HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1996/05/14
Tuesday, May 14, 1996
6:00 p.m.
"I declare blndor penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chu:a Vista in the
Office of the City Cieri, and tI1;)'~ i posted
this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at
the Public sr ices Building and l;lt City Hall GO
DATED~ 9 ,c'" SIGNED (5/Y/~ ."
Rel!Ular Meeting of the City of Chula Vista City Council
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
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:
April 25, 1996 (Special Joint MeetingfWorkshop of the City Council,
Planning Commission and Growth Management Oversight Commission)
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
a. Introduction of Miss ChuIa Vista - Joe Amaro, Director of the Miss Chula Vista pageant, will
present Mary Perez, Miss Chula Vista 1996 and Codie Winslow, Miss Chula Vista 1995.
b. Proclaiming the week of May 19-25, 1996 as "National Public Works Week." The
proclamation will be presented by Mayor Horton to John Lippitt, Director of Public Works.
*****
Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. The City Council must now
reconvene into open session to report any final actions taken in closed session and to adjourn the meeting.
Because of the cost involved, there will be no videotaping of the reconvened portion of the meeting. However,
final actions reported will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
*****
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 5 through 10)
The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by
the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public or City staff
requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a
"Request to Speak Fonn" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete
the green fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink fonn 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 no reportable actions taken in Closed
Session on 5/7/96. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed.
Agenda
-2-
May 14, 1996
6. ORDINANCE 2671 MODIFYING THE FEE RATE SCHEDULE OF THE "EASTERN AREA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR STREETS" (second readilU!: and
adoption) - Currently the TransDIF program does not consider the land use
category "Community Purpose Facility" (CPF). Staff proposes to correct this
inconsistency by adoption of an exemption policy for types of development
consistent with the CPF land use, and exempting development projects of this
class from the TransDIF. If approved, refunds or reimbursement of certain fee
payments previously made by Community Purpose Facility Projects would be
made. Staff recommends Council place the Ordinance on second reading and
adoption. (Director of Public Works)
7. RESOLUTION 18280 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH JOSEF AND LENORE CITRON,
DBA BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P., FOR THE
DEFERMENT OF PARK ACQUISITION (PAD) FEES AS AUTHORIZED
UNDER SECTION 17.10.100 OF THE CITY CODE - On 4/16/96, the
Redevelopment Agency authorized staff to negotiate a loan with the developers
of the Broadway Business Homes project to cover the cost of development
permit fees, including PAD fees. PAD fees must be paid prior to recordation
of the final map for the project which is a condition for escrow to close. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development)
8. RESOLUTION 18281 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO SELL SIX (6)
AUTOMOBILES TO THE CITY OF TIJUANA - The City of Tijuana has
requested permission to purchase six automobiles (Police Patrol) from the City
for a sum of $1,750. These are vehicles that have been damaged beyond
economic repair and/or have had essential parts removed and are being stored
at the Public Works Corporation Yard. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (Director of Public Works and Director of Finance)
9. RESOLUTION 18282 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TREE
TRIMMING SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 AND
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO INCREASE QUANTITIES TO EXPEND ALL
A V AILABLE FUNDS FOR TmS PROJECT - Funds for tree trimming
services are included in the fiscal year 1995/96 budget. The subject contract
includes the trimming of a total of 2,932 trees located at various locations
throughout the City. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director
of Public Works)
10. RESOLUTION 18283 AMENDING PART ll, CHAPTER XI OF THE MASTER FEE
SCHEDULE AS IT RELATES TO THE COST OF CERTAIN STREET
SIGN INST ALLA TION MATERIALS - Staff has received notification that
certain materials used in the installation of street signs have increased in cost.
Since these costs are billed to developers as part of the costs associated with new
development, it is necessary to update these costs in the City's Master Fee
Schedule. The changes are minor and reflect the cost passed on to the City
from the manufacturer of the posts used to install street signs. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
Agenda
-3-
May 14, 1996
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The foUowing items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to
speak to any item, please fill out the nRequest to Speak Fonn n available in the lobby and submit it to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green fonn to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete
the pink fonn to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per
individual.
11. PUBLIC HEARING
12. PUBLIC HEARING
13. PUBLIC HEARING
14.A REPORT
CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT SUBAREA PRESERVE PLAN FOR
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLANNING AREA - The City
is preparing a draft Subarea Preserve Plan which is intended to implement the
draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) for the entire Chula Vista
General Planning area. The MSCP is a cooperative effort by the City of San
Diego; the County of San Diego; the cities of Santee, Poway, and Chula Vista;
other jurisdictions in the southwestern area of San Diego County; state and
federal wildlife agencies; other special purpose agencies; and representatives of
the land development industry and environmental organizations. Staff
recommends Council provide policy direction regarding the Subarea Preserve
Plan and direct staff to forward the draft Plan to the City of San Diego for
inclusion into the environmental analysis document for the MSCP. (Director of
Planning)
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT PCA-96-05; CONSIDERATION OF
MINOR AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 15.04.060
AND 15.04.145 (EXCAVATION, GRADING AND FILLS) - CITY
INITIATED - Staff recommends that the public hearilll! be continued to the
meetilll! of 5/28/96. (Director of Planning)
PCM-96-14; AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) I PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.15 ACRES
BY COMBINING THE EMPLOYMENT PARK lA AND EMPLOYMENT
PARK IB DISTRICTS INTO A SINGLE EMPLOYMENT PARK
DISTRICT, AND MODIFYING THE PERMITTED, CONDITIONALLY
PERMITTED, AND PROHIBITED LAND USES ALLOWED THEREIN -
CINTI LAND PLANNING REPRESENTING VARIOUS PROPERTY
OWNERS - Staff recommends that the Dublic hearilll! be continued to the
meetilll! of 5/21/96. (Director of Planning)
EIR 95-01; CONSIDERING CERTIFYING THE FINAL OT A Y RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE AND ANNEXATION FINAL
SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) AND
ADDENDUM AS COMPLYING WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) - On 3/28/96, the Planning
Commission closed the public hearing and review period and directed staff to
prepare the Final EIR with Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring
Program, Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. On
4/24/96, the Planning Commission certified the Final EIR as complying with
CEQA. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Special Project
Director, Otay Ranch Project) Not a Dublic hearilll!. but a related item.
A-I. RESOLUTION 18284 CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (FEIR 95-01) AND ADDENDUM FOR THE OT A Y RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Agenda
-4-
May 14, 1996
B. PUBLIC HEARING PCA 96-03; CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE THE PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ)
ZONE: PCA-96-02; CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE; AND PCZ 96-A; APPLICATION
OF MODIFIED PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE BY PREZONING
CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN PLANNING AREAS ONE AND
THREE OF THE CHULA VISTA 1995 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
UPDATE, PREZONING THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT PARCELS TO
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ) AND PREZONING THE NELSON/SLOAN
ROCK QUARRY PROPERTY TO AGRICULTURE (A-8) - Three related
applications have been initiated by the City as a result of non-Baldwin owned
parcels being annexed into the City. Staff recommends Council place the
ordinances on first reading and approve the resolution. (Special Planning
Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project)
B-2. ORDINANCE 2673
AMENDING CHAPTER 19.47 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE
THE PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ) ZONE (PCA 96-03) (first readilU!:)
AMENDING CHAPTER 19.48 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE (PCA-96-02); AND
APPROVING THE PREZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 600.09 ACRES
TO THE PC ZONE, PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ) ZONE AND THE
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONE (PCZ 96-A) (first readilU!:)
C. PUBLIC HEARING PCM 95-09; CONSIDERATION OF SEVEN GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Two amendments address processing requirements
for the first SPA. Five amendments address text amendments to clarify General
Development Plan language and requirements. Staff recommends approval of
the resolution. (Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project)
B-1. ORDINANCE 2672
C-1. RESOLUTION 18285 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM 95-09)
D. 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-RENEW ABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION
PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT - The
first Otay Ranch SPA Plan governs Villages One and Five. SPA One covers
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 SPA/specific plan submitted to implement the Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP jointly approved by the City and County on 10/28/93. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading and approve the
resolution. (Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project)
D-1. ORDINANCE 2674
APPROVING THE OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) ONE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PCM
95-01B) (first readinl!)
Agenda
-5-
May 14, 1996
D-2. RESOLUTION 18286 APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON THE OT A Y RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN (PCM 95-01), wmCH
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-RENEWABLE
ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PLAN, SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND THE
GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
D-3. RESOLUTION 18287 APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDEMNIFICATION
AGREEMENT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City CouncU on any subject matter within the
CouncU'sjurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to
address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Fonn" availoble 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 Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one
of the City's Boards, Commissions and/or Committees.
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the CouncU, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the CouncU
and staffrecommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please
fill out a "Request to Speak" fonn available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Public comments are limited to five minutes.
15.A-1. RESOLUTION 18261 APPROVING THE PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT WITH THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE OT A Y RANCH - The proposed
Property Tax Transfer Agreement sets forth the fmancial terms and conditions
that have been negotiated by City and County staff to be applied upon
annexation to those portions of the Otay Ranch that are included in the City's
current Sphere of Influence as well as those portions of the Otay Ranch that are
anticipated to be added to the City's Sphere of Influence at an upcoming meeting
of the Local Agency Formation Commission. The Property Tax Transfer
Agreement is contingent upon the adoption of the companion Landfill
Agreement. The proposed Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program, which is
required by Otay Ranch General Development Plan, is also related to the
proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement. Staff recommends approval of the
resolutions. (Deputy City Manager Thomson) Continued from the meeting
of 4/30/96.
A-2. RESOLUTION 18288 ESTABLISHING THE OT A Y RANCH RESERVE FUND PROGRAM
Agenda
-6-
May 14, 1996
B. RESOLUTION 18262 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
REGARDING JURISDICTION OVER AND OPERATION OF THE OTA Y
LANDFILL - As a component of the pending actions on the proposed Sphere
of Influence for Otay Ranch and subsequent property tax agreement and
annexation of the western parcel, the County wishes to ensure that the City will
not interfere with the ongoing operation or expansion of the Otay Landfill.
They do not wish the current litigation and potential early closing of San Marcos
Landfill to be repeated in the South Bay as a result of actions of the City. The
agreement addresses that protection. Staff recommends approval of the
resolution. (City Manager) Continued from the meeting of 4/30/96.
16.A. RESOLUTION 18289 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1996/97; THE ENTERING INTO AN AMENDED AND
RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT; THE
ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A 1996/97 TAX AND REVENUE
ANTICIPATION NOTE THEREFORE; AND PARTICIPATION IN THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES CASH FLOW FINANCING PROGRAM -
In order to take advantage of the opportunity to borrow money on a short-term
basis at the lowest cost, the City must join the California Statewide Communities
Development Authority. This is recommended as an alternative to borrowing
from other City funds in order to cover the temporary cash shortfalls that occur
in the General Fund during the year due to the cyclical nature of some of the
major revenue sources. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions.
(Director of Finance)
B. RESOLUTION 18290 DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INCLUDE IN THE FISCAL
YEAR 1996/97 PROPOSED BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS OF $242,860
FOR TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE PROJECTED
INTEREST AND ISSUANCE COSTS AND ESTIMATED INTEREST
REVENUES OF $235,000 FROM INVESTMENT OF THE NOTE
PROCEEDS
17.A. RESOLUTION 18291 AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 BUDGET, APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MOU'S - Subsequent to the
adoption of the budget, Council approved M OU' s with POA, IAFF, CVEA, and
WCE and revised the benefits resolution for Unrepresented and Middle
Managers. As a result of these actions, additional funding was required but not
appropriated, and the budget was not amended. In coordination with this action
it is also recommended that all department budgets be evaluated in accordance
with the Council's policy on budget transfers. Staff recommends approval of
the resolutions. (Budget Manager) 4/5th's vote required.
B. RESOLUTION 18292 AMENDING THE FRINGE BENEFITS FOR MIDDLE MANAGERS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1995/96
C. RESOLUTION 18293 TRANSFERRING FUNDS BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUDGET TRANSFER POLICY
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar.
Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers.
Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual.
Agenda
-7-
May 14, 1996
OTHER BUSINESS
18. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTCS)
a. Scheduling of meetings.
19. MAYOR'S REPORT(S)
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Rindone
a.
Scheduling of meeting, considering further Solid Waste Transfer Station Agreement. Continued
from the meeting of 4/16/96.
b.
RESOLUTION 18294
TAKING A POSITION TO SUPPORT SCA 26 NOT ADDRESSED
IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) the Regular City Council Meeting on May 21, 1996
at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
*****
CLOSED SESSION
Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will
discuss and deliberate on the follOwing items of business which are pennitted by law to be the subject of a closed
session discussion, and whiCh the Council is advised should be dIscussed in closed session to best fi:otect the
interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of nal action
taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up 'Y closed
sessions, the videotaping will be tenninated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from
closed session, reports Qf liMl action taken, and tidjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report
of final action taken wiU7iirecorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office.
21. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Anticipated litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9
. Tiger Development Two/Baldwin - motion for relief from stay.
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.
22. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
*****
Tuesday, May 14, 1996
6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
Regular Meeting of the City of Chula Vista City Council
ADDENDUM
CLOSED SESSION
21. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Give Instructions to Negotiators
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
. Proposed sale of property: 2.71 acre portion of Marina View Park, located at south side of J
Street, west of Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Negotiating Party: John D. Goss/Chris Salomone on behalf of the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency and Larry Killeen, Executive Director, San Diego Unified Port District
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.
Tuesday, May 14, 1996
6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
Regular Meeting of the City of Chula Vista City Council
ADDENDUM
CLOSED SESSION
21. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Give Instructions to Negotiators
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
. Proposed sale of property: 2.71 acre portion of Marina View Park, located at south side of J
Street, west of Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Negotiating Party: John D. Goss/Chris Salomone on behalf of the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency and Larry Killeen, Executive Director, San Diego Unified Port District
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.
"0
~ :
CIl
()
c..
esday, May 14, 1996
Op.m.
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
::Gl
ellJ:
E J:+'
ellGl+'.....c::
_J:-o ell 0
....+'c::-o=
ell c:: ell ~ ell
J: .- +' 0 :r:
+'ellC.oo
>,.... Gl >.
