Project or any of the corresponding documents approved herein, that is not otherwise provided by state and federal law. Presented by Approved as to form by (l"-.- mQ-tr...-Q ~" Gerald Jamriska, Manager Bruce M. Boogaard Special Planning Projects City Attorney /1-10 , C{'J ----+._-._----_.~-- "^-_._--..-- Resolution 18286 Page 7 Exhibit A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR OTAY RANCH SPA ONE GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean "Applicant". 2. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. 3. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the Environmental Impact Report for the Project and/or any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. ENVIRONMENTAL 4. The Applicant shall implement all mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01, the Candidate CEQA Findings for this Project (Exhibit ") and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reports Program (Exhibit "). 5. The Applicant shall comply with all requirement of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by City Council on "" /"" /96. a. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City prior to the approval of the first Tentative Map for this Project, to implement the provision of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan. 6. The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DESIGN 7. The Applicant shall provide a residential alley product, as such product is defined in the Village Design Plan, within Phase Two of Village Five as shown on the SPA One phasing plan and a future phase of Village One. /3 -II 9& .- -.--.....-,.--....-------.--.....--..- Resolution 18286 Page 8 STREET, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS 8. The segment of the north/south vehicular road from Telegraph Canyon Road to the first residential street intersection within Village One (located between Buena Vista Way and Apache Drive) ("Temporary Roadway") shall be open for public use only until such time as a road from Village One to Orange Avenue is approved by the City Engineer to carry vehicular traffic. The Temporary Roadway shall be designed and constructed to City standards and the Otay Ranch SPA One standards. The Applicant shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for the removal and restoration of the roadway at the request of the City Engineer. Subsequent to removal of the roadway, said roadway shall be regarded and reconstructed to be consistent with the streetscape of Telegraph Canyon Road, as directed by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall install signs, as directed by the City Engineer, indicating that the Temporary Roadway shall be closed once the permanent road is opened for public use. Notice shall be provided in any residential sales disclosure documents that the Temporary Roadway will be closed to vehicular traffic when access to East Orange Avenue is provided. 9. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of the first final map, to fund the cost of the transit stops. Said stops shall be designed in the manner consistent with the transit stop details as described in the Village Design Plan, as approved by the City's Transit Coordinator and Planning Director. 10. Residential street parkways shall be no less than six feet in width. The Applicant shall plant trees within said parkways which have been selected from the list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan and approved by the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. The Applicant shall provide root barriers and deep watering irrigation systems for the trees. An irrigation system shall be provided from each individual lot to the adjacent parkway. As a condition of approval of the first tentative map, the Applicant shall be required to submit Improvement Plans for the residential street parkways for review and approval by the City Engineer, Directors of Parks and Recreation and Planning. 11. Street cross sections shall conform to those standards contained in the SPA One Plan. All other design criteria shall conform to the design standards contained in the document entitled Street Design Standards and the Subdivision Manual both as amended by the City from time to tome, ("City Design Standards"). Any proposed variation from the City Design Standards which are not addressed in the SPA Plan shall be approved by the City and indicated on the appropriate tentative subdivision map. The following table indicates the relationship between the Otay Ranch SPA One roadway designations (i.e., cross sections) and the approved City designations in the Circulation Element of the General Plan for purposes of determining the appropriate design standards for all streets within SPA One. 13 -/~ e¡1 ----- -. -- - - - .---....--.-.--,-.- --------~._-_. - "."._" Resolution 18286 Page 9 COMPARISON OF OTAY RANCH STREET CLASSIFICATIONS TO CITY STREET CLASSIFICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS TO BE UTILIZED IN TENTATIVE MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN PREPARATION FOR OTAY RANCH USE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CITY CLASSIFICATION OF STREET CLASSIFICATION OF Scenic Corridor Prime Arterial Prime Arterial Prime Arterial Primary Village Entry Class I Collector Secondary Village Entry Class II Collector Village Core Class I Collector Residential Promenade Class III Collector Core Promenade Residential Village Main Residential Village Plaza Residential Residential A and B Residential Alley Alley Standards 12. The Applicant shall provide a 60 foot wide pedestrian paseo between Neighborhoods R-8 and R-9. As a condition of approval on the appropriate tentative map, said paseo shall be required to be dedicated to the City at the final map stage. Street improvements will not be required to be installed, but may be required at some future date should it become apparent that vehicular access is needed. 13. As directed by the Director of Planning and the City Engineer, the Applicant shall construct a pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to Village Five at the vicinity of Palomar Street crossing over La Media Road. The timing of the construction of said bridge shall be determined by the City at the time of approval of the first tentative map and shall be a condition of the first Tentative Map. The Applicant shall be solely responsible for the construction of said bridge. 14. In addition to the pedestrian bridge described above, the SPA One Plan provides for the construction of a pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to Village Two and a pedestrian bridge connecting Village Five to Village Six. The Applicant shall agree to fund half of the cost of constructing the two pedestrian bridges and to identify the mechanism to be used to fund said cost at the time of approval of the first final map. Said items shall be included as conditions of approval of the first tentative map. 13-/3 eye, . _.'. .-..-.,..,..,. -..----.- - - - --_._---------_.._------_..._--_._-""._._~,-- Resolution 18286 Page 1 0 15. The Applicant shall provide a conceptual design of the traffic circles delineated on the SPA One Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to approval of the first tentative map. 16. In the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights of way which are in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise provided for in the future ADA regulations, City standards approved herein may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after construction has commenced. 17. Vehicular access shall not be required to EastLake Parkway between the two Otay Water District parcels. Pedestrian, cart and bicycle access, however, shall be provided. A sixty foot easement for roadway and other public purposes to accommodate said access shall be dedicated with the approval of the appropriate final map. Design of said pedestrian, cart and bicycle access shall be implemented in such a way so as not to preclude the option of future provision of vehicular access should it become necessary. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 18. The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Clean Water Program. 19. The quantity of runoff from the development shall be reduced to an amount equal to or less than present 1 OO-year frequency storm. Retention/detention facilities will be required as approved by the Director of Public Works to reduce the quantity of runoff to an amount equal to or less than predevelopment flows. Said retention/detention facilities shall be provided by the Applicant. 20. The Applicant shall provide drainage improvements in both Telegraph Canyon and Poggi Canyon in accordance with the Master Drainage Plan for Otay Ranch SPA One, Villages One and Five by the Director of Public Works. Said Master Plan shall be consistent with the approved SPA Plan. PUBLIC UTILITIES (SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER, WATER CONSERVATION) 231. The Applicant shall provide water and reclaimed water improvements in accordance with the report entitled Sub Area Master Plan for Otay Ranch Villages One and Five Sectional Planning Area One ("SAMP") prepared by Montgomery-Watson dated June 1995 or as amended by the Applicant and approved by Otay Water District. The SAMP shall be consistent with the SPA Plan. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the approval of any amendment to the SPA One SAMP in order for the SPA One SAMP to be consistent with the approved SPA Plan prior to the approval of the first final map. 22. The Applicant shall pay fees in accordance with the City of Chula Vista ordinance or provide trunk sewer improvements to both the Telegraph Canyon and Poggi Canyon trunk sewers as indicated in the report entitled "Overview of Sewer Service for SPA One at the Otay Ranch Project" (SPA One sewer Report) prepared by Wilson Engineering dated June 15, 1995 or as amended by the Applicant and approved by the Director of Public 1"3 -ILl <l) Resolution 18286 Page 11 Works. The SPA One Sewer Report shall be consistent with the approved SPA Plan. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the approval of any amendment to the SPA One Sewer Report in order for the SPA One Sewer Report to be consistent with the approved SPA Plan prior to the approval of the first final map. PARKS/OPEN SPACE/WILDLlFE PRESERVATION General 23. The SPA One project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDOJ. The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide three (3) acres of local parks and related improvements per 1,000 residents. Local parks are comprised of community parks, neighborhood parks and pedestrian parks (to the extent that pedestrian parks receive partial park credit as defined below). A minimum of two thirds (2 acres/1 ,000 residents) of local park requirement shall be satisfied through the provision of turn-key neighborhood and pedestrian parks within SPA One. The remaining requirement (1 acre/1 ,000 residents) shall be satisfied through the payment of fees, 24. All local parks shall be consistent with the SPA One PFFP and shall be installed by the Applicant. A construction schedule, requiring all parks to be completed in a timely manner, shall be approved by the City. 25. All local parks shall be designed and constructed consistent with the provisions of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and related Parks and Recreation Department specifications and policies. 26. The Applicant shall coordinate consultant selection with the City. The consultant selected for all park design shall be acceptable to the City. 27. Parks located within gated communities shall not receive park credit. 28. The Applicant shall receive surplus park credit to the extent the combined park credit for neighborhood parks, pedestrian parks, the town square park and the community park exceeds the 3 acres per 1 ,000 residents standard. This surplus park credit may be utilized by the Applicant to satisfy local park requirements in future SPAs. 29. The Applicant and the City shall mutually agree on a PAD fee reimbursement schedule in coordination with the adopted construction schedule. Milestones will be established for partial reimbursement during the construction process. The City may withhold up to 20% of the park construction funds until the park has been completed and accepted. Reimbursement of PAD fees shall include the interest accrued by the City on said PAD fees minus the City's cost of processing and administering this reimbursement program. 30. Pedestrian Parks: Pedestrian parks less than five acres, as identified in the SPA One Plan, shall be maintained by a funding entity other than the City's General Fund. Pedestrian parks shall receive a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50% park credit, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation pursuant to City wide small park credit criteria which shall be approved by the City Council. /3 -15 ->..----- ..- ---_._-_._-~---~- Resolution 18286 Page 12 31. Neighborhood Parks: The Applicant shall pay PAD fees based on a formula of 2 acres per 1,000 residents for the first 500 dwelling units. The Applicant shall commence construction of the first neighborhood park in SPA One, in a location determined by the Parks and Recreation Director, no later than issuance of the building permit for the 500th dwelling unit. The level of amenities required in the first phase of construction of the first neighborhood park shall be determined by the City in conjunction with the park master planning effort required by the City of chula vista Landscape Manual. Said level of amenities shall be equivalent to five acres of neighborhood park improvements as described in the PLDO ordinance and the Park Master Plan as approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the 11 50th dwelling unit, the Director of Parks and Recreation shall determine the level of amenities required for the second phase of construction of this park consistent with the PLDO and the Park Master Plan, or in lieu of the second phase, require the construction of another neighborhood park at a different location. the location of the other neighborhood park, if any, shall be determined in conjunction with the phasing study noted below. At no time after issuance of building permits for the 500th dwelling unit shall there be a deficit in "constructed neighborhood park" based upon 2 acres/1 ,000 residents. Applicant agrees that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits should said deficit occur. For purposes of this condition, the term "constructed neighborhood park" shall mean that construction of the park has been completed and approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation as being in compliance with the Park Master Plan, but prior to the mandatory 9-12 month maintenance period. this condition is not intended to supersede any of the City's maintenance guarantee requirements. The Applicant shall provide a maintenance period in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. The 1.7 acre Town Square in Village Five shall receive 100% neighborhood park credit if constructed consistent with the criteria contained in the General Development Plan and if improvements constructed within the Town Square receive the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation. The 7.3 acre neighborhood park (P-2) currently indicated in Village One south of Palomar Street on the SPA plan shall be relocated easterly within Neighborhood R-12. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the Parks Master Plan. 32. Community Parks: The Applicant shall pay PAD fees for the community Park based upon a formula of 1 acre per 1,000 residents, until such time as a turn-key facility has been accepted by the City. Said turn-key facility is subject to the reimbursement mechanism set forth below. \ 13-/" " .---~...,. ___.-.-__________..+_n____.._.____..._._.__. _ __.________._....____n_____._ Resolution 18286 Page 13 The first Otay Ranch Community Park, to satisfy SPA One demand, shall be located in Village 2 as identified in the GDP. The Applicant shall identify the relocation, if any, of the Village 2 Otay Ranch Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 1,1 50th dwelling unit. Said relocation may require an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Notwithstanding that the community park requirement (1 acre/1 ,000 residents) shall be satisfied through the payment of PAD fees, the Applicant shall commence construction of the first phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th dwelling unit. The first phase of construction shall include, but not be limited to, improvements such as a graded site with utilities provided to the property line and an all weather access road acceptable to the Fire Department. The Applicant shall commence construction of the second phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,000th dwelling unit. Second phase improvements shall include recreational amenities as identified in the Park Master Plan. The Community Park shall be ready for acceptance by the City for maintenance prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,900th dwelling unit. If the City determines that it is not feasible for the Applicant to commence construction of the first phase improvements óf the community park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th unit, then the City shall have the option to utilize the PAD fees for said improvements, or to construct another park or facility, east of the 1-805 Freeway within an acceptable service radius of SPA One, as set forth in the GDP. The Applicant shall provide a maintenance period in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees, excluding the cost of construction of the all weather access road, for the community park should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the Parks Master Plan. 33. Trails: The first final map shall not be approved until the SPA One Open Space Master Plan is approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation. The Open Space Master Plan shall be based upon the Concept and Analysis Plan, the requirements of which are outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and include. but are not limited to elements such as final recreational trail alignments and phasing. The Concept and Analysis Plan shall be developed during the tentative map review process. All trails shall connect to adjoining existing trails in neighboring development projects to the extent feasible, as feasible is determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation. 34. Community Gardens: Community Gardens shall be consistent with the guidelines in the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, including creation of the Community Garden Committee and their responsibilities. 13-/7 r < )" ....--w···-r ,"n,. ---,--_._.,._.~--~--- Resolution 18286 Page 1 4 Water lines shall be stubbed from the nearest water main to the site(s) in order to facilitate development of the Community Gardens. Maintenance of Community Gardens shall be funded by an Open Space Maintenance District, Home Owner's Association or other funding mechanism approved by the City. Community Gardens shall not receive park credit. 35. Open Space: The Applicant shall prepare a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a master open space district under the 1972 Lighting and Landscape Act for theOtay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch. Said feasibility study shall be submitted to the Directors of Parks and Recreation and Public Works for their approval, prior to approval of the first tentative map. If applicable, an Open Space District shall be formed prior to approval of the first final map. AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL 36. The Applicant shall install Chula Vista Transit facilities, which may include but not be limited to benches and bus shelters, in accordance with the improvement plans approved by the City. Since transit service availability may not coincide with project development, the Applicant shall install said improvements when directed by the City. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to fund these facilities. The requirement for said agreement will be made a condition of the first tentative map. 37. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, prior to approval of the first final map, regarding the provision of affordable housing. Said agreement shall be a condition of approval of the first tentative map. Such agreement shall be in accordance with the Chula Vista Housing Element, the Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan and the SPA One Affordable Housing Plan. 38. No final maps may be recorded within SPA One until such time that an annexable Mellow Roos District, or some other financing mechanism approved by the school district, to provide for the construction of needed elementary, middle and high schools is established. 39. The Applicant shall pay, prior to approval of the first final map, their fair share of a collaborative study analyzing local park needs for the area east of the 1-805 Freeway. 40. The Applicant shall prepare a design study to determine the feasibility of providing grade separated intersections for East Orange Avenue at Paseo Ranchero and Telegraph Canyon Road at Otay Lakes Road. Said study shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of any tentative map for SPA One. 41. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, prior to approval of the first final map within SPA One, to participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP). 3 - Iff ~, ìV , -------.-.............-'"- ---~_._-_..,---- Resolution 18286 Page 15 42. The Applicant shall be required to equitably participate in any future regional impact fee program for correctional facilities should the region enact such a fee program to assist in the construction of such facilities. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement, prior to approval of the first final map, with the City which states that the Applicant will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance correctional facilities. 43. In order to satisfy their fair-share contribution for financing the light rail transit system, the Applicant shall complete the following: 1) dedicate to the City the Light Rail Transit (LRn right-of-way on the final map containing said right-of-way, as indicated on the approved tentative map; 2) rough grade said LRT alignment; and 3) enter into an agreement with the City which states that the Applicant will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance the LRT. 44. A reserve fund program shall be established in accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan which requires that a reserve funding program be established concurrent with the approval of the first SPA. The Applicant understands that the City and County are in the process of negotiating a Master Property Tax Agreement regarding portions of the Otay Ranch which may have an impact on the reserve funding program. Applicant understands and agrees that further details of the reserve funding program shall therefore be established by the City in conjunction with final approval of the Property Tax Agreement, The Applicant shall fund the Reserve Fund as required by the Reserve Fund Program. SCHOOLS 45. The Applicant shall prepare and submit an application for an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan replacing the Village Seven High School location with a site in either the area west of Paseo Ranchero in Village One or the northern portion of Village Two. The City shall not issue building permits for more than 1 ,400 units within SPA One until the City has acted on the proposed plan amendment unless the District consents to the further issuance of such permits. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District a graded high school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District prior to issuance of the 2,650th building permit (504 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School district as based on District facility needs. 46. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located within Village One, prior to issuance of the 500th residential building permit (150 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. 47. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located within Village Five, prior to issuance of the 2,500th residential building permit (750 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. /3 -/~ ".,\ " - -~--.~-~.--.- Resolution 18286 Page 1 6 This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. 48. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District. a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located west of Paseo Ranchero, prior to issuance of the 4,500th residential building permit (1,350 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. MISCEllANEOUS 49. The Applicant may file a master final map which provides for the sale of super block lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof: If said super block lots do not show individual lots depicted on the approved tentative map, a subsequent final map shall be filed for any lot which will be further subdivided. All super block lots created shall have access to a dedicated public street. The Applicant shall post bonds to secure the installation of improvements in the amounts determined by the City Engineer prior to approval of a master final map. Said master final map shall not b considered the first final map as indicated in the conditions of approval unless said map contains single or condominium multiple family lots shown on a tentative map. 50. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. 51. Approval of the Otay Ranch SPA One does not constitute approval of the final lot configuration, grading and street design shown within the SPA Plan, 52. The Applicant shall secure approval of a Master Precise Plan for the Village One and Village Five Core Areas, prior to submitting any development proposals for commercial, multi-family and Community Purpose Facility areas within the SPA One Village Cores. 53. The Applicant shall fund the revision of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) Program, which shall be prepared by the City, as directed by the City Manager or his designee and approved by the City Council prior to approval of the first final map within SPA One. Said requirement shall be made a condition of approval of the first tentative map. The Applicant shall receive 100% credit towards future PFDIF for funding this update. 54. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the Applicant shall fund the preparation of an annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services governed by 13...",?Q , -¡/") ì' Resolution 18286 Page 17 the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence following the first fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP. 55. The Applicant shall include maintenance of Telegraph Canyon channel east of Paseo Ladera in any open space district formed for SPA One on a fair share basis. This includes but is not limited to costs of maintenance and all costs to comply with the Department of Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers permit requirements. 56. The owners of each Village shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector and submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal package required of each developer to ensure a high standards of design and to ensure consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project manager shall have a well rounded educational background and experience, including but not limited to land use planning and architecture. PHASING 57. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch GDP, the Applicant shall prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding ,public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities. 58. The Applicant acknowledges that the Otay Ranch General Development Plan is based on a village concept that provides for the construction of multi-family homes and commercial uses along with single family residential homes within SPA One. The City has allowed the early phases of the project to consist almost exclusively of single family detached neighborhoods due to current market conditions. However the Applicant understands that it is the City's intent to require the Applicant to focus development on only one of the SPA One village cores in order to increase the viability of the core and to fulfill the objectives of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. In order to facilitate this objective, the Applicant shall prepare a project phasing update to determine which of the two villages the Applicant will concentrate development in. The phasing study shall provide for the following: 1) access to the high school site, community park site and neighborhood park which is economically and physically feasible: 2) establishment of a residential phasing program to complement the east-west access selection (East Palomar Street or East Orange Avenue); 3) identify the village that will be the focus of accelerated development; 4) consideration of market conditions, product absorption and location of appropriate product to meet demand. 5) limitation of public services in the village which is not the focus of accelerated development and. 6) provision for affordable housing opportunities as identified in the approved Affordable Housing Plan. The study shall be undertaken prior to issuance of the 1150th building permit and shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Director and City Engineer prior to the issuance of the 1,401 st building permit. As a condition of approval of the first tentative map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City in which the Applicant agrees to implement the results of said 1"3-:l1 I _,o ì'- _ _____.__.._"_.~"U__·.~,__. ___ ~...._ Resolution 18286 Page 1 8 study as determined by the City Council If the Applicant fails to implement the results of the study as directed by City Council, the City Council may take such actions as it deems necessary, including but not limited to withholding building permits. 59. Phasing approved with the SPA Plan may be amended subject to approval by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 60. The Public Facilities Finance Plan or revisions hereto shall be adhered to for the SPA and tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of chula Vista. the PFFP identifies a facility phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of development within the outside of the project area. Throughout the build-out of SPA One, actual development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP (i.e., the development of Eastlake III). Neither the PFFP nor any other SPA One document grant the applicant an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements and market conditions, shall govern SPA One development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. the City engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. The SPA One PFFP, at Applicant's expense subject to a Reimbursement Agreement, shall be updated not later than ,six (6) months after approval of a PFFP for the EastLake III GDP Area, and the conclusions of such update, including without limitation, the nature, sizing, extent and timing for the construction of public facilities caused by SPA One, shall become a condition for all subsequent SPA One entitlements, including tentative and final maps. CODE REQUIREMENTS 61. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision ordinance and Subdivision Manual. 62. The Applicant shall comply will all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. 63. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implementation (1 9.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09.100). 64. The Applicant shall pay reimbursement associated with undergrounding of utilities in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Resolution 17516 dated June 7, 1994. 3 -:l ~ -¡ \\ --~-_..._. - -~- Resolution 18286 Page 19 65. The Applicant shall comply with City Council Policy 570-03 adopted by Resolution 17491 if pump stations for sewer purposes are proposed. 66. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of each final map for any phase or unit, whereby: a. The Applicant agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any units in the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occurs: (1 ) Regional development threshold limits set by the adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan in effect at the time of final map approval have been reached. (2) Traffic volumes, level of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. b. The Applicant agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Otay Ranch SPA One if the required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program have not been completed. 67. Applicant shall apply for and receive a take permit from the appropriate resource agencies or comply with an approved MSCP or other equivalent 1 O(a) permit applicable to the property. 68. The Applicant acknowledges its understanding that the City is in the process of amending its Growth Management Program and Ordinance, to establish updated development phasing provisions necessary to ensure compliance with adopted threshold standards. In order for the Otay Ranch SPA One Project to be consistent with the City's growth management provisions, the Applicant hereby agrees to comply with the pending amendments to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance in order for the city to approve this Project. Said provisions shall also be included as a condition of approval of the first Tentative Map, and any subsequent tentative maps, within SPA One. 1'3 -,,7:3 'I \" -.,....- - -- ~----~--_.-...._---_._"" Resolution 18286 Page 20 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 4th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Alevy, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Horton NAYES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Council members: None 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. 18283 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 4th day of June, 1996. Executed this 4th day of June, 1996. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk /3-;21./ " \\1' - _..~-".._--"'.~.. ""._...._.._.~ Exhibit "D" AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND OTAY RANCH, L.P. RELATED TO SPA ONE APPROVAL , The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained in Resolution No. 18286, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the City. Upon execution, this document and a copy of Resolution No. 18286 shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City Clerk. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirty days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicated the property 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 Property Owner Date Signature of Property Owner Date [For purposes of recording only] Attach Resolution No. 18286 13-~5 \:;^ ,\ - ___._________u._..,..._ _, "__._____ MAY-30-sa 12;38 FROM: -- Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan . . RANCH-WIDE STUDIES, PlANS AND PROGRAMS . opulations to establish the numbers of ind¥iduals ·thin those populations. The iota Monitoring Plan identifies e following gener monitoring techniques. y updated aerial p otographs to help large-scale chen in the biota (e.g., de g chaDges in ~ tation communities, disturb ces such as trails and roads, etc.); · Estab· t permanent photo- documentatì ODS in study plots to detect more fine- changes in vegetation communities composition; · Field forms at ~ the same from survey to survey an~ nsisten~ utilized by personnel; · Consis field t~""n;~es for measuring biota (e.g., ays pexcent cover or frequency of a do' t plant species m a transect, bird surv.; Y8 conducted at the 8;;;'e time of year consistent survey condi~ns [weather, . e of day}, live-traPping on tr~ or grids sing the same bait IIrixture); and '"\ . Measurement of important envir6~ental variables (e.g., local precipitation). " ( , The Biota Monitoring Plan establishes the following "- schedule (Exhibit 25) for Otay Ranch habitats (year 1 ¡" the .... ,."" -11>0 """"",al or the initial P"'v \ R..nrl, SPA): "'--. Otay Ranch Poge 1e6 F«>ruaIY 5, 1_ /331 \ \\ . ---_.~--~.".,...._.._-_._- MAY-30-BS 12.37 PROM, .-. Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan ". RANCH-WICE: STuDIES, PLANS AND PROGRAMS Exhibit 25 Schedule for Monitoring Otay Ranch Habitats Alkai Wildlife Year CSSlMSS Wetlands Grassl$nd Meadow Woodland Conidor It996 " " " " -" ~ " " " " " " ? ? " -" ~ " " " " " " " -" =a " " " .t " " ~ " " " " " " ~ " " 600H " " " ? 1'7~ " " " =- " " " " " " " " ? " " " " " " ~ " " " ~ " " ? " " " . " " -" " " " " " " " Otay Ranch P1Ige leT F8bnJaIY 5, 1996 /3 -3J.. . 'J \" ,....__m__..__. _...._... +__~_,___.~____~_ · PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN Page 3-2-27. Add the following language: Trigger points have been established based on an assumed number of dwelling units per phase as indicated in the Phasing Plan. The timing of construction of the major offsite improvements ( Telegraph Canyon Road, East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue west of Paseo Ranchero), indicated in Tables 11 through 16, is based on the assumed number of dwelling units and shall not change unless an amendment to the PFFP is approved by the City Council. The timing of construction of onsite improvements including Paseo Ranchero, La Media and East Orange Avenue adjacent to SPA One, indicated in Tables 11 through 16, may be adjusted by the City Engineer to reflect the actual number of dwelling units previously approved and the location of said improvements. /3-33 '7 \ / \, _______.~.__..~._ .._.___ U"__ :/1')3 --- i'" r' (, ',' r _.r:ì\ . r....." ::r¡~~···~: . II.'·, 'I ", ", l.lL, J!II~ - ~ _/ , L'-7---'---~ I [: , c~ ' " \."1 May 29,1996 The Honorable Shirley Mayor City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula VISta, Ca 91910 Re: VEmCULAR ACCESS TO THE S.W. QUADRANT OF OTAY LAKES ROAD AND FUTURE STATE ROUTE 125 Dear Mayor Horton and Members of the City Council: / Please accept this letter as written support of my testimony at the Chula ~ / Vista City Council meeting on May 28, 1996. .,.;.: We request that the Council acknowledge the existence of an access issue to fASTLAKE EastLake property (relative to the Otay Ránch SPA One), and concur with ~OPMENT the staff recommendation to resolve the issue with subsequent Otay Ranch PANY tentative rnap conditions. A brief history and current status of this issue is outlined as follows: On December 21, 1995, EastLake Development Company made a written request that the City review an alternative subdivision plan for the Otay Ranch Village Five project which would allow full four-way access to the EastLake property located at the S.w. quadrant of the Otay Lakes roadlFuture SR-125 interchange, Without such access (through the Otay Ranch parcel) ingress and egress for the quadrant would be limited to right- in and right-out movements only. The request was made in order to provide an increased level of viability to the Commercial-Professional Administrative (P A) land use designated for the site. On March 11, 1996, the City responded to this request stating that their analysis indicated that due to engineering constraints an off-site access easement through the adjacent Otay Ranch parcel would only provide added egress from the EastLake property. 900 Lane Avenue Suite 100 Chulo Visto, CA 91914 ~619) 421-0127 AA (619) 421·1830 /3-3/1' \'1 1 \ Mayor Horton May 29, 1996 Page 2 EastLake Development Company is continuing to explore refinements to the access alternatives. It is our understanding that it is Staff's recommendation that this issue be resolved as a pan of the Otay Ranch Village Five tentative map review and approval. We are in agreement with this approach, but ask the Council to be aware of our ongoing efforts. Your assistance with this matter is appreciated. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. BNS:sg cc: Cliff Swanson, City Engineer Bob Leiter, Planning Director Andy SchIaefli, Urban Systems, Inc. Mike Neal, Western Salt Property fl¡oinslwwl&loon_.doc ;3-35 '\,:'ì '\ ' -,----~-----_._.- , :jI/« . . / / - - - OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE SECOND-TIER EIR - - FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT and - STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - (June 4, 1996) - - - - - - - - - - - . TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................. 2 III. SECOND-TIER EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 IV. RECIRCULATION OF THE SPA ONE DRAFT EIR ..............6 V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ..,........................... 8 VI. TERMINOLOGYITHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA ....9 VII. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM.................... 10 IX. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ..... 11 X. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE GDP/SRP FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . 14 A. Land Use, Planning, and Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 B. Landform Alteration! Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 C. Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 D. Cultural Resources ................................. 41 E. Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 F. Paleontological Resources ............................ 49 G. Agricultural Resources .............................. 53 H. Water Resources and Water Quality ..................... 55 I. Transportation, Circulation, and Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 J. Air Quality . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 K. Noise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 L. Public Services and Utilities ..........................96 M. Hazards/Risk of Upset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 i -.....-.------- -.--- - --'--'-'--"'---~-~~- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE XI. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................... 120 A. Land Use, Planning, and Zoning ...................... 120 B. Landfonn Alteration/Aesthetics ....................... 121 C. Biological Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 D. Cultural Resources ................................ 125 E. Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 F. Paleontological Resources ........................... 127 G. Agricultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 H. Water Resources and Water Quality .................... 130 I. Transportation, Circulation, and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 131 J. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 132 K. Noise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 134 L. Public Services and Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 135 M. HazardslRisk of Upset. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 144 N. Aggregate Resources/Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 145 XII. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT AL TERNA TIVES . . . . . 147 A. No Project Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 1. Project-Related Impacts ....................... 155 2. Other Impacts Associated with the No Project Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 3. Comparison of No Project Impacts with Project Impacts ......................... 155 4. Project Objectives ........................... 155 5. Conclusion ................................ 156 B. SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 1. Project-Related Impacts ....................... 156 2. Other Impacts Associated with the SPA One Alternative A ....................... 160 3. Comparison of SPA One Alternative A with Project Impacts ......................... 160 4. Project Objectives ........................... 160 5. Conclusion ................................ 160 ii -- ------_.._--"----.,-- -..-""- - - - ------"--,~_..._......._--_..._-----~.~_.~----------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE C. SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 1. Project-Related Impacts ....................... 161 2. Other Impacts Associated with the SPA One Alternative B-1 ............................. 164 3. Comparison of SPA One Alternative B-1 with Project Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 4. Project Objectives ........................... 165 5. Conclusion ................................ 165 D. SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 1. Project-Related Impacts ....................... 165 2. Other Impacts Associated with the SPA One Alternative B-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 3. Comparison of SPA One Alternative B-2 with Project Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 4. Project Objectives ........................... 169 5. Conclusion ................................ 169 E. SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 1. Project-Related Impacts ....................... 170 2. Other Impacts Associated with the SPA One Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 174 3. Comparison of SPA One Alternative C Impacts with Project Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 174 4. Project Objectives ........................... 174 5. Conclusion .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 175 F. Existing General Development Plan Alternative . . . . . . . . . . .. 175 1. Project-Related Impacts ....................... 175 2. Other Impacts Associated with the Existing General Development Plan Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 3. Comparison of Existing General Development Plan Alternative with Project Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 4. Project Objectives ........................... 180 5. Conclusion ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 G. Annexation Alternative A ........................... 181 1. Project-Related Impacts ....................... 181 2. Other Impacts Associated with the Annexation Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 3. Comparison of Annexation Alternative A with Project Impacts ....................... 181 4. Project Objectives ........................... 181 5. Conclusion ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 iii ._h.____~___·_~____~_ _ TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE H. Annexation Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 182 1. Project-Related Impacts ....................... 182 2. Other Impacts Associated with the Annexation Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 182 3. Comparison of Annexation Alternative B with Project Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 4. Project Objectives ........................... 182 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 I. Annexation Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 1. Project-Related Impacts ....................... 183 2. Other Impacts Associated with the Annexation Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 183 3. Comparison of Annexation Alternative C with Project Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 183 4. Project Objectives ........................... 183 5. Conclusion ............................ ~ . . . 183 XIII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 XIV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 185 iv .. .._._---_._..._---_.._.......__._---_..~-_._-_._"'. (June 4, 1996) BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL RE: Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan FINDINGS OF FACT I. INTRODUCTION The Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared on this project addressed the potential environmental effects of developing 1,110 acres of land with a new community. The Sectional Planning Area One Plan submitted by Baldwin Vista Associates contained both a land use plan and policy language to guide the developmenl of the I,IIO-acre SPA One property. The SPA One plan proposed a mix of land uses including residential, park, school, community purpose facilities, commercial/retail use, circulation, and open space. In addition to the July 22, 1994 SPA One Plan, the FEIR evaluated nine alternatives to the proposed project. These included: No Project Alternative; SPA One Land Use Plan Alternatives A, B-1, B-2, C; Existing General Development Plan Alternative; and Annexation Alternatives A, B and C. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project consists of the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One (SPA One) Plan, the annexation of three areas currenIly wilhin the City of Chula Vista's Sphere of Influence, and related discretionary actions. SPA One is comprised of Village One (west of Pas eo Ranchero) and Village Five as previously established in the Otay Ranch GDP. Village One consists of 619.3 acres and includes 1,314 single-family dwelling units and 1,566 multi-family dwelling units, for a total of 2,800 dwelling units. Village One includes 22.1 gross acres of park land, an elementary school site of 10.0 acres, 14.6 acres of land zoned for community purpose facilities, 11.1 gross acres of commercial/retail, 45.1 acres for internal circulation, and 137.6 acres of open space. Village Five is comprised of 491 acres and includes 1,263 single-family dwelling units and 1,615 multi-family dwelling units, for a total of 2,878 dwelling units. Village Five includes 21.3 gross acres of park land, an elementary school sile of 10.0 acres, 11.6 acres of land zoned for community purpose facilities, 3.6 acres of commercial/retail, 22.4 acres for internal circulation, 15.1 acres for external circulation, and 90.2 acres of open space. 1 _ ___._._____._~_._...____.__U"_ ~ Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One (SPA One) Plan The July 22, 1994, SPA One Plan is a planning document that refines and implements the land plans, goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), as well as the Phase I Resource Management Plan (RMP) adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993. The SPA One Plan will guide future development on the SPA One project site by defining the location, density, and intensity of all proposed land uses, public facilities, circulation systems, parks, and open space. SPA One is comprised of Village One (west of Pas eo Ranchero) and Village Five as previously established in the 01ay Ranch GDP. Village One consists of 619.3 acres and includes 1,314 single-family dwelling units and 1,566 multi-family dwelling units, for a total of2,800 dwelling units. Village One includes 22.1 gross acres of park land, an elementary school site of 10.0 acres, 14.6 acres of land zoned for community purpose facilities, 11.1 gross acres of commercial/retail, 45.1 acres for internal circulation, and 137.6 acres of open space. Village Five is comprised of 491 acres and includes 1,263 single-family dwelling units and 1,615 multi-family dwelling units, for a total of 2,878 dwelling units. Village Five includes 21.3 gross acres of park land, an elementary school site of 10.0 acres, 11.6 acres of land zoned for community purpose facilities, 3.6 acres of commercial/retail, 22.4 acres for internal circulation, 15.1 acres for external circulation, and 90.2 acres of open space. Annexation The proposed project includes the annexation of Planning Areas I and 3 as identified in the Sphere of Influence Update Study (City of Chula Vista, March 14, 1995) and the Mary Patrick Estate Parcel of the Otay Ranch GDP. The proposed annexation includes all of Village Five and all of Village One (including the area west of Paseo Ranchero as originally defined in the Otay Ranch GDP). Additional properties not included in the Otay Ranch GDP proposed for annexation as part of the proposed project include DauzlGorman, Ross, Gerhardt, Rock Quarry, Southwest Comer, S.D. City Water Reservoir, EastLake, Otay Water District, Watson, and Clarkson. Although originally proposed for annexation, ongoing negotiations between the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego resulted the Otay Landfill not being included in the annexation component of the SPA One Plan. Moreover, as a result of those ongoing negotiations, the SPA One project proposes to detach the Otay Landfill complex from the City of Chula Vista. [See Addendum to the Draft Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan Regarding the Detachment of the Otay Landfill (March 27, 1996)] The Project objectives as set forth in the Final Second-Tier EIR are hereby incorporated by this reference. (Final Second-Tier EIR, p. 2-24 and p,2-25) In arriving at its final decision, the decisionmakers took into consideration objectives set forth in the Final Second-Tier EIR, the Final PEIR, and objectives consistent with the evidence before them at the hearings held by the decisionmakers. 2 -".~.'--"-'-- ----_._.._--~~._,..,-_.._-----~----_. ... Discretionary Actions The discretionary actions taken by the decisionmakers in approving this Project are: . General DeveloDment Plan Amendments A. Amend page 113 of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan as follows: "Each Village must be master-planned as a unit, exceDt for the Inverted "L". the areas of Villa¡œ One west of Paseo Ranchero. and Ranch House DrODertv which mav have their own SPA Plan aDDroved Drior to develoDment of the Darticular area. II B. Amend page 384 of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan as follows: "Policy: Existing agricultural uses, including cultivation and grazing, shall be permitted to continue as an interim activity only where they have occurred historically and continually. No increase in irrigation shall be allowed except for temporary irrigation that may be installed as part of restoration plans, unless aDDroved bv the Preserve Owner/Manal!er. Grazing by sheep and goats shall not be allowed. Cattle grazing shall be phased out in accordance with the conveyance program and the Range Management Plan." C. Amend page 392 of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan as follows: - Use af selar eøergy sy3teffl3. "Use solar energy systems, as Dractical." D. Amend the transit corridor alignment as was originally depicted on page 125 of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. 1 E. Amend the GDP requirement concerning noise impacts to habitat for Least Bell's Vireo and California Gnatcatcher as follows: "Impacts to Least Bell's Vireo lIftå CalifsFHia Gflæeateker habitat shall be mitigated to achieve a level of 60 dBA Leq or below." "Noise levels within I!natcatcher habitat shall. to the extent feasible. achieve 65 dBA. However. for Dumoses of achievinl! the I!natcatcher standard of 52% those I!natcatchers imDacts bv 65 dBA or I!reater shall not be counted as Dreserved." 1/ The FEIR depicts the transit corridor alignment as originally proposed within the Otay Ranch GDP, and the preferred alignment associated with SPA One. [See FEIR, Volume I, Figure 2-5, p. 2-8] 3 - -- -~,. .-...-..-,.,.--,------ - -- ._---_.._-~-_._--~---"----_.__._---_.. F. Amend the residential noise standard on page 121 of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan as follows: "Residential development within the impact area shall not be allowed unless the site specific noise study shows that the exterior noise level can be mitigated to éG CÞŒL 65 CNEL or below and that the interior noise level can be mitigated to 45 CNEL or below" G. Amend GDP-established performance standards for four grassland species, including Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovivianus), and Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunnicularia), as follows: "Include within the open space preserve, occupied breeding and foraging habitat and sufficient potential habitat to maintain and enhance a viable metapopulation." · Sectional Plannim! Area One Plan (SPA One) - the establishment of land uses, public facilities, design criteria, circulation system, parks and open space for Otay Ranch Village One (exclusive of the area west of Paseo Ranchero) and Village Five. · Zoning Designations - land use districts and boundaries are established and adopted as shown, delineated and designated on the Otay Ranch SPA One Zoning District Map of the City of Chula Vista. · Pre-zoning of Non-Otav Ranch Parcels. Pre-zoning of all non-Otay Ranch parcels included within the proposed annexation area as Planned Community (PC). · Tentative Subdivision MaD( s) - a tentative map is required for implementation of proposed development associated with SPA One. · Overall Design Plan - identifies the major design influences which have shaped the Otay Ranch project to date and establishes overall design guidelines, plans and programs for the Otay Ranch project as a whole. It serves as a design context for the more detailed design programs, including Village Design plans, which will be prepared concurrent with SPA pllms. · Village Design Plan - addresses village-wide issues such as site planning, landscape design, lighting, materials and colors, grading, and community character. The Village Design Plan also contains design guidelines for residential, commercial, and community facilities and boundaries for open space and park design standards. · Phase 2 Resource Management Plan Tasks - a guide for the implementation of the requirements contained in the Phase I RMP. The Phase 2 RMP encompasses a series of tasks that must be performed over time throughout the implementation of the Otay Ranch project. Several of the tasks required in the Phase 2 RMP are analyzed within the Otay Ranch SPA One Second-Tier EIR. These include the following: 4 . ,---..-----.---..-.--- ----.--.".. ------- · Range Management Plan! Agricultural Plan · Trail Plans applicable to SPA One · Vernal Pool Management Plan · Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Sage Scrub Management Program · Existing Biota Monitoring program · Identification of potential locations of Nature Interpretive Center · Identification of interim and permitted uses · Conceptual Infrastructure Plan · Identification of more precise preserve boundaries ("Edge Plans") · Development Agreement - approval of the Development Agreement would provide the City of Chula Vista and the applicant with the assurance that the various elements of the SPA One Plan, including areas of public benefit as well as areas of development, will occur in a reasonable and orderly manner. Other non-discretionmy actions that do not require CEQA review by the City of Chula Vista are: · Preserve owner conveyance plan · Tax agreement · Funding Plan · Grading Permit - grading permits will be required for implementation of proposed development associated with SPA One. Other actions that are the responsibility of another public agency are: · Habitat Loss Permit ( 4d permit) - the Interim Habitat Loss permit will need to be acquired from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through the 4(d) permit process under the Federal Endangered Species Act. · Annexation - Annexation of all, or portions of Planning Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate (Ranch House) into the City of Chula Vista as approved by the San Diego County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). · Detachment - Detachment of the Otay Landfill complex from the City of Chula Vista by LAFCO. 5 --..----.-------...-.--..".. '.--.-.'-.-"..---'----- III. SECOND-TIER EIR The SPA One Second-Tier EIR is a Project EIR that was prepared utilizing information contained in two prior Program EIR's - Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program ErR 90-01 and Chula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03. Under Section 15152, subdivision (a), of the CEQA Guidelines: "Agencies are encouraged to tier EIRs which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the ErR on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review." CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, subdivision (d)(2), allows a Program EIR to be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole." The Otay Ranch Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #89010154, City ErR #90-01) was certified and the General Development Plan approved by the City of Chula Vista City Council on October 28, 1993. The City of Chula Vista adopted the Final CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations dated November 9, 1993, which reflected final actions taken by the City on the Otay Ranch project, on October 28, 1993. A Mitigation Monitoring Program was also adopted by the City which was based on the mitigation required to implement the General Development Plan (GDP) of the City Recommended Plan for Otay Ranch. The Sphere of Influence Update Study Environmental Impact Report (SCH #94041056, City EIR #94-03) was certified March 22, 1995. The City of Chu1a Vista adopted the Final CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations dated March 21, 1995, which reflected final actions taken by the City on the Sphere of Influence Update, on March 21, 1995. At the same time, the City also adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program which was based on the mitigation required to implement the Sphere of Influence Update for the City. The Findings of Fact and Mitigation Measures for each project as described above are hereby incorporated by reference into these Findings of Fact for the Otay Ranch SPA One project. IV. RECIRCULATION OF THE SPA ONE DRAFT EIR The City of Chula Vista originally commenced circulation of the SPA One Draft EIR for public review and comment on September 25, 1995. Subsequent to initiation of the public review period for that document, the City of Chula Vista determined that recirculation of the draft document was necessary due to modifications to the EIR based on new information that became available after the Draft EIR was originally circulated for public review and comment. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.) Pursuant to the decision to recirculate the Draft EIR, the City revised the following sections of the EIR: . Section 1.0 Introduction/Executive Summary 6 n~ -----...-....-. - ".--------.-..-- ..._._,.,..~,._---_.- -"-~----_._------------ · Section 2.0 Project Description · Section 4.2 Landform Alteration! Aesthetics · Section 4.3 Biological Resources · Section 4.4 Cultural Resources · Section 4.7 Agricultural Resources · Section 4.10 Transportation, Circulation, and Access · Section 4.13 Public Services and Utilities In addition, the following technical reports attached to the Draft EIR as technical appendices were also revised and recirculated: · Biological Resources Analysis (Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc.) · Transportation Analysis (BRW, Inc.) Finally, both the Project Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Phase 2 RMP (Dudek and Associates, Inc.) also accompanied the Recirculated Draft EIR. In accordance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City provided notice of and made the Recirculated Draft EIR available for public review and comment. The City provided Notice of Availability of the Recirculated EIR to the Chula Vista Star News and the San Diego Daily Transcript on February 14, 1996. Thereafter, on March 27,1996, the Planning Commission for the City of Chula Vista conducted a properly-noticed public hearing on the Recirculated Draft EIR The following night, on March 28, 1996, the Planning Commission formally closed the public comment and review period on the Recirculated Draft EIR and directed staff to prepare responses to comments, the Final EIR, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For the purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, and pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6, the administrative record of the City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this Project shall consist of the following: · The Draft and Final Second-Tier ErR for the Project, including appendices and technical reports and recirculated portions of the Draft EIR; · The Addendum to the Draft Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report for the 01ay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan Regarding the Detachment of the Otay Landfill; · The Draft and Final Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program EIR 90-01, including appendices and technical reports; · The Draft and Final Chula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update EIR 94-03, including appendices and technical reports; 7 - -- ---- ...-- - _.-.--~--_.,._---_.".---,-_..-~.~.,--,.