L. .~ E r. ~
2>t:"+'u
L-mC"o.l~+'
(l) - 0. - ell
Cl.::lw::J
....J:00'1"O
oU.....Gllij
>,.... c:: ..r.::
:!:Oal.....~ 0
m >. E C::._ LIJ
c::..... 0.0"0 Z
CllUOW= c:J
c.. .- U =' -
~i~ii~(/)
+' "0 ... "-
Gl "C .-. c:: Gl .
"'CllC::Ql(/)I~
.!!>'='ilJ) '1
:d .2 E c::(.~ Li.j
"Cc.ECIl:O I-
EOi:=' ct.
=- (1)0+,0.. 0
Regular Meeting of the City of Chula Vista City Council
ADDENDUM
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Give Instructions to Negotiators
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
.
Proposed sale of property: 2.71 acre portion of Marina View Park, located at south side of J
Street, west of Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista, CA 91910
Negotiating Party: John D. Goss/Chris Salomone on behalf of the City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency and Larry Killeen, Executive Director, San Diego Unified Port District
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
'Ii:;
Meeting Date 5/14/96
SUBMITTED BY:
PROCLAMATION Proclaiming week of May 19-25, 1996 as National
Public Works Week in the City of Chula Vista, California
Director of Public Works fu/\
City Manager JG\ ~~ \
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
Since the efforts of qualified and dedicated personnel who staff Public Works departments in the
delivery of services are essential to the well being of the community, the American Public Works
Association is supporting the week of May 19-25, 1996 as National Public Works Week.
Accepting on behalf of the City's Public Works Department is John Lippitt, Director of Public
Works.
JPL:SBI AGENDAlPROCLAM.PWW
051195
if}; - J
PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF MAY 19 THROUGH MAY 25, 1996 AS
NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an integral part
of our citizens' everyday lives; and
WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the
efficient operation of public works system and programs such as water, sewer, streets
and highways, utilities, public buildings, and solid waste collection; and
WHEREAS, the quality of life and the health, safety, and comfort of this
community greatly depend on these facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, the delivery of services by the qualified and dedicated personnel who
staff utility and public works departments is materially influenced by the people's attitude
and understanding of the importance of the work they perform:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SHIRLEY HORTON, Mayor of the City of Chula Vista,
California do hereby proclaim the week of May 19 through May 25, 1996 as NATIONAL
PUBLIC WORKS WEEK in the City of Chula Vista and call upon all citizens and civic
organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing our public
works and to recognize the contributions which public works officials make every day
to our quality of life.
1/iJ -2
May 9, 1996
SUBJECT:
City Council Meeting of
TO:
The Honorable Mayor
FROM:
John D. Goss,
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular
City Council meeting of Tuesday, May 14, 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 7, 1996.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
JDG:mab
~~~
2~:
~~~~
~---
----
calY Of
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
May 8, 1996
From:
The Honorable Mayor and city counn~h
Bruce M. Boogaard, city Attorney\~
Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session
for the Meeting of 5/7/96
To:
Re:
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss Tiger Development
Two/Baldwin motion for relief from stay and labor negotiations.
The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from
observance of actions taken in the Closed Session of May 7, 1996,
there were no actions that are required to be reported under the
Brown Act.
BMB:lgk
C:\lt\clossess.no
~-I
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612
-'f/.; ""'~Aocjdedp....
ITEM TITLE:
f'
,,~.~~! ~/1v
"1'/ :;
SUBMITTED BY:
('
REVIEWED BY:
~~~ IS'J.
-
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
. I~ ~JL
Meeting Dat~..s17 /96 7/'1/'71.
..t
Public Hearing regarding the proposal to adopt an exemption
policy in the "Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets" and the
Public Facilities Development Impact Fee and to modify the fee rate
schedule for the "Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets"
Resolution i"" ~ approving an exemption policy the "Eastern Area
Development Impact Fee for Streets" and the "Public Facilities
Development Impact Fee" and approving refund or reimbursement of
Transportation Development Impact Fees to certain "Exempt Facilities" o'\\O~
~\P\;
Ordinance ~fo 11 Modifying the fee rate schedule of the "Ea~te~ea
Development Impact Fee for Streets" t--S)\\~\>
i'vf'
Director of Public Works s<VCp~\)
City Manager (4/5 VotqYes_ No-X....)
Currently, the "Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets" (TrarsDIF) program does not
considcr list the land Uscfee category "Community Purpose Facility" (CPF). One CPF use listed
is Religious Institution, The only category currently exempt is government use. Other fee programs
in Chula Vista, such as the Public Facilities DIF (PFDIF) and the SR-125 DIF exclude CPFs
(including Religious Institutions) from the fee programs. Staff proposes to correct this
incotl:sistcftey modify the Transdif by the adoption of an exemption policy for types of
development consistent with the Community Purpose Facility land use, (including Religious
Institutions) and exempting development projects of this class from the TransDIF. Staff also
proposes to refund or reimburse certain fee payments previously made by Community Purpose
Facility Projects
RECOMMENDATION: That Council hold the public hearing and adopt the resolution
approving the exemption policy providing guidelines for exemption from the "Eastern Area
Development Impact Fee for Streets" and the "Public Facilities Development Impact Fee". The
resolution also approves refund or reimbursement of Transportation Development Impact Fees to
certain properties having recently paid TDIF fees. Staff also recommends adoption of the
Ordinance modifying the fee rate schedule for the "Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for
Streets" to conform with the exemption policy.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
~
DISCUSSION:
On January 4, 1994, the Council adopted Ordinance 2580, providing the most recent update to
&'/
Page 2, Item_
Meeting Date 5/7/96
the TransDIF, including adopting the current fee rate schedule. Although this fee schedule does
not contain a land use category for Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) , it does contain a
category for religious institutions. In other fee programs, religious institutions are considered as
community purpose facilities. In virtually all Chula Vista Development Impact Fee programs,
Community Purpose facilities are exempt from payment of development impact fees. The
exceptions to this are the Sewer DIFs and sewer capacity fees, where all properties in a sewer
basin have a direct, cumulative impact on the need for facilities within the basin.
In October and November of 1994, the City Council considered the issue of not requiring
Religious institutions to pay development impact fees for transportation facilities, based on
requests from several religious institutions. Since the City of San Diego was considering the same
issue, Council decided at that time to defer action until the City of San Diego had an opportunity
to develop a policy. The City of San Diego policy would have addressed only the issue of
religious institutions. Thus far, a policy has not evolved in the City of San Diego.
Staff believes that the most appropriate resolution to the matter is to treat religious institutions in
the same fashion as other community purpose facilities, since they are indeed community purpose
facilities in all meaningful definitions of the land use. The recogniton as a community purpose
facility would be based on the types of services provided, such as day care, childrens activity
programs, counseling and assistance programs for the poor, homeless, aged, ill or others in need.
The goal of this consideration as a community purpose facility would be in recognition of the
community aspects that tend to be a significant component of a religious organizations activies.
In the proposed exemption policy, this recognition of the community purpose aspect would
eliminate the obligation to pay TransDIF fees, and thus render the constitutional issue moot.
Virtually all other Development Impact Fee programs, including the PFDIF and the SR-125 DIF
exclude Community Purpose Facilities from Fee Payment. The TransDIF fee program, does not
address this land use category, therefore, in the past, many of the community purpose facilities
have been charged at the same rate as retail commercial land uses. It does, however include
religious institutions in the fee program, but this is a minor component of the overall TransDIF
program. In all of the other fee programs, "Religious Institution" is included in the definition of
Community Purpose Facility, if CPF is defined at all. Adoption of the exemption policy would
clarify the issue with respect to the TransDIF.
Staff proposes to define the class of land uses contained in the exempt policy as follows:
Exempt development uses with the following characteristics or activities as a principal use
of the land, generally described as "Community Purpose Facility":
1. Social service activities, including such services as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys
Club and Girls Club, Alcoholics Anonymous, YMCA and services for the
fc-;}--
Page 3, Item_
Meeting Date 5/7 /96
homeless;
2. Public Schools (elementary and secondary);
3. Private Schools (elementary and secondary);
4. Day Care (non-profit only);
5. Senior Care and Recreation (non-profit only);
6. Worship, Spiritual growth and Development;
This is essentially the same definition used in the Public Facility DIP. It should be noted here that
Fee payment exemption would generally only apply to projects that own the property. If, for
example, a developer built a "strip mall" kind of structure, but rented the spaces to a storefront
school or small religious institution, the building itself would have value as a conunercial use that
could be converted later, with no subsequent discretionary approvals required. In that type of
situation, fees might never be collected unless imposed immediately.
In the exemption policy, staff proposes a series of tests to determine elegibility for exemption as
follows:
a. Conununity Service Test. User must provide a service to the conununity that is
charitable (e.g., youth/teen/family counseling, day care, senior care); educational
(e.g. Chula Vista Elementary School); recreational (e.g. YMCA, Boys and Girls
Club) or govenunental (e.g., Veterans Home) in nature. A User that provides a
conunercial, industrial, or political service does not qualify for the exemption.
b. Single Purpose Building Test. The Facilities which will trigger the fee must be a
single purpose facility designed to deliver the services of the user that does not
conveniently lend itself to other, for-profit conunercial or industrial useage (e.g.,
YMCA Facility).
c. Facility Use Test. User must demonstrate a negligible or low peak hour useage of
facility or facilities the DIP is designed to fund.
d. Non-Profit Motive Test. User must not have a profit motive or be the subsidiary
or affiliate of an entity that has a profit motive.
e. User must depend, in significant part, on volunteer labor ami charitable
contributions for the delivery of its services. Users which have a convenient cost
recovery mechanism for the services they offer will not qualify.
c-l7<5~ ~ J
Page 4, Item_
Meeting Date 5/7/96 )
or:
f. A non-profit User that, recardless of meeting the foregoing criteria, offers the
same, or similar, charitable or educational services as an exempt user, and in doing
so, does not add significant demand on the facility or facilities funded by the DIF.
Staff also proposes to exempt such Community Purpose Facilities from the Trans DIF by deleting
the Religious institution category from the Fee Rate Schedule. The new Fee Rate Schedule would
be as follows (the exempted Religious Institution fee is Proposeed to be deleted):
Development Type
Single Family Detached Dwelling
Single Family Attached Dwelling
Multi-Family Dwelling
Commercial
Industrial
Golf Course
Medical Center
OTC
Adjacent to OTC
Rdigi6tl3 ImtittltitH\
Transportation Fee
$3998/Dwelling Unit
$3198/Dwelling Unit
$2399/Dwelling Unit
$99,950/Gross Acre
$79,960/Gross Acre
$3198/Gross Acre
$259,870/Gross Acre
$13,313/Gross Acre
$139,930/Gross Acre
$15,992/Cre8g Acre
)
Currently, the City has been allowing Religious institutions and, in one instance, a private non-
profit elementary/secondary school, to phase payment of TransDIF fees, to soften the impact of .
establishment of religious land uses. Since development of the property is often done in phases,
the Religious Institutions were allowed to pay the fees in proportion to the phases of development.
This was done in accordance with Council established policy. Currently there are three churches
that have been allowed to make partial payments or have been allowed to defer fee payments until
the situation has been resolved. One other Church, the Church of Joy, recently entered into an
agreement to provide Park and Ride facilities in lieu of TransDIF fees. This arrangement was
approved by the City Council on May 23, 1995. Staff does not believe that the action
contemplated by this report will affect that agreement, since the Church of Joy is providing the
Park and Ride in return for considerations granted by the Rancho del Rey development. If
TransDIF fees are eliminated for religious institutions, the Church of Joy will still have an
obligation to provide a park and ride by their agreement with Rancho del Rey. Staff recommends
the following amounts be refunded from the Transportation DIF Fund, Fund 621-3753
1. First United Methodist Church $ 4,719.60
2. Bonita Country Day School $ 2,478.00
3. Jehovah's Witnesses Church $ 2,414.80
)
J-~(,_t/
Page 5, Item_
Meeting Date 5/7/96
Staff also recorrunends that the City acknowledge that the Corpus Christi Catholic Parish (which
was not required to deposit any funds for the fees) is relieved of it's TDIF fee obligation.
The Risen Savior Evangelical Church on Otay Lakes Road has requested reimbursement for costs
associated with construction of a raised median. The cost associated with that work has been
determined to be $20,474.84. Staff has generally used an informal guideline for determining
eligibility for TDIF funding in construction. In that guideline, projects are eligible for TDIF funding
if they met the following criteria:
1. They are components of the typical section of a DIF facility or are items necessary to
construct such typical section in the absence of development of the adjacent property (such
as grading or drainage).
2. The items are not utilized for direct access to the property or solely benefit the property.
Staff believes this reimbursement is appropriate since the work consisted of installation of a
median in a TDIF eligible street, and that such work would be eligible if constructed as part of
a larger project.
Additionally, there is currently one Religious institution that has "DIF credit" by virtue of
assessments placed on the property for construction of street facilities. The property had an
assessment placed on it to fmance construction of Otay Lakes Road, a TDIF facility. Since, by
eliminating the fee obligation for CPFs, they in essence have no obligation to participate in the
cost of such construction, a refund or reimbursement is appropriate. There are two properties
involved, one 3.11 acre parcel and one 1. 59 acre parcel. The Church currently intends to build
a combination Church/Day Care on the two lots in phases. The current principal balance of the
assessments is $601,137.00 of which $497,289.18 is Transportation DIF related. Staff
recommends paying this balance off in the following fashion:
1. Upon issuance of a building Permit for a Church or other CPF use for either of the
su'r,j~ctproperties" The TDIF fund would reimburse the Church of the amount which is
the unpaid principal balance of the assessment on that particular property as of the date of
this resolution (reimbursement amount). In actual practice, the City must decide whether
it is more appropriate to pay down the bonds financed by the assessment district or to pay
the property owner. This decision would be based on an evaluation of the property value
as an asset to secure the bonds, and a recommendation by the bond council at the time the
payment is due. In either event, the property will receive the same value, whether it is
removal of a lien or the cash value of the lien.