- · All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by the planning consultanl, the project Applicant, the environmental consultant, and the City of Chula Vista that are before the decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk; · All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies to the decision makers in connection with the EIR on the Project; · Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and public hearings held by the City of Chula Vista, or video tapes where transcripts are not available or adequate; · Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings and public hearings; and · Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which they consider, including but not limited to, the following: - Chula Vista General Plan (update) - 2010 - Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City of Chula Vista - Otay Ranch General Development Plan For purposes of the City's environmental analysis of the Project, the record of proceedings shall be limited to the documents considered by the City of Chula Vista at the time of its decision on the Project. According to the California Supreme Court, "just as appellate courts generally may not consider evidence not contained in the trial record when reviewing such findings, courts generally may not consider evidence not contained in the administrative record when reviewing the substantiality of evidence supporting a quasi-legislative decision under [CEQA]. We also conclude that extra-record evidence is generally not admissible to show that an agency 'has not proceeded in the manner required by law' in making a quasi-legislative decision. Such evidence is generally not admissible to challenge quasi-legislative decisions on non-CEQA grounds, and we see no reason to apply a different rule in CEQA cases." (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. SUDerior Court ("WSPA") (1995) 9 Ca1.4th 559,565 [38 Ca1.Rptr.2d 139].) Among other reasons, judicial review of City's environmental analysis of the Project, if at all, is limited to relevant evidence. Once again, according to the California Supreme Court, "the only evidence that is relevant to the question of whether there was substantial evidence to support a quasi-legislative administrative decision under [CEQA] is that which was before the agency at the time it made its decision." (WSPA, SUDra, 9 Ca1.4th at 573, fn. 4 [38 CaI.Rptr.2d 139], citing Del Mar Terrace Conservancv. Inc.. v. Citv Council of the Citv of San Diego (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 712, 744 [12 Ca1.Rptr.2d 785].) 8 -- --------_....--~-----~'~'- VI. TERMINOLOGYffHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEOA Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effect identified in an ElR for a Project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantiallv lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (emphasis added.) The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third pennissible conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the final EIR." Regarding the first of three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms, therefore, must be gleaned from other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources Code Section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines, therefore, equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code section 21001, which declares the Legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significant environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives thai could "avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects. For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" shall refer to the ability of one or more mitigation measures 10 reduce an otherwise significant effecl to a less-than-si¡¡nificant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" shall refer to the ability of such measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to a level of insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, will specify whether the effect in question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant). The purpose of these findings is to systematically restale the significant effects of the Project on the environment identified in the Final EIR, and determine the feasibility of mitigation measures and Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR which would avoid or substantially lessen those significant effects. These Findings also assure that performance standards adopted in connection with the Otay Ranch GDP are achieved. Once the City has adopted sufficient measures to avoid a significant impacl, the City does not need to adopt every mitigation measure brought to its attention or identified in the Final EIR. It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Chula Vista to not approve a Project if there are available feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives which would substantially lessen that Project's significant environmental effects. Only when such mitigation measures or Project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic, social or other 9 --"-"-- -----..."---- ---~..._. conditions set forth in these findings may the City approve a Project in spite of its significant effects. Another purpose of these findings is to focus on Project alternatives in the ultimate decisionmaker's decision whether to approve or disapprove the Project. If, after application of all feasible mitigation measures to the Project, significant impacts remain, Project alternatives identified in the FPElR must be reviewed and determined to be feasible or infeasible. The findings set forth the reasons, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the decisionmakers conclude any such Project alternatives are infeasible (see further discussion in Feasibility of Alternatives Section). VII. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista ("City" or "decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including the Applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations or conditions thai will corne into effect when the City adopts the resolution(s) approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project. VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City of Chula Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to ensure that during Project implementation, the Applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described in the document entitled "Otay Ranch SPA One Mitigation Monitoring Program." A component of required mitigation monitoring includes an ongoing Biota Monitoring Program. [See Mitigation Monitoring Program, p. 6; SPA One Plan, Appendix F, Phase II RMP, p. 159; see also id., Appendix F.ll, Biota Monitoring Program] 10 .----_._-----~-~._~._~-- IX. IMP ACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following summary briefly describes impacts determined to be less than significant in the preparation of the EIR. Land Use. Plannim!. and Zoning No impact to compatibility of land uses within Village One or within Village Five is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.\-6] No impact related to compatibility of land uses between Villages One and Five is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1-7] No impact related to the compatibility of SPA One with existing and planned surrounding land uses is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1-7] No environmental impact as a result of the approval of the GDP/SRP Amendment is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1-8] No impact to consistency with the GDP/SRP is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1-9] No impact as a result of the PC Zone Amendment is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1-11] No impact to SPA One consistency with other local and regional plans is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.\-10 through 4.1-11] Landform Alteration! Aesthetics No impact to lighting/astronomical dark sky policies related to the Palomar and Mt. Laguna observatories is anticipaled, [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-6] The grading and construction will be visible during the buildout of the project ftom Telegraph Canyon Road which is designated a scenic road, as well as from adjacent developed areas. These short-term impacts to visual resources will occur as a result of construction, bul are considered less than significant. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-17] Biological Resources Impacts to non-sensitive habitats (agricultural land; annual, non-native grassland; disturbed habitat) or developed areas are less than significant. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-12] The direct impact to annual, non-native grassland is less than significant. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-12] 11 - - --_..~_.~--~._---_.. .....---.--.... Impacts to ashy spike-moss and San Diego barrel cactus are less than significant for SPA One because of their low sensitivity and because most populations and potential habitats are preserved. [FEIR, Volume I, p, 4.3-15 through 4.3-16] Impacts to San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, Cooper's hawk, grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, prairie falcon, tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite, and American badger are less than significant for SPA One. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-16] Potential, indirect impacts to sensitive communities in Village One west of Paseo Ranchero are less than significant because no housing will be placed adjacent to them, and the remaining undeveloped area including the sensitive communities is of considerable size (243.4 acres). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-18] Indirect impacts to freshwater marsh along Telegraph Canyon Road in Village One east of Paseo Ranchero and Village Five are less than significant because of the low quality of the existing habitat. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-18] Cultural Resources Implementation of the SPA One portion of the proposed project will result in a direct impact to 13 sites which have been tested and evaluated as not significant. Impacts to these sites will not be significant. These sites are: SDI-12,280; SDI-12,466; SDI-13,861; SDI-13,869; SDI-12,281; SDI-13,859; SDI-13,867; SDI-13,870; SDI-12,465; SDI-13,860; SDI-13,868; SDI-13,87IH; SDI-13,873H. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-12] The survey of the western portion of the Otay Valley parcel resulted in the identification of seven sites that may be impacted by future grading or brushing. The testing of these seven sites indicated that six were not significant. The non-significant sites are: SDI-4258; SDI-ll,387H; SDI-13,862; SDI-13,863; SDI-13,865; SDI-13,866. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-12] Geology and Soils No active or potentially active faults are known to exist on the site. No impact associated with ground surface rupture is anticipaled. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-7] No impact related to liquefaction is anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-8] The impact to geology as a result of the Annexation of Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate is less than significant. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-9] 12 --- --.. -_....._-_._~--~----_.._~.._---- Paleontological Resources The impact to paleontology as a result of the annexation of Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate is less than significant. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.6-6 through 4.6-7] Agricultural Resources No impact to the loss of prime farmland is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.7-10] Housing and Population (Communitv Social Factors) No impact to the existing housing stock is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.8-3] No impact to affordable housing is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.8-4] No impact on planned population is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.8-5] With respect to housing impacts, the annexation of the above properties within the City of Chula Vista would not be significant. [FElR, Volume I, p. 4.8-5] With respecl to populalion impacts, the annexation of the subject properties into the City of Chula Vista would not be significant. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.8-5] Water Resources and Water Oualitv Due to the filtering of pollutants during percolation, in addition to the poor quality of existing ground water within SPA One as described in the existing setting, no significant impacts to ground water quality are anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.9-4] No impact to groundwater quantity is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.9-4] Wilh the implementation of the SPA One Master Drainage Plan, no hydrology impact on- site is !I11ticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.9-5] No impact to hydrology flows from Poggi Canyon is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.9-7] Noise No impact on surrounding communities from other noise sources within SPA One is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.12-17] No impact as a result of external non-lraffic noise on SPA One is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.12-18] No impacts to SPA One from internal non-traffic noise sources are anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.12-23] 13 -..-,----------_.-------- Public Services and Utilities No significant impact to parks, recreation, open space and trails as a result of SPA One has been identified. [FEIR, Volume I, 4.13-31] No significant impact to law enforcement services is anticipated as a result of SPA One. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-35] No significant impact to fire/EMS services is anticipated as a result of SPA One. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-39] No impact to animal control facilities is anticipated as a result of SPA One. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-42] No impact to civic facilities is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-44] No impact to civic facilities as a result of the proposed annexation is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-44] No impact to library services is anticipated as a result of SPA One. [FEIR, Volume I, p.4.13-46] x. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE GDP/SRP FINDINGS The Otay Ranch Final Program EIR and attendant Findings of Fact impose numerous requirements which must be addressed at the SPA level of planning. Because of the size of Otay Ranch, the manner in which the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP was approved, and the fact that the plan was jointly processed by two jurisdictions, the number of SPA level planning requirements imposed far exceed the number typically contained in other SPA level planning documents. This is particularly true for the first Otay Ranch SPA plan. To that end, and in order to ensure compliance with requirements set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for the SPA One Plan, this section sets forth the applicable requirements from the GDP/SRP Findings for each resource area and a finding as to compliance of the SPA One Plan with each applicable requirement. [See also SPA One Plan, Part II, Index of SPA Requirements, pp. II-4 through II-II; FEIR, Volume II, Appendix E, Biological Resources Analysis, p. 25 (Compliance with Program EIR 90-01 Findings of Fact and Performance Standards) and Tables 2 and 3] In addition, the Final Second-Tier EIR identified a number of direct significant environmental effects (or "impacts") that the Project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others can not be avoided. 14 - ,-_._---""-~---------- Land Use. Planning, and Zoning The conversion of the SPA One Project site from a non-urban use to an intensive urban development is a significant effect. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1-5] Landform Alteration! Aesthetics The change in the overall visual character of Project area from undeveloped land to an urbanized area is a significant aesthetic impact. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.2-5 through 4.2- 6] Addition of nighttime lights to the Project site. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-6] Impacts associated with the alteration of significant or sensitive landforms are significant because implementation of the Project will require approximately 19,200,000 cubic yards of cut and fill grading. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.2-6 through 4.2-8, Figures 4.2-1,4.2-2] Implementation of the Project will impact steep slopes on sileo [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2- 9] The Project will result in significant visual impacts visible to a large number of people as a result of the change in the Project site from the existing rolling hills and rural features of Ihe site, to a neo-traditional urban development. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-11; see also Figures 4.2-3 through 4.2-6] Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, future development of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate would result in a potential impact to landform alteration/aesthetics. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-22] 15 .--_. .---.... ~-_.._._._--,...._--_._-~-------_.. Biological Resources DIRECT IMPACTS Vegetation Communities Village One East of Paseo Ranchero The Project would result in direct significant impacts to the following sensitive habitats: 15.2 acres of coastal sage scrub, 1.9 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub, 4.3 acres of maritime succulent scrub, and 4.3 acres of disturbed maritime succulent scrub. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-12 through 4.3-14, Table 4.3-1, Figure 4.3-4] Village One West of Paseo Ranchero Implementation of the roadway extensions of East Palomar Street, East Orange Avenue, and the future light rail transit easement would result in direct impacts to the following sensitive habitats: 12.2 acres of coastal sage scrub; 6.5 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub; 0.6 acre of maritime succulent scrub; and 0.6 acre of disturbed maritime succulent scrub. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-12 through 4.3-14, Table 4.3-1, Figure 4.3-4] Village Five Implementation of the Project would result in direct significant impacts to approximately 0.7 acre of freshwater marsh. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-15; ~ also id., pp. 4.3-13 through 4.3-14, Table 4.3-1, Figure 4.3-4] Wetlands Development of Village Five will result in direct significant impacts to wetlands as follows: a 0.2 acre freshwater marsh and a 0.3 acre pond in Poggi Canyon, and a 0.5 acre freshwater marsh in the east-central portion of the village. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-15; see also id. p. 4.3-6, Figure 4.3-2, 4.3-13, Figure 4.3-4] Sensitive Plant Species Village One West of Paseo Ranchero The Project may potentially result in direct significant impacts to the Otay tarplant (Hemizonia c01yugens), a listed plant species, during construction of East Palomar Street, the future light rail transit easement, and possibly East Orange Avenue. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-15 through 4.3-17, Figure 4.3-4; see also id., p. 4.3-9, Figure 4.3-3] 16 -~_..- -- -,----,', --~.__.----------------_...- SensiJive Animal Species Village One East of Paseo Ranchero Construction of the Project would result in direct significant impacts to one pair of coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica) and three pairs of cactus wrens (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-16 through 4.3-17, Figure 4.3-5] Village One West of Paseo Ranchero Development of the Project would result in direct significant impacts to one pair of coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-17 through 4.3-18, Figure 4.3-5] INDIRECT IMPACTS The Project will result in significant indirect impacts to 6.2 acres of coastal sage scrub and 5.6 acres of maritime succulent scrub in Village One east of Paseo Ranchero because these communities are either adjacent to or very near proposed development. (FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-38, p. 4.3-14, Table 4.3-1] The Project would result in significant indirect noise impacts to the locations of two pairs of coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-39] Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, future development of Planning Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate would resulI in a potential impact to biological resources, [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-42] CulIural Resources Implementation of the SPA One Plan would result in a direct impact to one site resource (SDJ-J3,872H) of moderate significance. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-12] Future grading or brushing associated with development in the western parcel and construction of the light rail line would resulI in significant impacts to one important site (SDl-J3, 864). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-12] Although the proposed annexalion would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, future developmenl of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate would resulI in potentially significant impacts on cultural resources. [FEIR, pp. 4.4-13 through 4.4-14; see also GDP/SRP Findings, p. 89, citing FPEIR, p. Volume 2, pp. 4.9.5- 8 through 4.9.5-9] Although annexation of II non-Otay Ranch parcels into the City would not by itself result in environmental impacts, and even though no development applications are currently pending with respect to these parcels, annexation of these parcels would facilitate 17 - _u_ ---------..------.--.-. . development of these parcels which would, in turn, potentially impact any cultural resources encountered. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-14] GeolO!!v and Soils Development of the proposed project may expose structures or persons to impacts associated with ground shaking. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-7] Compressible soils not detected and mitigated prior to construction may severely damage structural foundations. [FEIR, Volume ], p. 4.5-7] Expansive soils not detected prior to construction may severely damage structural foundations. [FE]R, Volume ], p. 4.5-7, 8] Due to the fact the bentonitic clays and locally sheared siltstones are present on the project site, there is a pOlential impact related to slope stability on future development. IFEIR, Volume ], p. 4.5-8] Paleontolol!Ïcal Resources Because the majority of SPA One is underlain by the San Diego and Otay formations, significant impacts are anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.6-5] Agricultural Resources The loss of agricultural land wilhin the County and land suitable for the potential production of coastal-dependenl crops would result in a significant impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment of a limited agricultural resource. [FEIR, pp. 4.7-10 through 4.7-11] Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, possible impacts on agricultural resources as a result of future development within the annexation component of the Project are potentially significant. [FEIR, pp. 4.7-]2 through 4.7-13] Water Resources and Water Oualitv The increase in runoff flows off-site is a potential impact to downstream drainage facilities. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.9-5] The proposed project will result in a significant increase in urban runoff and pollutants associated with urban runoff. [FEIR, Volume ], p. 4.9-7] The impact to water resources and water quality as a result of the annexation of Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate is potentially significant. [FE]R, Volume ], p. 4.9-9 through 4.9-]0] 18 ---..----.--- - ---.._-_.__._~_._-----_.__. Transportation. Circulation. and Access Four peak-hour freeway segments on I-80S will operate at unacceptable LOS with implementation of the Project. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-2 through 9-5 and Table 9.1] The following intersections will operate at unacceptable peak-hour LOS with implementation of the Project: East H Street/Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-21, 4.10-29 and Table 4.10-3; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.3.1, p. 9-24 and Table 9.8] Air Quality Short-term impacts to localized air quality would result from construction of the proposed project. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.11-8] The proposed project will result in increased emissions in the region through on-site consumption of energy (i.e., lighting, water and space heating and cooling) and increased vehicle trips. [FEIR, Volume I, p.4.11-9] Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, air quality impact associated with development in those areas is anticipated to remain significant. [FEIR, Volume I, pp, 4.11-10 through 4.11-11] Noise Construction of SPA One will create a long-term significant noise impact on and around the site, including existing California Gnatcatcher habitat. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-6 through 4.12-7] Traffic noise from external roadways may impact SPA One land uses. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-18 and Tables 4.12-10, 4.12-11, and 4.12-12] Traffic noise from internal roadways may impact SPA One land uses. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-18 through 4.12-23 and Tables 4.12-13 and 4.12-14] Although the SPA One Plan will attain the performance standard set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for preservation of Gnatcatchers based on the noise impact significance threshold of 65 dBA L"I' areas containing coastal sage scrub that support the coastal California Gnatcatcher will be subjected to traffic generated noise levels from East Orange A venue and Paseo Ranchero. These noise levels will exceed the 60 dBA L"I significance level established in the Findings of Fact adopted for Program EIR 90-01. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-26 and Volume I, p. 4.3-45] Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, possible future development could result in residents of the Ross and Gerhardt parcels being exposed to significant traffic noise levels from the adjacent East 19 -"---....- - ~--_..-.~-----_._.._._--~._.._.- Palomar Street, and residents of the Satterla parcel being exposed to significant aircraft noise levels from the nearby San Diego Air Sports Center. In addition, project-related traffic from the development of all non-Otay Ranch parcels would incrementally contribute to significant cumulative noise impacts to noise-sensitive receptors located along surrounding roadways. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.12-26] Public Services and Utilities Water (Water Conservation, Reclaimed Water) Total projected potable water demands for average annual day, maximum day, and peak hour at ultimate buildout are 1.34 mgd, 3.08 mgd, and 4.69 mgd, respectively. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-5 and Table 4.13-2] Total projected reclaimed water demands for average annual day, maximum day, and peak hour at ultimate buildout are 0.22 mgd, 0.57 mgd, and 1.72 mgd, respectively. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-6 and Table 4.13-3; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Appendix C.I, Sub Area Master Plan, p. 5-4, Table 5-4] Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will require the extension of public services if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-7] Sewerage Based on the sewage generation factors presented previously and the proposed development plan for SPA One, the total projected sewage flow from SPA One is 1.46 mgd (1,012 gpm). Of this amount, 0.90 mgd (624 gpm) naturally drains to the Telegraph Canyon Basin and the remaining 0.56 mgd (388 gpm) naturally drains to the Poggi Canyon Basin. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-13 and Table 4.13-4] Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will require the extension of public services if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-17] Schools Increased demand for a new middle school on Sweetwater Union High School District' existing school facilities and capacity may occur earlier than was anticipated in the GDP stage. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-20] The anticipated increase of 1,443 students generated by the SPA One Plan will result in a significant impact to existing Sweetwater High School facilities. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-20] 20 _ _._m____~___._'m"~__·__·· Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel may require additional school facilities and services if developmenl occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-22] Parks Although no developmenl applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will require additional parkland if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-29 through 4.13-30 and Table 4.13- 11] Law Enforcement Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will require additional law enforcement service if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-34] FirelEmergency Medical Services (EMS) Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will require additional fire and EMS services if development occurs wilhin these areas, [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-38 through 4.13-39] Animal Control Services Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will require additional square footage of animal control facilities if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-41 through 4,13-42] Library Services Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will impact library facilities if development occurs in these areas due to the increase in population. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-46] Integrated Waste Management The development of SPA One will result in a significant increase in solid waste generation. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-48] 21 ___m_ . ...-.. ..---.-- .-------------------.--- - ~~..._-----------~._- Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel facilitate development in the area which will result in impacts to solid waste facilities due to the increase in population. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-49] HazardslRisk of Unset The absence of an emergency plan is a potential impact. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.14-3] Certain of the above impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided at the Sectional Plan level; but, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that the impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. The following sub-sections describe specific impacts, setting forth either the reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures adopted to substantially lessen or avoid them, or the reasons why proposed mitigation measures proved to be infeasible due to specific economic, social or other consideration. A. LAND USE. PLANNING. AND ZONING Compliance Witlt GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for land use, planning, and zoning. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.1-6 through 4.1-9, Tables 4.1-1, 4.1-2] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant environmental effects on land use, planning, and zoning. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 14-18, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-1] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 14-18, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.2-1 through 4.9.2-2] . SPA plans developed for areas within the Otay Valley parcel shall contain landscaping, grading, and buffering standards (including any standards contained in Sections 3.13, 3.14, and 3.16 of the Final Program EIR) designed to prevent land use interface impacts such as health hazards, noise, lighting, and loss of privacy between Project area and adjacent land uses. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the SPA One Plan includes policy language that explicitly sets forth landscaping, grading and buffering guidelines that will be implemented during Project development which will prevent land use interface impacls between the Project and adjacent land uses. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1-7; SPA One Plan, Appendix B, Village Design Plans, Part II; 22 --....- Appendix D, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP, Edge Plan, p. 240] · SPA plans developed for areas within the Otay Valley parcel shall contain policy language that explicitly sets forth standards for landscaping, grading, and buffering to prevent land use interface impacts such as noise, lighting, and loss of privacy from occurring between adjacent internal land uses, especially between single-family and multi-family residential land uses and between residential and non-residential land uses (including the standards contained in 3.13, 3.14 and 3.16 of the Final Program EIR). The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the SPA One Plan includes policy language Ihat explicitly sets forth landscaping, grading and buffering guidelines that will be implemented during Project development which will prevent intemalland use interface impacts. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1-6; SPA One Plan, Appendix B, Village Design Plans, Part II] · Buffer and/or transition techniques which deal with the transition between different "villages" within and outside of the Otay Ranch project as set forth in the land use policies of the GDP/SRP shall be implemented at the SPA level. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the village buffering/transition techniques set forth in the land use policies of the GDP/SRP have been incorporated into the SPA One Plan and will be implemented during development of the Project. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.1-6 through 4.1-7; SPA One Plan, Appendix A, Overall Design Plan; Appendix B, Village Design Plans, Part II; Appendix D, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP, Edge Plan, p.240] · Criteria developed in the RMP to protect resources located outside the management preserve shall be implemented at the SPA level. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the development criteria set forth in the Phase I RMP have been incorporated into, and will be implemented during construction of the SPA One Plan as a component of the Phase 2 RMP. [SPA One Plan, Appendix D, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan] * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: The conversion of the SPA One Project site from a non-urban use to an intensive urban development is a significant effect. [FEIR, Volume I, p, 4.1-5] 23 ,..--...------..-----.---"------- Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final ElR, however, not to a level below significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Stalement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FElR, Volume 1, p. 4.1-10] . Any future development approval associated with the SPA One plan shall be consistent with the adopted SPA One plan, and related discretionary actions including the General Development Plan Amendments, Overall Design Plan, Village Design Plan, and Conceptual Grading Plan. Consistency with these plans will ensure that all policies and development standards contained within the plans are complied with. Compliance will ensure that setbacks, landscaping, building design, lighting standards, grading techniques, etc. are fully implemented which will avoid land use impacts. B. LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS Compliance Wit" GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for landform alteration/aesthelics. The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant environmental effects associated with landform alteration/aesthetics. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 18-24, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 18-24, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1 through 4.9.3-2] . The Applicant shall adhere to and implement the landform alteration standards for sensitive landforms as set forth in the GDP/SRP, including standards governing roadway design, the avoidance of excessive use of manufactured slopes in the Otay Valley, natural buffering between development and significant landforms, limitations on variable slope ratios during grading plan development, and preservation of eighty-three percent of steep slopes (i.e., steeper than 25%). 24 ------ - - -- -_._---_._-~--~-_.._--- The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this ranch-wide mitigation measure/performance standard because: the SPA One Plan includes and is consistent with the landform alteration policies sel forth in the GDP/SRP, including the requirement that eighty-three percent of steep slopes be preserved on Otay Ranch. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.2-9 through 4.2-10, 4.2-17 through 4.2-22, Tables 4.2-2 through 4.2-5; SPA One Plan, Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP, Steep Slopes Discussion, p. 174] · Grading plans shall be prepared by certified engineers, evaluated by the appropriate jurisdiction's planning and engineering departments, and development shall be proceed in accordance with those plans, as well as the grading policies set forth in the GDP/SRP. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because a conceptual grading plan for SPA One was prepared and reviewed in accordance with the preceding requirement, and those plans incorporate the grading policies set forth in the SPA One Plan which, in turn, incorporates the grading policies set forth in the GDP/SRP. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.2-4, 4.2-9 through 4.2-10; SPA One Plan, Part 1, Section 5, p. 1-99 (conceptual grading plans)] · Al the SPA level, specific mitigation measures 10 reduce grading and visual resource impacts must be developed and analysis of those impacts shall include either engineering cross-sections depicting existing and proposed topography or photo documentation illustrating proposed topographic and design features, and any cut and fill slopes in excess of 15 feet in height shall be identified, and special attention shall be placed on grading and design of highly visible features of the Project. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because: specific mitigation measures, as set forth below, were developed for the SPA One Plan that reduce grading and visual resource impacts associated with the Project [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.2-9 through 4.2-10]; a computer generated visual analysis illustrating proposed topographic and design features was prepared to assist in the analysis of visual and grading impacts associated with the SPA One Plan [FEIR, Volume I, pp, 4.2-2,4.2-11 through 4.2-17, Figures 4.2-3 through 4.2-7]; SPA One cut and fill slopes in excess of 15 feet in height are identified [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.2-6 through 4.2-8, Figures 4.2-1, 4.2-2]; and the SPA One Plan itself includes landform alteration and grading policies, and design guidelines that will apply to the development of higWy visible features of the Project [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.2-9 through 4.2-10; SPA One Plan, Appendix B, Village Design Plans; SPA One Plan, Part 1, Section 5, p. 1-99 (conceptual grading plans)] · The Applicant shall adhere to the binding design guidelines in the GDP/SRP that pertain to streetscapes, buildings, and villages, including guidelines addressing view corridors; the integration of walls, including acoustical barriers, into the architectural theme and scale of the village; landscaping; the integration of natural and native plantings into manufactured slope revegetation; the compatibility and diversity of scale and architectural treatments of residential and non-residential 25 -.-._--"_.~--_._-- buildings; signage; buffering techniques for transitions between villages and incompatible land uses; architectural color for development for development adjacent to open space areas; and lighting. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the SPA One Plan incorporates, and thereby ensures compliance with, the binding design guidelines in the GDP/SRP as described above, including the binding guidelines for lighting. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-9; SPA One Plan, Appendix A, Overall Design Plans; SPA One Plan, Appendix B, Village Design Plans] . SPA plans and all implementing documents shall require design review for all building and site plans to ensure compatible architectural styles, building materials, building proportions, landscaping, streetscape, and signage throughout each village. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because a two-step formal design review process has been established at the SPA level to ensure all development within Otay Ranch is consistent with the Overall Design Plan, the applicable village design plan, and the design and development standards of the City of Chula Vista or the County of San Diego. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-10; SPA One Plan, p. III-78 (PC District Regulations); Appendix B, Village Design Plans, p. 1-67] * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: The change in the overall visual character of Project area from undeveloped land to an urbanized area is a significant aesthetic impact. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.2-5 through 4.2-6] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, however, not to a level below significance. In particular, and as described above, the SPA One Plan provides policies and guidelines to create a design compatible with surrounding development. However, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. * * * 26 -.----"- -- ---_.~--_.-~-_._---~_._.._.. Significant Project Impact; Addition of nighttime lights to the Project site. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-6] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)( I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will mitigate the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as a condition of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-18] . Prior to the approval of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a plan which shows the proposed height, location, and intensity of street lights on-site. The plan shall comply with the City's minimum standards for roadway lighting and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Planning Director and the City Engineer. . Prior to the approval of improvement plans, the applicanl shall prepare the lighting plan to include the design of all exterior lighting consistent with the standards established by the General Plan and the County's Dark Sky Ordinance as depicted on Table 4.2-1 afthe Final EIR to minimize off-site light impacts. The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. * * * Significant Project Impact: Impacts associated with the alteration of significant or sensitive landforms are significant because implementation of the Project will require approximately 19,200,000 cubic yards of cut and fill grading. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.2-6 through 4.2-8, Figures 4.2-1, 4.2-2] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)( I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, including guidelines to prevent significant long-term visual impacts from grading operations, guidelines for landscaping that will further reduce visual impacts, and a multi-phased design review process 10 ensure all development within Otay Ranch is consistent with the Overall Design Plan, the applicable village design plan, and the design and development standards of the City of Chula Vista or the County of San Diego. [FEIR, pp. 4.2-9 to 4.2-11] These measures, however, will not reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. 27 -..--, --------,.,.....-..~~_._..~---_.__.- * * * Significant Project Impact: Implementation of the Project will impact steep slopes on site. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-9] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will mitigate the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final ErR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigalion measure is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and is made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FErR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-22 and Tables 4.2-2, 4.2-3, 4.2-4, 4.2-5; see also GDP/SRP Findings, p. 19, citing FPErR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP, Appendix F.II] . The Findings of Fact for the Program ErR 90-03 impose a requirement that 83% of steep slopes (land with gradients of 25% or greater) must be preserved on the enlire area of Otay Ranch. Quantifiable limits for the number of acres of steep slopes that may be disturbed in each village or planning area while ensuring compliance with the 83% Ranch-wide preservation standard have been established. Based on the total acres of steep slopes assumed to be preserved within Otay Ranch through the GDP and Phase I RMP (6,350 out of 7,651 acres), developable steep slope acreage shall not exceed 1,30 I acres for the entire Otay Ranch. In order to ensure that no single entitlement in Otay Ranch encroaches upon a disproportionately large share of steep slopes, the acreage of steep slope that may be disturbed while still meeting the 83% standard has been established for each village of the GDP. The proposed Otay Ranch SPA One plan, and each subsequent SPA plan shall not exceed the areas of steep slopes "permitted to be disturbed" as depicted in Table 4.2-5, unless the SPA One plan, or subsequent SPA plans demonstrate that the excess encroachment will not jeopardize the ability of all subsequent entitlements to achieve the Ranch-wide 83% slope preservation standard. Each subsequent SPA plan shall be reviewed by the City for consistency with the Steep Slope allocation presented in Table 4.2-5 - Steep Slopes Allocations by AcresNiIlages. Should a proposed SPA Plan exceed the permitted acreage of steep slope disturbance, the applicant shall provide documentation for review and approval by the local jurisdiction with responsibility for SPA approval that demonstrates how the steep slope acreage for subsequent SPA's will be maintained. * * * 28 ---.---"---. ,.___.._ ____.__..__... _ ____~___~~___m Significant Project Impact: The Project will result in significant visual impacts visible to a large number of people as a result of the change in the Project site from the existing rolling hills and rural features of the site, to a neo-traditional urban development. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-11; ~ also Figures 4.2-3 through 4,2-6] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)( I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, including guidelines to prevent significant long-term visual impacts from grading operations, guidelines for landscaping that will further reduce visual impacts, and a multi-phased design review process to ensure all development within Otay Ranch is consistent with the Overall Design Plan, the applicable village design plan, and the design and development standards of the City of Chula Vista or the County of San Diego. [FEIR, pp. 4.2-9 to 4.2-11] These measures, however, will not reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigale the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measure described under the preceding significant effect is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and is made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-22 and Tables 4.2-2, 4.2-3, 4.2-4, 4.2-5; see also GDP/SRP Findings, p. 19, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.3-1] * * * Significant Project Impact: Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, future development of Planning Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate would result in a potential impact to landform alteration/aesthetics. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-22] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, including adherence to landform and visual policies of the City of Chula Vista. Adherence to this policies, however, would not reduce the impact to below a level of significance, Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subd. (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. 29 _ _. ·_.~~___M._.n___~___··_···_____ C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact As listed below, the GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant environmental effects to multiple biological resources, including habitats and species. With respect to these impacts, and as summarized below, the GDP/SRP Findings also found numerous mitigation measures and performance standards to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. · Sensitive uplands (including coastal sage scrub), wetlands, and vernal pool habitat would be significantly impacted. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 25, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-1 through 4.9.4-4; ~ also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 25-30, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.4-8 through 4.9.4-14 and Table 4.2.4-8 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] · State-listed endangered plant species would be significantly impacted. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 36, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-4 - 4,9.4-5; ~ also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 36-38, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.4-14 through 4.9.4-17 and Table 4.2.4-9 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] · Second, third, and fourth priority plant species would be significantly impacted, [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 38, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-4 through 4.9.4-5; see also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 39-43, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.4-14 through 4.9.4-17 and Table 4.2.4-9 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] · Least Bell's vireo, tricolored blackbird, and the southwestern willow flycatcher habitat would be significantly impacted. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 45, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5 through 4.9.4-7; see also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 45-50, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.4-17 through 4.9.4-22 and Table 4.2.4-2 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] · Cactus Wren and California Gnatcatcher habitat would be significantly impacted. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 50, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4.5 through 4.9.4-7; see also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 50-53, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.4-17 through 4.9.4-22 and Table 4.2.4-2 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] · Riverside fairy shrimp habitat would be significantly impacted. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 56, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5 through 4.9.4-6; ~ also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 56-58, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.4-17 through 4.9.4-22 and Table 4.2.4-2 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] · San Diego Vernal Pool Fairy shrimp habitat would be significantly impacted. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 58, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5 through 4.9.4-6; 30 "__ .~...__,_ _._~__~__,__~_..._.__..,.._m.__ see also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 59-60, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.4-17 through 4.9.4-22 and Table 4.2.4-2 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] · Harbison's dun skipper, Hermes copper, Thorne's hairstreak, and Quino checkerspot habitat would be significantly impacted. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 61, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5 through 4.9.4-6 and Table 4.9.4-2; ~ also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 61-64, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.4-18 through 4.9.4-21 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] · California red-legged frog and southwestern pond turtle would be significantly impacted. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 64, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-6 and p. 4.9.4-7; see also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 64-65, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.4-18 through 4.9.4-22 and Table 4.9.4-2 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] · Impacts to forty-nine (49) other sensitive wildlife species are potentially significant. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 66, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-5 through 4.9.4-7; see also GDP/SRP Findings, pp, 69-81, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, Section 3.3.3 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] · Regional raptor-foraging areas would be significantly impacted. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 82, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 3.3-48 through 3.3-51; see also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 82-85, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, Table 3.3-7, mitigation measures 32 through 36 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] · Regional and local wildlife corridors would be significantly impacted. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 86, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.4-8 through 4.9.4-9; see also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 86-89, citing FPEIR, pp. 4.9.4-22 through 4.9.4-24 (mitigation measures/performance standards)] Finding: Except for the performance standards established in the GDP/SRP Findings for the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila cali/ornica), Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunnicularia), California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and Northern Harrier Hawk (Circus cyaneus), the City of ChuIa Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with the mitigation measures and meets the performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for biological resources because all required SPA-level studies related to biological resources have been prepared and all performance standards will be achieved. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-18 through 4.3-39, Tables 4.3-2 (habitats), 4.3-3 (species); FEIR, Appendix E, Biological Resources Analysis, p. 25 and Tables 2 and 3; see also SPA One Plan, Part 11 (Index of SPA Requirements), pp. 1I-3 to 1I-12] With respect to the Burrowing Owl, California Horned Lark, and Loggerhead Shrike, the performance standard set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings requires preservation of 80% of , occupied habitat. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-37, Table 4.3-4; see also GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 75-76] For the Northern Harrier Hawk, the performance standard in the GDP/SRP Findings requires preservation of 100% of breeding population and 80% of non-breeding 31 _____H____··._+_______ . population. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-37, Table 4.3-4; see also GDP/SRP Findings, p. 74] The City of Chula Vista finds that the performance standards originally identified in the GDP/SRP Findings for these species will not be achieved for SPA One because of the species, wide-ranging, foraging, and breeding habits and their characteristic, wide-spread use of annual, non-native grasslands and agricultural areas throughout Otay Ranch. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-36] The City of Chula Vista also finds that formulation of a more-realistic performance standard for these species at the SPA-level is appropriate because of their wide-ranging, foraging, and breeding habits, characteristic wide-spread use of annual, non-native grassland and agricultural land, and the recent elimination by the United States Fish and Wildlife of "Category 2" status for the California Homed Lark and Loggerhead Shrike. In general, the revised performance standard for these species is to include within the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve, occupied breeding and foraging habitat and sufficient habitat to maintain and enhance a viable metapopulation of each of these species. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-36, 4.3-30 through 4.3-32, Table 4.3-3] This standard is the same as that suggested for these four species in the biological documentation supporting the Draft MSCP distributed for public review in March 1995. It should be noted that the RMP performance standards established for these four grassland species, and for the other species and habitats addressed in the RMP, are ranch- wide performance standards based on the development areas and 11,375-acre open space preserve designated and approved as part of the review and approval process for the Otay Ranch GDP. The ranch-wide performance standards are not intended to be achieved on a SPA by SPA basis, nor can they be, since the 11,375-acre open space preserve, within which each species and habilats must be preserved to ensure achievement of the performance standards, is separate and apart from the boundaries of the individual villages and SPAs designated by the approved GDP. The SPA by SPA analysis is therefore more properly focused on whether an individual SPA would preclude achieve of RMP performance standards within the 11,3 75-acre open space preserve due to inconsistencies between the SPA and open space preserve boundaries and standards established as part of the GDP. To that end, the City of Chula Vista finds that no features of the SPA One Plan would adversely affect achievement of the revised performance standard for the Burrowing Owl, California Horned Lark, Loggerhead Shrike, and Northern Harrier Hawk on a ranch-wide basis. Achievement of the ranch-wide performance standards will be measured on an ongoing basis through implemenlation of the Biota Moniloring Program included in Appendix F .11 of the Phase 2 RMP. With respecl to the proposed performance standards for the four grassland species, it is useful to understand some of the life history characteristics of these species, as well as the language included in the proposed performance standards in order to evaluate the ways in which these standards will be achieved ranch-wide. With respect to the language included in the revised performance standards, the term "metapopulation" warrants additional explanation, The term metapopulation was originally defined by population biologists to characterize the population dynamics and distribution characteristics of certain species that do not adhere to the more traditional 32 - ,----- ---_..__._~-----~.__._._---~-~~'-- source/sink model of population biology. (The source/sink model refers to those species that have a definable geographic range and are persistent through time within their range. Occasionally, individuals may extend beyond the defined geographic range and colonize new areas. These new colonies do not, however, tend to persist over time and must be recolonized from time to time by the "source" population within the defined geographic range. The majority of species that tend to occupy particular habitat niches and are not wide ranging (as compared to mountain lions and raptors), adhere to this source/since population model.) The metapopulation model applies to species that are not widely distributed across the landscape, but occupy particular habitat niches, and do not adhere to the more traditional source/sink model. These species (likely less than 2% of those studied; metapopulations have been most widely studied in insects such as butterflies) tend to occupy specific sites within the overall range and local populations tend to "blink out" and then return, perhaps in a geographically discontiguous area, for reasons that are not widely understood. An example in the vicinity of 01ay Ranch is the quino checkerspot butterfly which was once known commonly in the area designated in the approved GDP for the resort site but has not been observed in many years. A new population was observed during Spring 1996 in the Otay Mountain area in the vicinity of the RJ Donovan state prison. This strict definition of a metapopulation would not apply to the four grassland species since several of them are wide-ranging and do not exhibit the life history characteristics of species to which the strict definition of a metapopulation applies. At a broad scale, however, a metapopulation may be defined as a population of populations. Ricklefs (1993) contains the following definition: "A metapopulation in its most general sense is defined as a system of local populations linked by dispersal (Gilpin and Hanski 1991). Usually the term is used to describe systems in which populations go extinct and are recolonized. In contrast to source-sink systems, in which extinction in the sink occurs deterministically if immigration is prevented, in the empirical systems that motivated much of the work on metapopulation dynamics (e.g., landscapes with shifting mosaics of patches at different stages of succession) there is a strong stochastic component to local extinction and/or colonization." (Stochaslic means by chance). This broad definition of a metapopulation is the conlext in which the term applies to the four grassland species that are the subject of the revised performance standards. As noted above, the revised performance standard expands upon the meaning of a "viable metapopulation" by noting that the intent of the standard is to "stabilize and maintain preserved breeding and foraging populations and enhance preserved breed populations." Therefore, with regard to the language in the revised performance standards, the term "viable metapopulations" means that there will be individuals or populations on Otay Ranch that will be comprised of a few locations where the species under consideration occurs. With respect to the particular life history characteristics of these species, a brief summary follows: Burrowing Owl is an uncommon and declining resident in grassland, agricultural land, and coastal dunes. Although burrowing owls are present in constant numbers throughout the year, the species is evidently not sedentary. Individuals have been noted on several occasions flying far out at sea (Unitt 1984), On Otay Ranch, 33 _n _ -.-__ _.~ .,---..- .........______ m...._._...__ ----.....-.-....- .- . -- -~_._._~,------_..,_..._.~-- ""n__ burrowing owls are known from the Otay Mesa vernal pool area and north of the resort site. These areas would be preserved as part of the Otay Ranch GDP. California Horned Lark is a common breeding resident, abundant migrant and winter visitor (Unitt 1984), On Otay Ranch, horned lark is wide ranging and common in the vernal pool preserve on Otay Mesa and in the grassland areas south of the Otay River. These areas would be included in the preserve established as part of the approved GDP. Loggerhead Shrike is a fairly common resident in agricultural land, desert wash and desert-edge scrub grassland or beach areas with scattered bushes, or broken chaparral; basically anywhere expanses of open ground for foraging are near scattered bushes or low trees for nest siles and perches (Unitt 1984). On Otay Ranch, loggerhead shrikes are common in Wolf and Poggi Canyons and the Otay River system and are present on Otay Mesa. These areas would be preserved as part of the Otay Ranch GDP. Northern Harrier Hawk is an uncommon to fairly common migrant and winter visitor, rare and local summer resident. Harriers occur during migration and winter throughout San Diego County in grassland, agricultural fields, and coastal marshes (Unitt 1984). On Otay Ranch, northern harriers have been throughout the Otay River parcel with documented breeding only in the Otay River Valley. Harriers were observed to be more common in winter and most of the birds observed appear to be wintering birds although some individuals appear to breed onsite (Otay Ranch Raptor Management Study, Ogden, July 1992). The Otay River Valley and north and south facing slopes would be preserved as part of the Otay Ranch GDP. In sum, the Cily of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan meets the revised performance standard for the Burrowing Owl, California Horned Lark, Loggerhead Shrike, and Northern Harrier Hawk, As regards the California Gnatcatcher, the GDP/SRP Findings require noise impacts to habitat for this species to be mitigated to achieve a level of 60 dBA Loq or below. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-38, 4.3-32, Table 4.3-3; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 121] Based on this standard, the City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One plan will achieve the performance standard in the GDP/SRP Findings to preserve 52 percent of gnatcatcher pairs and individuals, but not the ranch-wide standard requiring preservation of 70% of gnatcatcher habitat, at least on SPA One. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-38 through 4.3-39; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 53] The Cily of Chula Vista finds, based on recent studies, that a performance standard based on a noise level of 65 dBA Leq is supported by existing anecdotal. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-38, 4.3-32, Table 4.3-3] Based on the revised noise- level performance standard, the City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One preserves 80% of point locations 72% of potential habitat, and thereby achieves the performance standard established in the GDP/SRP Findings for Gnatcatchers. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-39; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 53] 34 - - ~......_- ~----- -.. - ..._._._._~._~--_....,._-------- * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts DIRECT IMPACTS VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Village One East of Paseo Ranchero Significant Project Impact: The Project would result in direct significant impacts to the following sensitive habitats: 15.2 acres of coastal sage scrub, 1.9 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub, 4.3 acres of maritime succulent scrub, and 4.3 acres of disturbed maritime succulent scrub. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-12 through 4.3-14, Table 4.3-1, Figure 4.3-4] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 2 I 08 I, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through 4.3-45 (Discussion); SPA One Plan, Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP] . As a condition of SPA One approval, the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) shall be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the adopted Genera! Development Plan and the Phase I RMP. The Phase 2 RMP encompasses a series of tasks that must be performed over time throughout implementation of the Otay Ranch GDP. Components included within the Phase 2 RMP relevant to impacts to biological resources resulting from SPA One and the offsite facilities west of Paseo Ranchero include the following: - Preserve Conveyance Plan; - Otay Ranch Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Succulent Scrub Habitat Replacement Plan; and - Biola Monitoring Program. These Phase 2 RMP components will mitigate direct impacts to SPA One biologica! resources to a less-than-significant level (with the exception of direct impacts to the coasta! California gnalcatcher, cactus wren, and Otay tarplant) as follows: - With SPA One, provide for conveyance of 1,186 acres to the Otay Ranch preserve, with the first conveyance of 593 acres occurring in Year 3 of the Otay Ranch development program. The first conveyance area will be 3S --- - -----_._--_.~~._--~-_._.- located on the Otay Valley parcel and will contain substantial acreage of upland scrub habitats and populations of California gnatcatchers and cactus wrens. - Pursuant to policy 3.4 in the Phase I RMP, implement the first phase of the coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub restoration programs with SPA One, including minimum restoration of 17.6 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and 9.8 acres of maritime succulent scrub habitat in accordance with the restoration ratios set forth on page 93 of the Phase 2 RMP. - Beginning in 1996, implement the requirements of the Biota Monitoring Program including initial surveys for California gnatcatcher and other sensitive species within the 10 study plots eSlablished as part of the Phase 2 RMP. - Prior to issuance of a grading permit that would result in impacts to freshwater marsh or open water habitat, ensure that necessary permits from USFWS and DFG have been obtained. - Prior to approval of plans for the Light Rail Transit construction west of Paseo Ranchero, conduct an additional survey for Hemizonia conjugens in the appropriate season and, if observed, carry out a mitigation program in accordance with the requirements of a 2081 permit to be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game. * * * Village One West of Paseo Ranchero . Significant Project Impact: Implementation of the roadway extensions of East Palomar Street, East Orange A venue, and the future light rail transit easement would result in direct impacts to the following sensitive habitats: 12.2 acres of coastal sage scrub; 6.5 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub; 0.6 acre of maritime succulent scrub; and 0.6 acre of disturbed maritime succulent scrub. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-12 through 4.3-14, Table 4.3-1, Figure 4.3-4] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified under the preceding significant effect are feasible, required as a condition of approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through 4.3- 45 (Discussion)] 36 --~--_.. ~-----_.._--".,- * * * Village Five Significant Project Impact: Implementation of the Project would result in direct significant impacts to approximately 0.7 acre of freshwater marsh. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-15; see also id., pp. 4.3-13 through 4.3-14, Table 4.3-1, Figure 4.3-4] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified under the first significant direct impact on vegetation communities are feasible, required as a condition of approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through 4.3-45 (Discussion)] * * * WETLANDS Significant Project Impact: Development of Village Five will result in direct significant impacts to wetlands as follows: a 0.2 acre freshwater marsh and a 0.3 acre pond in Poggi Canyon, and a 0.5 acre freshwater marsh in the east-central portion of the village. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-15; ~ also id. p. 4.3-6, Figure 4.3-2, 4.3-13, Figure 4.3-4] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified under the first significant direct impact on vegetation communities are feasible, required as a condition of approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through 4.3-45 (Discussion)] * * * 37 --- --_._~.~_._--,-_.-----~--~.".-- .,.,-------- SENsmVE PLANT SPECIES Village One West of Paseo Ranchero Significant Project Impact: The Project may potentially result in direct significant impacts to the Otay tarplanl (Hemizonia conjugens), a listed plant species, during construction of East Palomar Street, the future light rail transit easement, and possibly East Orange Avenue. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-15 through 4.3-17, Figure 4.3-4; see also id., p. 4.3-9, Figure 4.3-3] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 2 I 08 I, subdivision (a)( I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will lessen the significant effect as identified in the Final EIR, including implementation of the Phase 2 RMP. These measures, however, will not reduce this impact 10 below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible mitigation measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Counsel has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified under the first significant direct impact on vegetation communities are feasible, required as a condition of approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through 4.3-46 (Discussion)] * * * SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES Village One East of Paseo Ranchero Significant Project Impact: Construction of the Project would result in direct significant impacts to one pair of coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica) and three pairs of cactus wrens (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-16 through 4.3-17, Figure 4.3-5] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will lessen the significant effect as identified in the Final ErR, including implementation ofthe Phase 2 RMP. These measures, however, will not reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible mitigation measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the 38 ___ _______.....__ ., m·._'____·_~_·_____·······_···_··_·___ City Counsel has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified under the first significant direct impact on vegetation communities are feasible, required as a condition of approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through 4.3-46 (Discussion)] * * * Village One West of Paseo Ranchero Significant Project Impact: Development of the Project would result in direct significant impacts to one pair of coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila cali/ornica). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-17 through 4.3-18, Figure 4.3-5] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Projecl which will lessen the significanl effect as identified in the Final EIR, including implementation of the Phase 2 RMP. These measures, however, will not reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible miligation measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Counsel has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified under the first significant direct impact on vegetation communities are feasible, required as a condition of approval, and made binding on the Applicanl through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through 4.3-46 (Discussion)] * * * INDIRECT IMPACTS Significant effect: The Project will result in significant indirect impacts to 6.2 acres of coastal sage scrub and 5.6 acres of maritime succulent scrub in Village One east of Paseo Ranchero because these communities are either adjacent to or very near proposed development. (FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-38, p. 4.3-14, Table 4.3-1] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. 39 ,---- . .~ ._._------~--~-_._------ Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified under the first significant direct impact on vegetation communities are feasible, required as a condition of approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through 4.3-46 (Discussion)] * * * Significant Project Impact: The Project would result in significant indirect noise impacts to the locations of two pairs of coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-39] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)( I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will lessen the significant effect as identified in the Final EIR, including implementation of the Phase 2 RMP. These measures, however, will not reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible mitigation measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Counsel has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified under the first significant direct impact on vegetation communities are feasible, required as a condition of approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these Findings, [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through 4.3-46 (Discussion)] * * * Significant Project Impact: Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, future development of Planning Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate would result in a potential impact to biological resources. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-42] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)( I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, including required compliance with the performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings. Adherence to this standards, however, would not reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subd. (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. 40 - - -_._.__._...---,.---_._----~--~--_._~.~ D. CULTURAL RESOURCES Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cultural resources. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.4-12 through 4.4-13] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant environmental effect on prehistoric and historic cultural resources. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 89, citing FPEIR, p. Volume 2, pp. 4.9.5-8 through 4.9.5-9] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP at the SPA level. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 89-93, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.5-8 through 4.9.5-9] · Stage 1 requires that, in conjunction with the first SPA application for each parcel (Otay Valley, Proctor Valley, and San Ysidro), a comprehensive cultural resources study be prepared to assess cultural resources throughout the parcel. The City of Chula Vista finds that this performance standard has been met at the SPA One level because a resources study for the Otay Valley parcel has been prepared. [SPA One Plan, Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP, Appendix F.5 (Results of an Archaeological Survey of the ûtay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch, Brian F. Smith and Associates (February 29, 1996)] · Stage 2 requires that site importance and boundary testing for each resource identified within the first SPA Plan based on a research design approved by the appropriate jurisdiction, and for a sample of site types within the overall Project. Site testing is required to adequately assess the sites for their importance under CEQA and local guidelines. The City of Chula Vista finds that this performance standard has been met at the SPA One level by preparation of the cultural resources study for the Otay Valley parcel by Brian Smith and Associates. [FEIR, pp. 4.4-1, 4.4-13; see also Id., Volume III, Appendix F ("Results of Archaeological Survey of Cultural Resources at the Otay Ranch Section Planning Area One and Annexation Project," B. F. Smith and Associates (June 19, 1995)); SPA One Plan, Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP, Appendix F.10] · Stage 3 identifies alternative means of achieving mitigation for sites that are determined to be important resources. Forms of mitigation identified include site avoidance, site avoidance/preservation, and data recovery. The City of Chula Vista finds that this performance standard has been met at the SPA One level because the mitigation measures set forth below comply with the recommended mitigation techniques identified in the GDP/SRP Findings. 41 -----_..__._-,.,...~--------_. * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: Implementation of the SPA One Plan would result in a direct impact to one sile resource (SDI-13,872H) of moderate significance. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-12] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-14] . Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the portion of SPA One that would impact SDI-J3,872H, a research design shall be prepared by a county certified archaeologist, and submitted to the City of Chula Vista for review and approval. The research design shall discuss the data recovery program at the site to be impacted, and shall outline the research approach and objectives to be pursued during the further investigation of the site. Any other management actions, such as site capping or project redesign or avoidance shall also be discussed in detail, and specific procedures for implementation shall be noted. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Chula Vista. . All brushing and grading within the SPA-One Project shall be monitored. The monitoring of the brushing and grading shall be conducted by one or more archaeologists, as dictated by the size of the grading operation. All utility excavations, road grading, and brush removal shall be coordinated with the archaeological monitor. Any resources which are graded shall be intensively monitored during grading to ensure that any important features, isolates, or deposits are either recorded and collected or excavated. Should any resources be encountered during the monitoring of the brushing or grading which were not previously recorded, the grading shall be temporarily stopped or redirected to another area while the nature of the discovery is evaluated. Any resources that may be encountered shall require testing to determine their significance. If the testing demonstrates that a resource is significant, then a data recovery program will be necessary. The data recovery program shall follow the same format as described in Mitigation Measure I in the FEIR at page 4.4-14. * * * 42 - - -_._"---_..._._--~._---~_._---_.._"-".._--_.__..- Significant Project Impact: Future grading or brushing associated with development in the western parcel and construction of the light rail line would result in significant impacts to one important site (SDJ-J3,864). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-12] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)( I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the impact identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-14 through 4.4-15] . All brushing and grading within the SPA-One Project shall be monitored. The monitoring of the brushing and grading shall be conducted by one or more archaeologists, as dictated by the size of the grading operation. All utility excavations, road grading, and brush removal shall be coordinated with the archaeological monitor. Any resources which are graded shall be intensively monitored during grading to ensure that any important features, isolates, or deposits are either recorded and collected or excavated. Should any resources be encountered during the monitoring of the brushing or grading which were not previously recorded, the grading shall be temporarily stopped or redirected to another area while the nature of the discovery is evaluated. Any resources that may be encountered shall require testing to determine their significance. If the testing demonstrates that a resource is significant, then a data recovery program will be necessary. The data recovery program shall follow the same format as described in Mitigation Measure I in the FEIR at page 4.4-14. . Prior to the issuance of grading permits for infrastructure improvements or any future land use entitlements for the portion of SPA One west of Paseo Ranchero that would impact SDI-13,864, a research design shall be prepared by a county certified archaeologist, and submitted to the City of Chula Vista for review and approval. The research design shall discuss the data recovery program at the site to be impacted, and shall outline the research approach and objectives to be pursued during the further investigation of the site. Any other management actions, such as site capping or project redesign or avoidance shall also be discussed in detail, and specific procedures for implementation shall be noted. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Chula Vista. * * * Significant Project Impact: Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, future development of Planning Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate would result in potentially significant impacts on cultural resources. [FEIR, pp. 4.4-13 through 4.4-14; see also GDP/SRP Findings, p. 89, citing FPEIR, p. Volume 2, pp. 4.9.5-8 through 4.9.5-9] 43 _._--"_._-~-,..__.~_..._--"~--'---'_._-- Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will lessen the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR, but not to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Slalement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Program EIR 90-01, as summarized above, are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-14; GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 89-93, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p, 4.9.5-8 through 4.9.5-9] * * * Significant effect: Although annexation of II non-Otay Ranch parcels into the City would not by itself result in environmenlal impacts, and even though no development applications are currently pending with respect to these parcels, annexation of these parcels would facilitate development of these parcels which would, in turn, potentially impact any cultural resources encountered. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-14] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will mitigate the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.4-14 through 4.4-15] . During environmental review for any non-Otay Ranch parcel within the proposed annexation area, a site specific cultural resources assessment shall be conducted. The cultural resources survey shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources within the area under development consideration. A county certified archaeologist shall conduct the survey and recommend appropriate measures to mitigale any impacts to cultural resources that were identified. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Chula Vista, 44 - - --------.---.-.--.----...----"--- . E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards setforth in the GDP/SRP Findings for impacts associated with geology and soils. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.5-8 through 4.5-9] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implemenlation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant environmental effect on geology and soils. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 93, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.6-1] As regards this impact, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 93-95, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.6-1] . A qualified geotechnical engineer for the Project Applicant shall prepare site- specific geotechnical studies at the tentative map level, but prior to construction, that meet engineering standards of the appropriate jurisdiction and, based on proposed development plans, evaluate soil conditions and characteristics, areas of potential slope instability, landslides, faults, liquefaction, and rippability characteristics. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.6-1] - Impacts related to slope instability shall be mitigated by site-specific geotechnical static and pseudo-static slope stability analyses conducted prior to submittal of tentative maps that will provide input relative to appropriate slope design alternatives. These mitigation measures shall include benching, adjusting heights and inclinations of proposed cut and fill slopes, retaining walls, slope protection, andlor erosion control devices. - Significant impacts due to ground rupture shall be avoided by not building directly over the fault trace. A site-specific geotechnical study would be necessary at the tentative map level to identify specific fault locations and delineate fault setback zones (as necessary) in accordance with city andlor county guidelines. - Potential damage from seismic ground shaking shall be mitigated by adhering to the Uniform Building Code, state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineering Association of California (SEAOC), and applicable local building codes. Such seismic design suggests assuming a design ground acceleration that is equal to two-thirds of the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration. The design acceleration for the Otay Ranch area is O.18g. The seismic design parameters, provided as a result of a site-specific geotechnical study, shall be utilized by a qualified structural engineer in the design and construction of the Project. 45 ____H -. - - --- - --- -_._-~-_.------_._--_.._---_.._-<--------- - A qualified geotechnical engineering consultant shall perform an investigation of the site to evaluate the liquefaction potential upon submittal oftentative maps. Where potential for liquefaction is determined to be moderate to high (such as in major tributary canyon bottoms), mitigation measures shall include removal and recompaction of loose, unconsolidated soils, vibrofloatation, or dynamic compaction techniques. - Landslide impacts shall be mitigated based upon site-specific geotechnical studies on all lentative maps submitted for the Project to delineate the limits of slides (i.e., head and toe). Landslides which may potentially impact developed areas shall be completely removed or buttressed during site grading. However, basal erosion of the slopes shall be avoided. Oversaturation and subsequent loading of the soils and sediments (from lawns, etc.) shall be avoided. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the Applicant is required, as a binding condition of approval for the SPA One Plan, and as summarized below, to prepare and submit site-specific geotechnical studies by a qualified geotechnical engineer at the tentative map level, but prior to construction, that meet engineering standards of the appropriate jurisdiction and, based on proposed development plans, evaluate soil conditions and characteristics, areas of potential slope instability, landslides, faults, liquefaction, and rippability characteristics. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.5-8 through 4.5-9] To the extent the GDP/SRP Findings require project-specific, SPA-level analysis of geologic and soil impacts, the City of Chula Vista finds that requirement is satisfied by preparation of the geology and soils study prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., in January 1994. [FEIR, p. 4.5-1; FEIR, Volume III, Appendix G ("Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Villages I thru 5," Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (January 13, 1994»] [SPA One Plan, Appendix J, Geological Reconnaissance Report] . At the tentative map level, onsite soils shall be investigated by a qualified geotechnical consultant to evaluale the potential for significant impacts due to erosion and expansion. Mitigation measures, such as those described below, shall be incorporated into the Project design. - Erosion - Erosion shall be minimized through erosion control measures. During the construction phase, interim measures such as covering exposed graded slopes with visqueen and sandbagging at slope toes shall be implemented. During the operational phase, measures including maintenance of drought toleranl vegetative cover and vegetated buffer zones and appropriate drainage control devices shall be employed. - Expansive Soils - Problems related to expansive (shrink-swell) soils shall be mitigated by selective grading and specially designed foundations in compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBe). The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure by: preparation of the geology and soils study prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 46 - -------..-.. ....._--- in January 1994 [FEIR, p. 4.5-1; FEIR, Volume III, Appendix G ("Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Villages I thru 5," Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (January 13, 1994))]; the guidelines and policies included in the SPA One Plan addressing geologic and soil impacts; and by the mitigation measures for geologic and soil impacts that are detailed below and made binding on the Applicant through this Findings as conditions of approval for the SPA One Plan. [FEIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10; SPA One Plan, Appendix J, Geological Reconnaissance Report] * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: Development of the proposed project may expose structures or persons to impacts associated with ground shaking. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-7] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, !he Project which will avoid !he significant environmental effect as identified in !he Final EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-10] . Prior to the approval of any tentative map associated wi!h the development of SPA One, the applicant shall submit a site specific geotechnical analysis prepared by a licensed geotechnical consultant, for the specific area proposed for development. The analysis shall be subject to the approval by the City Engineer. The analysis shall include, but not be limited to: the design of structures in accordance with Section 2330 of the Uniform Building Code in effect at the time of grading to satisfactorily mitigate the effects of groundshaking. * * * Significant Project Impact: Compressible soils nol detected and mitigated prior to construction may severely damage structural foundations. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-7] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid !he significant environmental effect as identified in Ihe Final EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. 47 .-....- .-....--------.'.----.' -_._,-_.._.._---~_._--~--_.._-- Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-10] . Prior to the approval of any tentative map associated with the development of SPA One, the applicant shall submit a site specific geotechnical analysis prepared by a licensed geotechnical consulIant, for the specific area proposed for development. The analysis shall be subject to the approval by the City Engineer. The analysis shall include, but not be limited to: the identification of the exact location, scope, and scale of compressible materials (alluvium, colluvium and landslides). The analysis shall also address: the complete removal of topsoil and colluvium from proposed structural areas during grading; removal of compressible landslide material within the zone of influence of all proposed structures to mitigate differential settlement, or alIernatively, incorporation of special foundations such as piles founded in competent material underlying the site or jutemat foundation into project design, with the review and approval of the City Engineer. * * * Significant Project Impact: Expansive soils not detected prior to construction may severely damage structural foundations. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-7, 8] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alIerations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid Ihe significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-10] . Prior to the approval of any tentative map associated with the development of SPA One, the applicant shall submit a site specific geotechnical analysis prepared by a licensed geotechnical consultant, for the specific area proposed for development. The analysis shall be subject to the approval by the City Engineer. The analysis shall include, but not be limited to: if expansive soils are encountered at or near design grade, the removal of the clay and replacement of soil with less expansive granular soil beneath all structures, Concrete slabs and footings may be utilized or alternatively, improvements and foundations can be designed to tolerate or accommodate expansive soil pressures, with the review and approval of the City Engineer. * * * 48 --------.. --.~_.._. ---'.-"'.'-'-'--..- -- ------------ Significant Project Impact: Due to the fact the bentonitic clays and locally sheared siltstones are present on the project site, there is a potential impact related to slope stability on future development. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-8] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines seclion 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-10] . Prior to the approval of any tentative map associated with the development of SPA One, Ihe applicant shall submit a site specific geotechnical analysis prepared by a licensed geotechnical consultant, for the specific area proposed for development. The analysis shall be subject to the approval by the City Engineer. The analysis shall include, but not be limited to an evaluation of slope stability within the proposed area of development. The report shall include site specific geotechnical recommendations to address slope stability within the area proposed for development. Recommendations shall be approved by the City Engineer. F. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for impacts on paleontological resources. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.6-6] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant environmental effect on paleontological resources. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 93, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.6-1] As regards this impact, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p, 95, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.7-1] . Prior to issuance of development permits, the Applicant shall confirm to the City of Chula Vista or the County of San Diego that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.) A pre-grade meeting shall be held amongst the paleontologist and the grading and excavation contractors. 49 ---..- ....._--_._----~---~-_..__.,,-_. · A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (i.e., San Diego, Otay, and Sweetwater formations) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials.) The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall be onsite on at least a half-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of moderately sensitive geologic formations (i.e., unnamed river terrace deposits and the Mission Valley Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. The monitor shall be onsite on at least a quarter-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of low sensitivity geologic formations (i.e., Lindavista Formation and Santiago Peak Volcanics [metasedimentary portion only]) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. He or she shall periodically (every several weeks) inspect original cuts in deposits with an unknown resource sensitivity (i.e., Quaternary alluvium). In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low, or moderately sensitive formations, the Planning Director of the City of Chula Vista shall increase the per-day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not discovered, the monitoring, at the discretion of the Planning Director, shall be reduced. A paleontological monitor is not needed during grading of rocks with no resource sensitivity (i.e., Santiago Peak Volcanics, metavolcanic portion). · When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete whale skeleton) may require an extended salvage time. In these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances and at the discretion of the Planning Director of the appropriate jurisdiction to set up a screen-washing operation on the site. · Preserved fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summary report shall be prepared which outlines the results of the completed mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with the mitigation measures for paleontological impacts required by the GDP/SRP Findings because those measures have been incorporated into and refined for the SPA One Plan, and because implementation of those measures is required as a condition of project approval made binding on the Applicant through these Findings, including confirmation of a qualified 50 -,-- ~ --.--.-....-..--.---...--.---......-. paleontologist and paleontological monitor prior to the issuance of grading permits for SPA One. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.6-7 through 4.6-8] . Impacts to areas not planned for mass excavation operations (i.e., open space and parklands) shall be mitigated by setting aside certain portions of these areas as paleontological/geological preserves. Such areas might include the small north-south canyon just east of Rock Mountain on the north side of the Otay Valley, the mesa surface between Johnson and O'Neal canyons on the south side of the Otay Valley, the small canyon just west of where the ranch road crosses Poggi Canyon, and the ridge top northeast of the mouth of Little Cedar Canyon. These areas shall serve as both educational and scientific resources for future generations. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the SPA One Plan preserves the small canyon just west of where the ranch road crosses Poggi Canyon as native open space. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.6-6] * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: Because the majority of SPA One is underlain by the San Diego and Otay formations, significant impacts are anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.6- 5] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)( I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.6-7 through 4.6-8] . All work shall be done by a qualified professional paleontologist with a working knowledge of the Chula Vista/Otay Mesa area. - Prior to approval of grading permits, the applicant shall confirm to the City of Chula Vista that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.) The paleontologist shall attend pre-grade meetings to consult with grading and excavation contractors. -- 51 _.' ~ --_....-."-_._..._------,---~-~--" - A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic fonnations (i.e. San Diego, and Otay fonnations) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials.) The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall be on-site on at least a half-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of moderately sensitive geologic fonnations (i.e., unnamed river terrace deposits) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. In the event that fossils are discovered in moderately sensitive fonnations, it may be necessary to increase the per-day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not discovered, the monitoring should be reduced. · When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period oftime (a few hours). However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete whale skeleton) may require an extended salvage time. In these instances, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil remains such as isolated mammal leeth, it may be necessary in certain instances to set up a screen-washing operation on the site. · Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall be deposited (with Ihe applicant's pennission) in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summary report shall be completed which outlines the results of the miligation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. · Prior to issuance of any grading permil for any non-Otay Ranch parcel within the proposed annexation area, a site specific paleontological assessment shall be conducted. The assessment shall be conducted to detennine the potential for paleontological resources to be encountered onsite. If the area proposed for development has been identified as an area potentially containing paleontological resources, the report shall identify measures to reduce the impact to a level less than significant. These measures shall include, but not be limited to, establishing a paleontological monitor during grading, and conducting a recovery and reporting program. 52 -- ..-", e____'" -_....__..~~-~-_._------------- G. AGRICUL TURAL RESOURCES Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for agricultural resources. [FEIR, Volume I, 4.7-11 through 4.7-12] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant and unavoidable environmental effect on agricultural resources. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 96-99, citing FPEIR, p. Volume 2, pp. 4.9.8-1 through 4.9.8-3] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP at the SPA level. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 97-98] · In the Otay Valley parcel near the proposed composting facilities and Bird Ranch where prime soils are located, a demonstration agricultural area shall be set aside. The criteria to establish the demonstration agricultural activities shall include the following: I) the demonstration area must be located within an area of the park containing prime farmland soils, and 2) its location shall not conflict with sensitive biological or cultural resources. The City of Chula Vista finds this mitigation measure does not apply to SPA One because the proposed area described above is not within SPA One. Moreover, a possible location for the agricultural demonstration area has been identified in the southwest portion of the Otay Valley parcel. Additionally, SPA One does not contain any prime agricultural land. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.7-11] · Agricultural activity and the keeping of animals shall be allowed within the large, low density lots planned along the northern edge of the Proctor Valley parcel, as allowed within the Jamul-Dulzura Subregional Plan. The City of Chula Vista finds this mitigation measures does not apply to SPA One because the SPA One project site is not located within the Proctor Valley parcel. · An Agricultural Plan shall be prepared by the Project Applicant prior to approval of any SPA Plans affecting on-site agricultural resources and shall be required for each subsequent development proposal (i.e., villages, Town Center, the Eastern Town Center, and the Rural Eslate Planned Community). The Plan shall indicate the type of agricultural activity allowed as an interim use. Specifications shall include buffering guidelines designed to prevent potential land use interface impacts related to noise, odors, dust, insects, rodents, and chemicals that may accompany agricultural activities and operations. · Landscaping and buffering guidelines shall be included in the development plans at the SPA level for Ihe areas planned adjacent to existing agricultural uses. 53 -...._-_..__...__.._.-.-.-.-_._~-_.._----- The City of Chula Vista finds these mitigation measure have been complied with because an agricultural plan has been prepared for the SPA One project. This plan is a component of the Range Management Plan contained in the Phase 2 RMP, (September 1995). The purpose of the Range Management Plan is to identify the relationship between livestock grazing activity and sensitive habitat and species protection. In addition, the plan identifies management goals, makes recommendations both within the Otay Ranch Preserve and ranch-wide, identifies agricultural standards that must be employed in the SPA One area, including standards that identify specific buffering techniques to ensure compatibility between future development and permitted interim agricultural activity. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.7-12; SPA One Plan, p. 1-69 (Agricultural Buffering Criteria); SPA One Plan, Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP, Edge Plan, p. 240] * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant effect: The loss of agricultural land within the County and land suitable for the potential production of coastal-dependent crops would result in a significant impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment of a limited agricultural resource. [FEIR, pp. 4.7-10 through 4.7-11] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will mitigate the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: Because SPA One contains no prime soils, implementation of applicable mitigation measures identified in Program EIR 90-01, as summarized above, are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.7-11, 4.7-13 through 4.7-14; GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 96-99, citing FPEIR, p. Volume 2, pp. 4.9.8-1 through 4.9.8-3] * * * Significant effect: Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, possible impacts on agricultural resources as a result of future development within the annexation component of the Project are potentially significant. [FEIR, pp. 4.7-12 through 4.7-13] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)( I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, but not to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below 54 ___ __ "_....__ .". __....__''_._._.__.______n_____ a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of applicable mitigation measures identified ·in Program EIR 90-01, as summarized above, are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.7-14; GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 96-99, citing FPEIR, p. Volume 2, pp. 4.9.8-1 through 4.9.8-3] H. WATER RESOURCES AND WATER OUALITY Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for impacts on water resources and water quality. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.9-7 through 4.9-8] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant environmental effects on water resources and water quality. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 100-105, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.10-1] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 100-107, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.10-1] · Include the preparation of a comprehensive drainage infrastructure plan for the drainage basin as defined by the appropriate jurisdiction. The specific master drainage plans shall include drainage infrastructure, staging/development detail, timing, financing, and responsibility for drainage impacts. · The impacts associated with inundation shall be quantified by hydrologic and hydraulic studies by a qualified hydrologist for the project applicant at the SPA level when a detailed development plan is available. The hydraulic studies shall demonstrate that the project design meets Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista floodplain encroachment and engineering standards contained in the appropriate ordinances of each jurisdiction. · At the SPA level, the impacts associated with change in water velocities shall be addressed by detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies prepared by a qualified hydrologist. · Urban runoff and surface water quality shall be specifically addressed in each SPA plan. At the SPA level, detailed water quality analysis shall be performed and SS ---- - ----~-_._-_._----_.- appropriate mitigation measures developed. Amounts of urban runoff loading shall be estimated for metals, herbicides, pesticides, fuels, and surfactant. . Best management practices shall be designed and implemented at the SPA Plan level in order to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of surface water runoff. £IRs at the SPA level shall include analysis of specific BMPs in the categories of reduced pollutant generation, reduced pollutant transport, and treatment of polluted runoff. Specific BMPs that shall be considered at the SPA level include mitigations to reduce impervious surfaces such as grass swales, filter strips, constructed wetlands, detention ponds, infiltration trencheslbasins, replacement of concrete with permeable surface, and the use of natural channels where possible. Mitigations to reduce or prevent pesticide contamination impacts such as Integrated Pest Management, non-use of pesticides along roadways, use of only EPA-approved chemicals and plan of pesticide use around upcoming precipitation events. The City of Chula Vista finds that the measures required by the GDP/SRP Findings as set forth above are satisfied through preparation of Master Drainage Plan Hunsaker and Associates. [FEIR, pp. 4.9-7 through 4.9-8; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Appendix CA, Master Drainage Plan] This plan depicts the projects proposed storm drain system, and proposes measures that address construction pollutants, and post construction pollutants. Detention basins, effects of development on basin area and peak flows, effects of development on runoff volume and peak flows, and effects of detention on peak flows are addressed in the study. These recommendations have been incorporated into the SPA plan. [SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Appendix CA, Master Drainage Plan] * * * SPA Dne Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: The increase in runoff flows off-site is a potential impact to downstream drainage facilities. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.9-5] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [F£IR, Volume I, p. 4.9-10] . The applicant shall pay its "fair share" portion of the Telegraph Canyon Drainage fee in effect at the time final maps within the Telegraph Canyon basin are 56 -..---........-. .. ... ----"_._..._-~---------- recorded. The fee is a contribution towards mitigating impacts to the unimproved downstream portion of Telegraph Canyon Channel. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the Public Works Department. .. .. .. Significant Project Impact: The proposed project will result in a significant increase in urban runoff and pollutants associated with urban runoff. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.9-7] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.9-10; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Appendix CA, Master Drainage Plan, p. 31] . Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during grading the applicant shall comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as set forth in 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 pursuant thereto. The City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego have a Municipal Permit from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for stormwater discharge. In order to be covered under NPDES Municipal Permit No, CA0108758, the proposed developed area will be required to mitigate impacts 10 slormwater quality. In addition, RWQCB has issued one general permit that applies to construction activity. In order to be covered under the Construction General Permit, a Notice ofIntent (NOI) must be filed with RWQCB. Compliance with the Permit requires that a storm water poilu lion prevention plan be prepared and implemented for the proj ect. Best management practices, design, treatment, and monitoring for stormwater quality must be addressed with respect to Municipal and Construction Permits. .. .. .. Significant Project Impact: The impact to water resources and water quality as a result of the annexation of Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate is potentially significant. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.9-9 through 4.9-10] 57 -- -"------.. - ------ --_._._..__._-_._.._..~-_._----------- Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of applicable mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR 90-0 I, are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.9-10; GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 100-107, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9,10-1] 1. TRANSPORTATION. CIRCULATION. AND ACCESS Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for impacts on transportation, circulation, and access. [FEIR, Volume I, Section 4.10; Volume II, Appendix B, Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Study ("Transportation Study"), Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Phasing Analysis ("Transportation Phasing Analysis")] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant environmental effects on transportation, circulation, and access that are relevant to the SPA One Plan. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 108-116, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.11-1 through 4.9.11-4, 4.9.11-13, 4.9.11-24,4.9.11-27 and Table 3.10-9] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval fOl'the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 108-117, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.11-13 through 4.9.11-22 and Phase II Progress Plan with Village Design and TDM Assumptions Technical Analysis, JHK and Associates (February 1993)] . At the SPA level, a traffic analysis based on specified guidelines shall be conducted within the study area of the proposed SPA to identify additional transportation mitigation measures for the construction of new roads, bridges and roadway improvements, and shall implement transportation demand/system management programs and/or facilities or other measures necessary to mitigate traffic impacts on circulation element roads. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- summarized mitigation measure through preparation of the Transportation Study (documents Interim Year 2010 and Buildout conditions) and the Transportation Phasing Analysis (contains the recommended set of transportation system improvements for three phases of development [Phase I 1995-2000, Phase II 2000-2005, and Phase III 2005- 2010]). [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-1 through 4.10-2 and Figure 4.10-1; FEIR, Volume 58 ,-...- . -_.__...,,~~----~~-_._.._--- II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p, 1-4; SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Section 3.2 (Traffic)] . The standard to be achieved requires that the Project avoid reduction in the existing level of service below "C" with the exception that LOS "D" may occur on signalized arterial segments for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. If the existing level of service is below "C", mitigation measures to achieve level of service "C" (with the exception that level of service "D" will be allowed on signalized arterial segments for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day) must be imposed as conditions of approval for the SPA. Internal village streets/roads are not expected to meet these standards. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- summarized mitigation measure because the Transportation Study provides a detailed description of the methodology and standards used to determine impacts to the transportation network. In particular, that study details the LOS Standards for the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego by facility classification, recognizing that the Otay Ranch Transportation Subcommittee determined that LOS "D" is acceptable for the roadway system under existing and interim Year 2010 conditions. This recommendation is based on the limited development of the transportation network during this timeframe, the limited geographic distribution of trip activity, and the provision of adequate intersection capacity to ensure intersection LOS D or better during peak periods. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 4.10-29 Ihrough 4.10-31; FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 2-4 through 2-7] The City of Chula Vista also finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above-summarized mitigation measure because the Applicant's participation in the City Growth Management Ordinance as it relates to the annual Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) is mandated. This participation will ensure that Applicant's compliance with the mitigation measures and performance standards for traffic set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings, including attainment of LOS C for roadway segments at Buildout. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 2-6 through 2-7] It should be recognized that compliance with the City's TMP program only applies to roadways within the City of Chula Vista jurisdiction and improvements to City roadways will be funded by the appropriate City TDIF program or exactions. Compliance with the threshold standard for roadways within the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego includes the maintenance of acceptable LOS threshold standards. As explained below, while no significanl project-specific impacls are identified for County roadways, network improvements to address SPA-related traffic contributions to County roadways will also be funded by the Applicant's fair share contribution to the City's TDIF program. These funds can be allocated by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to assist with improvements in the County to accommodate traffic resulting from cumulative Southbay development. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-43 through 9- 46] 59 -"--'---"---'-~--------- - Accordingly, the City of Chula Vista finds that the SPA One Plan complies with the preceding program-level mitigation measure/performance standard. . The Applicant shall adhere to the following guidelines: - Arterial segment LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hours, excluding seasonal and special circumstance variations. - Urban and suburban arterials are defined as surface highways having signal spacing of less than two' miles with average weekday traffic volumes greater than 10,000 vehicles per day. - Arterial segments are stratified into three classifications: · Class I arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 35 mph and 45 mph and the number of signalized intersections per mile is less than four (4). There is no parking and there is generally no access to abutting property. · Class II arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 30 mph and 35 mph, the number of signalized intersections per mile range between four (4) and eight (8). There is some parking and access to abutting properties which is limited. · Class III arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 25 mph and 35 mph, and the number of signalized intersections per mile are closely spaced. There is substantial parking and access to abutting property which is unrestricted, With respect to these guidelines, Ihe City's TMP methodology, which uses these guidelines, as well as the Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan, are referenced in the Transportation Phasing Analysis as tools to verify the need and timing of traffic improvements in order to ensure that such improvements are implemented concurrent with need. - The LOS measurement of arterial segments and freeway ramps shall be a growth management consideration in situations where proposed developments have significanl impacl at interchanges. With respect to this guideline, the City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan does not result in any significant project-related impacts to freeway interchanges because mitigated geometries for interchange locations projected to operate at unacceptable LOS will reduce these impacls to below a level of significance. [FEIR, Volume II, Transportation Study. pp. 9-23 through 9-26] - Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to anticipated deterioration of LOS below established slandards. 60 ...,....-- -- - -----~-----.- .-.-..---.~.'-.-..-..._..-_..-.-..-.._---.._-.-.-.---.- "._,.._..._--~-.._~~---- With respect to this guideline, the City of Chula Vista finds the Applicant's participation in the City Growth Management Ordinance program as it relates to the TMP is mandated. This participation will ensure the Applicant's compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings. [FEIR, Volume II, Transportation Study, p. 2-6] Circulation improvements are contained in the SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) to maintain acceptable LOS as the SPA One develops. In the event facilities or improvements within the PFFP are inadequate to accommodate further development, the Growth Management Ordinance directs the City Manager to report the deficiency to the City Council, in which case, the City Council may amend, modify or tenninate the PFFP. [PFFP, p. 3.2-27] This annual monitoring and review process will also serve to ensure that improvements are provided concurrently with development. The City Council also has aUlhority to allow for temporary non-compliance with the City TMP, particularly during the interim timeframe as SPA One develops. This flexibility is necessary as the circulation network during this timeframe is limited and many impacts identified during the phased development will be alleviated as the network develops. This approach will ensure that unwarranted short-tenn improvements will not be implemented, particularly in cases where network performance is projected to improve with future additional network connections. - The criteria for calculating arterial LOS and defining arterial lengths and classifications shall follow the procedures detailed in Chapter 11 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and shall be confinned by the City or County Traffic Engineer, as appropriate. With respect to this guideline, the City of Chula Vista finds LOS values for arterial roadway segments are based on capacity thresholds in the City of Chula Vista Street Design Standards Policy and the County of San Diego Public Road Standards. [FEIR, Volume 11, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Tables 2.3 and 2.4] Use of these values differs from the TMP and GDP/SRP Findings, [FEIR, Volume 11, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 3-19] However, the transportation study methodologies complement the TMP methodology and were confinned by the City or County Traffic Engineer by their review of the Transportation Study and Transportation Phasing Analysis, and through their participation on the Otay Ranch Transportation Subcommittee. - During the preparation offuture Traffic Monitoring Program field surveys, intersections experiencing significant delays will be identified. The infonnation generated by the field surveys will be used to detennine possible signal timing changes, geometric and/or traffic operational improvements for the purpose of reducing intersection delay. With respect to this guideline, the City of Chula Vista finds the Transportation Study highlights intersections which will operale at unacceptable LOS in Year 2010, and recommends geometric and operational improvements for both Year 2010 and by phase. [FEIR, Volume 11, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Figure 9-1, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Exhibit B] This infonnation can be used to complement the annual TMP process to identify intersections experiencing delay and, in response, provide a basis to 61 - ----- _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ _ ____._.__n·____"_.__~_·_~_·~_"· require implementation of improvement measures set forth in the Transportation Study and Transportation Phasing Analysis. - Level of Service values for arterial segments shall be based on the table in the GDP/SRP Findings @ p. 110. With respect to this guideline, Ihe City of Chula Vista finds LOS values for arterial roadway segments are based on the threshold standards of the City of Chula Vista Street Design Standards Policy and the County of San Diego Public Road Standards. [FEIR, Volume II, Transportation Study, Tables 2.3 and 2.4] The standards contained in the GDP/SRP Findings are based on the annual TMP methodology utilized by the City of Chula Vista. This methodology is based on average travel speeds given the running time on the arterial segment and the intersection approach delay. lliL p. 3-19] The Transportation Study complements the TMP methodology by assisting with the identification of specific locations which may require mitigation at present or with future development. [Id., p. 3-19] . To the extent that Otay Ranch contributes to the need for a facility outside of its boundaries, the Project shall contribute (at the level at which it impacts the facility) to the mitigation of the impact by participating in impact fee programs or other means identified at the SPA or tentative map level. The City of Chula Vista finds that even though no significant project-related impacts to facilities outside of the jurisdiction of the City were identified, several General Study Area improvements are recommended as the SPA One and other Southbay development occurs in order to accommodate cumulative growth in the regional network by Year 2010. [FEIR, Volume II, Transportation Study, Sections 9.2.2, 9.2.3, and Table 9.6] Existing funding strategies to mitigate General Study Area impacts resulting from cumulative growth, including "fair share" participation by the Applicant in certain development fee impact (DIF) programs, include: (1) Transportation DIF, (2) SR-125 DIF, and (3) Traffic Signal Fee. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-31] . Applicants on the Otay Valley Parcel shall contribute their "fair share" to the capital and operating costs associated with the transit facilities serving the Project. This shall be done through provisions in facility financing plans at the SPA level. Further, benefit assessment districls shall be established to fund new transit routes under MTDB Board policy No. 40 Non-Transit Funding of Transit Services. (This final requirement cannot be mandated because the Lead Agency cannot mandate MTDB to take this action; because this finding is not within the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency it should interpreted as a mandate for the Applicant to work with MTDB.) The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the Transportation Study, as well as these Findings, include the provision of "fair share" funding to assist with the capital costs of the Southbay transit system, and SPA One incorporates transit centers/stations, as well as approximate reservation of right-of- way for an LRT extension through SPA One, as well as other villages. Moreover, as 62 _ m__·_·__·______~··__~_~__ indicated below, the transit line right-of-way and transit centers/stations are conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level with an irrevocable offer to dedicate at the Final Map stage. rSee SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Section 3.2.5, p. 3.2-10] The City of Chula Vista also finds that the program-level requirement that the Applicant make a "fair share" contribution to assist with the operating costs of the Southbay transit system is unenforceable. The Government Code states, in pertinent part, that "[a] fee, charge, or other form of payment imposed by a governing body of a local agency for a public capital facility improvement related to a development project may not include an amount for the maintenance or operation of an improvement when the fee, charge, or other form of payment is required as a condition of approval of a development project, or required to fulfill a condition of approval. " (Gov. Code, § 65913.8 (emphasis added).) As a result, the City of Chula Vista finds that compliance by the Applicant with the light rail "operating" cost "fair share" contribution requirement is unnecessary. . The Applicant shall participate in fair share funding and implementation of the following general mitigation measures: - Prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Mitigation Strategies (See SANDAG Report "Trip Making In Tradilional San Diego Communities", February, 1993) The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- referenced miligalion measure because the TDM mitigalion strategies are included in the Transportation Study. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportalion Study, Section 10- 3, p. 10-6] - Prepare Transportation Phasing Plans The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- referenced mitigation measure because the Transportalion Study was prepared to develop a recommended set of transportation system improvements for each phase of development. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Appendix L ("Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Phasing Analysis Technical Report")] - Provide Parallel Arterial System The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- referenced mitigation measures because, as detailed below, the provision of a parallel arterial system is a key miligation measure of the SPA One Plan. [FEIR, Volume II, 63 ....-.----.-- -.,-~_.-....-- -_._.._.._-_.--._.._------~._-_._--_._,-_..__._----_.-'.- Transportation Study, Section 9.2, pp, 9-11 through 9-22; Transportation Phasing Analysis, Sections 3.2, 4.2, 5.2] - Improve Mode Split The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- referenced mitigation measure because an improved mode split is documented as an indirect mitigation measure for SPA One. The standard mode split effort was used to predict a "worst-case" scenario. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.2.3, p. 9-16] Additionally, the Otay Ranch project is designed to be transit- and pedestrian-oriented, as evidenced by the transit line and transil center/station right-of-way reservation and dedication requirement, as well as the Village Design Guidelines. While it is recognized that an improved mode split can reduce the number of vehicle trips per day, current budgetary restraints indicate that the Southbay LRT Extension will likely not be in place by Year 2015. Fully Southbay Buildout Conditions will likely result in conditions warranting an extension. Thus, the buildout of SPA One used the standard mode split factor in order to reflect a "worst-case" scenario that LRT will likely not be in place. This ensures that potential impacts are not underestimated and required improvements to accommodate traffic resulting from SPA One and surrounding developments are adequate. - Increase Local/Regional Trip Capture The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- referenced mitigation measure because an increase in the local-regional trip capture is documented as an indirect mitigation measure for the SPA One Project. [FEIR, Appendix B; Transportation Study, Section 9.2.3., p. 9-16] In addition, the Transit- and Pedestrian- Oriented Development approach embodied by the Project is designed to increase the local and regional trip capture through the efficient provision of transit\pedestrian\bicycle. - Update General Plans The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- referenced mitigation measure because, with one exception, the Transportation Study and Transportation Phasing Analysis do not recommend the update of General Plan Circulation Elements; all roadway improvements are in accordance with adopted General Plans. The exception is one segment of San Miguel Road (Bonita Road to Proctor Valley Road) which is expected to carry 16,000 ADT under both No Project conditions and under the SPA One preferred alternative future conditions. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 6-18, 6-43] The pertinent County threshold for LOS C is 7,100 ADT. The SPA One plan recommends this roadway be reclassified from a two-lane collector (County Circulation Element) to a four-lane collector based on the previous general plan update by the City of Chula Vista, the future SR-125 interchange, and forecast No Project conditions, [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-21] 64 --.. -~- ----"~....._... ----- Regional Freewav Svstem Mitigation - Increase Freeway Capacities The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- referenced mitigation measure because, while significant impacts to freeways cannot be mitigated with project-specific mitigation measures, additional carrying capacity is stilI necessary to alleviate freeway congestion. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-4 through 9-5] As indicated below, however, Caltrans is generally responsible for freeway improvements to the regional freeway system. Thus, to address fteeway deficiencies, Chula Vista and other affected jurisdictions will participate in Caltrans freeway deficiency planning efforts and, as indicated below, the Applicant is required to make a "fair share" contribution to implement the recommended improvements that result from that deficiency planning effort. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-6 through 9-7] At the present time, there is no regional funding mechanism in place other than TransNet sales tax revenues or bond issuances. According to the 1994 SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan (p. 272), a potential new source of funding under evaluation is a regional development fee program which could be assessed on new development to contribute funding for regional facilities. Arterial Segment Mitigation - Increase Segment Capacities The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- referenced mitigation measure because the Transportation Study and Transportation Phasing Analysis analyze and recommend an increase in segment capacity and corresponding upgrades to roadway classifications as a method to mitigate impacts to arterials, [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-16 through 9-22 and Table 9.6, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-5,4-6,5-13, and Table 6.1] Arterial Intersection Mitigation - Increase Intersection Capacities The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- referenced mitigation measure because the Transportation Study and Transportation Phasing Analysis analyze and recommend increased intersection capacity to attain acceptable LOS through improved geometrics and/or operational improvements. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-26, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-9,4-17,5-19] Other Mitigation Strategies - Implement Transportation System Management Strategies 65 ---.----- - - - - ~'----~~'~"----"'--'-'-'--'"~- --_.~- The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- referenced mitigation measure because the Transportation Study recommends TSM strategies such as ramp metering for freeway impacts. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-5] - Implement Traffic Control Strategies The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this aspect of the above- referenced mitigation measure because the Transportation Study includes traffic control strategies to mitigate impacts to signalized and unsignalized intersections. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-26 through 9-40] . For each SPA, the Applicant shall prepare a detailed analysis of peak hour turning movement volumes and intersection capacity for all major affected intersections as determined by the traffic engineer representing the reviewing jurisdiction or agency. (At a minimum these study area intersections include all intersections with entering volumes in excess of 65,000 vehicles per day under the proposed land use plan.) This analysis will define the mitigation measures necessary to achieve levels of service described above. If the proposed land use plan has not been evaluated by the SANDAG model, or, if the SANDAG model has been substantially modified, (i.e., updated land use and/or network assumptions), then updated modeling of the SPA project shall be required to allow the completion of detailed peak hour analyses. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the Transportation Study and the Transportation Analysis include a detailed analysis of 49 existing or future intersections identified for the SPA One Plan under Year 2010 and by phase, as well as an analysis offull Southbay Buildout conditions, including a screening-level analysis of 58 intersections, which highlights intersections with entering volumes of over 65,000 vpd. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 3-12, 6-21, 6-34, 6-46, 6-51 and appendices A through K, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-9,4-12,5-19 and appendices A through J] . The Applicant shall construct as a condition of approval to the SPA, new roads, bridges and roadway improvements, and shall implement transportation demand/system management programs and/or facilities, or other measures necessary to fully mitigate traffic impacts (related to traffic impacts of the Project) on circulation element roads, to avoid reduction in the existing Level of Service below "C", with the exception that LOS "D" may occur on signalized arterials for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the Public Facilities Financing Plan requires that the Project be processed in accordance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance to identify on-site and off-site improvements by phase and with corresponding cost estimates. [SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, p. 3.2-4] Furthermore, compliance with the annual TMP process will identify arterials experiencing unacceptable LOS. rSee FEIR, Volume 66 ___n __~ -- ___on. _____"_"._.____, .__~______________~__~________ II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-18, Table 6.1 and Figure 9-1a; Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 6-3, Table 6.1, and Exhibit B) . No more than 15,000 dwelling unils or 4,000,000 million square feet of commercial may be constructed within the Project until funding and construction for LRT is assured. As described earlier, Applicants in the Otay Valley parcel shall contribute their "fair share" to the funding of these facilities and operating costs. The City of Chula Vista finds that this measure is not triggered by SPA One because it does not proposed more thant 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 square feet of commercial space and that, in any event, the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure for the following reasons: the Transportation Study refers to this mitigation measure; the SPA One Plan contemplates approximately 5,900 dwelling units and 15.1 acres of commercial development; at the tentative map level, right-of-way will be conditioned for dedication for the LRT alignment and stations for Villages One, Five, Six, Nine and Twelve, with an irrevocable offer to dedicate at the Final Map level; and the proportionate share for the GDP is approximately 26 percent of the cost of a LRT system, and such a contribution more than satisfies the 20 percent contribution for a system to be borne locally. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 10-5; SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facililies Financing Plan, pp. 3.2-5, 3.2-10] As noted above, the City of Chula Vista finds that implementation of the Southbay light- rail "operating" cosl contribution is precluded by Government Code section 65913.8. [See, infra, p. 63] Proiect-sDecific Miligalion Measures The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista for the FPEIR required implementation of an extensive list of project-specific mitigation measures for individual onsite and offsite segments and intersections in order to mitigate significant impacts associated with the GDP. For identified segments and intersections requiring mitigation in the FPEIR, a subsequent analysis of build out traffic conditions under village design and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) assumptions was conducted (JHK and Associates, February, 1993). The purpose of this subsequent analysis was to estimate the potential benefits of the village design and TDM conditions on the GDP's proposed Phase II Progress Plan circulation network and to define appropriate reductions in required mitigation. As a result of this analysis, certain individual segment mitigation measures recommended in the FPEIR were eliminated (because they were no longer necessary), and/or, replacement mitigation to increase intersection capacity at the major signalized intersections along these impacted segments was developed. For a segment mitigation measure to be eliminated, the segmenl ADT volume under village design and TDM assumptions reduced the impact to conform with the LOS C threshold criteria. However, GDP Findings also recognized that program-level forecasted reductions in traffic activity may not occur at the SPA-level. In such an event, the GDP Findings stated that implementation ofthe initially-recommended program-level mitigation may be necessary. [See GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 112-116] 67 .-.....-...-. --_.._-_.__._-_._--------~~._.._. _._--_._-,-~-~-- With respect to the project-specific mitigation measures required in the GDP/SRP Findings at the page numbers referred to in the preceding paragraph, the City of Chula Visla finds that several of those mitigation improvements do not apply to the SPA One Plan because they relate to future SPA improvements associated with full buildout of the GDP. The program-level mitigation improvements that do apply to the SPA One Plan are listed below. These mitigation improvements, however, are interim improvements associated with the phased development of SPA One and the improvements represent the first step toward the ultimate program-level improvements described above. In addition, the City of Chula Vista finds that a comprehensive analysis of SPA-level mitigation improvements was prepared during the environmental review process for the SPA One Plan. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-18, 9-39 and Tables 9,6, 9.11, Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 6-3, Table 6.1; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, p. 3.2-23, Tables 9 and 10] Program-level Offsite Network Mitigation Improvements Applicable To SPA One . Upgrade Bonita Road between Otay Lakes Road and Central Avenue by providing special at-grade intersection design. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this applicable mitigation measure because the following mitigation improvements are required at the SPA-level, as set forth below: - SPA One, Phase I: Bonita Road/Central A venue mitigated geometries. - SPA One, Phase II: Operation improvements to BonitalOtay Lakes Road. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Appendix B (Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Worksheets)] . Upgrade EastLake Parkway between Palomar Street and Orange A venue from 4- lane major to 6-lane prime and provide special at-grade intersection design. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this applicable mitigation measure because the following mitigation improvements are required at the SPA-level, and will address the SPA One traffic contribution to the General Study Area circulation system, as set forth below: - Extend Eastlake Parkway south to Orange Avenue as 4-lane major during Phase 1. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Table 6.1] 68 . -- - ---.----"--------.--.-.--- · Upgrade Hunte Parkway between EastLake Trails and Orange Avenue from a 4- lane major to a 6-lane major. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this applicable mitigation measure because the following mitigation improvements are required at the SPA-level, as set forth below: - SPA One, Phase I: Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road mitigated geometries. - SPA One, Phase II, Alternative B: East H Street/Otay Lakes Road mitigated geometries. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Table 6.1] According to the GDP/SRP Findings, if program-level forecasted reductions in traffic activity do not occur, the following mitigation improvements, as identified in the FPEIR, that apply to the SPA One Plan and summarized below, are required: · Upgrade Central A venue between Bonita Road and Carrol Canyon Road from a 2-lane collector to a 4-lane collector. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this applicable mitigation measure because the following mitigation improvements are required at the SPA-level, as set forth below: - SPA One, Phase I: Upgrade Central A venue between Sweetwater and Corral Canyon Road to a 4-lane collector. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Table 6.1] · Upgrade Orange Avenue between Hunte Parkway and EastLake Vista from a 4- lane major to a 6-lane major by providing special at-grade intersection design. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this applicable mitigation measure because the following mitigation improvements are required at the SPA-level, as set forth below: - SPA One, Phase II, Alternative B: Construct Orange A venue from Eastlake Parkway to Hunte Parkway as a 6-lane prime, including intersections, - SPA One, Phase III, Alternative A: Construct Orange Avenue from Eastlake Parkway to Hunte Parkway as 4-lane major, including intersections. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Table 6.1] 69 -.--.-------"---..-..."----,---...-...--- . Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road and East H Street by providing special at- grade intersection design. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this applicable mitigation measure because the following mitigation improvements are required at the SPA-level, as set forth below: - SPA One, Phase I: Operational improvements to Bonita/Otay Lakes Road. - SPA One, Phase II: East H StreetlOtay Lakes Road mitigated geometries. [FErR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Table 6.1] According to the GDP/SRP Findings, if program-level forecasted reductions in traffic do not occur, the following additional segmenl mitigation that applies to the SPA One Plan, would be required: . Bonita Road between Otay Lakes Road and Central Avenue from 4-lane major to 6-lane major. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this applicable mitigation measure because the following improvements are required at the SPA-level, and that the improvements will address the SPA One traffic contribution to the General Study Area circulation system, as set forth below: - SPA One, Phase I: Widen Bonita Road between Palm Drive and Central Avenue to a 4-lane major. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Table 6.1] * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Less- Than-Significant Project-Specific Impacts The City of Chula Vista finds the following impacts are less-than-significant: Less-than-Significant Project Impact: All Project-specific impacts to both City and County roadway segments in the General Study Area are less-than-significant. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-20 through 4.10-21 and Table 4.10-2; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-11 through 9-16 and Tables 9.4 and 9.5] 70 --,_. ...._.-,....~.__.... - --.--_....._._~_._+.._...,- _....- ._+'- Rationale: In order to assess the significance of Project-specific transportation impacts attributable to SPA One, the City's traffic consultant prepared the Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Study (January 1996). [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-5, 4.10-20; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study] The Transportation Study includes the following technical analyses: · On-Sile Circulation System Review · Study Area Freeway Segment Operational Analysis · Study Area Arterial Segment Operational Analysis · Study Area Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis · Study Area Freeway Interchange Operations/Capacity Analysis · Transit Operations Analysis · BicycleIPedestrian Facilities Analysis · Trip ReductionlLand Use Design Assessment · Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Conformance Analysis [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 1-4 through 1-5 and Figure 1-4 (Project Study Area defined)] The Transportation Study sets forth each of the preceding analyses for three assessment time frames: Existing Conditions (1995), SPA One Buildout (2010), and Full Southbay Buildout, including SPA One (2015). [M., Transportation Study, p, 1-4] For the latter two model runs, and in order 10 isolate Project-specific traffic impacts associated with SPA One Buildout, the Transportation Study made certain land use assumptions about development in the Study Area. The following future developments in eastern Chula Vista and the County of San Diego were assumed to be in place: · Sunbow II · Eastlake Greens (and Amendment) · Eastlake Trails · Eastlake III Vista · Eastlake III Woods · Eastlake Business Center II · Eastlake Business Park and Village Center · Olympic Training Center · Salt Creek I · Salt Creek Ranch · Rancho Del Rey SPA I, II, and III (and Amendment) · Telegraph Canyon Eslates · Bonita Meadows · Rancho San Miguel · Background traffic growth resulting from infill development in the Southbay and remainder of the region as determined by SANDAG Series I Growth Forecasts [M., Transportation Study, pp. 5-2 through 5-3] 71 --- -..------------" .- ._--_..__._.~_..- The SPA One Buildout model run also assumed that planned circulation network improvements anticipated to be in place prior to 2010 were completed. To be conservative, however, and assess both network and Project-specific impacts under a worse-case 2010 scenario, the Transportation Study assumed that SR-125 would not be constructed. [!ç!., Transportation Study, p. 6-1; but compare id., p. 7-2 (2015 model run assumes SR-125 constructed)] Based on these parameters, the Transportation Study indicates that, even without SPA One, numerous City and County roadway segments will operate at unacceptable LOS at 2010. [Id., Transportation Study, p. 6-15 and Table 6.2; see also FEIR, Volume I, Table 4.10-22; Volume II, Transportation Study, pp. 2-4 through 2-7 (acceptable arterial roadway LOS defined)] When forecasted average daily traffic volumes attributable to SPA One are added to the 2010 "No Project" scenario, the Transportation Study indicates that the same Study Area roadway segments will also operate at unacceptable LOS at 2010. [Id., Transportation Study, pp. 6-24, 6-29 through 6-33, Table 6.5,9-12 and Table 9.4] To assess whether the SPA One contribution to Study Area roadway segments operating at unacceptable LOS at 2010 constitutes a significant impact, the Transportation Study and FEIR apply the following three-tiered significance analysis: 1. Project contribution of 800 or more daily trips to the segment (800 or more daily trips is the CMP threshold for determining a project impact). 2. Five percent (5%) or more project traffic contributed to total ADT projected for Year 2010. 3. Level of service (LOS) drops from an acceptable LOS A through D to Los E or F, or LOS drops from LOS E to LOS F, as compared to Year 2010 No Projecl conditions. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-20; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-12] In order to constitute a significant Project-specific impact for purposes of CEQA, the impact must meet all three criteria. If the criteria are not met, the impact is considered to be a less-than-significant Project-specific impact. In the latter case, these less-than- significant impacts are considered General Study Area impacts resulting from increased traffic àue to regional growth and cumulative development in the Southbay. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-21; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-12] Applying these criteria, the FEIR and Transportation Study conclude that all Project- specific impacts to both City and County roadway segments in the General Study Area are less-than-significant. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-20 through 4. I 0-21 and Table 4.1 0-2; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-11 through 9-16 and Tables 9.4 and 9.5] Because there are no significant Project-related impacts to City or County roadway 72 __·_···__··"·_·__T"_··__ -_______~_ --------,---.--- ----'------- ----,-~ segments, no Project-specific mitigation is recommended. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-21; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p, 9-16] Although SPA One will not result in any significant, Project-specific impacts to City and County roadway segments, both the FEIR and Transportation Study acknowledge that numerous improvements to the General Study Area network are necessary to maintain acceptable LOS on arterials as the Southbay region grows, including development of SPA One. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-23 through 4.10-26 and Table 4.10-4 (recommended roadway improvements for 2010); Volume II, Appendix B, Section 9.2.3 and Table 9.6] As a condition of approval for SPA One, the Applicant is required to contribute its "fair share" in impact fees to the City of Chula's TDIF program. 2 [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10- 21; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-17; see also FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-29 through 4.10-31 (funding of network improvements); Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 (same); SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, pp. 3.2-29 through 3.2-33 (traffic improvements financing)] The majority of funds collected through the City's DIF programs are allocated to transportation improvement projects within the City. The DIF program also allows the City to allocate funds to construct roadway improvements in adjacent jurisdictions, including the County. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-29 through 4.10-31; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p, 9-43] Implementation of General Study Area network improvements in adjacent jurisdictions, including the County, is the responsibility of each respective jurisdiction. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-30; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-44 and Table 9.6 (2010 roadway improvements, including responsible jurisdiction)] Implementation of the recommended improvements will result in the maintenance of acceptable network perfonnance and the reduction of the majority of General Study Area impacts to below a level of significance. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-29; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-43] As part of the Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Study, the City's transportation consultant also prepared the Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Phasing Analysis. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis] The purpose of preparing a detailed phasing analysis for the Project was to develop a recommended set of transportation system improvements in the General Study Area during the projected fifteen-year buildout of SPA One. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. S-I, 10-1; Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 1-1] Moreover, the Transportation Phasing Analysis relies on a worse-case scenario to predict the need for such improvements during the following three phases: · Phase I - 1995 to 2000 · Phase II - 200 I to 2005 · Phase III - 2006 to 2010 '/ As a condition of SPA One approval, the Applicant is also required to construct all new on-site traffic facilities. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4,10-23; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-17] 73 ..".... ._.___._~_.."".,......~".._,,____,._...__.__._~_,~____,_,_.._n_~~~__'___ [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 10.1, Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 1-1 and Section 2.0 (Phasing Analysis Methodology and Process); see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Section 3.2.6 (Trip Generation and Phasing)] Thus, the Transportation Phasing Analysis forecasts the point at which, over the next fifteen years, General Study Area traffic improvemenls will need to be implemented in order to maintain acceptable LOS as defined by the City and County within their respective jurisdiction. [FEIR, Volume I, p. ; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Section 6.0 and Table 6.1 (Summary of Network Improvements by Phase)] The phasing analysis does not, however, constitute a Project-specific impacts analysis for SPA One. As described above, that analysis is set forth in the SPA One Transportation Study. rSee FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9 (Analysis of Significance and Identification of Mitigation), Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 2-1] * * * Less-than-Significant Project Impact: Except for two intersections in the City, all Project- specific impacts to peak-hour intersection performance in the General Study Area are 1ess- than-significant. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-21 through 4.10-29 and Table 4.10-3; FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-23 through 9-25 and Table 9.8] Rationale: As described above under the preceding less-than-significant impact, in order to assess the significance of Project-specific transportation impacts attributable to SPA One, the City's traffic consultant prepared the Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Study (January 1996). [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-5, 4.10-20; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study] That study makes certain land use assumptions about future development in the Study Area at 2010, [M., Transportation Study, pp. 5-2 through 5-3] The Transportation Study also assumes that planned circulation network improvements anticipated to be in place prior to 2010 are completed. To be conservative, however, and assess both network and Project-specific impacts under a worse-case 2010 scenario, the study assumed that SR-125 would not be completed by 2010. [Id., Transportation Study, p.6-1] Based on these parameters, the Transportation Study indicates that, even without SPA One, 12 of 49 critical Study Area intersections operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM or PM peak hours in 2010. [Id., Transportation Study, p. 6-21 and Table 6.3; see also FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-21 through 4.10-23; Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 2-7 (acceptable peak hour intersection LOS defined)] Where the forecasted average daily traffic volumes attributable to SPA One are added to the 2010 "No Project" scenario, the Transportation Study indicates that 9 of the previously-identified 12 critical Study Area intersections continue to operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM or PM peak hours in 2010. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 6-34 through 6-37 and Table 6.6, 9-23 and Table 9.7] The reason that the nubmer of 74 . _._. "-__~__'_'-r-_"__'_' ----------- .' ~·.w ._--~~_...._._._.~-----~._-- intersections operating at unacceptable LOS declined is that SPA One includes improvements to the circulation system that would not occur absent the project. To assess whether the SPA One contribution to Study Area intersections operating at unacceptable LOS during the peak hours constitutes a significant impact, the Transportation Study and the FEIR apply the following two-tiered significance analysis: 1. SPA One's contribution represents five percent (5%) or more of the traffic contributed to projected Year 20 I 0 total entering volumes. 2. LOS drops from acceptable LOS A through D to LOS E or F; or LOS drops from LOS E to LOS F as compared to Year 2010 No Project conditions. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-21, 4.10-23; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-24] In order to constitute a significant Project-specific impact for purposes of CEQA, the impact must meet both criteria. If neither or just one criterion is met, the impact is a less- than-significant Project-related impact. In the latter case, these less-than-significant impacts are considered General Study Area impacts resulting from increased,traffic due to regional growth and cumulative development in the Southbay. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-23; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-24] Applying these criteria, the FEIR and Transportation Study conclude that two intersections operating at unacceptable LOS during the peak hours are significant Project-specific impacts. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-23 and Table 4.10-3; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-24 through 9-26 and Table 9.8] The significant Project- specific impacts to General Study Area intersections operating at unacceptable LOS during the peak hours are discussed below. With respect to the less-than-significant Project-related impacts to peak-hour intersection LOS in the General Study Area, both the FEIR and the Transportation Study acknowledge that numerous improvements are necessary to maintain acceptable LOS as the Southbay region grows, including the development of SPA One. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-23 through 4.10-29 and Table 4.10-5 (summary of 2010 intersection improvements); Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-26 through 9-40 and Table 9.11] As a condition of approval for SPA One, and in order to help fund these needed General Study Area improvements, the Applicant is required to contribute its "fair share" in impact fees to the City. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-29 through 4.1-31 (funding of network improvements); Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 (same); SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, pp. 3.2-29 through 3.2-33 (traffic improvements financing)] Implementation of the recommended improvements will result in the maintenance of acceptable network perfonnance and the reduction of the majority of General Study Area impacts to below a level of significance. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-29; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-43; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, pp. 3.2-29 through 3.2-33] 75 -----.-- .. _ ______ ___.._________.,-r"..,..___._ ------~-___~__,___,_.,._____~~ As described above, the City's transportation consultant also prepared the Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Phasing Analysis. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, pp. 3.2-29 through 3.2-33] The Transportation Phasing Analysis recommends a set of network improvements in the General Study Area during the projected fifteen-year buildout of SPA One based on a worse-case scenario. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. S-I and Section 10-1; Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. I-I and Section 2.0 (Phasing Analysis Methodology and Process); see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Section 3.2.6 (Trip Generation and Phasing)] Thus, the Transportation Phasing Analysis forecasts the point at which, over the next fifteen years, General Study Area traffic improvements will need to be implemented in order to maintain acceptable LOS as defined by the City and County within their respective jurisdiction. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Section 6.0 and Table 6.1 (Summary of Network Improvements by Phase)] As noled above, however, the phasing analysis does not constitute a Project- specific impacts analysis for SPA One. [See FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9 (Analysis of Significance and Identification of Mitigation), Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 2-1] * * * Project-Specific Significant Impacts Significant Project-Specific Impact: Four peak-hour freeway segments on 1-805 will operate at unacceptable LOS with implementation of the Project. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-2 through 9-5 and Table 9.1] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will lessen the significant Project-specific environmental effect identified above, but not to below a level of significance. In addition, mitigation of freeway segment impacts is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. Rather, the responsibility to improve freeway capacity lies with Caltrans. [Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subdivision (a)(2)] Thus, pursuant to section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible mitigation measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City County has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-17, 4.10-32, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 and pp. 9-6 through 9-7; ~ also FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 3-20 through 3-21 (Congestion Management Program/Deficiency Planning explanation), 9-6 through 9-7 (same); SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, pp. 3.2-19 through 3.2-20] 76 - -----_._.~ ,.-----.. ..-~.- - _...._--".-..---..~------_.__.- _______.__~__ ..___··_....m.__._._·.····_, . The proposed project (SPA One) will contribule its fair-share contribution for improvements and mitigation as identified in the Deficiency Plan under the Congestion Management Program. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-9 through 4.10-10, 4.10-32; FEIR, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-2, 6-1 through 6-6, Table 6.1, Transportation Study, Section 9.5] ... ... ... Significant Project-Specific Impact: The following intersections will operate at unacceptable peak-hour LOS with implementation of the Project: East H Street/Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10- 21,4.10-29 and Table 4.10-3; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.3.1, p. 9-24 and Table 9.8] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will lessen the significant, Project-specific environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-29; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-26 and Table 9.10] Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-32; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.3.2; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, pp. 2.1-10 through 2.1- 11, 3.2-29 through 3.2-33 (DIF/fair share explanation)] . The Applicant shall contribute on a "fair-share" basis to applicable Transportation Development Impact Fee program for all SPA One significant impacts identified in Tables 4.10-2, 4.10-3, and 4.10-5 of the Transportation Section of the SPA One Final EIR. ... ... ... Non-Project-Specific General Study Area Impacts As part of the Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Study, the City's transportation consultant also prepared the Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Phasing Analysis. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis] The purpose of preparing a detailed phasing analysis for the Project was to develop a recommended set of transportation system improvements in the General Study Area during the projected fifteen-year buildout of SPA One. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. S-I, 10-1; Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 1-1] The Transportation Phasing Analysis relies on a worse-case scenario to predict the need for such improvements during the following three phases: 77 __un _~__..,. .___.._ _.._.__ - - ---~-~--~._~----_.,--- · Phase I - 1995 to 2000 · Phase II - 200 I to 2005 · Phase III - 2006 to 2010 [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 10.1, Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. I-I and Section 2.0 (Phasing Analysis Methodology and Process); see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Section 3.2.6 (Trip Generation and Phasing)] Thus, the Transportation Phasing Analysis forecasts the point at which, over the next fifteen years, General Study Area traffic improvements will need to be implemented in order to maintain acceptable LOS as defined by the City and County within their respective jurisdiction. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 10.1, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Section 6.0 and Table 6.1 (Summary of Network Improvements by Phase)] The phasing analysis does not, however, constitute a Project- specific impacts analysis for SPA One. As described above, that analysis is set forth in the SPA One Transportation Study. rSee FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9 (Analysis of Significance and Identification of Mitigation), Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 2-1] The following is a brief overview of freeway segment, arterial roadway segment, and peak hour intersection performance during the three phases described above. The overview also includes a discussion of General Study Area improvements necessary to maintain acceptable LOS for each phase. PHASE I (1995-2000) Non-Project-Specific General Study Area Impact: Regional buildout, including implementation of the Project, will degrade LOS on four freeway segments along I-80S rrom LOS E or better to LOS F. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-8 to 4.10-9; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-1 through 3-3 and Table 3.1] Mitigation Discussion: As stated previously, the General Study Area impacts to rreeway segments during Phase I are not necessarily Project-specific impacts. However, the forecasted LOS on the freeway segments identified above requires the development of a Deficiency Plan under the Congestion Managemenl Program. Implementation of SPA One required mitigation as set forth below will reduce these General Study Area impacts, but not to below a level of significance. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-7 (acceptable rreeway LOS defined), 4.10-9 through 4.10-10; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 2-2 (same)] The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10- 78 ~_..- - ·-------r--- _._..~.._--..._._._-...-....-.' --------.------~_.---.---.-.,.- 17, 4.10-32, Volume 11, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 and pp. 9-6 through 9-7] . The proposed project (SPA One) will contribute its fair-share contribution for improvements and mitigation as identified in the Deficiency Plan under the Congestion Management Program. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-9 through 4.10-10, 4.10-32; FEIR, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-2,6-1 through 6-6, Table 6.1, Transportation Study, Section 9.5] * * * Non-Project-Specific General Study Area Impact: Regional buildout during Phase I, including implementation of the Project, will degrade LOS to unacceptable levels on the following arterial roadway segments: Bonita Road: Otay Lakes Road to Palm Drive, Palm Drive to Central Avenue, and San Miguel Road to Sweetwater Road; H Street: Hilltop Drive to I-80S, and 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive; Telegraph Canyon Road: Nacion Avenue to 1-805 and 1-805 to Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue; and Otay Mesa Road: Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-10; Volume 11, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-2, 3-5 through 3-8, Table 3.2] Mitigation Discussion: As stated previously, General Study Area impacts on roadway arterial segments during Phase I are not necessarily Project-specific impacts. Despite this conclusion, the FEIR states that the SPA One traffic contribution to arterial roadways during Phase I is a significant Project-specific impact. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-10] The City of Chula Vista finds, however, that neither the Transportation Study nor the Transportation Phasing Analysis support the conclusion that unacceptable LOS on the preceding arterial segments is a Project-specific, significant impact. rSee FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp, 9-12 through 9-15 and Table 9.5 (arterial impacts threshold crileria tied to 2010 LOS; all Project-specific impacts to arterial roadway segments are less-than-significant)] In making this finding, the City of Chula specifically invokes Public Resources Code section 21082.2, subdivision (e). That section provides: "Statements in an environmental impact report and comments with respect to an environmental impact report shall not be deemed determinative of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment." As regards network improvements to address unacceptable LOS on the arterial roadway segments identified above, roadway segments typically require an increase in capacity and a corresponding upgrade in functional classification to improve LOS. Improvements to peak-hour intersections adjacent to impacted arterial segments can also provide necessary segment mitigation by increasing the ability of the arterial intersections to accommodate peak-hour volumes while maintaining acceptable LOS. Enhanced intersection geometrics and achievement of acceptable peak-hour operations will positively influence arterial flow and allow such segments to operate more efficiently. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-10] 79 -..--. .__.________n____'...._..._..__." __ - _,~__ ..·..·_·0.-- _..~_____..___'_ While short-term General Study Area impacts during Phase I will be present for portions of H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Mesa Road, acceptable LOS is restored during Phase II and III as additional network connections are provided. The mitigation of General Study Area impacts during Phase I is economically infeasible based on these future network connections which alleviate the impacts and preclude earlier unnecessary improvements. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-10 through 4.10-11; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 3-5] Implementation of SPA One required mitigation as set forth below will reduce these General Study Area impacts during Phase I, but not to below a level of significance. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-11; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 2-4 through 2-7 (acceptable arterial roadway LOS defmed)] The following mitigation measures is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-9 through 4.10-11,4.10-32; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 and Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-5, 6-1 through 6-6, Table 6.1 (summary of recommended network improvements by phase)] . The Applicant shall contribute on a "fair-share" basis to applicable Transportation Development Impact Fee program for all SPA One significant impacts identified in Tables 4.10-2, 4.10-3, and 4.10-5 of the Transportation Section of the SPA One Final EIR. * . . Non-Project-Specific General Study Area Impact: Regional buildout during Phase I, including implementation of the Project, will result in unacceptable peak-hour LOS at the following intersections: Bonita Road/Central Avenue; Telegraph Canyon Road/I-805 Northbound Ramps; Heritage Road/Otay Mesa; Telegraph Canyon Road at Oleander A venue and Paseo del Rey; and at five of seven unsignalized intersections. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-11; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-9 through 3-13 and Tables 3.3, 3.4] Mitigation Discussion: As stated previously, General Study Area impacts on peak-hour intersections during Phase I are not necessarily Project-specific impacts. [See FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-23 through 9-25 and Table 9.8 (peak-hour intersection impacts significance threshold tied to 2010 LOS; all Project- specific impacts to peak-hour intersections are less-than-significant, except for two intersections)] With respect to network improvements to address unacceptable LOS on peak-hour intersections in the General Study Area during Phase I, all intersections will achieve acceptable LOS with mitigated geometrics, except for the Heritage Road/Otay Mesa Road intersection. The improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS at this intersection are financially infeasible during Phase I because Phase II improvements, particularly the planned completion of SR-905, will result in acceptable peak-hour LOS for all intersections. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-12; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation 80 - -.....---.---.-.--.-.-.--. .___'.~_m'_____ __ __n"'___ Phasing Analysis, p. 3-12] Implementation of SPA One required mitigation as set forth below, as well as implementation of the Phase I recommended network improvements, will achieve acceptable LOS on peak-hour intersections, except for the intersection at Otay Mesa and Heritage Road. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-8 (acceptable peak-hour intersection LOS defined), 4.10-12; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 2-7 (acceptable peak-hour intersection LOS defined), 3-9, Table 3.5 and Exhibit B (mitigated geometries by phase)] The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10- 12,4.10-32; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-5, 6-1 through 6-6, Table 6.1 (summary of recommended network improvements by phase)] . The Applicant shall contribute on a "fair-share" basis to applicable Transportation Development Impact Fee program for all SPA One significant impacts identified in Tables 4.10-2,4.10-3, and 4,10-5 of the Transportation Section of the SPA One Final EIR. * * * PHASE II (2001-2005) Non-Project-Specific General Study Area Impact: During Phase II, regardless of which freeway segment performance alternative is constructed by Caltrans, regional buildout, including implementation of the Project will degrade LOS on the following freeway segments to unacceptable levels: all segments of SR-905, except for the segment from La Media Road to SR-125; SR-54 from Reo Drive to Woodman Avenue; I-80S from 1-8 to II Street and from Otay Valley Road to Palm Avenue; and I-80S from Home Avenue to Market Street, and from SR-54 to Bonita Road. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-12 through 4.10-13; see also FEIR, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 4-1, 4-4 through 4-6, Tables 4.1, 4.2] Mitigation Discussion: As stated previously, the General Study Area impacts to freeway segments during Phase II are not necessarily Project-specific impacts. However, the forecasted LOS on the freeway segments identified above requires the development of a Deficiency Plan under the Congestion Management Program. Implementation of SPA One required mitigation as set forth below will reduce these General Study Area impacts, but not to below a level of significance. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-7 (acceptable freeway LOS defined), 4.10-13; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 2-2 (same)] The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10- 17, 4.10-32, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 and pp. 9-6 through 9-7] 81 --~-- .-- - - -- ~-_.~---~---_._- -----_.._---~----_...- . The proposed project (SPA One) will contribute its fair-share contribution for improvements and mitigation as identified in the Deficiency Plan under the Congestion Management Program. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-9 through 4.10-10, 4.10-32; FEIR, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-2, 6-1 through 6-6, Table 6.1, Transportation Study, Section 9.5] * * * Non-Project-Specific General Study Area Impact: Regional buildout during Phase II, including implementation of the Project, will result in unacceptable LOS for arterial roadway segments in the General Study Area regardless of which arterial extension alternative is constructed. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-13 through 4.10-14; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 4-4, 4-6, 4-8 through 4-11, 4-13 through 4-16, Tables 4.3, 4.4] Mitigation Discussion: As stated previously, General Study Area impacts on roadway arterial segments during Phase II are not necessarily Project-specific impacts. rSee FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-12 through 9-15 and Table 9.5 (arterial impacts threshold criteria tied to 2010 LOS; all Project-specific impacts to arterial roadway segments are less-than-significant)] With respecl to network improvements to address unacceptable LOS on arterial roadway segments in the General Study Area during Phase II, such segments typically require an increase in capacity and a corresponding upgrade in functional classification to improve LOS. Improvements to peak-hour intersections adjacent to impacted arterial segments can also provide necessary segment mitigation by increasing the ability of the arterial intersections to accommodate peak-hour volumes while maintaining acceptable LOS. Thus, enhanced intersection geometrics and achievement of acceptable peak-hour operations will positively influence arterial flow and allow such segments to operate more efficiently. [FEIR, Volume 1, p, 4.10-14; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 4-6 through 4-12] Implementation of SPA One required mitigation as set forth below, as well as implementation of the Phase II recommended network improvements, including the construction of either the Palomar Street or Orange Avenue arterial extensions, will reduce these General Study Area impacts during Phase II to below a level of significance. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-7 (acceptable arterial roadway LOS defined), 4.10-14; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 2-4 through 2-7 (same), Transportalion Phasing Analysis, pp. 4-6 through 4-12] The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10- 14. 4-10-22, 4.10-32, Table 4,10-2; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 and pp, 9-6 through 9-7, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 4-6 through 4- 12 and Table 6.1 (summary of recommended network improvements by phase)] . The Applicant shall contribute on a "fair-share" basis to applicable Transportation Development Impacl Fee program for all SPA One significanl impacts identified 82 - __ __on ~__.__~._ .__...._._..__. ____~_. __ ....... ._____.___._____. ____"._._,____..__.~__..,..__.__ in Tables 4.10-2,4.10-3, and 4.10-5 of the Transportation Section of the SPA One Final EIR. . . . Non-Project-Specific General Study Area Impact: Regional buildout during Phase II, including implementation of the Project, will result in unacceptable peak-hour LOS at the following intersections under the Alternative A network scenario (Palomar Street extension only to east): Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road/Medical Center Drive, East H StreetJHidden Vista and Orange AvenuelBrandywine Avenue. [FElR, Volume I, p. 4.10-15; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 4-12,4-19 through 4-20, Table 4.5] Regional buildout during Phase II, including implementation of the Project, will also result in unacceptable LOS at the following intersections under the Alternative B network scenario (Orange A venue extension): Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road, East H StreetJHidden Vista, and Orange AvenuelBrandywine Avenue. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-15; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 4-17, 4-21 through 4-22, Table 4.6] Mitigation Discussion: As stated previously, General Study Area impacts on peak-hour intersections during Phase II are not necessarily Project-specific impacts. rSee FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-23 through 9-25 and Table 9.8 (peak-hour intersection impacts significance threshold tied to 2010 LOS; all Project- specific impacts to peak-hour intersections are less-than-significant, except for two intersections)] With respect to network improvements to address unacceptable LOS on peak-hour intersections in the General Study Area during Phase II, all intersections will achieve acceptable LOS under either alternative with miligated geometries and/or signal operations improvements. Implementation of SPA One required miligation as set forth below, as well as implementation of the Phase II recommended network improvements, will achieve acceptable LOS on peak-hour intersections. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-8 (acceptable peak-hour intersection LOS defined), 4.10-15 through 4.10-16; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 2-7 (same), Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 4-17 through 4-18 and Tables 4.7,4.8 and Exhibit B (mitigated geometries by phase)] The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-15 through 4.10-16,4.10-32, Table 4.10-2; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 and pp. 9-6 through 9-7, Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 4-17 through 4- 18 and Table 6.1 (summary of recommended network improvements by phase)] . The Applicant shall contribute on a "fair-share" basis to applicable Transportation Development Impact Fee program for all SPA One significant impacts identified in Tables 4.10-2, 4.10-3, and 4.10-5 of the Transportation Section of the SPA One Final ElR. 83 - --...--.-. -- ........---.-.--.--...----....-.......-....-.-......-.-"...- - -~-_. * * * PHASE III (2006-2010) Non-Project-Specific General Study Area Impact: During Phase III, under Alternative A, which includes construction of a half-diamond interchange at Palomar StreetlI-805, regional buildout, including implementation of SPA One, will degrade freeway segment LOS as follows: SR-54 from Reo Drive to Woodman Avenue and from Briarwood Drive to Jamacha Boulevard will operate at LOS F(O); except for the I-80S freeway segments from Palomar Street to Orange Avenue and Palm Avenue to SR-905, all segments of 1- 805 will experience unacceptable LOS, ranging from LOS F(O) TO LOS F(2); and SR- 905 segment from I-80S to Palm Avenue will operate at an unacceptable LOS. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-16 and Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 5-1, 5-4 through 5-5, Table 5.1] During Phase III, under freeway segment perfonnance Alternative B, which does not include construction of a half-diamond interchange at Palomar StreetlI-805, regional buildout, including implementation of the Project, will result in the same LOS as found under Alternative A, except for minor traffic volume differences. Due to the absence of the Palomar Street interchange, all segments ofI-805, with the exception of Palm Avenue to SR-905 (since it does not exist under this alternative) will operate at unacceptable LOS. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-16 through 4.10-17, and Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 5-4, 5-7, Table 5.2] Mitigation Discussion: As stated previously, General Study Area impacts on freeway segments during Phase III are not necessarily Project-specific impacts. However, the forecasted LOS on Ihe freeway segments identified above requires the development of a Deficiency Plan under the Congestion Management Program. Implementation of SPA One required mitigation as set forth below will reduce these General Study Area impacts, but not to below a level of significance. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-7 (acceptable freeway segment LOS defined), 4.10-17; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 2-2 through 2-3 (same)] The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10- 17,4.10-32, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 and pp. 9-6 through 9-7] . The proposed project (SPA One) will contribute its fair-share contribution for improvements and mitigation as identified in the Deficiency Plan under the Congestion Management Program. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-9 through 4.10-10, 4.10-32; FEIR, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-2, 6-1 through 6-6, Table 6.1, Transportation Study, Section 9.5] * * * 84 "-, .+_.._---_..__._-~..~-,- Non-Project-Specific General Study Area Impact: Regional buildout during Phase III, including implementation of the Project; will result in unacceptable LOS on arterial roadway segments in the General Study Area regardless of which arterial extension alternative is constructed. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-17 through 4.10-18, and Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 5-6 through 5-18, Tables 5.3, 5.4] Mitigation Discussion: As stated previously, General Study Area impacts on roadway arterial segments during Phase III are not necessarily Project-specific impacts. rSee FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-12 through 9-15 and Table 9.5 (arterial impacts threshold criteria tied 10 2010 LOS; all Project-specific impacts to arterial roadway segments are less-than-significant)] With respect to network improvements to address unacceptable LOS on arterial roadway segments during Phase III, such segments typically require an increase in capacity and a corresponding upgrade in functional classification to improve LOS. Improvements to peak-hour intersections adjacent to impacted arterial segments can also provide necessary segment mitigation by increasing the ability of the arterial intersections to accommodate peak-hour volumes while maintaining acceptable LOS. Enhanced intersection geometrics and achievement of acceptable peak-hour operalions will positively influence arterial flow and allow such segments to operate more efficiently. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-18; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 5-6 through 5-13] Implementation of SPA One required mitigation as set forth below, as well as implementation of the Phase III recommended network improvements, including completion of construction of either the Palomar Street or Orange A venue arterial extensions, will reduce these General Study Area impacts during Phase III to below a level of significance. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-7 (acceptable arterial roadway segment LOS defined), 4.10-18; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 2-4 through 2- 7 (same), Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 5-13] The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10- 18, 4.10-32; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 and pp. 9-6 through 9-7, Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 5-13 and Table 6.1 (summary of recommended network improvements by phase)] . The Applicant shall contribute on a "fair-share" basis to applicable Transportation Development Impact Fee program for all SPA One significant impacts identified in Tables 4.10-2,4.10-3, and 4,10-5 of the Transportation Section of the SPA One Final EIR. * * * Non-Project-Specific General Study Area Impact: Under the Alternative A network scenario, which extends Palomar Street to the east, regional buildout during Phase III, including implementation of the Project, will result in unacceptable peak-hour LOS at two 85 . --.,. --.,..--- ,-. .--. ...-.._-_._---~._------~--_. intersections. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-18 and Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 5-19 through 5-21, Table 5.5] Under the Alternative B network scenario, which extends Orange Avenue rather than Palomar Street, regional buildout, including implementation of the Project, will result in unacceptable peak-hour LOS at one intersection. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-18; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 5-19, 5-22 through 5-23, Table 5.6] Mitigation Discussion: As stated previously, General Study Area impacts on peak-hour intersections during Phase III are not necessarily Project-specific impacts. [See FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-23 through 9-25 and Table 9.8 (peak-hour intersection impacts significance threshold tied to 2010 LOS; all Project- specific impacts to peak-hour intersections are less-than-significant, except for two intersections)] As regards network improvements to address unacceptable LOS on peak-hour intersections in the General Study Area during Phase III, all intersections will achieve acceptable LOS under either alternative with mitigated geometrics. Implementation of SPA One required mitigation as set forth below, as well as implementation of the Phase III recommended network improvements, will achieve acceptable LOS on peak-hour intersections. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-8 (acceptable peak-hour intersection LOS defined), 4.10-19; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 2-7 (same), Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 5-19 through 5-24 and Tables 5.7,5.8 and Exhibit B (mitigated geometrics by phase)] The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-19, 4.10-32; Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 and pp. 9-6 through 9-7, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 5-19, 5-24, Tables 5.7, 5.8 and Table 6.1 (summary of recommended network improvements by phase)] . The Applicant shall contribute on a "fair-share" basis to applicable Transportation Development Impact Fee program for all SPA One significant impacts identified in Tables 4.10-2, 4.10-3, and 4.10-5 of the Transportation Section of the SPA One Final EIR. * * * J. AIR OUALITY Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for air quality impacts. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.11-10 through 4.11-16] 86 -- ---- ----~-~..~-_._-_.~.,- The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant environmental effects on air quality. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. II 7-11 9, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.12-1] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP to address non-attainment of State and Federal air quality standards, as well as short-term construction emissions. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 117-120, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.12-1] · The Applicant shall incorporate into the SPA plans all feasible measures developed by the County of San Diego in the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) in response to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). · The Applicant shall incorporate into the SPA plans numerous measures related to land use, siting/design, and transportation-related management actions that were developed at the GDP/SRP level as components of the Otay Ranch village concept. · No more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 million square feet of commercial may be constructed until funding and construction for LRT is assured. · Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. · Low pollutant-emitting construction equipment shall be used. · Electrical construction equipment shall be used, as practical. · Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used. · Injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment shall be used. · The construction area shall be watered at least twice daily to minimize fugitive dust. · Graded areas shall be stabilized (for example, hydroseeded) upon completion of grading to minimize fugitive dust. · Permanent roads shall be paved immediately after grading to minimize dust. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with the feasible air quality mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above because the measures have been incorporated in the SPA One Plan or, as described below, have been incorporated in the SPA One Plan itself or are made binding on the applicant through these Findings as conditions of Project approval, [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.11-11 through 4.11-15; Volume II, Appendix D, Air Quality Analysis; SPA One Plan, Section VII, p. 1-173] 87 _. .,.~._--. - r----" .-....------.....-.-.--..... -_._-_._.__.~"..,-------,.- .. .. .. SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: Short-term impacts to localized air quality would result from construction of the proposed project. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.11-8] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, however, not to a level below significance. In particular, the City of Chula Vista finds that implementation of feasible mitigation measures will substantially lessen short-term construction related air quality impacts, but that such impacts will remain significant because short-term NOX and PMIO emissions will exceed the quarterly threshold for significance. [FEIR, p. 4.11-15 and Table 4.11-7] Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level, of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, p. 4.11-11 ~ also FEIR, Volume II, Appendix D (Air Quality Analysis)] · Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. · Low pollutant-emitting construction equipment shall be used. · Electrical construction equipment shall be used, as practical. · Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used. · Injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment shall be used. · The construction area shall be watered at least twice daily to minimize fugitive dust. · Graded areas shall be stabilized (for example, hydroseeded) upon completion of grading to minimize fugitive dust. · Pennanent roads shall be paved immediately after grading to minimize dust. · Electricity during building construction shall be obtained from power poles instead of temporary generators. 88 --- -----.-------- .. -.-.'.--.., - --_._...,._._._.~---~_.__._.._-,._.,_._.__.._----,^,.- .._---_._-~--~.__._- . . . Significant Project Impact: The proposed project will result in increased emissions in the region through on-site consumption of energy (i. e., lighting, water and space heating and cooling) and increased vehicle trips. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.11-9] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)( I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, however, not to a level below significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, pp. 4.11-12 through 4.11-15; ~ also FEIR, Volume II, Appendix D (Air Quality Analysis)] . The Applicant shall incorporate into the SPA plans all feasible measures developed by the County of San Diego in the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) in response to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), . The Applicant shall incorporate into the SPA plans the following measures: Land Use - Neighborhood shopping and personal services adjacent to residential areas to minimize auto trips and reduce mileage traveled to service areas. - Open space and recreational facilities within or adjacent to the residential areas. - Employee services within walking distance (i.e., banking, child care, restaurants, etc.). - A balanced mix of housing and employment possibilities to reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled. Siting/Design - The avoidance of potentially incompatible projects (for example, a residential development near one of the quarries or the landfill). 89 _ -..--.- --------~~._-'"-- - Dedicated bike lanes to encourage use of bicycles. - Bicycle storage facilities at employment and retail centers. - Shower and locker facilities at offices to encourage bicycle use. - Sidewalks and curbs to ensure safe pedestrian travel within residential areas and to commercial centers. - Street designs that promote pedestrian safety (i.e., safe islands in center of major arterials, "Walk" signals, night lighting, etc.). - Shopping centers oriented 10 promote use by mass transit (i.e., provide bus turnouts, pedestrians, and bicyclists). - Parking lots designed to promote use of mass transit and car pools. - The installation of heat transfer modules on gas-fired furnaces to control emissions of NOx. - Low-NOx residential and commercial water heaters. - Enhanced energy efficiency in building designs and landscaping plans. - Identify an environmental coordinator to be responsible for education and disseminating infonnation on ridesharing and/or mass transit opportunities, recycling, energy conservation programs, etc. TransDortation-related Mana!!ement Actions - Land for transil support facilities such as bus stops, park-and-ride lots, etc. shall be provided. A detennination to dedicate land shall be made in consultation with the Metropolitan Transportation Development Board (MTDB). - Amenities to increase convenience and attractiveness of transit stops (i.e., passenger staging areas, waiting shelters, etc.) shall be provided. - Demand-responsive lraffic signals shall be negotiated. - An agreement with the transit agency to institute new routes or express bus service, or to expand existing service, related to the demand caused by the Project shall be negotiated. - Fair share participation for transit facilities shall be required. - Compliance with APCD Indirect Source Control Program, if adopted. 90 ._.. _'___"_--r-__._..__n___~______"_'__""____"__"_____'''__~.._._- - Major employers shall provide ridesharing or mass transit incentives. .. .. .. Significant Project Impact: Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, air quality impact associated with development in those areas is anticipated to remain significant. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.11-10 through 4.11-11] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, however, not to a level below significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would miligate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has detennined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following miIigation measures are feasible and are required as conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.11-15] .. Any future development plans wiIhin Ihe non-Otay Ranch parcels of Annexation Areas 1 and 3 shall incorporate the measures described in items 1 through 3 above. This measure shall be verified by the Planning Department prior to the approval of any site development plan for any future development within the non- Otay Ranch parcels. K. NOISE Compliance Wúh GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: Except for the perfonnance standard for noise impacts to California Gnalcalcher habitat, the SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigalion measures/perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for noise impacts. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-1 through 4.12-31 and Volume II, Appendix C] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found thai implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant environmental noise effect that is relevant to the SPA One Plan. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 120, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.13-1 through 4.9.13-3] Asregards this impact, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they 91 ._.'_n....._..,. ______._.___.____.____~__.._.~~.__,.."__,_____,._._.__,"._.____________ be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 121-122, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.13-4 through 4.9.13-5] · A site-specific acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician at the SPA level. · Residential developmenl shall not be allowed unless the site-specific noise study shows that the exterior noise level can be mitigated to 60 CNEL or below and that the interior noise level can be mitigated to 45 CNEL or below. The City of Chula Vista finds that these mitigation measures, to the extent they require project-specific, SPA-level analysis of noise impacts associated with implementation of the Project, are satisfied by preparation of the acoustical study by James C. Berry in June 1995. [FEIR, pp. 4.12-1 through 4.12-31 and Volume II, Appendix C ("Report on an Acoustical Study, Otay Ranch SPA 1, Villages 1 and 5," James C. Berry (June 13, 1995)] As discussed below, an amendment to the 60 CNEL exterior noise perfonnance standard for residential development is proposed as part of the SPA One Plan. Impacts associated with the amendment are analyzed in the FEIR. rSee FEIR, Volume I, p. 2- 31] · Site planning techniques shall be utilized to reduce noise impacts, including the placement of commercial uses adjacent to high noise roadways and other significant noise generators, setbacks shall be increased to distance sensitive noise receplors from noise sources, noise-sensitive land uses shall be placed outside of the 65 CNEL noise contour of roadways, non-noise sensitive uses such as parking lots and utility areas shall be placed between the noise source and receiver, and usable outdoor living space such as balconies, patios, and children play areas shall be oriented away from roadways. · Noise barriers such as walls and earthen benns shall be used to mitigate noise from ground lransportation sources when setbacks are not feasible and the placement and dimensions of such barriers shall be detennined by the results of the site-specific acoustical study. · An interior acoustical analysis shall be required for all residential buildings localed within the 60 CNEL noise contour to ensure that the building's design limits the interior noise level to 45 CNEL or below. The analysis shall be conducted upon submittal of building plans by a qualified acoustician. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plans complies with the preceding three mitigation measures because these measures have been incorporated into the SPA One Plan, to the extent feasible, as part of the required mitigation measures for the SPA- related impacts set forth below. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-29 through 4.12-31; FEIR, Volume II, Appendix C, Noise Analysis] In addition, as noted above, an amendment to the 60 CNEL exterior noise perfonnance standard for residential development is proposed as part of the SPA One Plan. Impacts associated with the amendment are analyzed in the FEIR. rSee FEIR, Volume I, p. 2-31] 92 - - ~._.~._---~~-~~-----_........"----_._. . Impacts to Least Bell's Vireo and California Gnatcatcher habitat shall be mitigated 10 achieve a level of 60 DBA L", or below. The City of Chula Vista finds, after more detailed analysis based on anecdotal evidence at the SPA-level, that a performance standard of 65 DBA L", for noise impacts to habitat for California Gnatcalcher is a more appropriate threshold limit for the significance of noise impacts to these species. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3-38 through 4.3-39; FEIR, Volume II, AppendixE, Biological Resources Analysis, pp. 48 through 52] * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: Construction of SPA One will create a long-term significant noise impact on and around the site, including existing California Gnatcatcher habitat. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-6 through 4.12-7] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, however, not to a level below significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-7, 4,12-29] . During construction and grading, the following measures shall be complied with: - Grading and construction shall be limited to Monday through Saturday between Ihe hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. - All grading and construction equipment shall be equipped and maintained with effeclive muffler systems, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Muffler systems shall conform to the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulalions) . - Construction equipment shall be located as far away from existing residential uses as practical. * * * 93 'u..-.____ n... _.,_._._._------,---.--._~--_..._-----_..._._-_._-~------- Significant Project Impact: Traffic noise from external roadways may impact SPA One land uses. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-18 and Tables 4.12-10,4.12-11, and 4.12-12] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code seclion 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The following mitigalion measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-18, 4.12-29 through 4.12-31] · Noise barriers shall be provided where residential unmitigated noise levels will exceed 65 dBA CNELlLdn. This barrier shall be a minimum 6 foot high solid barrier placed at the minimum setback line where possible. The barrier can be a 6' masonry wall, 6' earthen berm, or any other suitable material to provide noise attenuation (i.e., plexiglass). Landscaping shall be utilized on or adjacent to the wall as delermined to be appropriate by the Planning Department to minimize visual impacts of the wall. · Ensure that building construction is sufficient to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNELlLdn within residences and 50 dBA CNELlLdn within offices. Occupants should have the option to achieve this by having all windows and doors closed in which case some form of mechanical ventilation should be provided. · Minimize patios and balconies especially those which are adjacent to or overlook the roads. Where possible, patios should be walled and balconies may be fully enclosed with partially glazed partitions. · Make provision for locating designated recreation areas such as swimming pools, barbecues, childrens' play areas, etc. away from the high noise areas, preferably behind buildings, where noise levels are no higher than 65 dBA CNELlLdn. * * * Significant Project Impact: Traffic noise from internal roadways may impact SPA One land uses. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-18 through 4.12-23 and Tables 4.12-13 and 4.12- 14] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated inlo, the Projecl which will avoid Ihe significant environmental effect as identified in the Final ElR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. 94 - -- .-------------,---.-- _. ..._.._---_._._~--_.._,._-_..,._--''"''---_._._----------_.-~~--- Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-30 through 4.12-31] · Ensure that building construction is sufficient to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn within residences and 50 dBA CNEL/Ldn within offices. Occupanls should have the option to achieve this by having all windows and doors closed in which case some form of mechanical ventilation should be provided. · Minimize patios and balconies especially those which are adjacent to or overlook the roads. Where possible, patios should be walled and balconies may be fully enclosed with partially glazed partitions. · Make provision for localing designated recreation areas such as swimming pools, barbecues, childrens' play areas, etc. away from the high noise areas, preferably behind buildings, where noise levels are no higher than 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn. * * * Significant Project Impact: Although the SPA One Plan will attain the performance standard set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for preservation of Gnatcatchers based on the noise impact significance threshold of 65 dBA Le." areas containing coastal sage scrub that support the coastal California Gnatcatcher will be subjected to traffic generated noise levels from East Orange Avenue and Paseo Ranchero. These noise levels will exceed the 60 dBA Le., significance level established in the Findings of Fact adopted for Program EIR 90-01. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.12-26 and Volume I, p. 4.3-45] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, however, not to a level below significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. [FEIR, p. 4.12-31] As described in the StatemenI of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. The following mitigation measure is rejected as infeasible: · Standard noise reduction techniques such as the placement of sound walls or berms. Rationale: Standard noise reduction techniques such as the placement of sound walls or berms are infeasible because the sensitive habitat areas will be higher than the roadways at issue. [FEIR, p. 4.12-26] 95 ,-,,,.._. ________._'"M_.·'_~ ---_..-~~-- * * * Significant Project Impact: Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, possible future development could result in residents of the Ross and Gerhardt parcels being exposed to significant traffic noise levels from the adjacent East Palomar Street, and residents of the Satteria parcel being exposed to significant aircraft noise levels from the nearby San Diego Air Sports Center. In addition, project-related traffic from the development of all non-Otay Ranch parcels would incrementally contribute to significant cumulative noise impacts to noise-sensitive receptors located along surrounding roadways. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.12-26] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicanl through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.12-30] . A site specific noise study shall be prepared prior to approval of site development permits for any non-Otay Ranch parcel. The study shall provide a description of the project, the existing noise environment, the methods of evaluation, the future acoustical environment, noise impacts, and the required mitigation measures, Residential development shall not be allowed unless the site specific noise study shows thai the exterior noise level can be mitigated 10 65 CNEL or below and that the interior noise level can be mitigated to 45 CNEL or below. L. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The City of Chula Visla finds the following condition responds to comments by Eastlake Development Company, that the condition is feasible, is required as a condition of approval, and made binding on the Applicant as a condition of approval: . The SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan, at the Applicant's expense subject to a reimbursemenl agreement, shall be updated no later than six (6) months after approval of a Public Facilities Finance Plan for the Eastlake III General Development Plan ("Eastlake III GDP") Area, and the conclusions of such update, including without limitation, the nature, sizing, extent and timing for the construction of public facilities caused by SPA One, shall become a condition for all subsequent SPA One enlillements, including tentative and final maps. 96 . T--·' ~..--_. ._-~.-.._...._-_..,.~----_.._._-~~--~---,---_..,,- CompUance With GDP Findings Of Fact WATER (WATER CONSERVATION, RECLAIMED WATER) Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards sel forth in the GDP/SRP Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p.4.13-7] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the CiIy of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant environmental effect because project-generated water requirements would result in significant impacts related to the capability of local jurisdictions to provide adequate water. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 123, citing FPEIR, p. Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-1] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP at the SPA level. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 123-124, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p, 4.9.14-2; see also FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-4 through 4.13-5] · Upon completion of the comprehensive master plan currently under preparation by the Otay Water District (OWD), the facilities proposed for the Otay Ranch Project shall be reviewed for conformance to this plan and current OWD slandards, if the Projecl is ultimately annexed to OWD. · Annexation of land to the appropriate water jurisdiction as necessary. · Applicant shall prepare and submit for the appropriate jurisdiction(s) approval prior to the first SPA Plan, a Water Masler Plan, The Water Master Plan shan include: - A Public Facilities Financing and Phasing Plan. - A Water Conservation Plan which shall include an analysis of water usage requirements, as well as a detailed plan of proposed measures for water conservation. - A Water Reclamation Plan which shan include a reclaimed water distribution system designed to meet appropriate engineering standards. The plan shall address, in detail, storage and conveyance, phasing, and financing. The construction of dual piping system water supply shan be required for an development where the use of reclaimed water will not jeopardize potable water supplies. - A Reclaimed Water Uses and Restrictions Plan which shall be prepared by the Applicant in conformance with the Waler Reclamation Plan and current engineering and health standards, prior to any SPA Plan adoption. The Water Master Plan will provide: 97 --...-- _.._._....,_._-_._._._-,_._--~--_.~-~--- - Design criteria and assumptions, in accordance with the appropriate agency and regulalory authorities. - Information on how the Project will satisfy MWD's Water Use Efficiency Guidelines. - Location and size of facilities for on-site and off-sile improvements. - Operations and terminal storage. The Master Plan shall be consistent with the GDP and implement all applicable mitigation measures and/or conditions of prior approval(s). The SPA Plan shall not be approved unless the Water Masler Plan is accepted/approved by the appropriale jurisdiction(s). . Written verificalion from the water districllhat waler will be provided concurrent with need shall be required prior to tentative map approval. The City of Chula Vista finds these mitigation measures and performance standards have been complied with for the SPA One Plan by preparation of the "Otay Water District Subarea Master Plan for Otay Ranch Villages One and Five - Sectional Planning Area One" (Monlgomery and Watson, June 1995), "Otay Water District Reclaimed Water Master Plan (Montgomery and Watson, April 1995), Otay Water District Reclaimed Water Rules and Regulations, the SPA One Public Facilities Financing Plan (Willdan Associates, April 24, 1995), and the SPA One Plan. The City of Chula Vista also finds: (1) the Applicant has obtained a written verification from OWD that water will be provided concurrenl with need at the time lentative maps are approved for the SPA One plan, as required by the Cily's Growth Management Policies; (2) the Subarea Master Plan (SAMP) identifies the on-site and off-site facilities needed to provide water service to SPA One; (3) the SAMP provides a recommended improvements plan, including options of probable cost for major waler system facilities; (4) the OWD Masler Plan was prepared by Montgomery and Watson, and is referenced in the SAMP; (5) facilities proposed for the SPA One project will conform with the OWD Master Plan; (6) the SPA One Plan provides a waler conservation plan thai analyzes water usage requirements for SPA One, and a plan of proposed measures for waler conservation; and (7) SPA One is already within Ihe boundaries of the OWD and annexation is not necessary. [FEIR, p. 4.13-7] [SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Appendix C.l, SubArea Master Plan) Pursuant to Proposition C, as passed by the voters in San Diego County in November 1988, the City is required to self-certify its consistency with the Regional Growth Management Plan prepared by SANDAG. (See lœnerallv, Wat. Code, § 10915.) In accordance with the requirement, and pursuant to the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Program and Implementing Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista finds these mitigation measures and performance standards have been complied with for the SPA One Plan by preparation of adoption of City Council Resolution No. 18230. That 98 - -----_.._._---_._-~-_._---- ,., resolution completes the self-certification requirement that the City must submit to the Regional Planning and Growth Management Review Board. The resolution also demonstrates that the City has taken action 10 achieve consistency with the growth management strategy (See City of Chula Vista Resolution No. 18230). .. .. .. SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: Total projected potable water demands for average annual day, maximum day, and peak hour at ultimate buildout are 1.34 mgd, 3.08 mgd, and 4.69 mgd, respectively. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-5 and Table 4.13-2] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporaled inlo, the Projecl, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, which will mitigate the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is feasible, is required as a condition of approval, and is made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-6, 4.13-8] . The proposed project shall comply with the recommendations and facility improvement requiremenls idenlified in the "Otay Water District Subarea Master Plan for Otay Ranch Villages One and Five Sectional Planning Area One" (Montgomery Watson, June, 1995), This plan details the improvements required in order to provide adequale water and reclaimed water to the SPA One project. The project shall comply with the plan's specific recommendations for sewer pressure zone, fire flow requirements, recommended potable water facilities (on-site and off-site) and facility phasing for water service. The project shall comply with the plan's recommendations for recommended reclaimed water facilities including the pumping station, operational storage, transmission mains, and preliminary reclaimed water main layout identified within the June 1995 plan. Purchase of land may be required for the siting of reservoirs if the site is not localed on Otay Ranch property. Facilities needed to provide water service to SPA One as identified on the Subarea Master Plan are as follows: - Six or ten MG 711 Pressure Zone slorage and related appurtenances; - Zone 711 mains from the new 711 Zone reservoir (either 6 MG or 10 MG) to the existing 20-inch 711 main in EastLake Parkway. 99 -----~-~ --.-_.. . . ___..______....._.~-.,.~ _. ___ _n________.._._^_._.__._._.__' .__mo" .____ - Replacement of 624 Zone 16-inch main in Village 5 with a 24-inch main. - Replacement of 711 zone IS-inch in Village 5 with a 24-inch main. - Zone 711 mains in Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, Paseo Ranchero, La Media Road, and East Orange Avenue, all bordering Village I and 5, * * * Significant Project Impact: Total projected reclaimed water demands for average annual day, maximum day, and peak hour at ultimate buildout are 0.22 mgd, 0.57 mgd, and 1. 72 mgd, respectively. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-6 and Table 4.13-3; §!ðô also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Appendix C.I, Sub Area Master Plan, p. 5-4, Table 5-4] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and perfonnance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, which will mitigate the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is feasible, is required as a condition of approval, and is made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-6, 4.13-S] . The proposed project shall comply with the recommendations and facility improvement requirements identified in the "Otay Water District Subarea Master Plan for Otay Ranch Villages One and Five Sectional Planning Area One" (Montgomery Watson, June, 1995). This plan details the improvements required in order to provide adequate water and reclaimed water to the SPA One project. The project shall comply with the plan's specific recommendations for sewer pressure zone, fire flow requirements, recommended potable water facilities (on-site and off-site) and facility phasing for water service. The project shall comply with the plan's recommendations for recommended reclaimed waler facilities including the pumping stalion, operational storage, transmission mains, and preliminary reclaimed water main layout identified within the June 1995 plan. Purchase of land may be required for the siting of reservoirs if the site is not located on Otay Ranch property. Facilities needed to provide water service to SPA One as identified on the Subarea Master Plan are as follows: - Six or ten MG 711 Pressure Zone storage and related appurtenances; 100 --..._-.-.~--""'--.._.'..._--'-'------"'-..--~----~'----------- - Zone 711 mains from the new 711 Zone reservoir (either 6 MG or 10 MG) to the existing 20-inch 711 main in EastLake Parkway. - Replacement of 624 Zone 16-inch main in Village 5 with a 24-inch main. - Replacement of 711 zone 18-inch in Village 5 with a 24-inch main. - Zone 711 mains in Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, Paseo Ranchero, La Media Road, and East Orange Avenue, all bordering Village 1 and 5. .. .. .. Significant Project Impact: Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will require the extension of public services if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-7] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, which will mitigate the potential significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance, Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-7 through 4.13-8; see also Section X(L), infra, pp. 98-99 (City of Chula Vista compliance with Regional Growth Management Strategy)] .. Implementation of the Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan for Water, mitigation measures and performance standards proposed in Program EIR 90-01 and adopted in Program EIR 90-01 Findings of Fact, and this second-tier that apply to water would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels for the annexation component. >10 >10 >10 SEWERAGE Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards for sewerage set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-16 through 4.13-17] 101 . .._.... -..'t--. _ ~,___~.___._.___._u_____.__._ ..._. _ _ _____ .____._,~___.._..__.___'_.._ The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant environmental effect because facilities to accommodate additional sewage flow and wastewater treatment would be required. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 125, citing FPEIR, p. Volume 2, p. 4.9.14- 2] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required thai they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP at the SPA level. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 125-126, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.14-2 through 4.9.14-3; see also FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-16 through 4.13-17] . Prior to approval of any SPA Plan within Otay Ranch, it shall be detennined which sewer district will serve the proposed SPA. . The applicant shall prepare and submit for the appropriate jurisdiction(s) approval, a Sewer Master Plan in confonnance with the sewer engineering and facility siting standards of the appropriate jurisdictions for each SPA. The Sewer Master Plan shall address location and size of facilities for on-site and off-site improvements, design criteria and assumptions in accordance with the appropriate agency and regulating authorities. The City of Chula Vista finds these mitigation measures and perfonnance standards have been complied with for the SPA One Plan by preparation of the "Overview of Sewer Service for Specific Planning Area I of the Otay Ranch Project" (Wilson Engineering, June 14, 1995) and the SPA One Public Facilities Financing Plan. The City of Chula Vista finds the first plan provides infonnation on sewage generation, recommended on- site sewer facilities, recommended off-site sewer improvements, and estimated costs of providing sewer service to SPA One. The SPA One Public Facilities Financing Plan addresses the provision of sewer facilities for SPA One consistent with the growth management ordinance of the City. [SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Appendix C.3, Sewerage Master Plan] The City of Chula Vista also finds the SPA One Plan complies with the requiremenl thai, prior to any SPA, the sewer district which shall serve that SPA be identified. For SPA One, the sewer district is the City of Chula Vista. .. .. .. SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significanl Project Impact: Based on the sewage generation factors presented previously and the proposed development plan for SPA One, the total projected sewage flow from SPA One is 1.46 mgd (1,012 gpm). Of this amounl, 0.90 mgd (624 gpm) naturally drains to the Telegraph Canyon Basin and the remaining 0,56 mgd (388 gpm) naturally drains to the Poggi Canyon Basin. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-13 and Table 4.13-4] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required 102 ----- _.~---_..~'"'. -..-,., --.....-- ,._._-~..._..- ,..".--"--..,.-.--.-.-.---.--.~- in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, which will mitigale the significant environmental effecl identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, pp. 4.13-17 through 4.13-18] . The proposed projecl shall comply with the recommendations for sewer improvements as identified in the "Overview of Sewer Service for Specific Planning Area 1 of the Otay Ranch Project." (Wilson Engineering, June 14, 1995). This plan details the improvements required in order to accommodate projected sewage flows from development within SPA One. Table 4-2 of the "Overview of Sewer Service for Specific Planning Area 1 of the Otay Ranch Project" identifies sections of the off-site interceptor that require replacement and is a guide showing when pipes should be replaced. * * * Significant Project Impact: Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will require the extension of public services if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-17] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, which will mitigate the potential significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-18] . Implementation of the recommendations contained in the "Overview of Sewer Service for Specific Planning Area I of the Otay Ranch Project," as well as the implementation of mitigation measures proposed and performance standards proposed in Program EIR 90-01 and adopted in Program EIR 90-01 Findings of Fact, and this second-tier that apply to sewerage would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels for the annexation component. * * * 103 "-"---"'"-"'-'-"-"~'~'~-"----~~--- SCHOOLS Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards for schools sel forth in the GDP/SRP Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-19 through 4.13-21] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on Oclober 28, 1993, found thai implementation of the GDP/SRP would resull in a significant environmental effect because the Otay Ranch student population would generate the need for additional schools. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 130, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.14-4 through 4.9.14-5] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP at the SPA level. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp, 130-131, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-5; see also FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-20 through 4.13-21] · The applicant shall prepare a School Facilities Master Plan. The Master Plan shall demonstrate that a maximum capacity of 650 elementary students, 1,500 middle school students and 2,500 high school students will be achieved at each new school proposed in conjunction with Otay Ranch, in accordance with school district standards, and identify the general locations of schools through the General Development Plan. · The applicant shall provide documentation confirming school site locations and school district approval of the locations within that SPA. The approval shall entail site location, size, and configuration of schools, with provisions for access and pedestrian safety to the satisfaction of the various school districts. Funding and phasing shall also be addressed and confirmed in accordance with school district procedures. · SPA Plans shall include a Public Facilities Financing and Phasing Plan. · The applicant shall provide documentation to the appropriate jurisdiction confirming school district satisfaction of facility funding to fully mitigate Otay Ranch student generation impacts to below a level of significance. The City of Chula Vista finds these mitigation measures and performance standards for school impacts are satisfied by the SPA One Plan because a school facilities implementation plan was prepared at the program-level (see Otay Ranch Facilities Implementation Plan, p. 238) and by preparation of the "Otay Ranch, SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan" (Willdan Associates, October 31, 1995). The SPA One Plan identifies two elementary school sites within SPA One and one elementary school site in the area of Village One west of Paseo Ranchero, and provides preliminary site studies of general site areas showing relationships to existing and planned circulation systems. The PFFP provides the phasing schedule for school facilities. [SPA One Plan, Part I, 104 -----------.-.- Section VI, Public Facilities, Schools, p. 130; SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Section 3.5, Schools] The City of Chula Vista also finds that implementation of the mitigation measures listed under the following significant effect will satisfy the requirement in the GDP/SRP Findings that the applicant shall provide documentation to the appropriate jurisdiction confirming school district satisfaction of facility funding 10 fully mitigate Otay Ranch student generation impacts to below a level of significance. * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: Increased demand for a new middle school on Sweetwater Union High School District' existing school facilities and capacity may occur earlier than was anticipated in the GDP stage. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-20] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, will avoid or mitigate the potential significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-20,4.13-22 through 4.13-23] · Consistent with the requirements of the Otay Ranch GDP, Sweetwater Union High School District (District) Policy and Cily of Chula Vista Regulations, the SPA One applicant shall fully mitigale SPA One impacts on high and middle schools by providing facilities necessary to house school students generated within SPA One area. · The SPA One Applicant shall identify and initiate grading on a high school site at the time that SPA One has generated 350 high school students. This schedule is subject to modification by the City of Chula Vista and District. · The SPA One high school site shall be sufficiently prepared to enable the District to acquire the land when approximalely 504 high school students are generated from SPA One. This schedule is subject to modification by the City of Chula Vista and the Districl. · As a condition of SPA One approval, and prior to tentative map approval, the Applicant and the District shall have entered inlo an agreement regarding the financing of middle and high school facilities. This agreement shall include: 105 _.~._-_.......-.---_.- ---..--- - ___._._._--""__._~'__....'_."""'.__.__.__.. ..____._.,.n -...-.--..------.--..--- .-- - The agreement shall identify the Mello Roos District as the fmancial mechanism by which middle and high school facilities will be funded within SPA One. - The SPA One applicant shall agree to initiate the Mello Roes District establishment process prior to SPA One approval through the placement of a deposil with the school district to commence work. - The Mello Roos District shall be annexable. - The SPA shall provide that no final maps may be recorded within SPA One until such time that the Mello Roos District is established. . Consistent with the requirements of the Otay Ranch GDP, Chula Vista Elementary School District Policy and City of Chula Vista Regulations, the SPA One applicant shall fully mitigate SPA One impacl on elementary schools by providing facilities necessary to house elementary school students generated within the SPA One area. . As a condition of SPA One approval, the applicant and the District shall have entered into an agreement regarding the financing of elementary school facilities. This agreement shall include: - The agreemenl shall identify the Mello Roos District as the financial mechanism by which elementary school facilities will be funded within SPA One. - The SPA One applicant shall agree to initiate the Mello Roos District establishment process prior to SPA One approval through the placement of a deposit with the school district to commence work. - The Mello Roos District shall be annexable. - The SPA shall provide that no final maps may be recorded within SPA One until such time that the Mello Roos District is established. * * * Significant Project Impacl: The anlicipated increase of 1,443 students generated by the SPA One Plan will result in a significant impact to existing Sweetwater High School facilities. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-20] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, 106 _ ___ ...________.._..._ ,_"" _..___________----r--_. ~..."---._-"._-.--..-.-..-.-...-...-----.-~----.-..------.--------.---- will avoid or mitigate the potential significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR 10 below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures detailed under the preceding significant effect are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-22 through 4.13-23] In addition, the City of Chula Vista finds the following mitigation measure is feasible, is required as a condition of approval, and is made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. . The Applicant shall prepare and submit an application for an amendment to the 01ay Ranch General Developmenl Plan replacing the Village Seven High School location with a site in either the area west of Paseo Ranchero in Village One or the northern portion of Village Two. The City shall not issue building pennits for more than 1,400 units within SPA One until the City has acted on the proposed plan amendment unless the District consents to the further issuance of such pennits. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District a graded high school site, including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District prior to issuance of the 2,650th building pennit (504) students or upon written request by the District but not prior to 1,800 pennits. The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subjecl to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. * * * Significam Project Impact: Although no developmenl applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel may require additional school facililies and services if developmenl occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-22] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and perfonnance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, which will mitigale the potential significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigalion Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-22, 4.13-23] . Implementation of the Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan for Schools, as well as the implementation of mitigation measures proposed and perfonnance standards proposed in Program EIR 90-01 and adopted in Program EIR 90-01 107 - .__.._---_._~..__.._-~_. Findings of Fact, and this second-tier that apply to schools would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels for the annexation component. . . . PARKS Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for parks. [FElR, Volume I, p. 4.13-29] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant environmental effect because implementation of the Project would generate additional demand for regional and local parkland. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 132, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.14-5 through 4. 9.14-6] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP at the SPA level. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 132-134, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-6; see also FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-25 through 4.13-29] · Open space shall be provided in compliance with the policies outlined in the RMP for Otay Ranch. · Within the RMP management preserve, permitted recreational uses shall be consistent with long-term protection and management of sensitive natural and man-made resources. · The Project must provide 15 acres of regional park and open space per 1,000 Otay Ranch residents, a minimum of 3 acres of neighborhood and community park land per 1,000 Otay Ranch residents, and 12 acres of other active or passive recreation and open space per 1,000 Otay Ranch residents. · The Project SPA Plans shall further define the location, acreage, and boundaries of neighborhood and community parks and open space on the Otay Ranch property . · Prepare and submit a Recreation Master Plan. · Public Facilities Financing and Phasing Plan. · The funding source for local parks shall be the Park Lands Dedication Ordinance (PLDO), or similar exaction authorily. 108 .--.--_._- --. ..+. .-. ."",..---...-- ..~..__.__.__._----------- . The reconstruction of the State Department of Recreation's California Riding and Hiking Trail shall be implemented along with the attendant roadway improvemenls. The City of Chula Vista finds the mitigation measures and perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for parkland are addressed as follows: (1) parks, recreation, open space and trails are addressed in the Otay Ranch SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan; and (2) the phasing and financing of these facilities is addressed in the SPA One PFFP. [SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan; Appendix D, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan; Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP] .. .. .. SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary PaIrick Estate parcel will require additional parkland if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-29 through 4.13-30 and Table 4.13-11] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and perfonnance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, will miligate the potential significanI environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigalion Measures: The following mitigalion measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-30, 4.13-31] . The potential impact on parks and recreation from the annexation component of the proposed projecl will be reduced 10 below a level less than significant with the implementalion of the Otay Ranch Facility Implementalion Plan for Parks, Recreation and Open Space, and policies and standards contained in the GDP/SRP. .. .. .. 109 ,........ .~_._ _______ ..___ u_._.. __ . _ _._ - -_.__._---_.._-~--_.,-_.._-"_._- LAW ENFORCEMENT Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures and performance slandards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for law enforcement. [FEffi, Volume I, pp. 4.13-33 through 4.13-34] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Visla on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would resulI in a significanl environmenlal effect because the Otay Ranch population would result in the need for additional slaff and facilities to provide law enforcement. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 127, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.14-3 through 4.9.14-4] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP at the SPA level. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 128-130, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-4; see also FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-33 through 4.13-34] . A Law Enforcement Services Master Plan shall be prepared which identified the lypes of facilities and equipment to be provided, site location and criteria, design techniques and guidelines to minimize crime, and funding mechanisms identified by the appropriale law enforcemenl agency and implemenlation method assured. . The Master Plan shall ensure that the project meets the following standards: For Priority One emergency calls, properly equipped and slaffed police units are required to respond 84 percent of the calls throughout the City within 7 minutes. An overall average response time of 4.5 minutes or less is required. - For Priority Two urgent calls, police units are required to respond to 62 percent of the calls within 7 minutes. An average response time of 7 minutes or less is required. The City of Chula Visla finds the mitigation measures and performance slandards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for law enforcemenl are achieved through the preparation of the SPA One Law Enforcement Plan provided in the SPA One Plan. The SPA One Plan identifies equipment needs and the development of "project specific guidelines: consistent with thresholds of the appropriate jurisdiction". According to the SPA One Plan, the projected population increase generated by the SPA One will require an additional 25 officers at buildout to mainlain current levels of police service and approximately 5,112.5 sq. ft. of police facilities to house the additional officers. [SPA One Plan, Part 1, Ch. 9 (Law Enforcement)] The City of Chula Vista also finds law enforcement financing methods are defmed in the SPA One PFFP and thai development of site design lechniques and guidelines to deter crime are conlained in the Village Design Plan. [SPA One Plan, Part 1, Ch. 9 (Law 110 ...,.-.,.- - ___n____________ "...__..__ _~..._____~____,_~ n_____'__.._'._ Enforcement); see also SPA One Plan, Appendix B, Village Design Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan] The City of Chula Vista also finds that performance of the above-referenced mitigalion measures and perfonnance standards is assured through required Applicant participalion in the City's development impact fee program. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-35] . . . SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will require additional law enforcement service if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-34] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and perfonnance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summar~ed above, will mitigate the potential significant environmental effect idenlified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-34] . Implementation of the Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan for Law Enforcement, as well as implementation of miligation measures contained in the Program EIR 90-01 would reduce any potential impacts as a result of the annexation component to less than significanl levels. . . . FIRE/EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One plan complies with the applicable miligalion measures and performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for fire and EMS services. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 4.13-38] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant environmental effect because the Otay Ranch populalion would resulI in the need for additional staff and 111 ~._---~._------_.---------,~-"-- facilities to provide fire and EMS services. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 127, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.14-3 through 4.9.14-4] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the miligalion measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP at the SPA level. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 128-130, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-4; see also FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-37 through 4.13-38] · Preparation of a Fire Master Plan, which shall assure that the project meets the minimum standards specified in the Program EIR 90-01 Findings of Fact. · Preparation of an Emergency Service Master Plan which addresses the facility requirements, including facilities for hazardous materials incidents, service locations and funding mechanisms, and the provision of fire and emergency service facilities concurrent with need. · SPA Plans shall include a Public Facilities Financing and Phasing Plan. · Each SPA shall be required to meet the criteria of the approved master plan. The City of Chula Vista finds the mitigation measures and performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for fire and EMS services are achieved by the SPA One Plan and the PFFP. That former plan addresses fire equipment needs and project specific guidelines (i.e., fire protection facilities, fire break and fuel modification, and residential fire suppression sprinkler systems). The PFFP addresses financing mechanisms, the ability to provide facilities in conjunction wilh sewer, water, and road facilities, and response times. [SPA One Plan, Part 1, Section VI (Public Facilities), Ch. 10 (Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services)] The City of Chula Vista also finds that performance of the above-referenced mitigation measures and performance standards for fire is assured through required Applicant participation in the City's development impact fee program. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-39] .. .. .. SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: AlIhough no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitled 10 the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will require additional fire and EMS services if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4,13-38 through 4.13-39] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Projecl, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, 112 ....__.._--~~-_._.._..~"..~_..__._._---_._------_._-~----.------ will mitigate the potential significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The folIowing mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-39] . Implementation of the Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan for fire/EMS, the payment of Public Facilities Fees, and implementation of mitigation measures contained in the Program EIR 90-01 would reduce any potenlial impacts as a result of the annexalion component to less than significant levels. * . * ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for animal control services. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-41] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the Cily of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant environmental effect because implementation of the project would generate the need for additional animal control facility space. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 137, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14- 9] As regards this impact, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP at the SPA level. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 137, ciling FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-9; see also FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-41] . The Project Applicant shaH participate in programs to equitably share the funding of animal control facililies and designate animal control facilities sufficienl to provide adequate square footage of shelter space per Otay Ranch dwelling unit to the satisfaction of the appropriate jurisdiction. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One project complies with the miligation measures and performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for animal control services because the SPA One Plan addresses these services. Although the SPA One projecl would generaIe the need for additional animal control facilities, the City of Clwla Vista does not currently impose impacl fees to fund the expansion of such facilities to serve new development. Should such a fee be imposed by the City of Chula Vista, Otay Ranch land governed by the fee program would be required to comply with the exaction. [SPA One Plan, Part I, Section VI (Public Facilities), Ch. II (Animal Facilities)] The City of Chula Vista also finds that the SPA One Plan complies with this program-level requiremenl because the City, pursuant to the GDP, may require 113 - -,-- - _____u._________ -~.._._--_.._-,_..-.-------~...__._.__.- Applicant's participation in a reserve fund program if necessary. [See Otay Ranch GDP, p. 265] * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: Allhough no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submilted to the Cily of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will require additional square footage of animal control facilities if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-41 through 4.13-42] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and perfonnance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, will mitigate the potential significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance, Mitigation Measures: The following mitigalion measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-42] . Impacts related to animal control services as a result of the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate will be mitigated to a level less than significant with the implementation of mitigation adopted for Program EIR 90-01. * * * LmRARY SERVICES Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies wilh the applicable mitigation measures and perfonnance standards sel forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for library services. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-45 through 4.13-46] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would resull in a significant environmental effect because implementation of the project would generate the need for additional library facilities to serve the Otay Ranch population. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 131, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-5] As regards this impact, the GDP/SRP Findings found 114 .-- ...._..~-----~_.... -,-. - -- - -~'------'-~--~- "-- . ---------~------~-- the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as condilions of approval for the GDP/SRP at the SPA level. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 131-132, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-5; ~ also FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-46] · The Applicant shall prepare and submit for the appropriate jurisdiction(s) approval prior 10 lhe first SPA Plan, a Library Masler Plan in accordance wilh the standards of the applicable jurisdiction. The Library Master Plan shall address site location, size, and funding mechanisms. · SPA Plans shall include a Public Facilities Financing and Phasing Plan. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with the mitigation measures and perfonnance standards set forth in lhe GDP/SRP Findings for library services because the SPA One Plan identifies specific library facility sites with consideration of the plans and equipment needs, the PFFP addresses the timing of construction and financing, and, as set forth below, Applicant participation in the City's development impact fee program is required as a condition of Project approval. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-46; SPA One Plan, Part I, Section VI (Public Facilities), Ch. 13 (Library); SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Section 3.6 (Libraries) see also Otay Ranch GDP, Facility Implementation Plan, p. 205] * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Projecl Impacl: Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel will impact library facilities if development occurs in these areas due to the increase in population. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-46] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and perfonnance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, will mitigate the potential significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-46] · Impacts related to library facilities as a result of the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate will be mitigated to below a level of significance wilh implementation of mitigation adopted for Program EIR 90-01. 115 ._.__.,~,.._~_., -..----., ----------_..~----_._--~-----_.._--~ .. .. .. INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for integrated waste management. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-48 through 4.13-49] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant environmental effect because project -generated solid waste would impact landfill capacity in the region. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 127, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-3] As regards this impacl, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP at the SPA level. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 127, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-3; see also FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-48 through 4.13-49] .. Preparation of an Integrated Waste Management Master Plan. .. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego programs and regulations concerning long-term solid waste capacity. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with the mitigation measures and performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for integrated waste management because an Integrated Waste Management Plan was prepared for the entire Otay Ranch GDP. [Otay Ranch GDP, Facility Implementation Plan, p. 21] The City of Chula Vista also finds the SPA One Plan complies with the mitigation measures and performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for integrated waste management because the Applicant is required to comply with the appropriate jurisdiction's programs and regulations concerning long-term solid waste. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-48 through 4.13-49; SPA One Plan, Appendix E, Regional Facility Report] .. .. .. SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: The development of SPA One will result in a significant increase in solid waste generation. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-48] Finding: PursuanI to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required 116 -- ---- ---"-. . ._-"'.__._,.._..._._..__..-...._._---~- in, or incorporated into, the Project which will mitigate the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-49] · The proposed project shall participate in an integrated waste management program to include curbside recycling, neighborhood recycling/buyback centers, a materials recovery facility, a composting facility, and a household waste collection facility. · The SPA One plan shall comply with the County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista programs and regulations concerning long-term solid waste capacity. * * * Significant Project Impacl: Although no development applications for the non-Otay Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel facilitate development in the area which will resulI in impacts to solid waste facilities due to the increase in population. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-49] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation measures and performance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above, will mitigate the potential significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-49] · Impacts related to solid waste disposal as a result of the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate will be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of mitigation proposed in Program EIR 90-01 and Ihe payment of Development Impact Fees. * * * 117 ____uu.._____.. _._.._...__ __ _____ _.._,__,,~....., ___ .m.__'_.--.,.·___n.'*_ _.___ -, M. HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET Complùmce With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance slandards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for impacts associated with hazards/risk of upsel. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.14-3 through 4.14-4] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Visla on October 28, 1993, found that implemenlation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significanl environmenlal effect because increased urbanization would result in an increase in the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and an associated increase in the risk of an upset condition in the area. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 137, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.15- 1] As regards this impact, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 137-138, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 4.9.15-1 through 4.9.15-2] · Soil and ground-water tesling shall occur in the ranch operations center area potentially affected by the previous disposal of hazardous waste or historic pesticide use. The purpose of the testing shall be to idenlify areas of contaminalion in excess of federal and slate slandards. Should areas of excess contamination be identified, remediation shall occur prior to residential development. · The Applicant shall nolify prospeclive buyers and the California Department of Health Services (DHS), as required, regarding the Applicant's intention to develop the area adjacent to the Olay Landfill and the Appropriate Technologies II hazardous waste facilities. · The U. S. Army or another appropriate entity shall conduct a survey of the Brown Field Bombing Range to identify the presence of any unexploded ammunition, Should unexploded ordnance be located on the property, appropriate measures shall be laken for removal of the material. The City of Chula Vista finds these mitigation measure need not be implemented for the SPA One Plan because the Project site does not include and is not adjacent to the areas identified above. [See FEIR, Volume I, Figure 2-2; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix J, Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report] · The transport of hazardous waste by the Applicant, sub-contractors, and future businesses on exisling and future roadways shall be conducted in accordance with the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations identify Department of Transportation (DOT) approved methods for packaging and conlainerizing hazardous waste and site appropriate options and procedures relative to the handling and transportation of these wastes. 118 .-.._~.-----_.- +---.-. --"..-+----. .+-----~--~---. --- ~~.- The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the land uses associaled with the Project will not involve use and transport of hazardous materials and, 10 the exlent transportation of hazardous materials associated with use of hazardous waste transfer station at the Otay landfill, such transport operations must comply with state and federal permit requirements. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.14-4] . The need for emergency evacuation routes and other emergency facilities shall be determined at the SPA level if necessary based on the presence of onsite industrial uses as well as the presence of offsite industrial uses. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the measure is incorporated into the SPA One Plan, as set forth below, and is made a binding on the Applicant through these Findings as a condition of Project approval. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.14-3] * * * SPA One Project-Specific Impacts Significant Project Impact: The absence of an emergency plan is a potential impact. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.14-3] Finding: Pursuanl to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in Ihe Final EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. The City of Chula Vista finds that the Final EIR suggests that the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact 10 a less than significant level. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.14-5] . Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the applicant shall prepare an emergency response plan. This plan shall identify emergency evacuation routes, and delermine the need for other emergency facilities in addressing the specific potential hazards associated with surrounding industrial uses. This plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The City of Chula Vista finds that implementation of this mitigation measure is unnecessary . This mitigation measure is unnecessary because the City of Chula Vista currently participates in the Unified San Diego County Emergency Service Organization, which consisls of Ihe Counly and cilies within the County. With annexation of the SPA One project area to the City of Chula Vista, SPA One projecl area would be incorporated into Chula Vista's existing emergency services and mutual aid agreements. In addition, the SPA One project area is currently localed in the County of San Diego and is therefore included in the Unified San Diego Counly Emergency Services Organization. [SPA One Plan, Part I, p. 1-149] 119 ____m____r··.._ __.__.. ------...------.--"...--;-..-.-.--.-.---- " XI. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. LAND USE. PLANNING. AND ZONING Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts associated with land use, planning, and zoning. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4] The GDP/SRP Findings adopled by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementalÏon of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative environmental effects on land use, planning, and zoning. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 143, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-9] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measure summarized below to be feasible and required that it be implemented by the Applicant as a condition of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 143, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p, 6-9 through 6-10] .. SPA plans developed for areas of the Otay Valley parcel adjacent to any of the alternate San Diego County landfill sites shall contain landscaping and buffering standards designed to prevent land use interface impacts between Otay Ranch and these adjacent land uses. The Cily of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the SPA One Plan includes and the Applicant is required to implement landscaping and buffering standards designed to prevent land use interface impacts. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4; SPA One Plan, Appendix B, Village Design Plan] .. .. .. SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: Implementation of the SPA One Plan, in conjunction with buildout of the cumulative scenario, would contribute to the conversion of over 30,000 acres of vacant land 10 urban uses, the cumulative loss of open space and conversion of agricultural lands, and land use incompatibilities between GDP land uses and two alternative County landfill sites, and induslrial tentative maps proposed along the GDP's western border, and Hidden Valley estates. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated inlo, Ihe Project which will lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The cumulative impact is anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and 120 ."--_.._--~~'-'t._- __n_._____________ __. '_"_"_ -__'_ - ----.-..-.~._,._~____.______._ CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has detennined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of approval, and is binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 143; SPA, Village Design Plan, App. B (landscaping plans)] B. LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacls associated with landfonn alteration/aesthetics. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative environmental effects on landfonn alteration/aesthetics associated with change in character of Otay Ranch from rural to urban development, overall landfonn alteration, and cumulative effects of night lighting. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 143-145, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-13] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 144-145, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-13] . Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in Section VII of the GDP/SRP Findings related to landfonn alteration/aesthetic impacts, including use of contour grading, implementation of design guidelines, and incorporation of planned open space. rSee GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 18-24] The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with the preceding mitigation measure because the feasible mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for landfonn alteration/aesthetic impacts are incorporated into the SPA One Plan or are required 10 be implemented by the Applicanl as a binding condition of approval for the Project. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4; see also Section X(B), infra, pp. 24-29] . Compliance with the San Diego County Code Sections 59.\01-115 (the County Dark Sky Ordinance). The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with the preceding mitigation measure because compliance with the County's Dark Sky Ordinance is a feasible mitigation measure made binding on the Applicant through this Findings as a binding condition of approval. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.2-2 through 4.2-4, 4.2-6, 4.2-18] 121 .. ._.._,-,..~,. . .._-_.-.-._._~-,-_.._---~._.~-_..," * * * SPA One Project-ReloJed Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: Implementation of the SPA One Plan, in conjunction with buildout of the cumulative projects, would result in significant cumulative landfonn alteration/aesthetic impacts because approximately 35,488 acres of open space would be converted to development. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The cumulative impact is anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), and except as noted below, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has detennined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of approval, and is made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 144, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-13; see also Section X(B), infra, pp. 26-31] . Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in Section VII of the GDP/SRP Findings related to landfonn alteration/aesthetic impacts, including use of contour grading, implementation of design guidelines, and incorporation of planned open space. rSee GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 18-24] * * * Significant Cumulative Effect: The cumulative effects of night lighting. [FEIR, Volume I, p.6-4] Finding: Pursuant 10 Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is feasible, required as a condition of approval, and is made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4; FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-13, GDP/SRP Findings, p. 146] 122 _Tm ---- "-----_._~.- , ...~.__..-.--.------~_...- · Compliance with the San Diego County Code Sections 59.101-115 (the County Dark Sky Ordinance). Compliance will be required even if the SPA is developed under the jurisdiction of the City, C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on biological resources. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-3, 6-5] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative environmental effects on biological resources because the cumulative reduction of the sensitive coastal sage scrub habitat mosaic which supports California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, Otay tarplant, and vernal pool habitat with the boundaries of Otay Ranch is unmitigable due to the magnitude of the effect. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 145, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-17] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 145-146, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p, 6-18] · The cumulative effects shall be mitigated through a combination of measures which ultimately concentrate on protecting the key resource areas and tying these areas togelher onsile and wilh adjacent offsile areas to creale a viable regional open space preserve. The key component of this mitigation is the Resource Management Plan (RMP) which establishes minimum standards to be achieved with the development of the Project. · Sensitive habitats on Otay Ranch shall be restored or preserved to provide mitigation for bolh the loss of habitat and sensitive species due to development of the property. Restoration of disturbed habitats will increase the resource value of the habitat, as well as pOlentially provide links to key resource areas on both local and regional levels. Habitat restoration in areas thai connect two or more otherwise isolated key resource areas will allow migration between subpopulations resulting in more viable populations. · Restoration of habitat in highly biodiverse areas can play an important role in effectively increasing the population size of sensitive species. Disturbed portions of the Otay Valley will be restored back to an intact riparian habitat, which will allow for an increase in the number of leasl Bell's vireo breeding pairs that will utilize the expanded habitat. Restoration of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitats will potentially contribute to the maintenance of the California gnatcatcher population on Otay Ranch, and disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to 123 ..+-.....--n---····T'· - -- -----"- -+---+._-_.._.,----_.~_._----~~---_. areas currently utilized by cactus wren could be restored with maritime succulent scrub in order for the cactus wren population to expand. . The Applicant shall comply with the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA") (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) and the Federal Endangered Species Act ("FESA") (16 D.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with the mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative biological impacts through implementation of the Phase 2 RMP. [See FEIR, Volume I, 4.3-42 through 4.3-46; SPA One Plan, Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP] * * * SPA One Project-RelaJed Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: Key biological resources including Diegan coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub habitat, California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren are anticipated to be significantly impacted through the cumulative buildout of the Project and surrounding area. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines s 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, including implementation of mitigation measures for cumulative impacts to biological resources sel forth in the GDP/SRP Findings, but not to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate Ihe impacl below a level of significance. As described in the Slalement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has detennined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative biological impacts, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX for impacts on biological resources, are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5; GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 145-146; see also Section X(C)(Biological Resources), infra, pp. 30-40] 124 .. -_..._...~ __ _ .__ ·______._.____._._m._.__~..___________..________ D. CULTURAL RESOURCES Complionce With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on cultural resources. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-3, 6-5] 'The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative environmental effects on cultural resources. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 146, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 6-26 through 6-29] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP if established in the region. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 146-147, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 6-29 through 6-30] . A regional preservation plan with specific cultural resource preservation goals shall be established to determine what kind of database the managing agencies desire to retain after the region as a whole has been developed. Once a plan and goals have been established, a specific resource preservation plan developed by the Applicant for the Otay Ranch that focuses on database diversity in terms of values shall be established and implemented specifically for the Otay Ranch Project. . A regional repository shall be established and cultural material from the Project and the region shall be preserved in this repository. Furthermore, funding for its long-term preservation shall be secured to ensure preservation of the resources; the Applicant shall pay a fair share. The GDP/SRP Findings specifically conditioned implementation of the preceding mitigation measures if the regional preservation plan and regional repository of cultural resources were established. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 146] To date, no such plans or repositories exist. Thus, the City of Chula Vista finds that compliance with the mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on cultural resources is not required nor feasible at this time. The City of Chula Vista also finds, however, that implementation of the mitigation measures for SPA One impacts on cultural resources as set forth above in Section IX(D) will not adversely affect future compliance with the mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on cultural resources set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-5; GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 146-147; see also Section X(D)(Cultural Resources), infra, pp. 41-44] . .. .. 125 ^- ,~-_._--_._..._..__._- ------.-..-.---------- SPA One Project-ReWed Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: Under the cumulative buildout scenario in and around Otay Ranch, implementation of the SPA One Plan would contribute to a 86 percent reduction in the area-wide cultural resource data base. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-5] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, including mitigation of SPA One projecl-specific impacts to below a level of significance. The cumulative impact is anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Consideralions, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative cultural resource impacts, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX for impacts on cultural resources, are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5; GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 146-147; see also Section X(D)(Cultural Resources); infra, pp. 41-44] E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on cultural resources. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-5] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative environmental effects on geology and soils. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 147, citing FPEffi, Volume 2, p. 6-30] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 147, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-31] . Cumulative impacls relaled to seismic ground shaking shall be avoided by designing and constructing proposed projects in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineering Association of California (SEAOC), and applicable local building codes as required by local agencies. 126 - -~ - _"~___'_-r__._....___._.__.~_.__._.._._.___..___..._'m___.__.__.__~..____._.~._.__..__ . All significant cumulative geologic and soil impacts shall be mitigated through appropriate site-specific investigations and implementation of standard construction and design methods as described in Section VIII of the FPEIR. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with and implements these mitigation measures because the SPA One Plan complies with and requires implementation of mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for program- level, project-specific geology and soil impacts. rSee Section X(E), irifra, pp. 45-49] . . . SPA One Project-ReloJed Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: Implementation of the SPA One Plan under the cumulative buildout scenario would result in an increase in population and property that would be exposed to the effects of seismic ground shaking from local active faults, such as the Rose Canyon and Coronado Bank faults. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-5] Finding: All significant adverse geologic and soil related impacts such as landslides and expansive soils can be evaluated and prevented through appropriate site-specific excavation, construction, design methods and other mitigation measures. Implementation of these types of measures would mitigate cumulative impacts of seismic shaking, geologic hazards and soil conditions 10 below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on geology and soils, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(E), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 147; see also Section X(E)(Geology and Soils), infra, pp. 45-49] F. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Compliance With GDP Findings Of Facl Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on paleontological resources. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-3, 6-5 through 6-6] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative 127 ,__....,._..__u_.m'__.._MO__~..'_. _ ___ n_ _ _ __ _____ ~.._.._-,..,._. - - -----------------------------.-..-.-...----'.- enviromnental effects on paleontological resources. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 147, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-31] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 148, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-32] . The mitigation measures outlined in Section VIII of the FPEIR are feasible and are required as a condilion of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with the mitigation measure summarized above because the SPA One Plan complies with and implements the mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for impacts on paleontological resources. rSee Section X(F), infra, pp. 49-52] * * * SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effecl: Implementation of the SPA One Plan under the cumulative buildout scenario would result in an increased probability of disturbance to paleontological resources, causing potentially significant cumulative impacts. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-5 through 6-6] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code seclion 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines seclion 15091, subdivision (a)(l), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant enviromnental effect as idenlified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures for all cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of the SPA One Plan are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-5 through 6-6; see also Seclion X(F)(paleonotogical Resources), infra, pp. 49-52] G. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Compliance mth GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on agricultural resources. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-6] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementalion of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative enviromnental effects on agricultural resources. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 148, citing 128 - ---------_..._.._._------~--_._~~-~-'-" FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-35] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 148, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-31] . The mitigation measures outlined in Section VIII of the FPEIR are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-31] The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with the mitigation measure summarized above because the SPA One Plan complies with and implements the mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for impacts on agricultural resources. rSee Section X(G)(Agricultural Resources), irifra, pp. 53-55] . . . SPA One Project-RelaJed Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: Cumulative buildout would lead to the loss or impairment of suitable agricultural land. Although not currently a significant agricultural production area, due to the climate of the coastal San Diego region, the project area represents a unique growing opportunity for the production of coastal dependent crops. While not all of the remaining suitable agricultural land in the county is currently being cullivated, the commitment to urban uses is irreversible, and incremental reductions in the resource combine to create cumulatively significant impacts. Cumulative development in the Otay Ranch project vicinity would result in the permanent loss or impainnent of agricultural land suitable for the potential production of coastal dependent crops. Mitigation measures proposed in Program EIR 90-01 will mitigate impacts to the extent feasible. However, the pennanent loss and impainnent of agricultural land would result in a significant and unavoidable impact from development of the surrounding projects. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-6] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code seclion 21081, subdivision (a)(1) , and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, including implementation of program- level mitigation measures sel forth in the GDP/SRP Findings. The cumulative impact is anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has detennined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on agricultural resources, as well as the mitigalion measures set forth in these Findings in 129 ,--.-.....- ----.~______.r_.--..+______+_________________ . Section IX(G), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-6; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 148; ~ also Section X(G)(Agricultural Resources), infra, pp. 53-55] H. WATER RESOURCES AND WATER DUALITY Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on water resources and water quality. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-6] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative enviromnental effects on water resources and water quality. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 149, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-38] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the miligalion measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 149, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-40] . Additional surface water modeling shall be required upon preparation of a final design plan at the SPA level. The standards identified in Section VII of the FPEIR shall be met. This modeling shall analyze: - Location and number of detention basins necessary to control the peak discharge at an acceptable level; - Peak discharge values at specific locations important to the structural design of bridges, etc.; and - Total volume of surface water discharge during a design storm. The City of Chula Vista [mds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because additional surface water modelling was prepared at the SPA-level, which includes the information required by the GDP/SRP Findings. The City of Chula Vista also [mds that the SPA One Plan meets the required water resources and water quality performance standards. [FEIR, pp. 4.9-7 Ihrough 4.9-8; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Report, Appendix C.4, Master Drainage Plan] .. .. .. 130 +---.- ... -.--+..--- ......----...-..- ------,-._.._._._.~-- ----- ~--+_.~~._-~-~~_._..~-'_..- SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: Significant potential cumulative impacts to water resources and water quality would resull from cumulative buildout. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-6] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on water resources and water quality, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(H), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-6; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 149; see also Section X(H)(Water Resources and Water Quality), infra, pp. 55-58] I. TRANSPORTATION. CIRCULATION. AND ACCESS Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on transportation, circulation, and access. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-7 and Section 4.10] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would resull in significant cumulative environmental effects on transportation, circulation, and access. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 149, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-40] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 150, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-41] . Any project within the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista shall be required to meet or exceed the traffic standards set forth by the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code section 19.09.040(1). . Projects in the region will be required to construct appropriate improvements and contribute their proportionate share towards construction of regional facilities. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because the SPA One Plan meets or exceeds the traffic standards required by the City of Chu1a Vista Municipal Code and because the Applicant, as a condition of Project approval, is required to contribute a proportionate share towards construction of regional 131 .~- .---...-..--,"',- ...-_. ----..- -----.---.---.-.----..--.---..............--....-..---- facilities. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-29 through 4.10-33; see also Section X(I)(Transportation, Circulation, and Access), infra, pp. 58-86] * * * SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: Full Southbay Buildout Conditions are anticipated to result in unavoidable impacts to the regional circulation system. Because the impacts of SPA One evaluated in Section 4.0 of the Final EIR are based on regional buildout traffic forecasts, the impacts discussed in Section 4.10 of the Final EIR represent the cumulative traffic impacts. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-7] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1) , and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The cumulative impact is anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has detennined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The preceding miligation measures for cumulative impacts on transportation, circulation, and access, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(I), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings, [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-6; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 150; see also Section X(I)(Transportation, Circulation, and Access), infra, pp. 55-86] J. AIR OUALITY Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on air quality. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-3, 6-7 through 6-8 and Tables 6-1 and 6-2] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative environmental effects on air quality. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 150, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 6-41 through 6-42] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be 132 _.________m__.__ __ ... _...___~_...._._,,_,._, _._ ,. .._. .._.,.~'......'.-._..~_--- _____ ____..__.__.____.__~____._.___~~~_..._...__.,._ implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 150-151, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-43] . The cumulatively significant degradation of regional air quality can be mitigated but not below a level of significance by planning for and implementing public transit and trip reduction programs onsite and by requiring housing and building designs that minimize air pollutant emissions. The Lead Agency has required Applicants wi!hin the Otay parcel 10 contribute !heir fair share to LRT. . Project-specific and regional measures as discussed in Section VII of !he FPEIR are required. The City of Chula Vista finds !he SPA One Plan complies wi!h this mitigation measure because the SPA One Plan complies with and implements !he mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for air quality impacts. [See Section X(J)(Air Quality), infra, pp. 86-91; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Section 3.2] * * * SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: The proposed project will result in a contribution to air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-7] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, !he Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in !he Final EIR. The cumulative impact is anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), !here are no feasible measures that would mitigate !he impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, !he City Council has determined !hat this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on transportation, circulation, and access, as well as !he mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(I), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on !he Applicant through !hese Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-8; GDPISRP Findings, pp. 150-151; see also Section X(J)(Air Quality), infra, pp. 86-91] 133 ._+_._--~+-_._---;-_..._~----_._._.",-,-,._..-._---_.._..--_."---_._..--~._~~~-'-- K. NOISE Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: Except for the performance standard for noise impacts to Least Bell's Vireo and the California Gnatcatcher, the SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative noise impacts. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-3, 6-8] The GDP/SRP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on October 28, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative noise effects. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 151, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-43] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 151, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-43] · Future acoustical studies shall be required for residences and other noise sensitive land uses exposed to exterior noise levels of 60 CNEL or greater for all projects within the jurisdiction of the agency. · Noise attenuation techniques, such as construction of walls and/or earthen berms between sensitive uses and significant noise sources shall be required to achieve standards as discussed in Section VIII of the FPEIR. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with these mitigation measures because an acoustical study was prepared as part of the SPA One planning process and because the SPA One Plan itself complies with and implements the mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for noise impacts. [See Section X(K)(Noise), infra, pp. 91-96; FEIR, Volume II, Appendix C (Noise Analysis)] · Future acoustical studies shall be required for Least Bell's Vireo habitat and California Gnatcatcher habital exposed to noise levels of 60 DBA L", or greater for all projects within the jurisdiction of the agency. The City of Chula Vista finds, after more detailed analysis at the SPA-level, that a performance standard of 65 DBA L", for noise impacts to habitat of Least Bell's Vireo and California Gnatcatcher is a more appropriate threshold limit for the significance of noise impacts to these species. The City of Chula Vista finds that the SPA One complies with the 65 dBA Leq performance standard for noise impacts to the habitat of Least Bell's Vireo and California Gnatcatcher, Further, the Cily ofChula Vista finds that SPA One and the "project" comply with the Coastal Sage Scrub (80%) and California Gnatcalcher (52%) preservation standards established at the program-level, as implemented in the Phase 2 RMP Biota Moniloring Program. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.3- 38 through 4.3-39; FEIR, Volume II, Appendix E, Biological Resources Analysis, pp. 48 through 52; see also Section X(K)(Noise), infra, pp. 91-96] . . . 134 SPA One Project-RelaJed Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: Based on the regional buildout traffic forecast in the Final EIR, implementation of the SPA One Plan under the cumulative buildout scenario would result in significant cumulative noise impacts as a result of increased vehicle traffic. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-8] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The cumulative impact is anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures thai would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, ,the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative noise impacts, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(K), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-8; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 151; see also Section X(K)(Noise), infra, pp. 91-96] L. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES WaJer Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative public service and utilities impacts associated with water. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-3, 6-8] The GDP/SRP Findings found thai implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative impacts on waler availability and supply. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 151, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-45] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 152, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-45] . Mitigation measures shall include the preparation of water facilities studies and financing plans to identify specific impacts on the water supply system to determine the significance of those impacts on water facilities, and to identify measures that would reduce or eliminate the effects. 135 _ _ __~_ .. ~_""",_,,_,__'..__·m._'__·'··~~_,__________···_···_ . Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project-specific improvements and to construct, or contribule toward the cost of constructing, any regional facilities required by the study with respect to the cumulative water demand as a result of new development. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with these mitigation measures because the required water facilities studies and financing plans were prepared as part of the SPA One planning process, and because the SPA One Plan itself complies with and implements the mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on the availability of water to serve the region. rSee Section X(L), infra, pp. 97-101; SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Appendix C.l, Sub Area Master Plan, Appendix C.2, Water Conservation Plan; see also Section X(L), infra, pp. 98-99 (CiIy of Chula Vista compliance with Regional Growth Management Strategy)] . . . SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effecl: The additional 37 million gallons per day (mgd) of water required to serve the proposed and approved projecls within the cumulative impact area plus the estimated 40,2 mgd (or an additional 52 percent increase in demand) anticipated to serve the Otay Ranch GDP would result in the demand for an additional 77.2 mgd of waler. Irrespeclive of ongoing developmenl, water supply in Southern California, as a whole, fluctuates with precipitation and climalic conditions (e.g., drought). Cumulative impacts to water supply associated with ongoing development on a regional scale are anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-8] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant environmental effect idenlified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative water availability impacts, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(L), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-8; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 152; see also Seclion X(L)(Public Services: Water AvailabiliIy), infra, pp. 97-101] . . . 136 -------T'--..-- --_.__.~.__.~.__....__..._---~~_._-'--- Wastewater and Sewer Service Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative public service and utilities impacts associated with wastewater and sewer service. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-3, 6-8] The GDP/SRP Findings found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative impact because of increased wastewater flow generation. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 152, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-46] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 152-153, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-46] . Each Applicant shall prepare and obtain appropriate jurisdiction approval of sewer basin studies and financing plans in order to identify specific impacts, to delennine the significance of the effect, and to identify measures that would reduce or eliminate the effect upon the sewerage system. . Each Applicant shall be required to construCl Project-specific improvements and to construct, or contribute toward the cost of constructing, any regional facilities required by the study for wastewater conveyance, treattnent, and disposal in proportion to the flows contributed by each development with respect to the cumulative flows from the new developments. The City of Chula Vista fmds the SPA One Plan complies with these mitigation measures because the required studies and financing plans were prepared as part of the SPA One planning process, and because the SPA One Plan itself complies with and implements the mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on wastewater and sewer service. rSee Section X(L), infra, pp. 101-103; SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Appendix C.3, Sewer Master Plan] .. .. .. SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: Implementation of the SPA One Plan under the cumulative developmem scenario would result in an estimated cumulative flow of 35.6 mgd and, as a consequence, would require additional wastewater transmission and treattnent facilities to handle cumulative flows. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-9] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(I), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required 137 ~ ·-··------····""r·---···-.·------------·-·--- in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative wastewater and sewer service impacts, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(L), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-9; GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 152-153; see also Section X(L)(Public Services: Wastewater and Sewer Services), infra, pp. 101-103] * * * Police, Fire, EMS Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on police, fire, and EMS services. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-9] The GDP/SRP Findings found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant cumulative impact on police, fire and EMS services. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 154, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-48] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 154, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-48] . Each Applicant for a discretionary project shall prepare and obtain the appropriate jurisdiction's approval of police protection, fire protection, and emergency service facilities. Studies and financing plans to identify specific impacts, to detennine the significance of the effect, and to identify measures that would reduce or eliminate the effect on police protection, fire protection, and emergency services shall be prepared if appropriate. These studies shall include an analysis of the cumulative demand for these services as a result of existing, proposed and approved projecls. . Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project specific improvements and to construct, or contribute 10wards the cost of conslructing, any regional facilities required by the study with respect to the cumulative demand for police protection, fire protection, and emergency service as a result of new development. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with these mitigation measures because the required studies and financing plans were prepared as part of the SPA One planning process, and because the SPA One Plan itself complies with and implements the mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on police, fife, and EMS services. [See Section X(L), infra, pp. 109-112; SPA One Plan, Part, 1, Section VI (Public Facilities), Sections 9 (Law Enforcement), 10 (Fire Protection and 138 _u____ ~-'-'-"'---r----'-~--"-----'---'-'-'---~--'~-"----'---~--'- Emergency Medical Services); see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Sections 3.3 (Police), 3.4 (FireIEMS)] * * * SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: A total population of 270,714 is anticipated from buildout of the region under the cumulative buildout analysis and this increase in overall population growth would significanIly increase demands on police, fire and EMS services in the project area. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-9] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on police, fire and EMS services, as well as the mitigalion measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(L) , are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-9; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 154; see also Section X(L)(Public Services: Police, Fire and EMS Services), infra, pp. 109-112] * * * Schools Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on schools. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-9] The GDP/SRP Findings found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant cumulative impact on schools. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 154, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-49] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below 10 be feasible and required that they be implemenled by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 155, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-49] . Each ApplicanI shall prepare and obtain appropriate jurisdiction approval of school facilities studies and financing plans to identify specific impacts, to determine the significance of the effect, and 10 identify measures that would reduce or eliminate the effect on schools. 139 .-___.. ._ _.__.___-r-'___.____"____.~_......__._._..___.__.__._. ~-_....----_._-_. . Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project specific improvements and to construct, or contribute towards the cost of constructing, any regional facilities required by the study with respect to the cumulative demand for school facilities as a result of new development. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with these mitigation measures because the required studies and financing plans were prepared as part of the SPA One planning process, and because the SPA One Plan itself complies with and implements the mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on schools. [See Section X(L), infra, pp. 103-106; SPA One Plan, Part, 1, Section VI (Public Facilities), Sections 7 (Schools); see also [SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Section 3.5 (Schools)] . . . SPA One Project-Reklted Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: The additional students generated by proposed and approved projects would result in the addition of 49,729 students to area school districts. [FEIR, Volume I, p.6-9] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1) , and CEQA Guidelines seclion 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative impacls on schools, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(L), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-9; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 155; see also Section X(L)(Public Services: Schools), infra, pp. 103-106] . . . Library Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative library impacts. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-9] The GDP/SRP Findings found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in a significant cumulative library impacts. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 155, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-50] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the 140 .-.----..- -- ---------.-. .-. .-..,,- -T- --------....--- . ._._----_..._-.~_._~--------~~.- mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 155-156, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 6-50 through 6-51] . Each Applicant shall prepare and obtain appropriate jurisdiction approval of library facilities studies and fInancing plans to identify specifIc impacts, to determine the signifIcance of the effecl, and to idenlify measures that would reduce or eliminate the effect on libraries. These studies shall include an analysis of the cumulative demand for library facilities as a result of existing, proposed, and approved projects. . Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project specifIc improvements and to construcl, or conlribute towards the cost of constructing, any regional facilities required by the study with respect to the cumulative demand for library facilities as a result of new development. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with these mitigation measures because the required studies and financing plans were prepared as part of the SPA One planning process, and because the SPA One Plan itself complies with and implements the mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative library impacts. [See SecIion X(L), infra, pp. 114-115; [SPA One Plan, Part, 1, Section VI (Public Facilities), Sections 13 (Library); see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Section 3.6 (Libraries) * * * SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: Cumulative population growth would result in the need for an addilional134,031 square feel of library space and 804,189 books and would have a cumulative impact on area libraries. PotenIially signifIcant short-term impacts on local library faciliIies would occur until sufficient space and books are available to accommodate the increased demand. Although, as explained below, implementation of miIigalion measures would mitigate the SPA One's contribuIion to cumulative library impacts, other projecls would be responsible for providing resources based on individual effects. However, the cumulative increase in demand on library services would be potentially significant if facilities are nOl available concurrent with need. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-9] Finding: Pursuam to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporaled inlo, the Projecl which will miligate the Project's contribution to cumulaIive library impacts as identifIed in the Final EIR. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of signifIcance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City 141 -_..--.~--.-..__. -----~-~._.._--". ."". .....-.-,,---.-- - --"'-'--'---~-~-"-"'r ...'_n_____·",,___ ------..~------ Council has detennined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Miligation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative library impacts, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(L), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-9; GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 155-156; see also Section X(L)(Public Services: Library), infra, pp. 114-115] .. .. .. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on parks, recreation and open space. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-9 through 6-10] The GDP/SRP Findings found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative impacts on parks, recreation and open space. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 156, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-51] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 156, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-52] . Each Applicanl shall prepare and obtain appropriate jurisdiction approval of the park, recreation, and open space studies and financing plans to identify specific impacts, to detennine the significance of the effect, and to identify measures that would reduce or eliminate the effect on these services. The establishment of the management preserve through the RMP, construction of the various community and neighborhood parks, and installation of the regional bike, equestrian, and hiking trail network would serve the needs of Otay Ranch, and also provide for recreation opportunities for the entire region. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because approval of the SPA One Plan is conditioned on compliance with and implementation of the mitigation measure. rSee Section X(L), infra, pp. 107-108; SPA One Plan, Appendix D, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan; see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Section 3.7 (Parks, Trails and Open Space)] .. .. .. 142 ..... - "-""'~-'-- .._-,.._.~---.-_. -- -- ------- ----.- ..m_....~..._....__ -- ----.--. ---- -----~~-_.._--_.- SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effecl: Cumulative population growth would demand 804 acres of neighborhood and community parks, and 4,020 acres of regional parks. The overall cumulative effect of the population increase of the Otay Ranch GDP in conjunction with surrounding developments has the potential to significantly impact park, recreation, and open space opportunities in the area. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-9 through 6-10] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative library impacts, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(L) , are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 6-9 through 6-10; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 155; see also Section X(L)(Public Services: Parks, Recreation and Open Space), infra, pp. 106-107] .. .. .. Integrated Waste Management Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on integrated waste management. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-10] The GDP/SRP Findings found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative impacts on integrated waste management. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 153, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-47] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigalion measures summarized below to be feasible and required thai they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 153, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-47] . Each Applicant shall prepare and obtain appropriate jurisdiction approval of solid waste facilities studies and financing plans to identify specific impacts, to determine the significance of the effect, and to identify measures that would reduce or eliminate the effect on the integrated waste management system, such as recycling facilities and landfill capacity. . Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project-specific improvements and contribute towards the cost of constructing, any regional facilities required by the 143 __un...., __ ____u..+._.___.__~____ ____________ study with respect to the cumulative solid waste generation as a result of new development. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with these mitigation measures because the required studies and financing plans were prepared as part of the SPA One planning process, and because the SPA One Plan itself complies with and implements the mitigation measures sel forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on integrated waste management. rSee Section X(L), infra, pp. 115-117; SPA One Plan, Appendix E, Regional Facility Report] .. .. .. SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts -'.- Significant Cumulative Effect: Buildout of the south county region will result in significant increases in the generation of solid waste. Landfill capacity will have to be increased commensurate with the amount of growth in the region. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-10] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measures for cumulative integrated waste management impacts, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(L), are feasible, required as condilions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicanl through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-10; GDP/SRP Findings, pp, 153; see also Section X(L)(Public Services: Integrated Waste Management), infra, pp. 115-117] M. HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/perfonnance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on integrated waste management. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-10] The GDP/SRP Findings found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative impacts associaled with the potential risk of adverse health effects associated with the use, transport and storage of hazardous materials and increased generation of hazardous waste. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 157, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-54] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant 144 ---.-" -,.-...- . ..--..-""""-.---.,.--.-,.-.--,.-...---,.-.-.-. ······-··-··..----··-T···'··'· ~'- --- - --~-~.---~_._--~~---_.__..._------"-.-~----~~ as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 158, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-54] . The mitigation measures identified in Section VIII would reduce the risk of upset associated with the development of Otay Ranch. Application of these measures to the other projects in the area would reduce the cumulative risk of adverse public health effects associated with the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials to below a level of significance. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with the mitigation measure summarized above because the SPA One Plan complies with and implements the mitigation measures set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts associated with the risk of upset. [See Section X(M), irifra, pp. 117-119] * * * SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect: The potential risk of adverse health effects associated with the use, transport, and storage of hazards materials and generation of hazards waste will increase with cumulative buildout. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-10] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will reduce the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures: The preceding mitigation measure for cumulative impacts associated with the risk of upset of hazardous materials, as well as the mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in Section IX(M), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-10; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 158; see also Section X(M)(Hazards/Risk of Upset), infra, pp. 118-120] N. AGGREGATE RESOURCES/NATURAL RESOURCES Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacls on aggregate resources/natural resources. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-10] The GDP/SRP Findings found that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result in significant cumulative impacts mineral resources. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 148, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, pp. 6-35 through 6-36] As regards these impacts, the GDP/SRP 145 "-- - -+_._-------~_......_-_.._---~---~-+-~---- Findings found the mitigation measures summarized below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 149, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-37] . Project phasing in the San Ysidro and Proctor Valley parcels shall allow for mineral extraction before conflicting development occurs, if feasible. ' The City of Chula Vista finds this mitigation measure does not apply to the SPA One Plan because it addresses potential phased developed in the San Ysidro and Proctor Valley parcels. The SPA One Plan does not include development in either of these two parcels. . Compatible land uses shall be developed in areas where mineral extraction would likely occur. The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure because, as indicated below, this measure is a binding condition of approval for the SPA One Plan. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-10] * * * SPA One Project-RelaJed Cumulative Impacts Significant Cumulative Effect; Buildout of cumulative projects would result in a loss of aggregate mineral resources. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-10] Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required in, or incorporaled into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The cumulative impact is anticipated to remain significant. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacl below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Cily Council has delermined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures; The preceding mitigation measure for cumulative impacts on aggregale resources/natural resources is feasible, required as a condition of approval, and is made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-10; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 149] 146 -- - -_.._-_._-----~---.....,.