2. Eastlake Development Company (EDC) will pay the City for approximately 88% of
the reimbursement amount, which will allow EDc; to retain approximately 88 % of the
J~ ,,-5
Page 6, Item_
Meeting Date 5/7/96
J
EOU credits that are currently placed on the property. The reasoning behind this is that
Eastlake obtained those credits at least 5 years ago, at the then current rate of $3060 per
EOU. EOC has been paying a large portion of the assessments on the property since that
time, including after the property had been sold to the Church. To be equitable, staff
believes that it is appropriate to allow Eastlake to retain the credits. The policy related
to OIF credits has been that when a developer constructs a facility and places assessments
on property to fInance the construction, the credits associated with the assessements are
"EOU" credits, as opposed to dollar amount credits.
3. As a result of the above, the anticipated outlays to the Eastlake Church are as follows:
Parcel TDIF Pays EDC Pays Total EDU Credits
to EDC
A (3.11 Ac.) $38,067.06 $282,932.48 $320,999.54 92.46
B (1.59 Ac.) $19,461.94 $156,827.70 $176,289.64 51.25
Subtotal $57,529.00 $439,760.18 $497,289.18 143.71
)
As can be seen from the above table, the TO IF fund would be paying the Church $57,529 with
development of both properties. This is actually a positive impact to the fund, since it represents
repurchasing of 18.80 EOU credits. If a property were to develop that required payment of 18.8
EOU of TO IF fees, with these credits, it could avoid payment of $ 75,162.40 in fees by using
such credits. To repurchase them for $57,529.00 represents a savings to the TDIF fund of
$17,633.40.
Staff has met with the major property owners and developers regarding these issues. No
objections were expressed regarding the proposal. Staff will notify all of the existing and
proposed projects that will be affected by the proposed action, including religious institutions, Day
Care and YMCA projects.
FISCAL IMPACT: The TransDIF program in its current form represents a $98 million program
of improvements. At the time of the last update in January, 1994 the program had anticipated
revenue from Religious institutions of $236,681, or 0.2 percent of the program. Thus, if
Religious institutions are to be excluded from the program, theoretically the fee should be
increased to recover the 0.2 % lost revenue. This would represent an increase from $3998 to
$4007 per EDU. Currently staff has no way of knowing what institutions may qualify for
elimination of TrailsDIF fees under the other categories and, thus cannot give an accurate estimate
of the amount of that loss of fees. Staff had made an analysis last year that, based on the General
.J
):l4: (/ f;
. ....__.._......._.._~,..._,.._-_.._.._.._--_.,,",.-
Page 7, Item_
Meeting Date 5/7 /96
Plan guidelines of 1.35 acres of Community Service development per 1000 people, the impact
~scal impact on the DIF would be to increase it by slightly more than 1 %. Staff does not
recommend adjusting the fee at this time, since a more comprehensive update will be presented
in the near future. At this time, the effort to produce a thorough engineer's report to justify
changing the fee for this element alone would not be productive.
CST:HxOOl
M:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\A113DlF3 .CST
m' !/?
~~~
~v.
~'V
OF THE CITY OF ca~ VISTA
FEE RATE SCHEDU~ OF THE
DEVELOPMENT IMP~CT FEE FOR
~
..",~
,v
~V
WHEREAS, currently the "Eastern Area Development Impact
Fee for streets" (TransDIF) program does not discuss the land use
category "Community Purpose Facility" (CPF); and
ORDINANCE NO. c2& 7/
AN ORDINANCE
MODIFYING THE
"EASTERN AREA
STREETS"
WHEREAS, other fee programs in Chula Vista, such as the
Public Facilities DIF (PFDIF) and the SR-125 DIF exclude CPF from
the fee programs; and
WHEREAS, staff proposes to correct this inconsistency by
adoption of an exemption policy for types of development consistent
with the Community Purpose Facility land use, and exempting
development projects of this class from the TransDIF; and
WHEREAS, staff also proposed to refund or reimburse
certain fee payments previously made by community Purpose Facility
Projects.
SECTION 1. Ordinance 2251 is hereby amended to add the
following to section 6 to read as follows:
"SECTION 6: Exemptions.
Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt
from the provisions of this fee.
Exempt development use$
characteristics or activities
land, generally described
Facility":
1. social service activities, including such services
as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys Club and Girls
Club, Alcoholics Anonymous, YMCA and services for
the homeless;
2. Public Schools (elementary and secondary);
3. Private Schools (elementary and secondary);
4. Day Care (non-profit only);
5. Senior Care and Recreation (non-profit only);
6. Worship, spiritual growth and Development;"
with the following
as a principal use of the
as "community Purpose
SECTION 2. Staff also proposes to exclude Community
Purpose Facilities from the Trans DIF by deleting the Religious
Institution category from the Fee Rate Schedule. section l(c) of
Ordinance 2251 is hereby amended to read as follows:
b - ct
DeveloDment Type
Single Family Detached Dwelling
Single Family Attached Dwelling
MUlti-Family Dwelling
Commercial
Industrial
Golf Course
Medical Center
OTC
Adjacent to OTC
Reliqioua Ifiotitution
TranSDortation Fee
$3998/Dwelling Unit
$3198/Dwelling Unit
$2399/Dwelling unit
$99,950/Gross Acre
$79,960/Gross Acre
$3198/Gross Acre
$259,870/Gross Acre
$13,313/Gross Acre
$139,930/Gross Acre
$lS,992jCrooo Acre
The City Council shall at least annually review the amount of the
fee. The City Council may adjust the amount of the fee as
necessary to reflect changes in the Engineering-News Record
Construction Index, the type, size, location or cost of the
Transportation Facilities to be financed by the fee, changes in
land use ,designations in the City's General Plan, and upon other
sound engineering" financing and planning information. Adjust-
ments to the above fees may be made by resolution amending the
Master Fee Schedule.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force on the thirtieth from and its second reading and
adoption.
Approved as to form by
Br~.~~o~ty
Attorney
)
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
!Jk~~ t- q
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 7
Meeting Date 05/14/96
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution Ir .2rO Approving an Agreement with Josef and
Lenore Citron dba Broadway Village Business Homes, L.P. for the
Deferment of Park Acquisition (PAD) Fees as authorized under Section
1 7.1 0.1 00 of the City Code
REVIEWED BY:
Community Developm.. e.. nt~,ir tor
\(~
City Manage'<>.J9 b6 .-?
(s.
SUBMITTED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No _)
Council Referral No.
BACKGROUND:
At their meeting of April 16, 1996 the Redevelopment Agency authorized staff to negotiate
a loan with the developers of the Broadway Business Homes to cover the cost of development
permit fees for the project including PAD fees. However, PAD fees must be paid prior to
recordation of the final map for the project which is a condition for escrow to close. Funds
for the Agency loan are to come from the Agency's escrow proceeds from sale of the project
site to the Developer. Staff is in the process of preparing loan documents for Agency
approval. However, the documents are not scheduled to come before the Agency until June
1996, which will delay the close of escrow.
City Codes (Section 17.10.100) allow the City Council to enter into an agreement to defer
the payment of PAD fees for up to 60 days following map approval subject to certain
conditions. Approval of such an agreement by the Council would allow escrow to close much
earlier and allow the demolition of the existing buildings to proceed.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution approving the Agreement with
Broadway Village Business Homes, L.P. for the deferral of PAD fees.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The Broadway Business Homes Project is currently in escrow with the possibility of closing
shortly. However, in order for escrow to close, PAD fees must be paid or a deferral
agreement pursuant to City Codes Section 17.10.100 must be approved by the Council.
The Redevelopment Agency previously authorized staff to negotiate a loan with the developer
to cover the cost of development permits including PAD fees. However, the processing of
loan documents will involve an amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement
which is subject to processing in accordance with Community Redevelopment Law including
holding a public hearing which will require approximately one month to complete. This will
give the Agency the authority to pay the City all development fees for permit processing.
Funds to cover fees are accruing to the Agency through escrow for sale of the site, 760
Broadway, to the Developer.
7-/
Page 2, Item 7
Meeting Date 05/14/96
City Codes allow for the deferral of the payment of PAD fees for up to 60 days subject to the
following conditions:
. The loan is suitably secured. (In light of the fact that development of the
project is already secured by the development obligation under the Disposition
and Development Agreement which includes the Agency's reverts, this
condition is considered to be satisfied.)
. The borrower pays an interest rate equal to the City's average interest rate
earned on its investments for the first 60 days and, thereafter, the base interest
rate plus two percentage points.
. The borrower pays all attorney fees associated with enforcement of the
agreement.
The Agreement includes all of the conditions required by the Code. Approval of this
Agreement will allow escrow to close by deferring payment of the PAD fees long enough to
allow the permit fee loan documents to be brought to the Redevelopment Agency. In the
event that the Agency chooses not to approve the proposed loan, the Agency can prevent
project permits from being issued until the PAD fees are paid by the Developer.
FISCAL IMPACT: PAD fees for the Broadway Business Homes Project are estimated at
$38,700. Total fees to be covered by the proposed loan to the developer are currently
estimated at $117,000 (including PAD fees). The funds to cover the loan are to come from
the Agency's escrow proceeds estimated at $286,000.
Remaining demolition costs estimated at $109,000 will also be paid out of land sale proceeds.
If the Agency approves the loan to the Developer, the development fees paid by the Agency
on the Developer's behalf will be paid back with interest as each of the first six Business
Homes are sold.
[BB\C:\WP51 \COUNCIL\ 113S\PAD-FEE.1131
?,,J.
RESOLUTION NO. / ~ c2 ~ t:J
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH JOSEF
AND LENORE CITRON DBA BROADWAY VILLAGE
BUSINESS HOMES, L.P. FOR THE DEFERMENT OF PARK
ACQUISITION (PAD) FEES AS AUTHORIZED UNDER
SECTION 17.10.100 OF THE CITY CODE
WHEREAS, at their meeting of April 16, 1996, the
Redevelopment Agency authorized staff to negotiate a loan with the
developers of the Broadway Business Homes to cover the cost of
development permit fees for the project including PAD fees; and
WHEREAS, however, PAD fees must be paid prior to
recordation of the final map for the project which is a condition
for escrow to close; and
WHEREAS, funds for the Agency loan are to come from the
Agency's escrow proceeds from sale of the proj ect si te to the
Developer; and
WHEREAS, staff is in the process of preparing loan
documents for Agency approval, however, the documents are not
scheduled to come before the Agency until June 1996, which will
delay the close of escrow; and
WHEREAS, City Code section 17.10.100 allows the City
Council to enter into an agreement to defer the payment of PAD fees
for up to 60 days following map approval subj ect to certain
conditions; and
WHEREAS, approval of such an agreement by the Council
would allow escrow to close much earlier and allow the demolition
of the existing buildings to proceed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement with Josef and
Lenore citron dba Broadway Village Business Homes, L.P. for the
Deferment of Park Acquisition (PAD) Fees as authorized under
section 17.10.100 of the City Code in the form present, an executed
copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk
as Document No.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the requirement under
Municipal Code section 17.10.100 for a letter of credit or surety
to secure payment of the deferred PAD Fees is hereby waived based
on and expressly limited to the following circumstances:
7,:1
(a) Such security is unnecessary in light of the
commitment by Developer to develop the Project and
pay all applicable fees contained in the DDA.
(b) The Project is in the Southwest Redevelopment
Project Area and such waiver is necessary and
appropriate to facilitate the redevelopment of the
Property.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Chris Salomone, Director of
community Development
C:\rs\citron.pad
7'1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND BROADWAY
VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
17.10.100 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of May 14, 1996,
by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (the "Citv") and BROADWAY
VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P., a California limited partnership (the
"Developer") with reference to the following facts:
WHEREAS, effective as of August 1, 1995 the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula vista ("Agency") and Developer entered
into a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA");
WHEREAS, the DDA provides for sale by Agency to Developer of
certain real property located at 760 Broadway, more particularly
described therein (the "Property"), and the development of the
Property into a 36 unit "business homes" project, more particularly
described therein (the "Project");
WHEREAS, in connection with the development of the Project,
Developer has been processing a parcel map ("Parcel Map") with
respect to a portion of the Property;
WHEREAS, in order to proceed with the acquisition of the
Property and development of the Project under the DDA, Developer
desires to finalize and record the Parcel Map;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Chula vista Municipal
Code (the "Municipal Code") as a condition precedent to recordation
of the Parcel Map Developer must either (a) pay the Park Acqusition
and Development Fees associated with the Project, calculated to be
$38,700 (the "Required Pad Fees") or (b) enter into an agreement to
pay the Required Pad Fees in accordance with the terms and
conditions of Municipal Code section 17.10.100.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Developer agree as follows:
1. Required PAD Fees. Developer agrees to pay the City the
Required PAD Fees, plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum
compounded quarterly, on or before the date falling 60 days after
the recordation of the Parcel Map.
2. Riqht to withhold Buildinq Permits. In addition to any
and all other remedies avaliable to the City at law or in equity to
enforce the terms of this Agreement, in the event that Developer
fails to timely pay the Required PAD Fees hereunder:
(a) City reserves the right to withhold final or interim
inspection of units in the Proposed Project for which
building permits may have been issued and may withhold
issuance of additional building permits, certificates of
occupancy, if applicable, or ariy other processing of
?,>
enti tlements on any property or improvements included
within the territory of the Parcel Map, until the
Required PAD Fees, plus allowed interest, are paid to the
City; and
(b) The Agency would have the right to declare a default
under the terms of the DDA unless the DDA had been
amended to otherwise expressly so provide.
3. Attornevs Fees. In the event of any action to enforce the
terms of this Agreement, in addition to any award of damages, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby enter into this
Agreement effective as of the date first written above.
BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES,
L.P., a California limited
partnership
By: citron Realty Management
Corporation, a California
corporation
Dated: By:
Its:
Dated: By:
Its:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Dated:
By:
shirley Horton, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
~
M:\shared\a
'?.,t,
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item ?
Meeting Date 05/14/96
Resolution )8"':16" LthoriZing the Purchasing Agent to Sell Six
(6) Automobiles to the City of Tijuana.
Director Of Public Work~
Director of Finance Ip ~ \'{
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ ~../J (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No~)
The City of Tijuana has requested perm~ion to purchase six (6) automobiles (Police
Patrol) from the City of Chula Vista for a sum of $1,750. These are vehicles that have
been damaged beyond economic repair and/or have had essential parts removed and
are being stored at the Public Works Corporation Yard.