- XII. FEASmILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the Project will cause some unavoidable significant environmental effects, as outlined above (see Section VIII), the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the Project, as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental effects. Citizens for Oualitv Growth v. Citv of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727]; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21002. Because it is a judgment call whether an alternative is environmentally superior these findings contrast and compare all of the alternatives analyzed in the FEIR. In general, in preparing and adopting findings a lead agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacls. Where the significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its fmdings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the Project as mitigated. Laurel Heights ImDrovement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376 [253 Cal Rplr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. Citv Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal. Rptr. 842] see also Kings County Fann Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App , 3d 692 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]. Accordingly, for this Project, in adopting the findings concerning Project alternatives, the City Council considers only those environmental impacts, that for the finally approved Project, are significant and cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation. The SPA One Plan would have a significant, unavoidable adverse environmental impact with respect to the following: Land Use. Planning. and Zoning The conversion of the SPA One Project site from a non-urban use to an intensive urban development is a significant effect. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 4.1-5] Landfonn Alteration! Aesthetics The change in the overall visual characler of the Project area from undeveloped land to an urbanized area is a significant aesthetic impact. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 4.2-5 through 4.2-6] Impacts associated with the alteration of significant or sensitive landfonns are significant because implementation of the Project would require approximately 19,200,000 cubic yards of cut and fill grading. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 4.2-6 through 4.2-8, Figures 4.2-1, 4.2-2] 147 ...u. ,--..--.------.....,.-......-.----...-.."--..---.-----...-----,-~.~~.._----- The Project would result in significant visual impacts visible to a large number of people as a resull of the change in the Project site from existing rolling hills and rural features to a neo-tradilional urban development. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 4.2-11; see also Figures 4.2-3 through 4.2-6] Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, future development of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate would result in a potential impact to landform alteration/aesthetics. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 4.2-22] Biolo¡!ical Resources Direct Impacts: Sensitive Plant Species The Project would result in direct significant impacts to the Otay tarplant (Hemizonia conjugens), a listed plant species, during construction of East Palomar Street, the future light rail transit easement, and possibly East Orange Avenue. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 4.3-15 through 4.3-17, Figure 4.3-4; see also id., p. 4.3-9, Figure 4.3-3] Direct Impacts: Sensitive Animal Species Village One East of Paseo Ranchero Construction of the Project would result in direct significant impacts to one pair of coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica) and three pairs of cactus wrens (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 4.3-16 through 4.3-17, Figure 4.3-5] Village One West of Paseo Ranchero Development of the Project would result in direCl significant impacts to one pair of coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-17 through 4.3-18, Figure 4.3-5] Indirect Impacts The Project would result in significant indirect noise impacts to the locations of two pairs of coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 4.3-39] Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, future development of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate would result in a potential impact to biological resources. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.3-42] Cultural Resources Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, future development of Planning Areas I and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate 148 --..--.....-.---...---.- _._._-_._--,-,-_.-,-,-._.--------------- _'".__,_u would result in potentially significant impacts on cultural resources. [FEIR, pp. 4.4-13 through 4.4-14; see also GDP/SRP Findings, p. 89, citing FPEIR, p. Volume 2, pp. 4.9.5-8 through 4.9.5-9] Agricultural Resources AlIhough Ihe proposed annexalion would nOl, by ilself, result in a physical change in Ihe environment, possible impacts on agricultural resources as a result of future development within Ihe annexation component of Ihe Project are potentially significant. [FEIR, pp. 4.7-12 through 4.7-13] TransDortation. Circulation. and Access Four peak-hour freeway segments on 1-805 will operate at unacceptable LOS wiIh implementation of the Project. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, pp. 9-2 through 9-5 and Table 9.1] Air Oualitv Short-tenn impacts to localized air quality would result from construction of the proposed Project. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 4,11-8] The proposed Project will result in increased emissions in the region through on-site consumption of energy (i. e" lighting, water and space heating and cooling) and increased vehicle trips. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 4.11-9] Although the proposed annexation would not, by itself, result in a physical change in the environment, air quality impact associated with development in those areas is anticipated to remain significant. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.11-10 through 4.11-11] Noise Construction of SPA One would create a long-tenn significant noise impact on and around the site, including existing California Gnalcatcher habitat. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 4.12-6 through 4.12-7] Although the SPA One Plan will attain the perfonnance standard set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for preservaÜon of Gnatcatchers based on the more appropriate noise impact significance threshold of 65 dBA Leq, areas containing coastal sage scrub that support the coastal California Gnatcatcher will be subjected to traffic generated noise levels from East Orange Avenue and Paseo Ranchero. These noise levels will exceed the 60 dBA Leq significance level established in the Findings of Fact adopted for Program EIR 90-01. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 4.12-26 and Volume 1, p. 4.3-45] 149 " --- - ~ -~---_.-.. ----".-------- .,-------_._"----_..._~.....- ------- Cumulative - Land Use. Planning and Zonin~ Implementation of the SPA One Plan, in conjunction with buildout of the cumulative scenario, would contribute to the conversion of over 30,000 acres of vacant land to urban uses, the cumulative loss of open space and conversion of agricultural lands, and land use incompatibilities between GDP land uses and two alternative County landfill sites, and industrial tentative maps proposed along the GDP's western border, and Hidden Valley estates. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-4] Cumulative - Landfonn Alteration/Aesthetics Implementation of the SPA One Plan, in conjunction with buildout of the cumulative projects, would result in significant cumulative landfonn alteration/aesthetic impacts because approximately 35,488 acres of open space would be converted to development. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-4] Cumulative - Biological Resources Key biological resources including Diegan coastal sage scrub and maritime succulenl scrub habitat, California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren are anticipated to be significantly impacted through the cumulative buildout of the Project and surrounding area. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5] Cumulative - Cultural Resources Under the cumulative buildout scenario in and around,Otay Ranch, implementation of the SPA One Plan would contribute to a 86 percent reduction in the area-wide cultural resource data base. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-5] Cumulative - Agricultural Resources Cumulative buildout would lead to the loss or impainnent of suitable agricultural land. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-6] Cumulative - TranSDortation. Circulation and Access Full Southbay Buildout Conditions are anticipated to result in unavoidable impacts to the regional circulation system, [FEIR, Volume 1, p.6-7] Cumulative - Air Oualitv The proposed Project will result in a contribution to air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. IFEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-7] 150 '__"~_."__.'_^1""_""_"_ .- ...--~_._--------".__._-_._.._~~-_._,._- Cumulative - Noise Based on the regional buildout traffic forecast in the Final EIR, implementation of the SPA One Plan under the cumulative buildout scenario would result in significant cumulative noise impacts as a result of increased vehicle traffic. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-8] Cumulative - Public Services and Utilities: Libraries Cumulative population growth would result in the need for an additional 134,031 square feet of library space and 804,189 books and the cumulative increase in demand on library services would be potentially significant if facilities are not available concurrent with need. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-9] Cumulative - A!!!!re!!ate Resources/Natural Resources Buildout of cumulative projects would result in a loss of aggregate mineral resources. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-10] Where, as in this Project, significant environmental effects remain even after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, the decisionmakers must evaluate the Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Under these circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of Project alternatives. If no Project alternatives are feasible, the decisionmakers must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the Project. If there is a feasible alternative 10 the Project, the decisionmakers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the Project. Proposed Project alternatives considered must be ones which "could feasibly attain the basic objeclives of the Project." However, the Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alIernatives "capable of eliminating" environmental effects even if these alternatives "would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126, subd. (d).) CEQA provides the following definition of the tenn "feasible" as it applies to the findings requirement: "'Feasible' means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into aCCOUnl economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1. The CEQA Guidelines provide a broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines, § 15364 ("The lack of legal powers of an agency 10 use in imposing an alternative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or technological factor. "). Accordingly, "feasibility" is a tenn of art under CEQA and thus is afforded a different meaning as may be provided by Webster's Dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alIernatives and states, in pertinent part, that, 151 "..._._----"~..,......._..__.._'_.__._.__......_._---_._...__._._----_.._-~~_._- ". . . no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effeCls on lhe environment lhal would occur if lhe project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of lhe following findings: (a)(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or olher considerations, including considerations for lhe provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible lhe mitigation measures or alternatives identified in lhe environmental impacl report. " The concept of "feasibility, " lherefore, as it applies to findings, involves a balancing of various economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; Pub. Resources Code, § 21081,; see also City of Del Mar v. Citv of San Diego (1992) 133 Cal.App.3rd 401,414-417. In Citv of Del Mar v. Cilv of San Diego (1992) 133 Cal.App.3d 401,415-417, lhe Court of Appeal found lhat lhe City of San Diego had ". . . considered and reasonably rejected . . . [certain] project alternatives. . . as infeasible in view of lhe social and economic realities in lhe region." Id. at 417. The court delennined Ihal San Diego had attempled to accommodate lhe feasibility factors based upon its growth management plan which included lhe proposed development project. Accordingly, lhe court concluded: "Assuming lhis accommodation is a reasonable one (citation omitted), San Diego is entitled to rely on it in evaluating various project alternatives. The cost-benefit analysis which led to the accommodation is of course subject to review, but it need not be mechanically staled at each stage of lhe approval process. In this sense, 'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. We accordingly conclude thai San Diego did not abuse its discretion under CEQA in rejecting various project alternatives as infeasible." @. (emphasis added).) These Findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate that the selection of the finally-approved Project, while still resulting in significant environmental impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal and other benefits. In rejecting all of the alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined lhe finally-approved Project objectives and weighed the abilily of the various alternatives to meet lhe objectives. The decisionmakers believe that the Project best meets the finally-approved Project objectives with the least environmental impact. The objectives considered by the decisionmakers are: . Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, particularly the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan, including lhe Otay Ranch Phase I Resource Management Plan, the Otay Ranch 152 -. -"-- "-·-·~~··--·--1----· .--..---..-..--- ..--- -.-...----....--------.----------..-..------.-..- Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan and the Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan. · Implement Chula Vista's Growth Management Program to ensure that public facilities are provided in a timely manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for, and benefiting from the improvements. · Foster development patterns which promote orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl. · Maintain and enhance a sense of community identity within the City of Chula Vista and surrounding neighborhoods. · Establish land use patterns and create public facilities which reduce reliance on the automobile and promote alternative modes of transportation including pedestrian, bicycle, bus and light rail. · Promote synergistic uses belween villages to balance activities, services and facilities. · Accentuale the relationship of the land plan with ils natural setting and the physical character of the region. · Create a unique Otay Ranch image and identity which differentiates Otay Ranch from other communities. · Wisely use and manage limited physical resources. · Establish a land use and facility plan which assures village viability in consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions. · Provide a long-range framework for the efficient provision of community services and orderly changes of governmental organization. · Discourage the duplication of services by two or more local government agencies. · Annexation of Planning Areas 1, 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate to encourage the efflcienl and cost-effective provision of public services. · Foster development patterns which promote orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl. The Final EIR for the Project examined a broad range of reasonable alternatives to the Project to determine whether Project objectives could be met while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the Project's significant, unavoidable impacts, To that end, and as set forth 153 -~.~~._----_.,.~,.-'-- ~._.~-~-~_._.,~-"--~-,---~._~- , below. the City has properly considered and reasonably rejected Project alternatives as "infeasible" pursuam to CEQA. Numerous onsite and offsile land use and policy alternalives have been previously analyzed in Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program EIR 90-01 (Program EIR 90-01) and Sphere ofInfluence Update Study EIR 94-03 (Sphere EIR 94-03). These alternatives included density range alternatives and the consideration of off-site localions for the proposed 0lay Ranch projecl. This allernatives analysis focuses on mitigating project specific impacts identified in Section 4.0 of this EIR, in light of the previous alternatives analysis of the Program EIR 90-01 and Sphere oflnfluence EIR 94-03. Because this is a Second-Tier document, the Program EIR 90-01 and Sphere oflnfluence EIR 94-03 alternatives analysis are incorporated by reference. The alternatives considered in previous environmenlal documenlation are listed below, Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program EIR 90-01 A series of alternatives were identified and analyzed in Program EIR 90-01 (Section 4, Volume II). Program EIR 90-01 examined a broad range of reasonable on-site and off-site alternatives to determine whether the alternalives could meet the proposed Project's objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the project's significant, unavoidable impacts. These alternatives included: 1. Phase I - Progress Plan; 2. Phase II - Progress Plan; 3. Fourth Alternative; 4. Project Team Alternalive; 5. Existing General Plans; 6. Low Density Alternalive; 7. Environmenlal Alternalive; 8. No Project Alternative. City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Study EIR 94-03 Alternatives analyzed in the Sphere of Influence Update Study EIR 94-03 (Section IX, Volume I) included the following: 1. No Project 2. Reduced sphere: Eliminalion of Planning Area 2 Alternatives considered but rejected in Sphere EIR 94-03 include the following: 1. Exclusion of the County Landfill; 2. Exclusion of Planning Area 4; 3. Exclusion of the County landfill, Village 3 and Planning Area 4; 4. Exclusion of City of San Diego Property; 5. Offsite Alternative; 6. Exclusion of the County Landfill, Village 3, Planning Area 4, and the Olay Valley. 154 - - -----~-- ..._.~... ._....,._~._.._._.- T'--' --- --- -------.-.-.-'..--.-- - - -------_..-~--~_._._-~.-- A. NO PROJECT AL TERN A TIVE In addressing the No Project Allernative, the City followed the direction of the CEQA Guidelines that: "The 'no project' analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. " (CEQA Guidelines, §15126, subd. (d)(4).) Under this alternative, the SPA One Plan would not be implemented and the Project site would remain in its present state. Existing agricultural and grazing uses would continue, the Phase 2 RMP would not be implemented and, as a result, no fonnal resource management plan for the protection of biological and cultural resources would be initiated. Under the No Project Alternative, SR-125 could still be extended adjacent to the Village Five area by Caltrans. 1. Project-Related Imoacts Because no development would occur on the site, the No Project Alternative avoids all the Project-specific significant and unavoidable impacts on land use, planning and zoning, landfonn alteration! aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, agricultural resources, transportation, circulation and access, and noise-related impacts. Implementation of the No Project Alterative would also avoid the Projecl-related cumulative impacts in the following areas: land use planning and zoning, landfonn alteration and aesthetics, biology, cultural resources, agriculture, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, noise, libraries, and aggregate resources. 2. Other Imoacts Associated with the No Project Alternative Because the No Project Alternalive is the "no development" alternative, it would not result in any other potentially significant enviromnental impacts that are distinct from the significant impacts identified for the proposed Project. [FElR, Volume 1, pp. 5-3 through 5-7] 3. Comoarison of No Project Imoacts with Proiect Impacts Under the No Project Alternative, since the proposed Project would not be implemented, it would avoid the impacts that would result from implementation SPA One. In this respect, the No Projecl Alternative is enviromnentally superior to the proposed Project. 4. Project Obiectives Because no development would occur under the No Project Alternative, it would not achieve the following Project objectives: 155 .---.--- _ _.___.. ______._d" H.~.._.._~______ · Establish land use patterns and create public facilities which reduce reliance on the automobile and promote alternative modes of transportation including pedestrian, bicycle, bus and light rail. · Create a unique Otay Ranch image and identity which differentiates Otay Ranch from other communities. · Establish a land use and facility plan which assures village viability in consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions. · Provide a long-range framework for the efficient provision of community services and orderly changes of governmental organization. 5. Conclusion Although the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, the City rejects this alternative because it fails to meet a number of Project objectives. In addition, the proposed Project promotes orderly growth and proposes to preserve large blocks of open space. For this reason, the City finds that the No Project Alternative is infeasible. B. SPA ONE ALTERNATIVE A LAND USE PLAN The SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan contemplates development of 5,758 total dwelling units, 133 dwelling units less than the proposed Project. Under this alternative, the Village One and Village Five cores would be located in the center of each respective village instead of adjacent to Paseo Ranchero, and the Village Five core would include a special treatment of the square. In addition, the three primary access points into Village One are proposed at Paseo Ranchero, La Media Road, and East Orange Avenue and, for Village Five, three primary access points are proposed at EastLake, La Media Road, and East Orange Avenue. Finally, this alternative also includes neighborhood parks, a minimum of 5-11 acres in size, two 12-acre school sites, and the proposed buffer along Telegraph Road would be an average of 270 feet, with a minimum buffer of a 100 feet near the EastLake edge. I. Proiect-Related Irnuacts a. Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Implementation of the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan would convert the Project site from a non-urban use to an inlensive urban developmenl. Thus, under this alternative, land use impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 156 .-....--. ~--~--~,_._._-~--~~,--~----."...,._----_.~--------- b. Landform Alteration! Aesthetics Under this alternative, significant impacls associaled wilh landfonn alteration and aeslhetics would resull. Compared to lhe proposed Projecl, impacts under lhis alternative would be similar because a change in the overall visual character of the Project site from undeveloped land to an urbanized area would result and required grading would alter significant or sensitive landfonns. Wilh respect to lhis impact, lhe SPA One Alternalive A Land Use Plan is nol environmentally preferable to the proposed Project c. Biological Resources Implementation of this alternative would result in similar biological impacts as the proposed Project because lhe overall development "footprint" and grading impact area is similar to the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project d. Cultural Resources Implementation of this alternative would, potentially result in significant impacts to cultural resources if land proposed to be annexed is developed in lhe future. Compared to lhe proposed Project, lhe potentially significant impacts under lhis alternative would be similar because each respective land use plan includes a similar annexation component. In this respect, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to lhe proposed Project. e. Agricultural Resources Implementation of this alternative would potentially result in the conversion of agricultural uses and important fannlands if annexed lands are developed in lhe future. Compared to the proposed Project, lhe potentially significant impacts under lhis alternative would be similar because each respective land use plan includes a similar annexation component. Wilh respect to this impacl, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to lhe proposed Project. f. Transportation, Circulation, and Access This alternative would result in similar traffic impacts because the trip generation would be the same as lhe proposed Project. This alternative proposes an additional access point into Village One, but this will not significantly modify trip distribution. Wilh respecllo this impact, lhe SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. g. Air Quality Implementation of this alternative would result in the same level of development as the proposed Project. As a resull, short-tenn and long-tenn air quality impacls would be similar to the proposed Project With respect to this impact, lhe SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 157 .',---..- - ,- _.~-_._---_._--~----_.,_. h. Noise Implementation of this alternative would result in the same level of development as the proposed Project. As a consequence, short-term and long-term noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. i. Cumulative - Land Use, Planning and Zoning Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative land use impacts because it would contribute to the conversion of over 30,000 acres of vacant land to urban uses, the cumulative loss of open space and conversion of agricultural lands, and land use incompatibilities between GDP land uses and two alternalive County landfill sites, as well as incompatibilities with industrial tentative maps proposed along the GDP's western border and near Hidden Valley Estates. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-4] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. j. Cumulative - Landform Alteration/Aesthetics Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative landform alteration/aesthetic impacts because, under the cumulative buildout scenario, approximately 35,488 acres of open space would be converted to development. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-4] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. k. Cumulative - Biological Resources Implementalion of this alternalive would result in cumulative biological resource impacts because key biological resources including Diegan coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub habitat, California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren are anticipated to be significantly impacted through the under the cumulative buildout scenario in the region. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. 1. Cumulative - Cultural Resources Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative cultural resource impacts because, under the cumulative buildout scenario for the region, the allernative would contribute to an 86 percent reduction in the area-wide cultural resource database. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this 158 --- --..--,........- ------------~_.._,_._---_._....,_._-_.._~-- impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. m. Cumulative - Agricultural Resources Under the cumulative buildout scenario of the region, implementation of this alternative would result in cumulalive agricultural resource impacts associated with the loss or impairment of suitable agricultural land. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprints generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impacl, the SPA One AlIernative A Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. n. Cumulative - Transportation, Circulation and Access Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative transportation, circulation and access impacts because full Southbay Buildout Conditions are anticipated to result in unavoidable impacts to the regional circulation system. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is nol environmentally preferable to the proposed Project o. Cumulative - Air Quality Under this alternative cumulative air quality impacts would result because the implementation would contribute to regional air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-7] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alIernative would be similar because the footprint of the development is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impacl, the SPA One AlIernative A Land Use Plan is nol environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. p. Cumulative - Noise Under this alternative, cumulative noise impacts would result because, under the regional buildout traffic forecast, increased vehicle traffic will produce cumulatively significant noise impacts. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-8] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because a comparable increase in traffic volume would occur. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. q. Cumulative - Public Services and Utilities: Libraries Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative library impacts because cumulative population growth would result in the need for an addilional134,031 square feet of library space and 804,189 books. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alIernative would be similar because the extent of development and resulting population is similar. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 159 .____"_ . ___..u' +_ _ . ...~__.- _·_·_~___·T_ _....~._--,-_.__._-------,...._-~..__.._._----------~.-_._-~-- r. Cumulative - Aggregate Resources/Natural Resources Implementation of this allernative would result in cumulative aggregate mineral resource impacts because development would result in a loss of aggregate mineral resources. [FEffi, Volume 1, p. 6-10] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprints generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is nol environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 2. Other Imoacts Associated with the SPA One Alternative A The SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts that are distinct from the significant impacts identified for the proposed Project. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 5-7 through 5-12, Table 5.1] 3. Comoarison of SPA One Alternative A with Proiect Imoacts Compared to the proposed Project, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan would result in similar land use, landfonn alteration/aesthetic, biological, cultural, agricultural, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, and noise impacts. This Alternative would also result in similar cumulative land use, landfonn alteration/aesthetics, biological, cultural, agricultural, transportalion, circulation and access, air quality, noise, library and aggregate/natural resource impacts. Thus, the SPA One Alternative A is not environmentally superior to the SPA One Plan. 4. Proiect Obiectives The SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan generally meets all the Project objectives. However, since the alternative will provide 133 fewer housing units than the SPA One Plan, the alternative will not achieve the housing objectives, including the affordable housing objectives, as effectively as the proposed Projecl. 5. Conclusion The City rejects the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan because it is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project and because it fails to meet projecl objectives as effectively as the proposed Project. For this reason, the City rejects the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan as infeasible. C. SPA ONE ALTERNATIVE B-1 LAND USE PLAN Under the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan, a 10tal of 5,758 dwelling units would be built, 133 dwelling units less than the maximum proposed for the SPA One Plan. In addition, village cores would be located at the center of each respective village and the Village Five core would include a special treatment of the square. This alternative also provides for a large gate- guarded community in the northeast comer of Village One. Under this alternative, the two 160 .__._,.____~~.__..__._.._. ____ n_ ___._._.___,____________~._ -_.- primary access locations for Village One are located at Paseo Ranchero and La Media Road. The three primary access poÌnlS for Village Five are localed at Telegraph Canyon Road, La Media Road, and East Orange Avenue. 1. Proiect-Related Imnacts a. Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Implementation of the SPA One Allernative B-1 Land Use Plan would convert the Project site from a non-urban use to an intensive urban development. Thus, under this alternative, land use impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is not environmenlally preferable to the proposed Project. b. Landform Alteration! Aesthetics Under this alternative, significant impacts associated with landfonn alteration and aesthetics would result. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under this alternative would be similar because a change in the overall visual character of the Project sile from undeveloped land to an urbanized area would result and required grading would alter significant or sensitive landfonns. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is not environmenlally preferable to the proposed Project. c. Biological Resources Under this alternative, although the land use plan is slightly modified to include a variation of access and park configuration, the overall development "footprint" and area of impact as a result of grading activity would be similar to the proposed Project. The five-foot decrease in the Telegraph Canyon Buffer is not, by itself, considered biologically significant and, like the SPA One Plan, the Alternative B-1 land-use plan would have a significant impact on biological resources. d. Cultural Resources Implementation of this allernative would potentially result in significant impacts to cultural resources if land proposed to be annexed is developed in the future. Compared to the proposed Project, the potentially significant impacts under this alternative would be similar because each respective land use plan includes a similar annexation component. In this respect, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is not environmenlally preferable to the proposed Project. e. Agricultural Resources Implemenlation of this alternative would potentially result in the conversion of agricultural uses and importanl fannlands if annexed lands are developed in the future. Compared to the proposed Project, the potentially significant impacts under this alternative would be similar because each respective land use plan includes a similar annexation component. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is not environmenlally preferable to the proposed Project. 161 ----"~,-_.,.....,.,.." - _.._..~__,_________ .._m_._._._.. f. Transportation, Circulation, and Access This alternative would result in similar traffic impacts because the trip generation would be the same as the proposed Project. This alternative proposes an additional access point into Village One, but this will not significantly modify trip distribution. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable 10 the proposed Project. g. Air Quality Implementation of this alternative would resull in the same level of development as the proposed Project. As a result, short-tenn and long-tenn air quality impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is nOl environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. h. Noise Implementation of this alternative would result in the same level of development as the proposed Project. As a consequence, short-tenn and long-tenn noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. i. Cumulative - Land Use, Planning and Zoning Implementalion of this alternative would result in cumulalive land use impacts because it would contribute to the conversion of over 30,000 acres of vacant land to urban uses, the cumulative loss of open space and conversion of agricultural lands, and land use incompatibilities between GDP land uses and two alternalive County landfill sites, as well as incompatibilities with industrial tentative maps proposed along the GDP's western border and near Hidden Valley estates. [FErR, Volume 1, p. 6-4] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternalive would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternalive B-1 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. j. Cumulative - Landform Alteration/Aesthetics Implementation of this alternalive would result in cumulative landfonn alterationlaesthelic impacts because, under the cumulative buildout scenario, approximately 35,488 acres of open space would be converted to development. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. k. Cumulative - Biological Resources Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative biological resource impacts because key biological resources including Diegan coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub habitat, California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren are anlicipated to be significantly 162 . -. . -- .. ........-.-..-.._--- ._.--...._-_..__.~-~--_._--_._---- impacted through the under the cumulative buildout scenario in the region. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the developmenl footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Allernative B-1 Land Use Plan is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. l. Cumulative - Cultural Resources Implementation of this alternative would resull in cumulative cultural resource impacts because, under the cumulative buildout scenario for the region, the alternative would contribule to an 86 percent reduction in the area-wide cultural resource data base. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. m. Cumulative - Agricultural Resources Under the cumulative buildout scenario of the region, implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative agricultural resource impacts associated with the loss or impainnent of suitable agricultural land. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the allernative would be similar because the development footprints generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. n. Cumulative - Transportation, Circulation and Access Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative transportaIion, circulation and access impacls because full Southbay Buildout Conditions are anticipated to result in unavoidable impacts to the regional circulation syslem. Compared to Ihe proposed Project, impacts under the allernative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is nOl environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. o. Cumulative - Air Quality Under this alternative cumulaIive air quality impacls would result because the implementation would contribute to regional air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-7] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the footprint of the development is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. 163 --.- .".-...-.... - -.---------------.-----.--- .._.._---,._--_..._-----~._--_.-_.. p. Cumulative - Noise Under this alternative, cumulalive noise impacts would result because, under the regional buildout traffic forecast, increased vehicle traffic will produce cumulatively significant noise impacts. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-8] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because a comparable increase in traffic volume would occur. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternalive B-1 Land Use Plan is not enviromnentaIly preferable to the proposed Project. q. Cumulative - Public Services and Utilities: Libraries Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative library impacts because cumulative population growth would result in the need for an addilional 134,031 square feet of library space and 804,189 books. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternalive would be similar because the extent of development and resulting population is similar. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is nOl enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. r. Cumulative - Aggregate Resources/Natural Resources Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative aggregate mineral resource impacts because development would result in a loss of aggregate mineral resources. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-10] Compared 10 the proposed Projecl, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprints generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Projecl. 2. Other Impacts Associated with the SPA One Alternative B-1 The SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan would not resulI in any other potentially significant enviromnental impacts distinct from the SPA One Plan. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 5-12 through 5-16, Table 5-1] 3. ComDarison of SPA One Alternative B-1 with Proiect Imnacts Compared to the proposed Project, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan would result in similar impacts on land use, landfonn alIeration/aesthetic, biological, cultural, agricultural, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, noise impacts. This Alternative would also result in similar cumulative land use, landfonn alteration/aesthetics, biological, cultural, agricultural, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, noise, library and aggregate/natural resource impacts. The proposed Project and the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan may have similar impacts, with the possible exception of potential impacts associated with public access to the public park and circulation problems caused by the gate- guarded entrance. Because this alternative would resulI in impacts similar to the proposed Project, the City fmds it is not enviromnentally superior. 164 _.--- _.,.._..__...........~. -_.._._~-_..,~..._-_._-----"-. .-..._--~-~---_.._. 4. Proiect Obiectives The SPA One Alternalive B-1 Land Use Plan generally meets all !he Project objectives. Under this alternative, however, since fewer housing units are contemplated, !he SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan would not achieve the housing Project objectives as well as the SPA One Plan. In addition, because the alternative includes a gate-guarded community in the northeast comer of Village One, public access to the .8 acre public park could be impaired. Thus, the City finds tlús alternative does not meet the Project objectives as effectively as the proposed Project. 5. Conclusion The City rejects the SPA One Alternalive B-1 Land Use Plan because il is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project and because it fails to meet project objectives as effectively as the proposed Project. For this reason, the City rejects the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan as infeasible. D. SPA ONE ALTERNATIVE B-2 LAND USE PLAN This allernative refines the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan. A principle difference between tlús alternative, the B-1 Land Use Plan, and the proposed Project is the significant reduction in the overall grading required to implement the alternative. Under this alternative, a third school site would be provided. In addilion, principle access points to Village One would be localed at Paseo Ranchero, La Media and Telegraph Canyon Road, and the four points of access to Village Five would be from EastLake, La Media, East Orange and Telegraph Canyon Road. I. Proiect-Related ImDacts a. Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Implementation of the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan would convert the Project site from a non-urban use to an intensive urban development. Thus, under this alternative, land use impacts would be similar to the proposed Project even though, under the alternative, areas of development would be closer to each other due 10 the lower slopes along Ihe arterial roadways. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. b. Landform Alteration! Aesthetics Under this alternative, significant impacts associated with landform alteration and aesthetics would result. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under this alternative would be similar because a change in the overall visual characler of the Projecl sile from undeveloped land to an urbanized area would result and required grading would alter significant or sensitive landforms. Under this alternative, however, impacts associated with grading would be less because grading 165 -- ---~.-._-_._--- -- _._..._._.._..,,--,,~,.~-_.- ------_._---~~------,_._-_.~---_. is reduced by approximately 4.7 million cubic yards. In this respect, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. c. Biological Resources Implementation of this alternative would result in significanl impacts on biological resources. Compared 10 the SPA One Plan, and despite the revised grading plan, impacts on biological resources under this alternative would be marginally less, but similar, because the overall development footprint and, as a consequence, the area of direct impact, is similar. d. Cultural Resources Implementation of this alternative would pOlentially resull in significant impacts to cultural resources if land proposed to be annexed is developed in the future. Compared to the proposed Project, the potentially significant impacts under this alternative would be similar because each respective land use plan includes a similar annexation component. In this respect, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is nol environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. e. Agricultural Resources Implementation of this alternative would potentially result in the conversion of agricultural uses and important fannlands if annexed lands are developed in the future. Compared to the proposed Project, the potentially significant impacls under this alternative would be similar because each respective land use plan includes a similar annexation component. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. f. Transportation, Circulation, and Access Under this alternative, impacts on transportation, circulation and access would be significant. Compared to the proposed Project, these impacls would be similar because the overall level of development is the same. Internal circulation would be improved under this alternative, however, because of additional access points into Villages One and Five. With respect to this impact, however, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Projecl. g. Air Quality This alternative would result in short-tenn and long-lenn air quality impacts thai are similar to the proposed Project because the overall level of development would not change. With respect to this impact, however, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. h. Noise Implementation of this alternative would result in the same level of development as the proposed Project. As a consequence, short-tenn and long-tenn noise impacts would be similar to the 166 ..-.,.....-. --~---~-----_._-- proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to lhe proposed Project. i. Cumulative - Land Use, Planning and Zoning Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative land use impacts because it would contribute to the conversion of over 30,000 acres of vacant land to urban uses, the cumulative loss of open space and conversion of agricultural lands, and land use incompatibilities between GDP land uses and two alternative County landfill sites, as well as incompatibilities with industrial tentative maps proposed along the GDP's western border and near Hidden Valley estates. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-4] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. j. Cumulative - Landform Alteration/Aesthetics Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative landfonn alteration/aesthetic impacts because, under the cumulative buildout scenario, approximately 35,488 acres of open space would be converted to development. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-4] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. k. Cumulative - Biological Resources Implementation ofthis alternative would result in cumulative biological resource impacts because key biological resources including Diegan coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub habitat, California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren are anticipated to be significantly impacted through the under the cumulative buildout scenario in the region. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5] Compared to the proposed Projecl, impacls under lhe alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 1. Cumulative - Cultural Resources Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative cultural resource impacts because, under the cumulative buildoul scenario for the region, the alternative would contribute to an 86 percent reduction in the area-wide cultural resource data base. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally lhe same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 167 - - -----r-----~_. .._-,--~_._- --~--. -.---'-'''",,-.,-- - ~..-..----..--.---.-~---.-----.-_._--- m. Cumulative - Agricultural Resources Under the cumulative buildout scenario of the region, implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative agricultural resource impacts associated with the loss or impainnent of suitable agricultural land. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprints generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternalive B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. R. Cumulative - Transportation, Circulation and Access Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative transportation, circulation and access impacls because full Southbay Buildout Condilions are anticipated 10 result in unavoidable impacts to the regional circulation system. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternalive would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, !he SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to !he proposed Project. o. Cumulative - Air Quality Under this alternative cumulative air qualiIy impacts would result because the implementation would contribute to regional air quality impacts on a cumulalive basis. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-7] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under !he alternative would be similar because the footprint of !he developmenI is generally the same as !he proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. p. Cumulative - Noise Under this alternalive, cumulative noise impacts would result because, under the regional buildout traffic forecasl, increased vehicle traffic will produce cumulatively significant noise impacts. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-8] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under !he alternative would be similar because a comparable increase in traffic volume would occur. With respect to this impact, !he SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. q. Cumulative - Public Services and Utilities: Libraries Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative library impacts because cumulative population grow!h would result in the need for an additional 134,031 square feet of library space and 804,189 books. Compared to !he proposed Project, impacts under !he alternative would be similar because the extent of developmenl and resulting population is similar. Wi!h respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternalive B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 168 _,___ -____-r-..._..._~____ ....- ----...----------.------.----~__._ r. Cumulative - Aggregate Resources/Natural Resources Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative aggregate mineral resource impacts because development would result in a loss of aggregale mineral resources. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-10] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprints generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Allernalive B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 2. Other Imnacts Associated with the SPA One Alternative D-2 The SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts that are distinct from the significant impacts identified for the proposed Project. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 5-16 through 5-20, Table 5-1] 3. Comparison of SPA One Alternative D-2 with Proiect Imnacts Compared to the proposed Project, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan would result in similar land use, landform alteration/aesthetic, cultural, agricultural, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, noise impacts. This Alternative would also result in similar cumulative land use, landform alteration/aesthetics, biological, cultural, agricultural, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, noise, library and aggregate/natural resource impacts. The proposed Project and the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan have similar impacts with the possible exception of impacts on landform alteration/aeslhetics and biology. Since the alternative would reduce grading by 4.7 million cubic yards as compared to the proposed Project, these impacts would be less for the alternative. Because the impact associated with the conversion of the Project site from vacant land to a neo-traditional development remains significant, however, the City finds this alternative is not environmentally superior to the SPA One Plan, especially where impacts to all other resources areas are similar. 4. Proiect Obiectives The SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan generally meets all the Project objectives. Under this alternative, however, since fewer housing units are contemplated, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan would not achieve Ihe housing Project objectives as well as the SPA One Plan. Thus, the City finds this alternative does nOl meet the Project objectives as effectively as Ihe proposed Project. 5. Conclusion The City rejects the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan because it is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project and because it fails to meet project objectives as effectively as the proposed Project. For Ihis reason, the City rejects the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan as infeasible. 169 u__._uu" -- ----.--...-..------.....-..--....-.-------- ---~_..,_._.,. E. SPA ONE ALTERNATIVE C LAND USE PLAN The primary objective of this alternative is to reduce direct impacts to the biologicalJy sensitive areas adjacent to East Orange Avenue. To that end, this alternative proposes realignment of Paseo Ranchero (alignment A or B), a reduced number of overall dwelling units, and no village core in Village One. Under this alternalive, Paseo Ranchero would be realigned at its connection point with Easl Orange Avenue, approximalely 1,000 feel west of La Media Road. This alternative also proposes neighborhood parks that are approximately 5 acres in size, with pedeslrian parks approximately 1 acre in size, joinl use of schools sites with neighborhood parks at two 12-acre school sites, and the proposed buffer along Telegraph Road would be an average of 270 feet with a minimum buffer of 75 feel near the EastLake edge. Finally, the reconfigured roadway system proposed under this alternative would render the trolley's primary route infeasible. 1. Proiect-Related ImDacts a. Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Implementation of this alternative would result significant impacts on land use, planning and zoning. Compared to the SPA One Plan, impacts associated with land use compatibility, consistency with adopted plans, and the conversion of vacant land to an urban use would be similar. Under this alternative, land use, planning and zoning impacts on residential areas would be greater because the trolley would be located close to these areas. In this respect, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. b. Landform Alteration/Aesthetics Implementation of this alternative could reduce some of the landfonn alteration/aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed Project, however, the impact associated with the conversion of the site to an urban use would remain significant. This alternative would require the same general grading concept as the proposed Project, which is required for implementation of the "neo- traditional" land use plan, but would retain the southwesl portion of the site in its natural condition. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. c. Biological Resources Alignment C-l Alternative alignment C-l is similar to the proposed alignment of Paseo Ranchero under the SPA One Plan. The principal difference under this alternative is thai the southern portion of the alignment is shifted slighIly east. The benefit of this alignment is that it would avoid impacts to all the contiguous sage scrub near a pair of coastal California gnatcatchers. Areas directly impacted would be reduced as follows (approximately 7.8 acres): direct impacts would be reduced by approximately 5.3 acres of coastal sage scrub, 1.1 acres of disturbed coastal sage 170 -~.._- ---.--.......--,. ^.~--_._--_._-_...__.__. --- scrub, 0.9 acre of maritime succulent scrub, and 0.5 acre of annual, non-native grassland. Alternate alignment C-1 would also avoid impacts 10 pairs of cactus wrens and at least one Bell's sage sparrow. In this respecl, the SPA One Allernative C Land Use Plan is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. Alignment C-2 Alternate alignment C-2 differs from the proposed Project by shifting the southern alignment of Paseo Ranchero well to the east. This would eliminate moSl of the direcl and indirect impacts to coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub of approximately 105.5 acres. Reductions in direct and indirect impacts are as follows: 11.4 acres of coastal sage scrub;0.8 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub; 0.1 acre of maritime succulent scrub; 1. 7 acre of disturbed maritime succulent scrub; 47.3 acres of annual, non-native grassland; 27.8 acres of agricultural land; and 0.2 acre of developed area. In this respect, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. d. Cultural Resources Implementation of this alternative would potentially result in significant impacts to cultural resources if land proposed to be annexed is developed in the future. Compared to the proposed Project, the potentially significant impacts under this alternative would be similar because each respective land use plan includes a similar annexation component. In this respect, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. e. Agricultural Resources Implementation of this alternative would potentially result in the conversion of agricultural uses and important fannlands if annexed lands are developed in the future. Compared to the proposed Project, the potentially significant impacts under this alternative would be similar because each respective land use plan includes a similar annexation component. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. f. Transportation, Circulation, and Access Despite the proposed realignments, this alternative would affect overall increases in traffic volumes. Thus, significant impacts would result. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts would be similar because the same amount and mix of dwellings units is proposed. In this respect, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is nOl environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. g. Air Quality Implementation of this alternative would resull in the same level of development as the proposed Project. As a result, short-tenn and long-tenn air quality impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. In this respect, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 171 ---_._~-_.~.._.- ..' .,--.,--- -.--'-'-'-'--~~'--'---'-'--"-'-----"--' -,.--..,. ,-------_.~._-~ -----_._~------_..----_..- -- h. Noise Implementation of this allernative would result in the same level of development as the proposed Project. As a resull, short-tenn and long-tenn noise impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. In this respect, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. i. Cumulative - Land Use, Planning and Zoning Implementation of this allernative would resull in cumulalive land use impacts because it would contribute to the conversion of over 30,000 acres of vacant land to urban uses, the cumulative loss of open space and conversion of agricultural lands, and land use incompatibilities between GDP land uses and two alternative County landfill sites, as well as incompatibilities with industrial tentative maps proposed along the GDP's western border and near Hidden Valley estates. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-4] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternalive C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable 10 the proposed Project. j. Cumulative - Landform Alteration/Aesthetics Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative landfonn alteration/aesthetic impacts because, under the cumulative buildoul scenario, approximately 35,488 acres of open space would be converted to development. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-4] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same. With respect to Ihis impact, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable 10 the proposed Project. k. Cumulative - Biological Resources Under this alternalive, cumulalive impacts to biological resources would be significant. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts would be less because of the alternative alignments of Paseo Ranchero under this alternative would avoid or reduce direct and indirect impacts to sensitive plant and animal species. In this respecl, the SPA One Allernative C Land Use Plan is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. l. Cumulative - Cultural Resources Implementalion of this alIernalive would resull in cumulalive cultural resource impacts because, under the cumulative buildout scenario for the region, the alternalive would contribute to an 86 percent reduction in the area-wide cultural resource data base. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5] Compared to the proposed Projecl, impacls under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 172 "-- _._-_.__._~,. - ----- _._--~._--~----_..._--~-~-_._- m. Cumulative - Agricultural Resources Under the cumulative buildoul scenario of the region, implementation of this allernative would result in cumulative agricultural resource impacls associated with the loss or impairment of suitable agricultural land. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprints generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. n. Cumulative - Transportation, Circulation and Access Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative transportation, circulation and access impacts because full Southbay Buildout Conditions are anticipated to result in unavoidable impacts to the regional circulation system. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the developmenl footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. o. Cumulative - Air Quality , Under this alternative cumulative air quality impacts would result because the implementation would contribute to regional air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-7] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the footprint of the development is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. p. Cumulative - Noise Under this alternative, cumulative noise impacts would resull because, under the regional buildout traffic forecasl, increased vehicle traffic will produce cumulatively significant noise impacts. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-8] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because a comparable increase in traffic volume would occur. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is nol environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. q. Cumulative - Public Services and Utilities: Libraries Implementation of this allernative would result in cumulative library impacts because cumulative population growth would result in the need for an additional 134,031 square feet oflibrary space and 804,189 books. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the extent of development and resulting population is similar. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 173 ,.- -- ---'-~-'-~------'--- r. Cumulative - Aggregate Resources/Natural Resources Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative aggregate mineral resource impacts because development would result in a loss of aggregate mineral resources. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-10] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprints generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 2. Other Impacts Associated with the SPA One Alternative C The SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan will result in other potentially significant environmental impacts that are distinct from the significant impacts identified for the proposed Project, including impacts to residential areas near the trolley alignmenl proposed under this alternative, cumulative impacts to loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbirds and grasshopper sparrows. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 5-20 through 5-25, Table 5-1] 3. COIDDarison of SPA One Alternative C ImDacts with Proiect ImDacts Compared to the proposed Project, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan would result in similar impacts on landfonn alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources, agricultural, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, noise, and hazards/risk of upset impacts. This Alternative will also resull in similar cumulative impacts on land use, landfonn alteration/aesthetics, cultural, agricultural, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, noise, library and aggregate/natural resource impacts. The SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan may result in an increase land use, planning, and zoning impacts due to the relocation of the trolley. This Alternative may also cause potentially significam cumulative biological impacts from alternate alignment C-l and C-2. In any event, because the proposed alternative will have fewer impacts than the proposed Project, specifically land use and biological impacts, the City fmds the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 4. Proiect Obiectives The SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan generally meels all the Project objectives. This alternative will provide 133 fewer housing units than the proposed Project. One of the project objectives is to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan which addresses the need for affordable housing. Although affordable housing goals will be met with this alternative, they will not be met to the full extent as they would with the proposed Project due to the 133 additional housing units. This alternative could also increase impacts on residential areas near the relocated trolley and cause pOlentially significant cumulative impacts to loggerhead shrike and foraging areas for the tricolored blackbirds and a grasshopper sparrow. These impacts are in conflicl with the goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan to provide protection to these special status species. This alternative does not meet, as effectively as the proposed Project, the following project objectives: . Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, particularly the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan, 174 -~_.. "'~-'^ .m____.'._~,.._ ._...._ __.n_____.___·_·,____·__.~..·__ including the Otay Ranch Phase I Resource Management Plan, the Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan and the Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan. . Maintain and enhance a sense of community identity within the City of Chula, Vista and surrounding neighborhoods. . Promote synergistic uses between villages to balance activities, services and facilities. 5. Conclusion The City rejects the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan because it fails to meet project objectives as effectively as does the proposed Project. For this reason, the City rejects the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan as infeasible. F. EXISTING GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVE Development under the existing GDP designations for the site would result in the same types of land uses and densities as are proposed in the SPA One plan, but would include development of the area west of Paseo Ranchero Road. Under this alternative, approximately 310 additional dwelling units would be developed for a total of 6,201 dwelling units. 1. Proiect-Related Imnacts a. Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Implementation of the Existing GDP Alternative would result in significant land use, planning and zoning impacts. Compared 10 Ihe proposed Project, land use compatibility impacts under the alternative would be worse because portions of the Project site along the western boundary that would not be developed as part of the SPA One Plan would be developed under the alternative. In this respect, the Existing GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. b. Landform Alteration/Aesthetics Under this alternative, impacts associated with landform alternation and aesthetics would remain significant. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts would be worse because the alternative proposes development of an additional 280 acres that would otherwise be left in the natural condition under the proposed Project. In this respect, the Exisling GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. c. Biological Resources This alternative would result in substantially greater impacts to biological resources than the proposed Project. Development of the area west of Paseo Ranchero could impact up to 175 ------~_. ____,_~_"._d._._._· _ _______..__ _~_._ _......_......_ .__.~___.______._. approximately 114 acres of coastal sage scrub, 29.8 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub, 7.4 acres of maritime succulent scrub, 6.7 acres of disturbed mariIime succulent scrub, and approximately 0.1 acre vernal pool. Sensitive species identified in this area include american badger, bell's sage sparrow, burrowing owl, cactus wren, and coastal california gnatcatcher, all of which would be impacted. With respect to biological impacts, the Existing GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. d. Cultural Resources Implementation of this alternalive would potentially result in significant impacts to cultural resources if land proposed to be annexed is developed in the future. Compared to the proposed Project, the potentially significant impacts under this alternative would be similar because each respective land use plan includes a similar annexation component. In addilion, implementation of this alternative would impact more cultural resources sites than were identified with the proposed Project. Cultural resource sites identified in the area west of Paseo Ranchero include one significant site (SDI-13,864) which would be impacted by proposed development in this area. In this respecl, the Exisling GDP AlIernative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. e. Agricultural Resources Implementation of this alternative would result in significam impacls on agricultural resources. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts would be greater under the alternative because the majority of the area west of Paseo Ranchero is grazing land which could not be used if the alternative were implemented. In this respect, the Existing GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. f. Transportation, Circulation, and Access Under this alternative, impacts on transportation, circulation and access would be significant. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts would be greater because under this alternative because increased traffic would result from the additional 310 dwelling units proposed. In this respect, the Existing GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. g. Air Quality Under this alternative, significant impacts on air quality would result. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts would be greater because under this alternative because the additional 310 dwelling units proposed would result in a proportionate increase in emissions. In this respect, the Existing GDP Alternative is nol environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. h. Noise Implementation of the alternative would result in significant noise impacls. Compared to the proposed Project, impacls under the alternative would be greater because the increased number of dwelling units would result in a greater number of sensitive receptors being exposed to 176 --- ..----..----...---"- ~-_.,-_._-- -_...._-,-,~------_..--- unacceptable noise levels. In this respect, the Existing GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. i. Cumulative - Land Use, Planning and Zoning Implementation of this alternative would resull in cumulalive land use impacts because it would contribute to the conversion of over 30,000 acres of vacant land to urban uses, the cumulative loss of open space and conversion of agricultural lands, and land use incompatibilities between GDP land uses and two allernative County landfill sites, as well as incompatibilities with industrial tentative maps proposed along the GDP's western border and near Hidden Valley estates. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-4] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the Existing GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. j. Cumulative - Landform Alteration! Aesthetics Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative landform alteration/aesthetic impacts because, under the cumulative buildoUl scenario, approximately 35,488 acres of open space would be converted to development. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-4] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same. With respect to this impact, the Exisling GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. k. Cumulative - Biological Resources Implementalion of this alternative would result in cumulative biological resource impacts because key biological resources including Diegan coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub habitat, California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren are anticipated to be significantly impacted through the under the cumulative buildout scenario in the region. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the Existing GDP Alternalive is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 1. Cumulative - Cultural Resources ImplementaIion of this alternative would result in cumulative cultural resource impacts because, under the cumulaIive build out scenario for the region, the alternative would contribute to an 86 percent reduction in the area-wide cultural resource data base. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5] Compared to the proposed Project, impacls under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the Existing GDP AlternaIive is nOl environmenlally preferable to the proposed Project. 177 _ r___ ,__,.___.__.._~__.__~~____.__m_·_·,___~~___ m. Cumulative - Agricultural Resources Under the cumulative buildout scenario of the region, implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative agricultural resource impacts associated with the loss or impairment of suitable agricultural land. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprints generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impacl, the Existing GDP Alternative is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. n. Cumulative - Transportation, Circulation and Access Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative transportation, circulation and access impacts because full Southbay Buildout Conditions are anticipated to result in unavoidable impacts to the regional circulation system. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprint is generally the same as the proposed Project. Wilh respect to this impact, the Existing GDP Alternative is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. o. Cumulative - Air Quality Under this alternative cumulative air quality impacts would result because the implementation would contribute to regional air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-7] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the footprint of the development is generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the Existing GDP Alternative is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. p. Cumulative - Noise Under this allernative, cumulative noise impacts would resulI because, under the regional buildout traffic forecasl, increased vehicle traffic will produce cumulatively significant noise impacts. [FE1R, Volume I, p. 6-8] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because a comparable increase in traffic volume would occur. With respect to this impact, the Existing GDP Allernative is not enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. q. Cumulative - Public Services and Utilities: Libraries Implementation of this alternative would resull in cumulative library impacts because cumulative population growth would result in the need for an additional 134,031 square feet of library space and 804,189 books. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the extent of development and resulting population is similar. With respect to this impact, the Exisling GDP Alternative is nol enviromnentally preferable to the proposed Project. 178 ~-~.._, ...".._,"'"" -"----"'---_._-------~--~_.._---- r. Cumulative - Aggregate Resources/Natural Resources Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative aggregate mineral resource impacts because developmenl would result in a loss of aggregate mineral resources. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-10] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the alternative would be similar because the development footprints generally the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this impacl, the Existing GDP Allernative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project. 2. Other bnuacts Associated with the Existinl!' General Develoument Plan Alternative The Existing GDP Alternative will result in other potenlially significant environmental impacts that are distinct from the significant impacts identified for the proposed Project. [FEIR, pp. 5- 25 to 5-29, Table 5-1] This alternative would result in the development of an area which would otherwise be left undeveloped, thus potentially increasing land use compatibility impacts. 3. Comuarison of Existinl!' General Develoument Plan Alternative with Proiect bnoacts Compared to the proposed Projecl, the Existing GDP Alternative would result in similar if not grealer land use, biological resources, landform alteration/aesthetic, cultural, agricultural, transportation, circulation and access, air quality, noise and impacts. This alternative would also result in similar cumulative land use, landform alteration/aesthetics, biological, cultural, agricultural, transportalion, circulation and access, air quality , noise, library and aggregate/natural resource impacls. The Existing GDP Alternative would result in a potential increase in land use compatibility impacts with development on the western boundary of the site, as this alternative would result in development in this area which would otherwise be left undeveloped at this time with the implementation of Ihe proposed Project. This alternative would also result in greater impacts to landform alteration/aesthetics than the proposed Project as more grading and development is proposed. This alternative would result in substantially greater impacts to biological resources than the proposed Project due to development of the area west of Paseo Ranchero could impact up to approximately 114 acres of coastal sage scrub, 29.8 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub, 7.4 acres of maritime succulent scrub, 6.7 acres of disturbed maritime succulent scrub, and approximately 0.1 acre vernal pool. Sensitive species identified in this area include american badger, bell's sage sparrow, burrowing owl, cactus wren, and coastal california gnatcatcher, all of which would be impacted. Because more grading would be required for implementation, this alternative bas the potential to impact more paleontological resources and cultural resources sites than the proposed Project. Cultural resource sites identified in the area west of Paseo Ranchero include one significant site (SDI-13,864) which would be impacted by proposed development in this area. This alternative would also place a greater demand on the water resources as a larger population and landscape areas would be associated with this alternative. Although urban runoff would increase, measures 179 - ___ __ __0 ,... .._ .. .'. ~.'__'_____"""_ .__ __..__..,_._~~__~~___._,_________ to address urban runoff as proposed as part of the project could be implemented to reduce impacts to water quality issues. This alternative would result in the generation of additional average daily trips. The development of an additional 310 dwelling units would increase traffic on the surrounding roadway network, but is not anticipated to be a significant increase over the proposed Project. The increase in vehicular trips will increase the project's contribution to the air emissions in the region. Measures similar to those proposed under the proposed Project could be implemented to reduce project emissions, however an overall increase in emissions over the level associated with the proposed Project could be expected. This alternative would result in the exposure of additional sensitive receptors to unacceptable noise levels, in an increased demand on public services and facilities. Mitigation measures similar to those for the proposed Project could be implemented to reduce noise and public service and facilily impacts to less than significanl levels. Because the proposed Project will have fewer impacts than the Existing General Development Pian Alternative, the Board finds the proposed Project is the environmentally superior to the Existing General Development Plan Alternative because the proposed Project would reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts caused by Ihe project. 4. Proiect Obiectives The Existing General Development Plan Alternative generally meets all the Project objectives. Compared to the proposed Project, the Existing General Development would not meet, or not meet as effectively, the following objectives: · Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, particularly the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan, including the Otay Ranch Phase I Resource Management Plan, the Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan and the Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan. · Implement Chula Visla's Growth Management Program to ensure that public facilities are provided in a timely manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for, and benefiting from the improvements. · Foster development patlerns which promote orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl. · Maintain and enhance a sense of community identity within the City of Chula Vista and surrounding neighborhoods. 5. Conclusion The City rejects the Existing GDP Alternative because, overall, it is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project and it fails to meet projecl objectives as effectively as does 180 -_......_,._--'~.- -._,...,_...-_.-.._.__._------~-_._."_...,._--,----~_._~-- the proposed Project. For this reason, the City rejects the Existing GDP Alternative as infeasible. G. ANNEXATION ALTERNATIVE A This alternative assumes development of SPA One as proposed in the project description. The Annexation Alternative A assumes the annexation of all of Planning Area 1 (Otay Valley parcel) and the Mary Patrick Estate. Thus, Planning Area 3 would not be annexed. l. Proiect-Related Irnnacts Environmental impacts associated Wilh this alIernative would be identical to the proposed Project. Although annexation of the inverted "L" is not proposed under this alternative, non- inclusive of this parcel into the City of Chula Vista would not result in a significant reduction, or avoidance of any impacts identified with the proposed Project. 2. Other Irnnacts Associated with the Annexation Alternative A The Annexation Allernative A will not result in any other potentially significant environmental impacts that are distinct from the significant impacts identified for the proposed Project with the exception of impacts associated with annexing Planning Area 3. [FEIR, pp. 5-29 through 5-32, Table 5-1] 3. Comnarison of Annexation Alternative A with Proiect Irnnacts Compared to the proposed Project, the Annexation Al1ernative A would be identical with the exception of annexation of Planning Area 3. 4. Proiect Obiectives Because no development would occur on a portion of the site, this alternative would not achieve all project objectives. This alternative does not meet, as effectively as the proposed Project, the following project objective: . Annexation of Planning Areas 1, 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate to encourage the efficient and cost-effective provision of public services. 5. Conclusion The City rejects the Annexation Alternative A because it fails to meet project objectives as effectively as does the proposed Project. For this reason, the City rejecls the Annexation Alternative B as infeasible. 181 _.,-, -_.~.,. - ..~-_..._...__._._._--_.~---_._--_...._._._._----~...-._-~~-----_.- -- --,.._._----------~- H. ANNEXATION ALTERNATIVE B This alternalive assumes development of SPA One as proposed in lhe projecl description. SPA One Allernative B assumes lhe annexation of all of lhe SPA One Planning Area including the Gerhardt, Dauz/Gorman, Ross, EastLake Land Swap, and Otay Water District and Mary Patrick. Estate parcels. Additionally, a portion of Planning Area 1 along the eastern boundary of the Otay Valley parcel of the GDP would be included in this annexalion alternative. l. Project-Related Imnacts This alternative would potentially reduce some impacts associated with lhe demand on public services and utilities within the City of Chula Vista but would place a greater demand on public services and utilities in the County. The development potenlial of Planning Area 3 would remain the same in either Counly or City land use designations. Overall, impacts would be similar to lhe proposed Project. 2. Other Imnacts Associated with the Annexation Alternative B The Annexation Alternative B will not result in any olher potentially significant environmental impacts that are distinct from lhe significant impacts identified for the proposed Project. [FElR, pp. 5-29 through 5-32, Table 5-1] 3. Comnarison of Annexation Alternative B with Proiect Imnacts Compared to the proposed Project, the Annexation Alternative B would be identical with the exception of with the exception of impacts associated with the inclusion of a portion of Planning Area 1 along the eastern boundary of the Otay Valley parcel of the GDP would be included in this annexation alternative. These impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. 4. Project Objectives Because additional development would occur on a portion of the site, this alternative would not achieve all project objectives. This alternative does not meet, as effectively as the proposed Project, the following project objective: . Annexation of Planning Areas 1, 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate to encourage the efficient and cost-effective provision of public services. 5. Conclusion The City rejects the Annexation Alternative B because it fails to meet project objectives as effectively as does the proposed Project. For this reason, the City rejects the Annexation Alternative A as infeasible. 182 - - --~_._._. ~...,-~.._. .._~~....."...,,~,._--~-- I. ANNEXATION ALTERNATIVE C This alternative assumes development of SPA One as proposed in the project description. The Annexation Alternative C assumes the annexation of the SPA One Planning Area including the Gerhardt, Dauz/Gorman, Ross, EastLake Land Swap, and Otay Water District and Mary Patrick EsÙlte parcels. 1. Proiect-Related Imoacts This alternative would potentially reduce some impacts associated with the demand on public services and utilities within the City of Chula Vista but would place a greater demand on public services and utilities in the County. The development potential of Planning in Area 3 would remain the same in either County of City land use designations. Overall, impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. 2. Other Imoacts Associated with the Annexation Alternative C The Annexation Alternative C will not result in any other potentially significant environmental impacts that are distinct from the significant impacls identified for the proposed Project. [FEIR, pp. 5-32 through 5-33, Table 5-1] 3. Comoarison of Annexation Alternative C with Proiect Imoacts Compared to the proposed Project, the Annexation Alternative C would be identical with the exception to potentially reduce some impacts associated with the demand on public services and utilities within the City of Chula VisÙl but would place a greater demand on public services and utilities in the County. These impacls would be similar to the proposed Project. 4. Proiect Obiectives Because additional developmenl would occur on a portion of the site, this alternative would not achieve all project objectives. This alternative does not meet, as effectively as the proposed Project, the following project objective: . . Annexation of Planning Areas I, 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate to encourage the efficient and cost-effective provision of public services. 5. Conclusion The City rejects the Annexation Alternative C because it fails to meet project objectives as effectively as does the proposed Project. For this reason, the City rejects the Annexation Alternative C as infeasible. 183 _. - - - - - __.___..__.__.._"_.__.~__~__.__.__.__.__... .______~_._._..__... ._On__ ..._.~.__,.~..._.. _.,.__~_._______,_.,______ XIII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On April 24, 1996, at a properly-noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista certified the Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report and Addendum for the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan (FEIR 95-01), and unanimously adopted City of Chula Vista Planning Commission Resolution 95-01, recommending certification of the Final EIR to the City Council. rSee City of Chula Vista Planning Commission Resolution 95-01 (April 24, 1996)] 184 ---.-,-. ._..._______n__ "._.__~,.___.___.__._......__________....,_-. ._.~.________..~_____....~_.___ XIV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in detail in Section VII of these Findings of Fact (Direcl Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures): · Land Use (project-specific and Cumulative) · Landform Alteration/Aesthetics (Project-specific and Cumulative) · Biology (Project-specific and Cumulative) · Cultural Resources (Project-specific and Cumulative) · Agricultural Resources (Project-specific and Cumulative) · Mineral Resources (Cumulative) · Transportation (Project Specific and Cumulative) · Air Quality (Project-specific and Cumulative) · Noise (project-specific and Cumulative) The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts, adoption of the measures will not fully avoid the impacts. The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Based on this examination, the City has determined thai none of these alternatives both (1) meets Project objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the finally approved Project. As a resull, to approve the Project the Cily must adopl a "statement of overriding considerations" pursuanl to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. This statement allows a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgement, the Project's benefits outweigh the unavoided significant effects. CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse". (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21068). The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse" impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be addressed. (See Wildlife Alive v. Chickerim! (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206 [132 CaI.Rptr.377].) Nevertheless, decisionmakers benefit from information about Project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations. (See CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093.) The City frods that the Project would have the following substantial social, environmental and economic benefits: 185 --_...._-_._..._-----~--..-_._-,.---- Environmental Protection and Preservation In addition to the air quality, circulation and social benefits outlined below, the Project's single ownership, size and density make possible the planning and financing of a comprehensive natural resources preserve. SPA One is the first component of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan under development consideration, and directly implements the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan as approved by the City proposes to convey 12,509 acres of natural open space, encompassing the Otay Valley, Jamul Mountains and San Ysidro Mountains. A managed preserve operated in accordance with the Project's approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) will be established to preserve and manage the resources and ensure their viability. The preserve includes an open space system which incorporates public education programs, links community to natural areas, and preserves and restores sensitive habitats, special land fonns and wildlife corridors. In addition, a system of paths and trails will connect the urban villages and their parks, fonning a passive and active recreation network throughout the Project. The RMP adopted by the City Council and implemented at the SPA One level has the following functions: · Functions as a plan-wide multi-species/habitat and cultural resources management program; · Provides the funding, phasing and ownership mechanisms necessary to effectively protect and manage on-site resources over the long tenn; · Plans for coordinated, controlled public use and enjoyment of the Management Preserve to be established as part of the RMP consistent with protection of sensitive resources; and, · By requiring irrevocable dedications of open space acreage, provides certainty that the open space will be preserved in perpetuity. (Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan, October 5, 1992, p. 51, Exhibit D). · Preserves/protects cultural resources. The RMP provides for management, resource enhancement and restoration research, education and interpretive activities to ensure that resource values in areas to be preserved are maintained and enhanced in perpetuity. The RMP also addresses cultural, paleontological, recreational and agricultural resource protection needs in addition to sensitive habitats. Finally, the RMP provides an opportunity to establish large blocks of interconnected natural open space. By linking the Otay Ranch Management Preserve system to large and adjacent publicly owned open space lands with resource values similar to those found on the Otay Ranch property, the RMP contributes to the creation of an overall regional open space system, providing more than 35,000 acres of interconnected open space in Otay Ranch and the immediate vicinity. Specifically, the preserve will result in the preservation of the following acreages of certain sensitive habitats which contain approximately 100 species of sensitive plants and animals: 186 --~.- '._____..__-r'_... ~_...-.--~----_-_.----."."--.,.---~--.--..--"--- --~~___..____ · 8,232 acres of coastal sage scrub (includes "limited development areas"). · 286 acres of maritime succulent scrub. · 265 acres of needlegrass grassland (includes "special resource study areas"). · 183 acres of vernal pools. · 75 acres of southern live oak riparian forest. · 16 acres of tecate cypress forest. · 180 acres of coast live oak woodland · 7 acres of sycamore alluvial woodland · 13 acres of southern willow scrub · 4 acres of aquatic/freshwater marsh · 108 acres of alkali meadow · 479 acres of floodplain scrub Community Plannine: and Develooment · Development Patterns Which Minimize the Adverse Impacts of Development on Air Quality and Congestion The Project area currently exceeds Federal and State air quality standards for a number of emissions factors, including ozone and carbon monoxide. A substantial majority of these emissions are attributable to motor vehicles. In order to comply with the Federal and California Clean Air Acts, the San Diego region must reduce these sources. The Project is designed to reduce the adverse impact to air quality and automobile congestion that would otherwise result if jobs and housing were provided for in a typical suburban development pattern. The Project accomplishes this goal through its location and design. The SPA One site is located close to the urban core of the San Diego region, which will reduce the length of commuter trips. In addition, the Project's location adjacent to the Otay Mesa industrial area will provide housing proximate to this planned employment center. A mixed-use development, the Project will promote linkage of trips, reduced trip length and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation such as biking, walking and use of transit. The Project creates a multi-modal transportation network which minimizes the number and length of single passenger vehicle trips. Designed to encourage walking, biking and use of transit and reduce reliance on automobile, the Project clusters high density, high intensity development in villages near transit and light rail tenninals. Jobs, homes, schools, parks and commercial cenlers are close by and linked by pedestrian and bicycle routes. The San Diego Association of Govemmenls' (SANDAG) 1991 "South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study, " (Exhibit C) which examined the feasibility of providing additional rail transit to the South County area by connecting the existing trolley system to Otay Mesa, concluded that the alternalive trolley alignment, through ûtay Ranch, resulted in the largest increase in regional new trips of the alternatives studied. (South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study, SANDAG, February 5, 1991, Exhibit C.) 187 - ----- ---- ----_.__.__._---,_._----~._.._--~---~--+-._._---_._---,.- · Social Benefits of Transit and Pedestrian-Oriented Development Pattern In addilion to the improvement to air quality and congestion resulting from a reduced need for automobile trips, the Project's unique land plan will result in social benefits as well. Because most of the activities of daily living are within walking distance for most of the Otay Ranch population (particularly on the Otay Valley parcel), residents will benefit from the opportunity for increased mobility, particularly for those segments of the population who do not have the ability to drive, including the young, elderly and disable, and a sense of community. Comurehensive Re!!ional Plannin!! The Project provides the opportunity to comprehensively plan development which meets the region's needs for housing, jobs, infrastructure and environmental preservation. These benefits are made possible by the Project's size and scope, and the fact that it has at least been initially planned for development under a single owner. The General Development Plan for Otay Ranch includes a provision for regional purpose facilities and public services that are typically not undertaken for smaller development projects. The regional planning process undertaken for the Project involved long-range inter-jurisdictional coordination, ensuring maximum achievement of policies and regulations of both the City of Chula Vista and San Diego County. The benefits offered by the regional planning process utilized for the Project include the folIowing: · Comprehensive consideration of the Project's cumulative effecls · Consistency in the approach to resolving regional issues such as transportation, air quality, habitat preservation, infrastructure and public services planning. · Long-range coordination of local and regional public facilities. The SPA One Plan includes a provision for designating land for regional purpose facilities. The City's requirement for community purpose facilities (for uses such as social and human services, senior care, day care, etc.) to include facilities to house regional services such as offices, courts, detention facilities, medical facilities and public common areas. These facilities are provided by the Counly and are currently housed in County-owned facililies, where available, but are more commonly located in leased or rented space. Designation of land for regional purposes will facilitate the provision of these services and provide better locational opportunities for users of these uses than is currently available with new development. Re!!ional Housin!! Needs The SPA One Project as a component of the General Development Plan will help meet a projected long-term regional need for housing by providing a wide variety of housing types and prices. Recent SANDAG housing capacity studies indicate a significant shortfall of housing will occur in the Project area within the next 20 years. For example, the SANDAG Series VII population growth forecast, published in January 1987, estimates that within the South Suburban 188 r_____ _ __ _ ___________ _..._..._. ..__.,__.,.._".__.__,.."_.______~~~_~_._ MSA, in which the Project site lies, employment will grow more substantially than housing or population (South County Land Use Analysis, Alfred Gobar & Associates, 1990, Exhibit E.) In recent years, the cost of housing compared to other uses has risen disproportionate to the cost of other uses in the Project area (e.g., commercial, industrial), reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The Project will help reduce the cost of housing by designating an adequate supply of suitable land for residential development. The SPA One Project as a component of the General Development Plan also provides a mixture of housing types in proximity to one another, responding to needs of singles, families, students and seniors. With 55.5 percent single-family designations and 44.5 multi-family designations, a broad range of housing types and costs are anticipated. The classification of a sizable portion of the Otay Ranch housing product type as attached will assist in providing more affordable housing, since it is recognized thai the key contribuling element of the cost of housing is the price of land. This range of housing types and prices will promote socio-economic diversity, which the City fmds both important and desirable. Fiscal Benefit The fiscal impact analysis conducted for the Otay Ranch has concluded that, at buildout, the Project will have a net positive impact on both the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Because it is anticipated that during buildout there will be short-tenn periods in which the costs to service the Project exceeds revenues, the Project includes a reserve fund program, which protects the City and County by correcling for any operating deficiencies incurred by the affected jurisdiction during years where there is a fiscal shortfall. Financing of the reserve program and the cost of annual fiscal reviews will be the responsibility of the Applicant. (Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan, January 11, 1993.) For the foregoing reasons, the City finds that the Project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits. 6051767.012 189 __._._______~_.__..,..-,.,.." u --.,------------".--'.-. ---. - ." --.-.-....-.....,.- -- --- .-._.._..__.._----._------_..~-_._..._._... _.._.._-_._~"-- -_.--.._-~--"--~~-,--------- CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. /5 Meeting Date 6/4/96 /~;l,,2tr ITEM TITLE: Resolution Adopting a City Council Policy on Installation of Speed Humps for Residential Streets. SUBMITTED BY: Direclor of Public Works REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ ~~ l (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No -.XJ (Council Referral #: 2222.) The Council has requested comments from the Safety Commission on a Portland Oregon report entitled "Reclaiming Our Streets" and at another meeting during discussion on the use of speed bumps on an alley improvement project, requested that the Safety Commission consider the appropriateness of speed humps on residential streets as a part of their review of the Portland, Oregon "Reclaiming Our Streets" program. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolution adopting a policy on "Speed Humps For Residential Streets" and that the number of speed humps be limited to 3 different street blocks for a period of twelve months after the first block is installed and that twelve months after the first block is installed, a report from the Public Works, Police and Fire Departments be submitted to the Safety Commission and City Council with a recommendation on the continuation of the policy. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: The Safety Commission, at their June 8, 1995, meeting voted 5-0-2 with Commissioners Miller and Pitts absent to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the attached "Speed Hump Policy". At their meeting of October 12, 1995, the Safety Commission reviewed the concerns of the Police and Fire Departments and voted MSUC (Miller, Cochrane) to réaffirm the recommendation that City Council adopt the policy as presented. DISCUSSION: The City Council has directed staff to consult with the Safety Commission regarding the feasibility of utilizing speed humps on residential streets only to control the speed of vehicles. Speed humps are not intended for collector, major, or arterial (multi-lane) streets used by the Fire and Police Departments to access residential streets. In response to this direction, staff contacted numerous cities within the San Diego region and other cities through out the State to ascertain their experience on the effectiveness of speed humps in reducing vehicle speeds on residential streets. A matrix of 119 cities surveyed and the results of this survey is attached to this report. Thirty seven cities have speed hump policies but not all have installed them. Conversely, eight cities do is'/ \r '" ._--,-'",-, Page 2, Item~ Meeting Date 6/4/96 not have a policy bu have installed speed humps. A total of 40 cities have installed speed humps. Staff also requested a copy of the policies of each of the 37 cities in the area which has a formal policy in an attempt to come up with a policy which is consistent with other cities in the proximity to Chula Vista. These policies are available in the office of the City Engineer. Yes No Total Speed Hump Policy 37 82 119 Speed Hump Installed 32 8 40 Based on the information collected and research performed by staff, it was determined that it was appropriate to proceed with developing a policy for installing "Speed Humps" in Chula Vista. It is important to note that the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) studied "Speed Humps" for consideration as an Official Traffic Control Device. In September of 1994, the California State Legislature enacted legislation which amended the California Vehicle Code, Section 440, which states that while the Speed Bump or Speed Hump is not considered an Official Traffic Control Device, it is recognized as a roadway design feature, similar to islands, curbs, traffic barriers and other roadway design features. SPEED HUMP/SPEED BUMP DESCRIPTION: A speed hump, as the name implies, is a smooth raised mound of asphalt placed across the path of vehicles. The speed humps are designed to create discomfort to motorist if they travel too fast over the hump. The speed hump is distinguished from the typical speed bumps found on parking lots by its width and height. Typical dimensions for a speed hump is 12' in width and 3" in height. Testing has been conducted in several other cities and these dimensions are in the range of those determined to be the most effective in reducing speeds while causing the least amount of disruption to the flow of traffic thereby causing the least amount of negative impact to users of the street and the residents alike. In the tests conducted, the most effective results were gained using humps that ranged from 2 5/8" to 3 1/8" in height and from 10' to 20' in width. These dimensions for speed humps are much gentler to the user versus the typical speed bump which is I' to 4' in width and 3" to 6" in height (see the attached sketch). As indicated by their dimensions, speed bumps are much more abrupt and typically require a vehicle to slow down to 5 mph or less to cross. When speed humps are placed in a minimum series of three, and at a 200' to 300' spacing, these roadway features provide for an effective deterrent to drivers who choose to disregard speed limits. If humps are placed individually, they tend to reduce speeds in a "spot" and speeds along other portions of the route are either unaffected, or adversely affected. Thus, an array of humps is the only application of this roadway feature which is deemed effective. Speed humps give an undulation effect to a vehicle instead of the sudden jarring effect of the previously mentioned speed bumps. When speed humps are placed at regular or set spacings, these "Humps" can be comfortably driven over at or below the desired speed of 25 M.P.H.. When speed humps driven over at higher speeds, the level of comfort is greatly reduced, thereby providing an incentive for drivers to reduce their speed. /..s-:- ,).. /1, " \ Page 3, Item 16 Meeting Date 6/4/96 SAFETY COMMISSION DISCUSSION: The enclosed policy was drafted and forwarded to the Safety Commission for their review and critique. It was detennined by the Safety Commission at their June 8, 1995 meeting that the use of speed humps, when applied in accordance with traffic engineering standards, practices and criteria, can be a posilive measure in reducing speeds on residential streets. The enclosed "Speed Hump Policy" prescribes the procedures, design standards, criteria, financing and warrants required to justify the installation of speed humps on residential streets. POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT INPUT: Subsequent to the review of the Safety Commission, staff received comments from the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief. In their comments, both the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief expressed their concerns regarding the potential negalive impact on response time that the installation of Speed Humps could create. Both departments expressed concerns relative to the potential damage to their equipment that would be encountered in travelling over the Humps under emergency condilions. Specifically, the Fire Department's cab-over designed trucks do not fare well when traveling over either bumps or dips, both of which cause a severe jarring effect on the equipment and its occupants. On September 12, 1995, the Fire Department took one of their typical trucks down to the area of Palm A venue, where the City of San Diego has installed Speed Humps, and conducted some testing. The results of the tests showed that although the Speed Humps are posted for a speed of 15 M.P.H., the actual top comfortable speed that could be achieved using the test apparatus was in the range of 10 M.P.H. These tests, coupled with information gathered from the Fire Departments of the City of San Diego and the City of Pasadena, constitute the basis for their concerns regarding Speed Humps of public streets. Copies of the response memo from each department is attached to this report and fully reflects the concerns of each department. In a subsequent meeting with representatives of the Police and Fire Departments, they felt that they could live with the speed humps as long as they are not placed on arterial or collector streets, but only on local residential streets. If this speed hump policy is adopted, staff intends to set up an interdepartmental review committee made up of Fire, Police, and Public Works personnel. ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES OF SPEED HUMPS: In general, studies of .. Speed Humps" installed in cilies throughout southern California have revealed the following advantages and disadvantages of using this type of speed control mechanism: 1. Advanta~es a. Speed Humps effectively reduce speeds on residential streets when designed and installed in a series developed to maintain set speeds over a set distance, /5- .J d , ' \ Page 4, Item 15 Meeting Date 6/4/96 b. Speed Humps may tend to divert vehicles that are using local streets to avoid arterial congestion (reduce short-cutting), back to the arterial system provided. 2. Disadvanta~es a. Speed Humps are not aesthetically pleasing. They require special signing and pavement markings which are often considered to be unsightly by the same residents that requested the installation of the speed humps. Residents, when asked, have reportedly sensed a perception of reduced property value after the speed humps are installed. b. The discomfort of driving over the "Speed Humps" may divert the undesirable traffic conditions to adjacent residential streets in the neighborhood. c. Can be uncomfortable for those who drive over them, especially those who may live with medical conditions such as lower back or neck pain. d. May slow down response time for Fire Department and other emergency vehicles in gaining access to homes in the area affected by "Speed Humps". e. Residents living adjacent to the "Speed Humps" may experience increased noise levels both from the movement of vehicles traversing the hump (Suspension or Scraping noise) and from the deceleration and acceleration of vehicles arriving at and departing from the hump (Braking and Exhaust noise). f. Since by design, the "Speed Hump" is tapered at each end and does not extend into the gutter, so as not to block the flow of water, vehicles may swerve toward the curbline as they approach the "Speed Hump" in an attempt to lessen the impact on the suspension of their vehicle. This maneuver thus, reduces the effectiveness of the "Speed Hump" installation, and may increase accidents involving vehicles which are legally parked along the curb. In spite of the disadvantages, speed humps can be a useful tool to control speeds on local streets under the appropriate conditions if residents are informed of them and choose to accept the negatives to gain the benefits. FINANCING METHODS: The Safety Commission felt that, given the fiscal constraints in the availability of gas tax and general fund money that the City faces, it appears prudent at this time that if the City were to adopt a policy accepting the use of speed humps on residential streets the funding responsibilities for their installation should rest with the benefitting property owners. Staff and the Safety Commission concur that if the City is to establish a practice of installing speed humps on public /5,i -E\ ~, . .......-.-....-....--,. Page 5, Item 15 Meeting Date 6/4/96 streets, there is a defInite need to have a strict policy which would regulate when and where these roadway features are to be installed, and under what conditions. Having this policy would eliminate the possibility of arbitrarily installing this feature based on other than a documented need and desire basis. In the proposed policy there are two methods provided for fmancing the installation of Speed humps. The methods being proposed, as described in the following paragraphs involve the fInancial participation of the residents requesting the installation. For multi-family dwelJings, or properties with multiple residences, the costs would be divided into the total number of dwelling units (apartments, condominiums, duplexes, and/or mobile home coaches, etc.). Since the speed humps are an elective residenlial roadway feature which are intended to benefIt persons living on the streets where the speed humps are located, the cost to construct speed humps shall be borne by the property owners and/or residents abutting the streets in question. Given the availability of resources staff does not see the City's Capital Improvement Program Budget as a viable alternative for paying for these installations. Thus, in one method, the property owners of each dwelJing unit requesting the speed humps would collect the funds required and deposit them in a projeét account with the City to cover the cost of the investigation, design and installation of the speed humps being requested. The City Engineer will provide an estimate of the expected costs for the proposed project. In the second method, the property owners of each dwelling unit would request that the City establish an assessment district which would cover the costs of the installation, as well as the cost of administering the assessment district itself. In this way the cost would be divided into smaller payments which would be collected as a part of the property taxes on the properties in the district, making it more affordable to the average citizen. Since it is estimated that each speed hump would cost approximately $4000 to investigate, design, construct, sign and stripe, and that an array of at least three (3) speed humps will be installed at each location, the cost for each property owner could be expected to range from $300 to $2000 depending on the total number of dwelJing units on the particular block that is being considered. Based on statistical information from other cities, the cost of maintaining speed humps ranges from a low of $200 per year to $900 per year per hump (San Jose indicated the high fIgure). Staff estimates it will cost approximately $335 per year per hump for maintenance, or $1,000 per year per site (3 humps). These costs are shown on Attachment 6. This cost includes any repairs that need to be done to the asphalt on or near the hump, the cost of maintaining and/or replacing signs, and the cost of repainting pavement markings and legends and the full cost recovery factor. SPEED HUMP INSTALLATION PROCEDURE: In order to reduce the risk of liability to the City and their residents, the enclosed policy requires that the residents residing on a residential street (no collectors, arterials, or major streets) circulate a petition which at least 75 % of the owners of properties abutting the street acknowledge their /ýf r-V V - -_._-_.._-_-.-_---._~--~-~- ---"-.-.. Page 6, Item l6 Meeting Date 6/4/96 interest in having speed humps installed, and a willingness to pay for the speed humps if they are to be installed. The same process shall be required in the event that the residents decide to ask the City to remove the speed humps. Once the petition is submitted to the City Engineer's office for verification, the request is sent to the Safety Commission with all area residents being notified of this meeting. If the Safety Commission concurs with the residents to implement the installation of speed humps, staff will then conduct all necessary investigations, and take the item to the City Council. At that time City Council can decide to, either set up an assessment district whereby all area residents are assessed a portion of the cost based on the number of properties which benefit or require the residents to deposit their share of the estimated cost in advance of the project commencing. The following warrants are some of the criteria contained in the "Warrants" section of the Policy which will be utilized for evaluating a request for speed humps: 1. Average daily traffic not to exceed 3,500 vehicles per day. Speed humps shall not be permitted on collector, arterial, or major streets. 2. At least 50% of all motorists must be exceeding the 25 M.P.H. speed limit and the 85th percentile speed exceeds 35 M.P.H. 3. The street must not be wider than 40 feet and have 1/4 mile of length that is uninterrupted by stop signs or traffic signals. 4. The roadway must have adequate drainage, lighting, and sight distance visibility. 5. At least 50% of properties along roadway frontage must be residential. 6. Transit route or routes commonly used by emergency vehicles are excluded. 7. Delays to Fire and Police must not be deemed unacceptable by each Department. 8. The centerline grades must not exceed 6% (roadways must be relatively flat). SPEED HUMP REMOVAL: Once the speed humps are installed, there may be certain instances whereby there is a need to remove the speed humps. The City retains the right to decide whether or not the speed humps should be removed due to unforeseen circumstances, or they are considered a detriment to safety or a nuisance. The City will remove the speed humps and there will be no refund of any funds back to the residents. It is estimated that it would cost the City approximately $2,000 per hump to remove the humps and the associated signs and to sandblast off the associated pavement markings and legends. The City may charge the residents for the removal of the speed humps if there are no conditions, other than residents requesting the removal, that qualify as unusual circumstances which would necessitate the removal, and the removal requires additional funds. For these same reasons mentioned, residents must also petition the City for removal of speed humps following the same procedures used for requesting installation. In conclusion, based on all of the conditions stated above, staff and the Safety Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the enclosed policy which will regulate the conditions J5"''' ,", \1 --.....--.---..---.-. .. Page 7, Item IS Meeting Date 6/4/96 under which "Speed Humps" will be considered and ultimately installed in the City of Chula Vista. TRIAL PERIOD: Although a trial period was not considered at the Safety Commission meeting, the Director of Public Works believes that, due to the fact these devices have not been installed on Chula Vista streets in the past, and due to the concerns of the Police and Fire Chiefs, a trial period should be in effect for a period of twelve months after installation of the first project. At the end of the twelve months period, Public Works staff should survey the affected parties, and get reports from the Police and Fire Department. Based on these reports and success or failure of the program, Safety Commission should recommend and Council should then decide on whether or not to continue this policy. If this speed hump policy is adopted, staff intends to set up an interdepartmental review committee made up of Fire, Police, and Public Works personnel. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of a typical series of three speed humps, striping and signing installation is approximately $12,000 ($4000 each) and will be borne by benefiting property owners at a cost which could range from approximately $300 to $2000 each depending on the number of property owners which have frontage on the affected street. Maintenance cost is estimated at approximately $1,OOO/site/year ($335/hump/year). Attachments: Attachment 1 - Information - Speed Bumps vs Speed Humps Plat Attachment 2 - Matrix/Survey of California Cities Attachment 3 - Memo from Chief of Police and Fire Chief Attachment 4 - Safety Commission Report and Minutes (Excerpt) Attachment 5 - Mission Times Courier article dated 2/8/96 Attachment 6 - Cost Maintenance Breakdown Attachment 7 - Proposed City Council Policy with Exhibits A & B JPL:FXR:dmw M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\HUMPSPOL.DMW /.5"-7/' " ^ , \' ~._-_..._--~_..- "- RESOLUTION NO. 1 S' :J .2. (, RESO~UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A CITY COUNCIL POLICY ON INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS FOR RESIDENTIAL STREETS WHEREAS, the City Council has requested comments from the safety Commission on a Portland Oregon report entitled "Reclaiming Our streets"; and WHEREAS, on a companion neighborhood traffic safety item, the city Council, during discussion on the use of Speed Bumps on an alley improvement project, requested that the Safety Commission consider the appropriateness of Speed Humps on residential streets as a part of their review of the Portland, Oregon "Reclaiming Our Streets" program. WHEREAS, the Safety Commission, at its June 8, 1995 meeting voted 5-0-2 to recommend to the Council that they adopt the "Speed Hump POlicy". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby adopt a City Council Policy on Installation of Speed Humps for Residential Streets, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. Presented by orm by J) John P. Lippitt, Director of , City Public Works C:\rs\hu.ps.pol 15'( /' \' _ _____ ..__".........__.___,_... _·~w_.·__·. ~t~ :- ..:-: ------- ~--- 0lY OF CHUlA VISTA MRMORANonM ITEM ,ru¡ May 30, 1996 TO . The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM Sid W. Morris, Assistant City Manage&Qi-- SUBJECT Item #16 on the June 4, 1996 Council Agenda Regarding Sharp HealthCare's Proposed Transaction with Columbia/HCA Staifis still meeting with representatives from Sharp regarding this matter. A meeting is scheduled for May 31, 1996 and may change the content that was originally proposed for submittal to Council. Therefore, this item will be distributed separately to the City Council on Friday, May 31,1996, M,IHOMElADMlNISIDISHARPI.HCA JIo-1 ,. , ' '\.' ---. - ---_.~._.~_.__..- .......----.---- JUt·~-1ZI4-·;"6 IUE 14;24 SP COMM DEPT SDSU 6195947:3:32 ":'. I',.,: ~ -rl -r. School of Communication COllege of Professional Studies and Fine Arts San Diego State University 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego CA 92182-4561 (619) 594-5450 Fax: (619) 594-6246 Jun~ 4, 1996 Mayor Shirley Horton City of Chula Vista Dear Ms, Horton: This letter is to support the retention of Attorney Bruce Boogaard by the City of Chula Vista. Thou¡h I have been involved in actions as both an opponent and an ally of Mr, Boogaard, I have always found him to be hi¡hly competent, professional. fair, and to have the best interest of Chula Vista at heart. Any termination of Mr. Boogaard would be in, mþ opinion, based on unfounded political motivations rather than competence or character. lease carefully review these unfounded charges before any action is taken. Sincerely, ~G~ Peter A, Andersen Professor . ';;17-/ (, THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY (~J ..-- ^ ___M___'_'_.'_~"'~.__'_'___ June 4, 1996 Mayor and Council, 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Item 20 on Council Agenda for June 4, 1996 Evaluation and Discharge of City Attorney Honorable Mayor and Council, The undersigned is Bruce M. Boogaard, acting in my private capacity and not as your city attorney. Demand is hereby made that the personnel evaluation of myself and any discipline or discharge resulting therefrom be conducted in public. Demand is hereby made I be given written notice, 24 hours in advance, of my rights under the Brown Act. Demand is hereby made for a meaningful pre-removal Property Interest Hearing and Liberty Interest Hearing, which includes a written statement of the charges, retention of an attorney on my behalf to help me prepare (as was provided to Goss) for the hear- ing, adequate advance notice of the hearing, adequate opportunity to prepare for the hearing, providing me access to staff and others as witnesses, providing me access to documents in order to prepare my defense. Demand is made that I be given this hearing prior to .any decision to terminate me. Request is made that if you nevertheless go into closed session to discuss this matter, that you tape record that session, and turn the tape recording over to your attorney, to preserve a record of any specific concerns or charges brought against me. If you refuse that request, request is hereby made of you individually to take notes of what is said so that, if ordered by a Court, the public will eventually get to know your concerns. Request is made that this matter be deferred 5 more months until a elected council is seated so that decisions regarding top management be made by a council that has the authority of the voters to act. And finally, if a decision is made tha you no longer require my services, request is hereby made that u treat me fairly by paying me my accrued sick leave a_irv nce pay~t. erefk ~ BMB/m .;( t) -,;), c;J - - _____..___, _~_ ._ ______.____."M_.···___ _ _______