SUBMITTED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve the Resolution authorizing sale
of the vehicles to Tijuana.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION: In the past, the City of Chula Vista has sold or donated used
equipment and automobiles to the City of Tijuana. The vehicles that are in this
request to be sold have been removed from service and not sold at auction for several
reasons: extensive body damage, essential parts such as transmissions and body
panels missing, or interior stripped for canine service. The Public Works Garage has
realized a substantial monetary savings (at least $16,000) by reusing parts in good
working order from the vehicles. Now, most of the useful pieces have been removed
from five (5) of the vehicles and the City of Tijuana has offered $ 50 (which is a fair
price according to the Purchasing Agent) for each of them for a sum of $250. One
vehicle still runs, but has been used in canine service and still includes the dog
platform instead of a back seat. It also has accident damage to the front. For this car,
the offer is $1500.
The Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.250 authorizes the Purchasing Agent to
dispose of "stocks of supplies, materials and equipment which are no longer used or
which have become obsolete, worn out or scrapped" to council-approved organizations
with the recommendation of the city manager. The Purchasing Agent agrees with the
recommendation to sell these vehicles to the City of Tijuana.
City representatives for the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is
required for compliance with NPDES, recently inspected the Corporation Yard. They
recommended that these vehicles be removed from the Corporation Yard to eliminate
the possibility of future storm water contamination.
FISCAL IMPACT: The revenue from this sale ($1,750), will be returned to the
Equipment Replacement Fund, Fund 705-7050.
g" )
RESOLUTION NO. /f);<l{ /
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT
TO SELL SIX (6) AUTOMOBILES TO THE CITY OF
TIJUANA
WHEREAS, the City of Tijuana has requested permission to
purchase (6) (Police Patrol) automobiles from the city of Chula
vista for a sum of $1,750; and
WHEREAS, these are vehicles that have been damaged beyond
economic repair, have had essential parts removed and are being
stored at the Public Works Corporation Yard; and
WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.56.250
authorizes the Purchasing Agent to dispose of "stocks of supplies,
materials and equipment which are no longer used or which have
become obsolete, worn out or scrapped" to council-approved
organizations with the recommendation of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent agrees with the
recommendation to sell these vehicles to the City of Tijuana.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby authorize the Purchasing Agent to
sell six (6) automobiles to the City of Tijuana for $1,750.
C:\rs\cars.tj
^
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
Bruce M.
Attorney
?~:L
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ltem-.2.
Meeting Date 5/14/96
ITEM TITLE: Resolution J ~e2. ?' 2... Accepting bids and awarding contract for tree
trimming services for fiscal year 1995-1996 in the City of Chula Vista,
California and authorizing staffto increase quantities to expend all available
funds for this project
SUBMITTED BY: Director OfPUbl:C Works ~\.
REVIEWED BY: CIty Manager~~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
At 2:00 p.m. on April 17, 1996, in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works
received sealed bids for tree trimming services in the City of Chula Vista.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council 1) approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding
contract to Cooley's Landscaping, Inc. in the amount of $62,307; and 2) authorize staff to increase
quantities to expend all available funds for this project.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: Since the mid 1980's, as the City grew, we have augmented the tree trimming
efforts by using contractors instead of increasing the size of the City tree trimming crews. City staff
usually block trims about 1200 trees per year and about 2600 to 2900 by contract. In addition, City
crews perform tree removal & replanting in conjunction with the sidewalk repair program and
complaint, hazard, and decorative trimming.
Funds for tree trimming services are included in the FY 1995-96 budget. The subject contract
includes the trimming of a total of2,932 trees located at various locations throughout the City. A
listing of all trees and locations is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
On the bid opening date, bids were received from six contractors as follows, in order of the lowest
bid first:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
1. Cooley's Landscaping, Inc., San Diego $ 62,307.00
2. Aztec Landscape., Lemon Grove $ 75,075.36
3. Atlas Environmental Services, Inc., Spring Valley $ 83,082.00
4. Transpacific Environmental, Inc., Santa Fe Springs $ 96,696.00
5. Golden Bear Arborists, Inc., Monrovia $104,309.00
6. Trimming Land, Inc., Los Angeles $122,818.00
9-/
The low bid received from Cooley's Landscaping, Inc. is below the budgeted amount of $70,250 by
$7,943 or 11.3%. We have reviewed the low bid and recommend awarding the contract to Cooley's
Landscaping, Inc.
Due to the excellent bids, there will be approximately $7,943 left in the Tree Trimming Account
fund. Therefore, staff proposes to use the remaining balance to trim additional trees. The intent is
to maximize the amount of work to utilize the approved Tree Trimming budget. Therefore, staff
proposes to trim additional trees to utilize the remaining funds.
Prevailing Wage Statement
This project is funded initially by the City's General Fund then reimbursed by the Gas Tax Fund.
Since tree trimming is a service contract project, no prevailing wage requirements were necessary
or a part of the bid documents. Compliance with Federal and State minority/women owned business
requirements was unapplicable on this project. However, disadvantaged businesses were encouraged
to participate and the project was advertised with various minority trade publications per the City's
outreach policy.
Environmental Status
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is categorically
exempt under Class 1, Section 15301(h) "Maintenance of Existing Landscaping."
Disclosure Statement
Attached is a Disclosure Statement executed by the Contractor.
Financial Statement
FUND REQUIRED TO AWARD CONTRACT
1. Contract Amount $62,307.00
2. Contingencies (approximately 11 %) 7,943.00
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONTRACT $72,250.00
FUNDS A V AILABLE TO AWARD CONTRACT
1. 100-1450-5203 $72,250.00
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE TO AWARD CONTRACT $72,250.00
FISCAL IMP ACT: This action will authorize the expenditure of $72,250 of previously
appropriated funds. The project is funded initially by the City's General Fund and then reimbursed
by the Gas Tax Fund.
Attachment:
SA:JY-066
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\tree9596.a 13
Contractor's Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED
9~.2
RESOLUTION NO.
JB-20.2.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR TREE TRIMMING SERVICES FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1995-96 IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO INCREASE
QUANTITIES TO EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR
THIS PROJECT
WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on April 17, 1996, in the Public
Services Building, the Director of Public Works received the
following six bids for Tree Trimming Services in the City of Chula
Vista, California:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
1. Cooley's Landscaping, Inc. , San $ 62,307.00
Diego
2. Aztec Landscape., Lemon Grove $ 75,075.36
3. Atlas Environmental Services, Inc. , $ 83,082.00
Spring Valley
4. Transpacific Environmental, Inc. , $ 96,696.00
Santa Fe Springs
5. Golden Bear Arborists, Inc. , $104,309.00
Monrovia
6. Trimming Land, Inc. , Los Angeles $122,818.00
WHEREAS, the low bid received from Cooley's Landscaping,
Inc. is below the budgeted amount of $70,250 by $7,943 or 11.3% and
staff has reviewed the low bid and recommends awarding the contract
to Cooley's Landscaping, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept said six bids and awards
the contract for tree trimming services in the City of Chula Vista,
California for fiscal year 1995-96 to Cooley's Landscaping, Inc. in
the amount of $62,307.00.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said contract for and on behalf
of the City of Chula vista.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that
increase quantities to expend all availab
authorized to
r this project.
Presented by
fO:J)
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
M.
Attorney
C:\rs\tree trim
9/3
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to tile a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaqp\ cOl1lribullons, on
all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning CommissIon. ancl al\ other olTiClal bodies
The following information must be disclosed:
~. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the appl1callOn or the Contrilct.
e.g., owner, applicant, Contractor, subcontractor. material supplier.
01l~Yl~(j-
~ R ~C()Lo\l
I
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all lI1diYlduals OWl\l!lg more
than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnersfllp,
01 t6t~ n
Q,I,))JDiA
\
1\
(-'('10/) .
(}CiA/f 0 ~ ~ Jl_t-€ / if J::i2OtO T.I1 ~ (t - ~)(~ N VI Q..-i ,
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names 01 any person SClYll\g (1-:
director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
-4
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of bUSIness transacted with any member of the City stan, lJomds, C<Jl1IlIllssio!l,
Committees, and Council within the oast twelvt> mnnrh'? Y ('s Nn ><" If VI'S ;>IPflSf' ;nrIW;,I,. !".ro, ",! ".\'
fj. Please ideJ1lify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent Contr<1CIOrs who you haw
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
6. Have you and/or your ofticers or agents, in the aggregate, comributed more than $1,000 [0 a C'ouncl11l1ember in lhe current
or preceding election period') Yes _ No .)i If yes, state which Council members(s).______....... __.~_,_.'_,___.__
Date: i....\ - I If) - C'tl.l?
,,-,--..., /"1
... ... ... (NOTE: Attached ad. d,it~~()I1a(pages ,~}nece~'sa ,,-;;'.J...
,~ .~ ~
..- / ! // P"'..
/ .(.~fL~ ~---:
( ,,',' .Alignaturaof , ontri\Clor/ Applicant
'---,~, ./ ;:
t" .'
x-ILI~ //./ ' <::. ~/
/. Print or type name of Contractor/ Applicant
.,. I!J:..asm IS ..eJinfd as. "Ail] liiJlYlUlWi. JIf/Tl, lU-p(Jf/fH:'~;/lfJ. JUlrll l'~rlIure, unUClallOn, soczal Club. Jrmernal vrgW/lWflOn, (OrfJO((ltLOli,
estate, trust, receiver. syndicate, this and allY other county, eit)' or Clium,-y. city mUl/icipalily. district, vr Of/In {lolli/nil .I'll/Him ,Will ,
or any OIher group or combination actillg as a ullit,
14
9-L-j
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / tJ
Meeting Date 5/14/96
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution / g' e2. (f -3 Amending Part II, Chapter XI of the Master Fee
Schedule as it relates to the cost of certain street sign installation materials.
Director of Public W orks ~n
City ManagerJG ~ tJE.' \
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Staff has received notification that steel poles used to install street signs have increased in cost. Since
these costs are billed to developers as part of the costs associated with new development, it is
necessary to update these costs in the City's Master Fee Schedule. These changes are minor and
reflect the cost passed on to the City from the manufacturer of the posts used to install street signs.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt this resolution thereby amending the City's
Master Fee Schedule to reflect increased costs to the City for materials used to install street signs.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: N/ A
DISCUSSION:
Staff has received confirmation from the manufacturer of the steel posts used to install street signs,
that effective April 1 , 1996, the cost of these posts will be increased. These costs are being adjusted
for two different reasons.
1. 2" ID round steel galvanized metal or U-channel perforated metal posts, the price has
increased from $1.40 per foot to $1.50 per foot and is a normal cost increase passed
on from the manufacturer. Estimated use per year is 6,000 lineal feet.
2. TeleSpar Perforated Square Tubing, the cost increase is due to a change in the State
of California Standard for this type of installation. The previous Standard called for
a post measuring 1 3/4" square, and the new Standard requires a 2" square tubing.
The difference in cost between these two different sized posts requires increasing the
Fee for this item from $2.30 per foot, to $3.40 per foot. Estimated use per year is
4,000 lineal feet.
The costs are listed in the Master Fee Schedule in Part II "Development", Chapter XI "Engineering",
Section D. "Streets", Part 2c "Pole Pricing", Item 1, 2" ID round steel galvanized metal OR U-
/IJj
Page 2, Item /.tJ
Meeting Date 5/14/96
channel perforated metal posts, and Item 2, TeleSpar Perforated Square Tubing. Since these Fees are
billed to developers to recover the full cost of installation of street signs in new developments, it is
necessary to change the Master Fee Schedule to reflect these new costs incurred by the City. Staff
recommends that this resolution be adopted by the City Council, thereby amending the City's Master
Fee Schedule as detailed above.
FISCAL IMPACT: If approved, the recommended change will offset any negative impact on the
City's operating budget by having developers pay the full cost for sign installation. If not approved,
the City would absorb the cost differential, which would produce an estimated negative impact of
$5,000.00 per year.
Item Existing Cost Proposed Cost Difference
2" Pipe & V-Posts $1 AO/Lineal Foot $1.50/Lineal Foot $600/year
Square Tubing $2.30/Lineal Foot $3 AO/Lineal Foot $4,400/year
Attachments:
A copy of the existing Master Fee Schedule affected by this Resolution
File No.: 0760-95-CY029
FXR:dmw
//) "02.
RESOLUTION NO. /<6:<. J>':J
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING PART II, CHAPTER XI OF
THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AS IT RELATES TO THE
COST OF CERTAIN STREET SIGN INSTALLATION
MATERIALS
WHEREAS, staff has received notif ication that steel poles
used to install of street signs have increased in cost and since
these costs are billed to developers as part of the costs
associated with new development, it is necessary to update these
costs in the City's Master Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, these changes are minor and reflect the cost
passed on to the City from the manufacturer of the posts used to
install street signs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby amend Part II, Chapter XI of the
Master Fee Schedule as it relates to the cost of certain street
sign installation material as set forth in Exhibit A, incorporated
herein by reference as if set forth in full.
Presented by
o:y
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
C:\rs\stsign..fs
JIJ~311&-1
$x.xx Proposed Fee
../~/~/...
. tx.xxExlstlng Fee
7. Watercourse and Grading Permit Fees
Watercourse and grading permit fees shall be deposits to cover the City's
full cost including overhead. Prior to release of bonds the deposits shall
be adjusted to cover the full cost to the aty including overhead for
processing, plan check, inspection and any soils or geologic reports by City
consultants.
D. STREETS
1. Street Marking Fees
a. Striping
1) Per mile of double yellow centerline . $1,024.95
2) Per mile of single solid line striping . . $ 857.37
3) Per mile of skip line striping ....... $ 773.58
b. Legends (Painted Legends)
1) Per each word: stop, yield, right
turn only, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 41.50
2) Per each: limit line per lane . . . . . . . . $ 14.17
3) Per each: crosswalk per lane ....... $ 28.34
c. Reflective Pavement Markers:
All types installed (each) ............... $ 3.42
d. Non-reflective Pavement Markers:
Bott's dot 4" round ceramic installed (each) . $ 2.40
e. Painted Curb
l) Curb Loading Zone
See Section IV.C.l - Curb Loading Zone Permit Fee.
Masur Fit SCMdllk
Port 11 . Dt."lopment
Clulptu Xl . Engineering
JLJ~5
Pllge 41
(Elf. Mil' 11,1993)
2) Painted Curb - Other than yellow
New - $l.30/lineal foot
Repainting - $ .66/lineal foot
f. Parking
1) Parking stalls: $5.03 per line, $10.06 complete
2) Parking Tis: $4.70 each
3) Parking meter poles installed: $61.38 each
2. Street N"me and Regulatory Signs
a. R€gulation, Warning and Guide Signs:
(Does not include pole or pole installation)
Size Sign Only Sign Only Installed
12" .$ 4.00 $ 35.00
18" 7.00 38.00
24" 19.00 50.00
30" 30.00 61.00
36" 42.00 73.00
48" 75.00 106.00
b. Street Name:
$ 50.00 per blade
$ 40.00 sign(s) only installed
c. Pole Pricing:
1) 2" ID round steel galvanized metal
-oR-
$1.50 per foot
~""""",,,,,,,,,,,,"""""'''''''A
$1.48 per foot
V-channel perforated metal posts
Master F" SCMdlllt
Part 11 . Development
CluJp~r Xl . Engineering
1t9-?
Pale 48
(Elf. May 11,1993)
..TellGpar Perforated Square Tubing
$3.40 per foot
~....../....../....../~
$2.38 per fool
2)
3)
Pole installation
$47.00
4) $10 additional for Tel-Spar Break-Away Post installation
5) $50 additional for installations requiring core drilling
3. Street Vacation Fees
The fee shall be a deposit to cover the Oty's full cost including overhead
for street closings or vacations or easements for public purposes, including
investigation, costs of services provided by the Oty in processing the
application, and the preparation of maps, plats or legal descriptions, shall
be paid to the Engineering Department at the time of filing of the
application for said closing or vacation. .
E. TRAFFIC
1. Street Overload/Transportation Permit
a. Single-move transportation $ 8.00
permit (non-house)
b. House move $55.00
c. Multiple load transportation $40.00
permit for a period up to six
months
d. Emergency move permit fees shall be
double the single-move fee
2. Traffic Signal Participation Fee
$13 for each trip generated by intended land use description according to
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) trip generation rates.
Maskr F" Scluduk
Ptu111 . /Hp,lopm,nt
CluJpkr Xl . Engin"ring
11f-?
PtJI, 49
(EJI. MG1 11,1993)
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1L-
Meeting Date 5/14/96
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Draft City of Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan for the
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning Qd
REVIEWED BY: City ManagerJ~ ~ .. (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX)
In June 1995, the City Council authorized Yff t~rward comments on the preliminary draft
of the Multiple Species Conservation Program, which was prepared by the City of San Diego,
and would apply to lands within the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, City of Chula
Vista, and several other jurisdictions within the southern and central portion of western San
Diego County. In addition, the City Council authorized staff to prepare a draft subarea preserve
plan for the City of Chula Vista, which could be included in the final draft MSCP and associated
Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) which is being
prepared for the program. In November, Council provided specific direction to staff regarding
inclusion of policies in the draft MSCP pertaining to the University Site designated in the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan.
The following report summarizes the status of the major issues raised by the City Council in
August regarding the draft MSCP, as well as summarizing the contents of a draft City of Chula
Vista Subarea Preserve Plan, including consideration of policies regarding the Otay Ranch
University Site.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1) tentatively endorse the policy positions taken by the San Diego City Council for inclusion
in the final draft MSCP Plan, and direct staff to continue to monitor City of San Diego
actions on unresolved issues and return with a final report once these actions are
completed;
2) provide any preliminary direction to staff regarding the draft City of Chula Vista Subarea
Preserve Plan, and continue this hearing to allow staff to provide input regarding matters
which are currently unresolved between staff and the wildlife agencies.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held a
workshop regarding this matter on May 8, but was not requested to take any action at this time.
The Resource Conservation Commission will be considering this matter on May 13, and their
/1-1
Page 2, Item 1L-
Meeting Date 5/14/96
preliminary comments on this matter will be provided in an oral report to the Council on
May 14.
DISCUSSION:
In June 1995, the City of Chula Vista completed its review of the draft MSCP Plan and draft
EIR/EIS. Following discussion of this Plan and EIR/EIS, the City Council authorized staff to
forward a letter to the City of San Diego containing comments regarding a number of policy
issues which were of concern to the City (see Attachments 1 and 2). At the same time, the
County of San Diego Board of Supervisors prepared a series of "deal/negotiation points" which
were similar in scope to the policy issues brought forward by the City of Chula Vista. These
policy issues and "deal/negotiation points" were discussed by a committee of elected officials
representing the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista and other MSCP
participants, and formed the basis for policy negotiations which have been conducted between
the local jurisdiction staffs and wildlife agency staffs since that time.
In its action on April 23, 1996, directing staff to complete preparation of the final draft MSCP,
the City of San Diego City Council provided policy direction to its staff regarding many of the
major policy issues which had been brought forward as a result of review of the previous draft
plan. The City of San Diego's positions on these issues are described in Attachment 3, which
includes memos from Mayor Susan Golding and Councilwoman Judy McCarty addressing these
issues. The City Council took action to approve the recommended positions on most of these
issues on April 23. Also included is a notice listing unresolved issues which will be further
discussed by the San Diego City Council on Tuesday, May 28 (tentative).
Our staff has reviewed the policy positions which have been endorsed to date by the San Diego
City Council, as reflected in these attachments, and find that they adequately address many of
the concerns previously expressed by the City of Chula Vista. We would recommend that our
City Council tentatively endorse these policy positions, and direct staff to continue to monitor
actions being taken by the City of San Diego on these issues and return with a final report once
the City of San Diego has completed its review and actions regarding the unresolved issues.
Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan
In addition to participating in the review and formulation of policy positions as described above,
City of Chula Vista staff has also prepared a draft Subarea Preserve Plan to be included in the
final draft MSCP, and evaluated in conjunction with the final draft MSCP EIR/EIS (see
Attachment 4). The City of Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan addresses the entire Chula Vista
General Plan Area, and includes three main components: 1) existing incorporated areas; 2) Otay
Ranch; and 3) the Bonita area, including San Miguel Ranch.
11- 7-
Page 3, Item .J..L
Meeting Date 5/14/96
The draft Subarea Preserve Plan has been drafted to conform to guidelines set forth by the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for the preparation of subarea plans under the
State's Natural Community Conserv~tion Program (NCCP). However, in light of certain key
policy issues associated with the Subarea Preserve Plan, staff has included reference to two
"alternatives" within Otay Ranch and San Miguel Ranch:
Alternative 1:
reflects existing General Plan and adopted General Development Plan land
use and open space designations.
Alternative 2:
would result in additional permanent open space being included in the
final plan in certain key locations, provided that terms of tentative
agreements pertaining to land use designations of other parcels andlor land
acquisition by the federal government are met.
With regard to Otay Ranch, the key locations which would be preserved under Alternative 2
include portions of Villages 13 (Resort Village), 14 (Proctor Valley village), and 15 ("south of
the lake"), all of which are east of the Otay Reservoir. The Baldwin Company has requested
certain land use considerations, involving transfers of residential density to the Western Parcel
and development within areas previously designated as open space on the Western Parcel, as a
trade-off for preservation of these key locations. These proposals would require approval of a
GDP amendment by the City and County. With regard to key locations on the Otay Ranch
owned by property owners other than the Baldwin Company, these properties are subject to a
tentative agreement whereby the federal government is pursuing possible purchase of these
properties.
In response to a specific request by Council when the MSCP was discussed at the Council
workshop on Otay Ranch on April 30, staff has had preliminary discussions with representatives
of the property owners of Village 15 ("south of lake") regarding a possible modified plan which
would reduce overall development within this area to further meet biological objectives, but still
provide an opportunity for development of estate-type housing within this area. Our preliminary
discussions have indicated that this approach may be feasible; however, additional analysis by
the property owner is needed prior to submitting a specific proposal, and discussions with the
wildlife agencies would also need to occur regarding this option. Staff will continue to pursue
this option with the property owners and the wildlife agencies during the coming months.
In addition, under Alternative 2, staff is recommending that a specific delineation of the
University Site east of Salt Creek Canyon which would minimize impacts to habitats within this
area be included for study. However, staff from CDFG and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
have not agreed to this approach, and discussions between the City and the wildlife agencies are
continuing on this critical issue. Unless agreement is reached regarding this issue prior to
Council consideration of this matter on May 14, staff would recommend that Council continue
action on this matter to allow staff to continue its discussions.
//- 3
Page 4, Item .....LL
Meeting Date 5/14/96
With regard to San Miguel Ranch, the key location to be preserved under Alternative 2 would
be the area of the Northern Parcel which is currently designated for development of up to 357
dwelling units under the City's previously adopted General Development Plan. The project
applicant has submitted two revised plans (one reflecting the Proctor Valley alignment of
SR-125, and the other reflecting the Citizens Advisory Committee alignment) which would
eliminate development from the Northern Parcel and would allow a greater number of residential
dwelling units on the Southern Parcel than are allowed under the previously approved GDP.
Staff is currently evaluating these plans, and will be forwarding recommendations to the
Planning Commission and City Council regarding them later this year.
In general, the draft Subarea Preserve Plan reflects either existing approved plans or tentative
agreements between individual property owners and the City. The exceptions include:
1) certain properties located along the Otay River, west of Otay Ranch, which are within
the focused planning area of the Otay Regional Park Plan; and
2) certain properties located near San Miguel Ranch, which are unincorporated and do not
have development plans at this time.
These properties have been designated for possible future inclusion in the preserve, consistent
with their designation as "open space" in the City's General Plan. However, in light of the fact
that these property owners have not prepared plans or negotiated tentative agreements with the
wildlife agencies and the City at this time, they are designated as "minor amendment" areas,
which means that they can be included in the Plan at a later date without requiring a major
amendment to the MSCP Plan. It should be noted that, in addition to unresolved issues
regarding the Otay Ranch university site, staff is also anticipating additional comments from
wildlife agency staffs regarding the draft subarea plan. Staff will report on this comments to
Council as they become available.
Next Steps
Following authorization by the City Council to forward the draft City of Chula Vista Subarea
Preserve Plan to the City of San Diego for inclusion in the final draft MSCP and EIR/EIS, the
City of San Diego and its consultants will require approximately 3 to 4 months to complete these
documents. Once they are completed, they will be brought back for further review and public
hearings by the City of Chula Vista and other participating jurisdictions in August or September
1996. In addition, it would be necessary for the City to enter into an Implementation
Agreement, as well as approving necessary General Development Plan amendments and
ordinance amendments, in order for the MSCP Subarea Plan to be fully implemented.
1/-1-
~//
PUBLIC HEARING o-IECK LIST
PUBUC~ATE: ~~ \~~1:
SUBJECT: l'"-\ \ ~\CAN D^- ~,~
~
LOCATION:
r; \\ ~b
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION -- BY FAX '" ; Y HAND ; BY MAIL
~\I._~\~,,= - -
PUBLICATION DATE
:",,- ;- ;;.
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS \" \ / . \.j) ...... NO. MAILED / '."1,---.
~ER GC ~54992 Legislative Staff, Construction Indus~ Fed, 6336 GreenWic~ Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
C,\\\0b
\ \
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
.~
Planning
Originating Department
Engineering
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
~
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
s\ \ \ L1 \0
\
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
7/93
-55';.
//-&
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEA,RING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY
COUNCIL of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering and providing policy direction
regarding the preparation of a Draft Subarea Preserve Plan for the City of Chula Vista. The Draft
Subarea Preserve Plan consists of a text and diagram which will implement the Draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan.
The MSCP is a comprehensive effort to protect existing natural habitats while accommodating
development necessary for the economic health of the San Diego region. The MSCP is a cooperative
effort by the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, the cities of Santee, Poway, Chula Vista, and
other jurisdictions in the southwestern area of San Diego County, state and federal wildlife agencies,
other special purpose agencies and representatives of the land development industry and environmental
organizations. A Draft MSCP Plan was released for public review in March 1995 to propose and identify
potential areas to be protected as part of a regional 164,000 acre preserve protecting 87 species.
With direction from the City Council, it is. ~xpected that the Draft Subarea Preserve Plan will be
incorporated into the environmental analysis for the MSCP, for which the City of San Diego is acting
as the lead agency. Final adoption of the preserve plan is not anticipated to be considered until Summer
of this year. There will be additional notification and public hearings prior to any adoption of the Final
. Subarea Preserve Plan.
You have been identified as an owner of property within the City of Chula Vista General Planning Area
which is included within, or adjacent to, the Draft Subarea Preserve Plan boundaries. It is encouraged
that you review a copy of the Draft Subarea Preserve Plan available in the Chula Vista Public Library
or the City of Chula Vista Planning Department, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula
Vista, CA, 91910. If you have any questions regarding the Draft Subarea Preserve Plan or the scheduled
. hearing you may contact Barbara Reid or DUafte Bazzel at (619) 691-5101.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL. BE HELD BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday,
May 14, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at
which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
I,
DATED: ,
May I, 1996
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
, The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals
who may require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or
service to request such accommodation at least fony-eighl hours in l1Ilvtmce for meetings and five dilys in
odvonce for scMdukd services and octivities. Please contact the City Clerk's office for specific information
at (619) 691-5041 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) (619) 585-5647. California Relay
Service is available for the hearing impaired.
(m:Ibcme\pIaDDiDgIlubuea2.DOt)
//-7
~~~
~-:
~~~~
----
em OF
CHUlA VISTA
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
TELEFAX COVER LEITER
Te1ecopier No. (619) 585-5612
DATE:
~ \ \\ct6
TO: Star News Legal
FAX NO: (619) 426-6346
FROM:~.~'L~~
SUBJEcr:~~~\
TOTAL NO. PAGES (including cover): ~
PUBliCATION DATE: ~ \\. V11b
\ \
\ "'\' (\
. \}L-
If all pages are not received, please call ~ ~ (619)691-5041.
(/
//-0'
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5041
~ F\lo!{.aamr Roc,dod_
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold
public hearings to consider the following:
A request to combine districts and amend the listed land uses for the
Employment Park districts in the Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area I
Plan (SPA I Plan). The request would affect the properties located east of
the Price Club on the east and north sides of Tierra del Rey, those located
on Amena Court and those along Canarios Court.
Amendments to Municipal Code Sections 15.04.06 and 15.04.145, to substitute
the reference to "City Landscape Architect" with "Director of Planning or
designee" as it relates to land development permits. This will complete minor
code changes for consistency with the City Landscape Manual.
Policy direction regarding the preparation of a Draft Subarea Preserve Plan
for the City of Chula Vista. The Draft Subarea Preserve Plan consists of a
text and diagram which will implement the Draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on these matters in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, May
14, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth
Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
DATED: May 1, 1996
. ~.J
// - 'j
MAY- 1-96 WED 16:36
.. ..,
;~}~~~
:'. , .~:)" ~.I..
~~;~
~...' tJ "
;:)\':.:!~;
.... ,::~,''''.'t:'':
f.'.... '
t . . .
,-./.1 I';
'f~ ':I~'~~':~ ~:';.:
'11't~':.. '
~ ~ l. ,1/.. ,.1 ".
....~.::}..: l.'
,'"."" "~(I \
: " "~ ..:~ ~ t.:
~.~ ~."~:"~~I
I." ~t. "', -.' :
: .~~ : ",' ...~....
',~,~,"::. f .~;~
::... ~;~ ~~~~. ~
. ....~ ""', ~"I~ I,
. ..~':,!' Ill, t'...
. '.~ "";'j' I,
.~':~;..~ '.::':.",,
..Ij II'r.1i',
':",; .~ . ," :.:"'
. (.. f,II';,t .'~
~'~l~~ f'~ '~: ":.
i~:~i!1
"r ;.1..,
i:;FiH
:.::~~.j:~ :~'. -.
:.....:...; : ~'....
~r::::)?}.~:~
:...: ;',:.' '..'1
E;~i\:::
r,l, .'." .'~/I'\
",',' ':',: ':..: I
.~:.J:./) :';:,:~
,',.... ,"I t..
': \ "" I~ I. ".,..:'
',' ~" ;~: t' :: .~, ,: I .~
~:.);.~;,.~
- ~';' '.\II~S 1~1~',~'
.:>-:,'. \. ,:.~, ~"Y:
..' ,\.'"
:;:{~J;;~:~
~\ ':.;:'.';' r.~ i\~ .'.
. : I' :,'~ ~:. .1:1.
:;.".)?::~ ~,\.i.:l
::"..:'1, :;....~4;...~' 4'~
,.,.....t,. ,II .
.':.i~~J:<:::.::.:\~ ,~
.,.: tlr" 1 ~ ...
:./"1::' ;'.,',,;:\
, . I. ,. .
05-01-1996 02:48PM FROM
TO
5.4
NOnce. OF PUBLIC
HEARING BV THE CHUlA
Viet A ClTY COUNCIL
CHULA VISTA.
CALIfORNIA
NgTtvi Ii tilflVY c;l.
YEN THAT THE CHULA
VISTA CITY COUNCIL -.ld
hotd ~tk hearinVt \0 con-
1\'" the fallowing:
A ~est \0 c:ombine dis-
trlc~ end amend 1he listed
1and us. for the Etnpl~.
ment Park d'lSttidt In \fie
Ranc1lo del Rev ~
P~nlng Aral Plan (SPA I
Plan). The request would af.
f9cl the ~~s located
cmt of fin rooa G~b in ~,
eat and north sides of
TklTa dol Roy, thDsI It>
catsd on Amn Court and
those along Canarios COurt
Amendmenll to Municipal
Code S8et\onl16.04.06 and
16.04,145. i) aubslitul. I\e
ref<<ence to "Cfty Land..
cape Ard111oct" with OiteClor
of Planning or designee" .
it rolatet to IIno do-
volo~nt permits. This wm
compl..tl minor code
chq8G for COI'siste~
with the City landscape
M'tlual.
Po\k;y direction regarflng
the preparation of a Draft
SutJ8rea Preserve Plan for
the City of Chula Vl&ta. The
Oraft Subaret Pr8HNe
PI8n oonsistl of a text and
diAgram which win impte.
ment tie Draft Multlfl\8 Spe-
det eorwervation Program
(u~~P!h to challenge
the City" lGion on those
ft\attel'81n court, you may be
Imlled 10 raIsing only those
issUf:18 you or IOI'lIGOne else
raised AI tht p'ublic heating
doscribed in 1\1, notice. or in
written ~ndenCe de-
livered 10 the Citl Clerk's 01-
flCe at Dr prior to the pulilC
hearing.
SAID PUBUO HEARING
WIU. ~ U'LD IV 1M!
erN COUNCIL on tues-
day, ~ 14. 1~1. at 6;00
p.m. 1ft the CoUncil Cham-
beIS. Putll~ Services Build.
lng, ~78 FolJI'th Avenue. at
which tim, any person desl1'~
inO tD bO hearG may appear.
"DATED: tAay 1._ '\996
(l;yy) {}r\ ~
tL~
OK
UJLS
//'- / D
P.02
4289355
1='.01
'id,b -/0 3L!&
. ':
Page 5, Item!.L-
Meeting Date 5/14/96
FISCAL IMPACT:
The final draft MSCP Plan will include an updated fiscal and economic analysis of the overall
program.
Attachments:
1) Letter to Dave Flesh, City of San Diego, from City of Chula Vista, dated July 27, 1995, regarding Final Draft
MSCP.
2) Letter to John Kovac, City of San Diego, from City of Chula Vista, dated July 10, 1995, regarding Draft Joint
EIR/EIS for MSCP. .
3) MSCP Policy Positions, City of San Diego.
4) Draft City of Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan for the Multiple Species Conservation Program, dated May 9,
1996.
(F9\MSCP.All)
II-~/II-II
!
--~.......~---,~~~...,--~,-,_.<_."~~..,...~>,~~-~~---~"'~,~--~'"..--,...._.-~--_...,._.._".._~_.~,"-'"'.~..
.
.
~~~
iiiJIJ!iij;
~~~
CI1Y Of .
CHUlA VISI'A
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
July 27, 1995
ATTACHMENT 1
Dave Flesh
Advanced PISlnning Section
Metropolitan Wastewater Dept.
600 B Street, Suite 500
San Diego, CA 92101
Subject:. Final Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan
Dear Dave:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Public Review Draft MSCP Plan. The City of
Chula Vista's comments include concerns raised by the planning Department, Fire Department,
Community Development Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, Otay Ranch Project
Team, City Attorney, Resource Conservation Commission, and various property OWDC1'S, and
have been reviewed by the City COuncil at public hearings which were held on JUDe 13 and June
20, 1995. I am attaching a copy of the City Council Agenda Statem~ regarding this mauer,
(Attachments A and B) which provide further explanation regarding many of our comments.
Given the large number of unresolved issues regarding ~e draft MSCP Plan, we are requesting
that the City" of San Diego provide us with additional time to resolve these Issues prior to
completion of the fmal EIRlEIS for this project. We would like to meet with your staff at your
earliest convenience to discuss the status of these issues in further detail, aDd work with you to
develop a time line for resolution of these issues, and preparation of a "lUbarea plan" for the
Chula Vista planning area.
."
In addition, the City Council has requested that, once we have completed a ~le and work
program for completion of a suba:rea plan, we again DOtify property 0WDm who would be
affected by the proposed plan, and provide further opportunity for public input. Therefore. we
wish to emphasize that the comments C01'tJli~ in this letter ahould DOt be constrUed as
representing a final action by the City of Chu1a Vista regarding the MSCP, aDd that the City
reserves the right to make further modifications regarding the draft Plan as a result of receiving
furtber iDput on this matter.
II :;('"
, -/
/. .
171 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA · CAUFOANIA 1"'0 · (11') .,-1,0,
.._.__.~. a...........
.:
Dave Flesh
-2-
July 27, ~995
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. ~ultlple Habitat Planninll Area Boundarv
As discussed in the attached Agenda Statement, we have several major issues with regard
to the draft Multiple Habitat planning Area (MHP A) boundary for the ChuIa Vista
General Plan Area which are unresolved. Based on our evaluation to date, we are
requesting that the following modifications be made to the MHP A boundary for the
Chula Vista PJanning Area:
1) Areas which have already been placed in preserve ownership, or which already
have SPA Plan or equivalent level of approval, should be given a "90 % preserve
area" designation;
2) Areas which have not received SPA Plan level approval, but for which draft
conservation agreements are currently being prepared, are being designated as
"future 90% preserve areas," and would be redesignated as "90% preserve areas"
once written agreements among the wildlife agencies, City, and property owners
are obtained;
3) Areas which are designated in the City's General Plan as "open space, " but which
do Dot meet the criteria above, are being designated as "special stUdy areas," and
their designations will be rermed through fUrther analysis to be conducted at the
subarea plan level to determine the extent of resources to be protected and the
. feasibility of acquisition;
4)
Areas which are designated as "open space" in the General Plan, but where it has
already been determined that the area is not appropriate for inclusion in a habitat
preserve system due to its isolated location or other non.preserve use, are being
removed from the MHP A boundary at this time.
Attached is a map which shows these designations (see Attachment C).
:
Based on the current status of resolution of those issues, we are also requesting that the
City of San Diego provide us with additional time to accomplish the following:
a) continue discussions with the wildlife agencies, County of San Diego, and
property owners to resolve preserve design issues pertaini"g to Otay Ranch, and
enter into a preliminary written agreement regarding preserve design for this.
project;
//-/3
f'!1TY t'C ""'111 & VlC!T&
'.
Dave Flesh
-3-
July 27, 1995
b)
continue discussions of a similar nature regarding preserve design issues for the
San Miguel Ranch project, aDd enter into a preliminary agreement for this
project;
c) -
identify other properties within our plSlnnblg Area which are currently proposed
to be designated as "special study areas, - where subarea plans could be prepared
relatively quickly aDd such areas be redesignated as -90 ~ preserve "areas-in the
final Plan;
d)
complete a draft subarea plan for the Cbula Vista plSlnn;"g Area, taking into
account the other actions described above.
2. financin~ and Preserve Assemblv
As discussed in our Council Agenda Statement, we feel that a lignif'acant amount of
additional work is required in order for a viable overall fiDaDcing aDd preserve assembly
plan to be completed. .
Specifically, we feel that the Policy Principles approved by the MSCP Policy Committee
on June 2 which deal with -Financing" (Principles 8 - 12) Deed to be directly addressed
in the preparation of ~ final draft MSCP Plan, aDd would note that the conservation
targets which are suggested in Principle , 10 cannot be fully determined until further
clarification is obtained on other aspects of the fmancing plan, IUCh as state and federal
shares...
We also feel that the issues regarding ,ovemance of a regional fiDaDcing program, as "
well as other aspects of regional plan implementation, have not been adequately
addressed in the draft Plan. Prior to mSlking any commitment toward a regional furwting
source as described in Policy Principle , 12, we would Deed to have a better
understanding as to what regional entity (existing or Dew) would be responsible for
making policy decisions regarding IUCh a program, and bow it would be administered.
We also request that any such funding program be evaluated in the context of other
regional facility needs (e.g., regional ttansportation) which may require similar typeS of
funding programs in the future.
Finally, at the MSCP Policy Committee meetiD& on JuDe 2, a i~lIlescDtative of the
USFWS made two importaDt clarifying points related to Plan finanl!1nI and
implementation:
1) the permit authority granted to any lingle jurisdiction through the MSCP Plan will
be limited, to the extent that a local fUnding source is established at the time the
implementing agreements are approved;
I/-/~
~ITV OF CHULA V'I~TA
Dave Flesh
....
July 27, .1995
2) USFWS will be asking for ~tus reports regarding implementation plans from all
participating jurisdictions at the time the final MSCP Plan is completed, aDd will
~ evaluating the status of cae.! jurisdiction's winterim loss permit" auf40rity
under the 4 (d) lUle at that time.
In response to these points, we would like to receive further clarification regarding the
level or amount of incidental take is to be determined and allocated, both on a short-term
and longer-term basis.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
. Page 1-3, Figure 1-2, depiction of the jurisdictional boundary of the City implies
that the City has land use control over the port lands, lands owned by the .school
districts, and the water districts, which it does not. (plAnning)
2.0 DESCRIFI10N OF MSCP STUDY AREA
. Page 2-10, The Plan implies that the core area is not fragmented. The Eastern
Chula Vista core and linkage areas include many developed areas which. are
shown on the MSCP Plan. This needs further enmination in light of the plan's
goal that 70-80 % should be useable and that according to page 3-43, WIf
..percentages of each core area included in the preserve design are less than 70 to
80 percent, then the difference must be justified with biological data showing that
biological viability and functions.are being m"intai~, as appropriate for selected
species and habitats." (planning)
3.0 CONSERVATION PLAN
. Page 3-2, Covered Species - A provision should be added that would allow for
the automatic extension of the City'. take authority to those species that are
presently "covered" by the MSCP but have not yet been listed as a protected or
endangered species under the EtatJAngered Species Act. In addition, the federal
and state lovermnent should not be allowed to ask for DeW mitigation measures
for such species. 1be Model Implementing Agreement only provides that the
MSCP shall be deemed to be adequate to support an application for such a
permit. 1bis means that any time an additional covered species is IUbsequentl~
listed as protected or endA1'lgered the City would have to apply for a DeW "take"
permit. (Attorney)
.//-/5
Dave Flesh
-5-
. . July 27, 1995
. Page 3-9, Provide an overlay of the plan with species locations for all of the
alternatives and include in the report. (Resource CoDservation Commission) .
. Page 3-34,.There are several bay species that are DOt covered and DO additional
protection for muilerous covered 'pedes is being provided through the MSCP.
bence. they should not be covered or the Port District should be requested to be
an active participant in the program (list of species on page 3-24). (Resource
Conservation Commiqion)
. The Ree's preference is that the preserve design be modified to iDclude known
populations that currently fall outside of the preserve desip.
. The state of completion of the HCP for the SweetWater River is unknown. Is
there currently I draft plan and can it be iDcorporated into the MSCP? (RCC)
. Many covered species are counting on the wetland protection through the Army
Corps of Engineers permitting. How will we be assured that covered wetland
species will be preserved through this process? (RCC)
. A priority system of land acquisition should be developed to eDCOUl'Ige in-kind
mitigation whenever possible. (RCC)
. Watershed management plans are uecessary in conjunction with the adoption of
the MSCP to prevent adverse downstream impacts to the preserve which will
require a high levef of D'lain~nance and upkeep at peat expense to the City in
. 'pcrpetuity. (RCC and Staff)
. Page 3-42. Based on Table 3-8. the probability of extinction after 200 years of
implementation of the MSCP does not meet the goals established in the draft plan.
(Resource Conservation Commi~sion)
. .
. Page 3-43. the draft MSCP identifies -biological core areas- aDd -linkages- and
fuJ1her requires that the preserve design iDclude 70S to SOS of tbese areas~ The
identified core areas and linkages affect every major current CommunitY
Development project. iDcluding the Midbayfront project, the MCA
Amphitheater/City Corporation Yard. the Veteran'. Home. the Lower SweetWater
Valley project. and properties along the Sweetwater and Otay Rivers between 1-5
and I-80S. Three major issues exist with respect to the application of preserving
. specified percentage of habitat within these areas. Fint, all of the coreIIinkage
areas include land within other jurisdictions. IJmltation on development withiIi
these areas would require allocation of allowable development percentages by
jurisdiction or be complicated by oversight by . JeJional ~. Second,
resource quality varies from ODe coreIIinkage area to another. It does not seem
1/-/&
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Dave Flesh
.
.
-6-
July 27, 1995
JelSonable to apply a blanket percentage of preserve area to all corelliDkage areas
since some resources may require protection of not only the resource area, but
. substanrlal buffer from development as well. Otht:s may require direct
protection of the resource, allowing . JilniflCllltly areatcr proportion of
development. Third, some corellinkage areas contain . greater quantity of habitat
than others. For instance, some core areas may be laced with developable 1aDd
wbile others contain more contiguous habitat. Universal development limitations
would not recognize these differences. (Community Development and pIAnn;11g)
.
Page 3-43, Although it appears that the corellinkage areas have been established
for solid habitat. planning reasons, the actual boundaries appear to be quite
lenera1. Community Development bas a great concern over application of
specific limitations on development within these imprecisely delineated areas. We
would suggest that the core/linkage concept be retained as a preserve planning
tool, but that there not be a limitation on development within those areas as
currently depicted in the draft plan. (Community Development)
.
Pages 3-43 and 3-95 discuss that the covered species are -open to change
depending on biological data" yet the implementing agreement says otherwise.
1bis is general and vague; the plan should define bow new data should be
incorporated upon agreement between participating agencies. (Resource
Conservation Commission)
.
Page 3-43, Pampas grass should be listed as invasive exotic plant. (Resource
: Conservation Commission)
.
Page 3-45, Buffer Areas - The plan calls for adequate buffers depending on
adjacent land uses and resources. They indicate edge effect studies suggest a
minimum of 150 feet. More information is ueeded on the location and use of the
ISO-foot buffer. The general development plan for the Otay Ranch includes a
requirement for an Overall Design Plan. An element of this plan is a dom;nAnt
skyline l.nd~pe treatment. Some specific IAnd~. materials in this plan may
be in conflict with the MSCP. (Otay Ranch)
.
Page 3-45, Preserve shape that m;n;m;7,CS edge effects (p.3-4S) - The Otay Ranch
Preserve area bas detailed studies that justify the preserve bcnmdaIy. Vertical as
weD as horizontal separation should be considered betWeen the development area
and the preserve. (Otay Ranch)
Page 3-45, Management Feasibility ~ Land uses within and adjacent to preserve
have to comply with compatib~ity guidelines. These guide1iDes need to be
reviewed in relationship to the Otay RaDch GDP/SRP. (Otay Ranch)
.
i/-/1
____ elTV nF C...ULA\ll.SIA.....
,.
Dave Flesh
-7-
July 27, 1995
. Page 3-65, Compensating Mitigation - The Otay Ranch bas already determined
.compensating mitigation" as part of the Phase 1 RMP aDd will further identify
specific mitigation under Phase 2. Avoidance, impact ,dir,imi7J1ltion aDd
Jeplacement have all been determined in the RMP. We are concerned that
additional mitigation will be required beyoDd the requirements of the RMP.
(Olay Ranch)
. Page 3-67, Although this section deals with the public financing of long-term
maintenance of natural habitat, would it not be appropriate to include f\lnding that
would cover the cost of brush management as well. (Fire)
.. Page 3-90, paragraph I, it will be important for us in the future during the
Implementing Agreement and Subarea Plan stage to assess the impact of the
MSCP Plan upon the City's existing and future infrastn1cture aDd public works.
Also, it will be important to e'l[ami~ whether certain infrastn1cture systemS, such
as sewer or other utility lines will be accommodated within the planN".d habitat
areas. (Public Works)
. Page 3-90, the secoDd paragraph UDder Section 3.4.1 titled Subarea Plan
Approval iDdicates that subarea plans may be prepared by developers using the
adopted MSCP Plan as a framework plan and incorporating its guidelines. Since
the boundaries of the biological core areas and linkages is not clearly derIDed in
the MSCP Plan, there may be a conflict between the developers' subarea plan and
the city's plans of Infrastructure, Public Facilities aDd Circulation Element
.-development. (Public Works)
Page 3-90, Subarea Plan Approval- We are concerned as to wbcther the Phase
2 RMP will satisfy the Subarea Plan requirements. Criteria for the subarea plan
needs to be established to ensure the RMP is consistent with the wildlife agencies'
plans for subareas. (Otay Ranch)
.'
.
. Page 3-95, Preserve Management - Additional information is Deeded on the
Preserve Management to ensure the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner Manager is
consistent. We are concerned about conflicts with the goals of the Otay Ranch
GDP for the Preserve Owner Manager. (Otay Ranch)
. Page 3-95, MSCP Plan ~ aDd Data Base Updates -1be Otay Ranch
Project Team is ccmcemed about Iddi"l additional species to the Plan after its
adoption. The Otay Ranch bas a 30 to 50 year build out aDd aeeds more.
assurance these Nles will be consistent and DOt dwlged. (Otay Ranch)
. Page 3-96, Annual Accounting and Biological Monitoring - The RMP requires
monitoring and reporting on the preserve. We are concerned about consistency
II - IS)
,..~ fV: "'loltn.A~
'.
Dave Flesh
-8-
July 27, 1995
in reporting standards and that effons DOt be duplicated with the Phase 2 RMP
reporting. (Otay Ranch) .
Au! ,bment D includes additional comments forwarded to Council at their meeting
of June 20, 1995 from the Resource Conservation Commiqion. Specific
technical comments ~1ing with approved projects such as the Otay Ranch
General Development will be further evaluated by staff prior to recommending
any specific changes to the final adopted MSCP Plan.
4.0 COMPATIBLE LAND USE ACTIVITIES AND PRESERVE MANAGEMENT
GUIDELINES
. ' The land use designation for the golf courses to the west of the Sweetwater Dam
should retain its linkage capability as open space. (RCC)
. Page 4-1, Some activities listed for inclusion or exclusion make sense, and some
don't. Of concern relating to the Otay Valley Regional Park is the identification
of the placement of active recreation in the buffer zone. This mayor may not be
possible in the western reach of the regional park where the concept plan is
proposing recreation directly adjacent to existing development to north, and the
riparian zone of the south. An insufficient buffer zone occurs here to
accommodate active recreation based on the requirements and descriptions in the
text. (parks &. Recreation)
. Pages 4-2 through 4-4 - How was Table 4-2 on page 4-4, areas of compatible
"land uses, compiled; i.e., land fill is used as buffer but could bring other feral
animals; utility roads are not compatible with preserve; low density residential is
compatible with preserve. How is compatibility de~? Exercising a pet
in a preserve is not compatible with endangered species. (Resource Conservation
Commission)
'.
. Page 4-3, Hang gliding, off-road vehicles, and other land use compatibility issues
should be reviewed. (Resource Conservation Commi~~ion)
. Page 4-3, It appears that the MSCP will not preclude the JEPA and the City of
ChuIa Vista from utiJi7ing the Otay Valley as a portion of the -Greenbelt- and
the OVRP. Specifics regarding the proper location, lite plAnn;"g aDd impacts of
active recreation is an issue that will have to be addressed to determine if the
areas that have been indicated on the OVRP Concept Plan for recreation are
acceptable. (parks &. Recreation)
. Page 4-4, Section Four of the document contains a section that addresses the issue
of land uses in the Core Area, Unkages and Buffer Area. Table 4-1 and 4-2 list
;/-/9
---
Dave Flesh
-9-
. July 27, 1995
uses for general activities and recreational activities, respectively. The text and
Table 4-2 lists recreational activities that may or may DOt be compatible or
conditionally compatible with the MSCP Core, Linkage and Buffer areas. (parks
" Recreation)
. Page 4-5, Single houses, cattle JI'IZinI, apiculture, aDd streets are considered
campahole in the plan. However, they arc a major conduit for the IpI'Cid of
invasive species and should only be allowed in coordination with exotic lpCCies
removal programs. (Resource Conservation Commi~sion)
. Page 4-5, Roads change the management requirements due to edge effects, "swath
of death" (a term used by some biologists referring to an area where animals may
be killed), increase access to preserve areas in such a major way that it should be
addressed. (Resource Conservation Commi~ion)
. Page 4-7 - Guidelines for Preserve Management Activities - Fire Management -
To frre officials, this section is most critical. Fire Management Plans should be
detailed and veryspccific. (Fire)
. Page 4-9, the fencing standards described here arc DOt consistent with the fencing
for the Otay Ranch listed in the Overall Design Plan. (Olay Ranch)
. Page 4-11, Management plans arc also identified as a requirement of the MSCP
Program. How would this requirement "mesh" with the OVRP and Otay Ranch
Preserve Owner Manager Programs? (Parks & Recreation)
. . .Page 4-17 -This is an area where fuel management is mentioned, but not in the
context of blUsh management and hazard abatement. (Fire)
6.0 STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES, IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
. Page 6.0 - Liability - Tberc are a DUmber of liability issues' with respect to
implementing the MSCP. As. result of the recent Supreme Court decision of
Dolan v. City of TiJard, 94 D.A.R. 8803 (JUDe 27, 1994), die EMSII1'lgered
Species Act bas come UDder iDtcnsc scrutiny. Consequently, we can DOt predict
with . great degree of cenainty the outcome of a cballeDge to the MSCP at this
stage of its development. However we do know that such a Milllqc would be
expensive to litigate and if the City was to receive aD adverse jud~, it could
be quite costly. In addition, tbe MSCP requires tbe City as well IS other .
jurisdictions to design mitigation policies which could result in permit exactions
beiDa imposed dlat may be held by . court of law DOt to be IOUghly proportional
to the project'. impact. In a~ tbe federal and state lovemmems are
.
I! -;) {}
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
,
.
:
Dave Flesh
-10-
July 27, .1995
.
spreading the risk of liability from a-takings - downwards to the local
jurisdictions. Our offICe has repeatedly requested that the federal aDd state
government indemnify the Ci..y. This request has been refused. At t'.IC' very
least, the federal and state governments should provide the City with an opinion
or a representation in the Implementing Agreement regarding the legality of the
MSCP and its implementation. (Attorney)
Page 6-1, Statement of Assurances - This section should _ also address blUSh
management for life safety considerations. (Fire)
.
Page 6-1, Assurances - A definition of extraordinary circumstances is Deeded to
understand when additional species or land might be idded to the Plan. The Otay
Ranch, asa long-term project, needs certain assurance that the Plan will remain
consistent. If the biological data is updated every year, is there the potential for
extraordinary circumstances. (Otay Ranch)
8.0 CITY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA PRESERVE PLAN
. The success of skylights at road crossings is not known at this time. J>>lease
provide performance studies for the success of skylights at road crossings as used
on Route 52 prior to their installation. (Resource Conservation Commission)
. Page 8-21 Section 8.6.2, paragraph 2, states that -The Olympic Training Center
is planned for the west side of Lower Otay Lake. - The text needs to be corrected
: to indicate that the majority of the project has been araded and some area
developed. (planning)
. Page 8-21, Inclusion of a Subarea Plan for San Miguel Ranch, Otay Ranch,
Eastern Territories and the Rivers and Bays of ChuIa Vista are needed, These
are being prepared for submittal. (planning)
. In areas designated 70% or greater, the Proctor Valley Road c:mmection should
be permitted to connect areas north of the Upper Otay Reservoir through and to
Highway 94.
A MODEL JMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT
. On page 12 of Attac~ent A -]'he Model hnplementine AJreemenl, the Plan
states that -Local jurisdictions and other participating local jurisdictions shall
determine whether or not geographic and in-kind mitigation requirements will be
waived for any particular public or private development project. - 'Ibe inference
here is that the plan as it is proposed can be- adopted even if some of the
,
/ j-;( /
Dave Flesh
-11-
July 27, 1995
jurisdictions involved choose to DOt participate. If that oc:cuned, . DeW plan
would be needed. (plAnning)
. J...u,chment A, page 2, Inwlemet"'J.!:ion Apeement -Key exhibits that were to be
Ittacbed to the document iDcludiDg the Assurances Policy m;l the Specific
Biological Monitoring Obligations are DOt iDcludcd. They Deed to be included.
(P1anni"l)
. SeverabilitY - The Model Implementing Agreement should iDclude . severability
clause which would provide the City with protection from the actions of other
participants in the MSCP. In other words, the City should have I guarantee that
its "Take" permit would DOt be jeopardized by the actions or inactions of other
local jurisdictions. (Attorney)
. Withdrawal - The Implementing Agreement should iDclude I provision that would
allow the City to withdraw from the MSCP should federal or state laws or
RgulatiOns change. This is particularly imponant because of the recent
discussions by the Legislature regarding the future of the fM.~ered Species
Act. In addition, should the federal or state government require modifications to
the implementation of the MSCP due to "unforeseen circumstaDces" the City
should have the right to withdraw from the MSCP. (See the comment on
unforeseen circumstances below.) In addition, our withdrawal from the MSCP
should be allowed without penalty or liability and there should be I guarantee that
our withdrawal would DOt impact previous "take" permits issued by the City and
relied on by property owners. (Attorney)
Page 9, Unforeseen Circumstance - The Model Implementing Agreement gives
the federal and state government too much discretion to c:bange the terms of the
MSCP. Specifically, the Model Implementing Agreement provides that the
federal and state governments could seek additional mitigation from the City if
there is an "Unforeseen CircumstaDce. " The term "unforeseen CircumstaDce if
far too ambiguous and should be more strictly derIDed. In addition the City
should be allowed to withdraw from the MSCP if we disagree with . subsequent
cbange in the terms of the MSCP. (Attorney)
.
..
. ~ly Functionin2 - The Model Implementing Agreement provides that
additional land or financial compensation or other form of mitigation will DOt be
requited 10 10lIl IS the MSCP is .properly functioning." 1'berefore it is critical
that the term "properly fuDctioniDa MSCP" be defiDed to our utisfaction in the
Implementing Agreement. (Auomey) .
. Annexed 'J!IMS - We will Deed to clarify in our Implementing Agreement bow
annexed lands will be handled. Currently, the federal and state government has
/1- },.J
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
.I
Dave Flesh
-12- .
July 27, 1995
.
represented that take authorizations can only apply to land within the land uSe
jurisdiction of the local entity. We will Deed to clarify that once land is annexed
to the City, the Citj's take authorization will aUfomatiCl'Uy app~l to that land and
that we can include this land in our subarea plans. (Attorney)
We have provided you with only our preliminary review of the MSCP IDd Model
Implementing Agreement. We anticipate having additional questions and
comments upon our further review of these documents. (Attorney)
Attachment A, Page 12 - Several references were made to .DOn in-kind
mitigation"; the plan's priority system of land acquisition should be determined
and compensation through like-kind mitigation required when possible. (Resource
Conservation Commission)
. Page 13, Funding - The local jurisdictions are being requested to provide a far
greater level of commitment to fund the MSCP than either the federal or state
governments. In fact, the Model Implementing Agreement does DOt adequately
obligate the federal or state government to provide fundjng for the MSCP. In
addition it is unclear whether a lack of funding by the federal or state
governments would be considered to impact the .proper functioning" of the
MSCP. It is our understanding that federal officials have represented that the
local jurisdictions would not be .harmed" if the federal government should not
be able to adequately fund the MSCP. However this representation is not reflected
in either the MSCP or the Model Implementing Agreement. Perhaps. the
." preserve land requirements should be decreased if the federal government is
unable to adequately fund the MSCP. In addition, a provision should be added
that the funding responsibilities of the federal and state governments sba11 not .'
have an impact on the .proper functioning" of the MSCP. (Attorney)
Finally. we wish to note that with regard to the Otay Ranch. the MHP A designation in the Salt
Creek Canyon area is not intended to supersede or in any way limit existing policies in the
adopted Otay Ranch General Development Plan I Subregional Plan which allow for. certain
university-related uses to be located in this area (see Attachment E.)
In addition to the specific comments above regarding the draft MS.CP Plan, we also wish to raise
a concern regarding the City of San Diego draft IUbarea plan (Chapter 8). It is our
understanding that the City is proposing that l00~ of the City-owned properties in the watershed
area adjacent to Upper and Lower Otay Reservoir be vrili7.ed as preserve area. We are
concerned that this approach could preclude the ability to extend Proctor Valley Road. and other
DeCeSsary public utilities, through this area. IDd would conflict with the City of Chula Vista and
County General Plans for this area. We would request that this matter be .reviewed and
clarified .
//-;<3
Dave Flesh
'-13-
July 27, 1995
Letters of comment which were forwarded to the CitY of Chula Vista for your information arid
direct response are also attached, along with the City Council agenda statement which includes
additional comments from the RCC.
If you have any questions on the above, please feel free to contact me at 691-S101, or Barbara
Reid, Associate"p~r, at 691-S097.
Sincerely,
ZkJLI:.
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Attachments:
NOT SCANNED
A) City Council Agenda Statement, dated June 13, 1995_
B) City Council Agenda Statement, dated June 20, 199sN01'SCANNED
C) Map showing proposed revisions to MHP A boundary for Chula Vista General Plan Area) .
D) Letter from Craig Beam of Luee, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, dated June 19, 1995
E) Excerpt from Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan, dated
October 28, 1993
(III: \JloIne\plannina lnaiIc:y\flcsh2.Iu)
/1-~LjIII-J5
CITY OF CHULA VIS A
~~~
~.
~~~
CIlY Of
CHULA VJSrA
PlANNING DEPARnAENT
ATTACHMENT 2
July 10, 1995
John Kovac
City of San Diego
Development Services Deparunent
Development & Environmental Pla.nning Division
1222 First Street; Mail Station SOl
San Diego, CA 92101
Subject: Draft Joint EIRlEIS Multiple Species Conservation Program
Dear Mr. Kovac:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above sited document. Our comments are as
follows:
Page ES-17 Biological Resources. Development of 400 acres of active recreational uses in
the Otay Valley within the boundaries of the Otay Ranch along with the various
transportation facUities crossing the valley will be reviewed as Sectional planning
Areas within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan are reviewed for this
area. This subsequent review will assure the greatest reduction of any potential
environmental impacts.
Public ServiceslFacilities. The various public facilities shown on the Chula Vista
General Plan will be the subject of more detailed environmental analysis when
specific design and/or development proposals are available.
Page 13
The implementation of the MSCP by the City of Chula Vista may involve more
than amendments to the Planned Community (PC) zoning standards. . Other more
conventional %One classifications may also have to be amended. .
Page 83
Fire Protection. The Fire Deparunent has indicated that this section of the
EIRlEIS is vague and should specifically address the issue of blUSh and fuel
management. The Fire Department will also be reviewing with more specific
plans issues relating to: 1) siting of fire stations; 2) staffmg; 3) slope conditions;
4) brush management; and 5) water supply.
Page 119
Figure 27. The residential development shown on the southern part of Otay Rio
Vista Business Park was not approved as part of that project and, therefore, those
development areas should not be depicted on this figure.
11- ,:2, (p
276 FOURTH AVENUE · CHULA VISTA · CALIFORNIA .1.10 · (81') .1.5101
John Kovac
Page 201
Page 227
--
Page 239
-2-
July 10, 1995
City of Chula Vista. At the end of the paragraph following the fU'St bullet, there
is an a~t typographical el:or duplicating several lines 11~~Sarily:
Table 39. This table should reference Figure 7 on page 36 and utilize the same
number and lettering system.
City of Chula Vista. Please note our previous comments regarding the
tranSpOrtation facilities crossing the Otay Valley. Additionally, in the paragraph
following the fU'St bullet, the reference to Otay Lakes Park Road should be
changed to Otay Lakes Road.
The cominents below are from the City's Resource Conservation Commission.
Page 131
Figure 15
Figure 15
The last paragraph. The EIRlEIS references two areas (over 1,000 acres in size)
that are being changed from low density residential land use to preserve. The
document needs to specify what specific areas are being described.
The RCC would like to see Figure 15 overlaid with the MHP A for evaluation
purposes.
Also, the RCC would like to see all the preserve alternatives ovr.rlaid with the
vegetation community (Figure 15).
In addition, please note that the City of Chula Vista has submitted extensive comments regarding
the draft MSCP Plan (see attached letter from Robert A. Leiter, Director of planning, dated July
10, 1995.) We would hereby request that the changes to the draft MHPA boundary which are
proposed in this letter, along with other comments on the draft MSCP Plan which are discussed
therein, be evaluated in the revised EIRlEIS, and if necessary, that this document be
redistributed for ac;tditional public review prior to certification. We woUld like to discuss this
matter further with your staff at the earliest possible date. .
Sincerely,
~tfft!
~l . 1
Enviro ntaI Review Coordinator
cc: Gail Kobetich, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
AWl~hment: Letter from Robert A. Leiter, Director of planning, regarding draft MSCP Plan,
dated July 10, 1995
(m:\baIIle\PIllmliD&'-Y\EJREIS.CDIII) .
/1-~711/-t28'
"'!TV ~ ,...&.1111 .t. \II!I:T.t.
-
... - -~
i
OFFICE OF MAYOR SUSAN GOLDING
City of San Diego
NJ. ?34 Iil02
'j). ~
e5I'EIEY96
.
10:18 MWWD ~ 6196915171
After extensive negotiations, agreement has been ruched ~ the State and Federal governments that can
provide guiding principles for the MSCP. This is an historic step. By working in partnership with these
agencies, a balance that protects both the environment and economic viability has be~ developed and is
contained in this agreement on guiding principles. .
-,~,
.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Colding
-
Aprl122,1996
Multiple Speci
.-: .;/. .. -:.;::~....:... ..;~..
. .....~
"
:, :....~ ~;:.(..,. ~.:: ~...~:. ~
,:' ..:~ ,,' ,
." ~ ,-'~
... .:: ,~:\. ~:~""':'
- .llo,
- .~'\. ~ -'
~
The MSCP will incorporate 55,200 acres of the City of San Diego, constitutlng 28~ of the land within our
boundaries. Seventy percent is already publiCly owned, requiring no further attio". There have been
extensive negotiations with many property owne~ that will resul~ in,an additional 3,800 acres for the
preserve, le..ving 11,200 acres to be addressed. . .
The MSCP changes the paradigm within which Interested groups act. All levels of sovemment and
environmental and building industry representatives and property owners have cooperatecfon achieving
these guiding principleS including; the Alliance for Habitat Conservation, the Building indUstry Association,
,the Endangered Habitats league and the Sierra Club, among many others. As I have said many times,
most recently in my State of the City address, balandng our economy with the protection of the
environment is the way of the future, and if we if we do not figure out how to work together, we will not
survive.
The underlying tenants of the plan are threefold; assurances, preserve design and funding. Unless all three
are induded in the final plan, it will not be a plan I can support. '
Assurances that the wildlife agencies will not be back, repeatedly, for species-by-spedes listing is essential.
We now have that. No further obligations will be imposed on property OWI:Iers for the identified and ,
protected 88 sensitive and rare species. .....'
!t' _J~": 1.
The preserve design and manag!ment is essential due to the complexity of creating such a preserve that
wiD ensure the viability of the $pecies and habitats it protedS. The conservation goals, mitigation ratios and
land use regulations included in the agreement differ greatly from those currently on the books. Now,
instead of piecemei' planning and preserVJtion, we can have a connected riaturalland system we wo~ld
be proud to leave OUt children. ' ,C";..' .-, .' .:~ ~) !'f':'-:-;',
J- ~......
.. -. -' . j. ~ '. ... --~~ -
Without funding, the plan will not be a reality. The Federal and'State' governments have agreed ~ '
contribute lift! percent of the acquisition needed for the pre5erve. The remaining fifty percent will be
prqvicled by the Oty and other local sources.
I ask for your support for this historic agreement
-.
-;/--~4
--- , -
~
.
10: 18
~ ~ 6196915171
NJ. ?34 GI03
..
De State of CaUfonaia
lbe Crt)' of 51.. Dieao
~._._.
VDited SlAta .
~
.
. "',' <
..... .
-
-
Resoarces A:UlC)'
.Depanaat 01 die IIIt.erior
:..)0; .~
~. .
.
.. ..
.'
"':~\'~ .-;
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM
APRIL 22. 1996
: ":",
, .
The Federal agencies and the State of California have worked closely with the City
of San Diego (City) OTl the development of guiding principles and policies for the
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). The MSCP'$ . landmark effort
under the California Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program
to plan for southern Sari Diego County'. unique natural landscape in a manner that
protects open space important to the area's dive:'se wUdlife, preserves quality of
life, and promotes economic prosperity in the region. .
In the $f)irit of this cooperation, Secretary Bruce Babbitt of the United States
Oef)lrtment of the Intericr. Undersecretary Michael Mantell of the California
Resources Agency, and Mayor Susan Golding of the City of Sin Diego propose
thtt the following principles a"d policies guide the finalization of the MSCP
planning process: '
~cosvstem Conservation
The MSCP VliII focus on protecting the integrity of the southem San Diego County
ecosystem, not just its parts, and 0" conserving its rich diversity of wildlife end ~
hebitats, not just species on the brink of extinction. Through the creation of a
preserve system by the jurisdictions participating in the MSCP (including the City,
the County of San Diego, and the cities of Chuf! Vista. Poway end Santee). over
, 8 ha~jtat types and 87 aensitive'and rere species will be permanently conserved.
As ,. result of this comprehensive planning Ind conservation effort, San Diego', .
biological heritage will be preserved for generationa to come. .. !'-
'i
Partnershio
r.',. r
The MSCP will demonstrate that partnerships b.tween locll. state and federll
. governments, l.nd~wTlers. envimnmentalists, and other interests can effectively
bring about sensible solutions to difficult environmental challenges. By establishing
e process that emphasizes conSensus among the stlkehold.ers. the MSCP will be
implemented with the widespread support of the community.
/J~30
~
.
10: 19
MWWD ~ 6196915171
NJ.734 . lil04
.'
2
~8rect ~e$Don$itillirl
The MSCP will establish an approach to ~ritervltion in which shared responsibifity ·
is en essential feature. The MSCP contemplitts that participating jurisdictiona, the
state .Ind federal go'{ernments, and priwte landowners will..ch assume I share of
the Icquisition and man.gement requirements of the program. The plen envisions
the .nrollment of public lends in the preserve eystem to complement the ,J.
con~ribution of private landowner. end Jocal govemments. ~
Assurl~"
":
r ,<.
The MSCP will provide e great me.sur, of clrtainty to privlte landowner. and loc~i
g~vlmments. Participants will be given .ssurances that a wdeal is Ideal, wend .
that no additional financial obligations will be imposed to conserve species that are
identified and covered by the plan. The MSCP will Ilso provide Issuranees for
species not covered by the pIon, but dependent on certain habitats that will be
affo"rded 8 high level of protectio~.
.
The MSCP will also create a framework to streamline government r.gulation. The
program seeks to address local, state, and federal requirements for wildlife and
tMbitat conservation in a single program. By eliminating duplication, the program
will provide landowners with 8 simplified project approval procelS, thereby
reducing development costs and delays. .
Consistent with these princtples and policies, the parties will continue their
collaboration to finalize the MSCP and ensure its successful implementation.
/~~r.
onorable Susan Golding
Mayor. City of San Diego
Honorable Bruce Babbitt
Secretary. Department of the Interior .
"'\,.
-~.
-.: ,<>- ' ~ --. . ,-;;. -t
_,." I
."'~
'.., ,'~-.; ~.....
Mic:hael A. Mantell
Under5ecretary for Resources
State of Califomia
//-3/
8S/0EV96
10:19
MWWD ~ 6196915171
N). ?34 PeS
. .
Guidin, Principles and Policies of the Multiple Species Co~tion Pmpam
1he United States Department of the Interior, ~luC!ina the rash and W'aldlifc Service (FWS) and
the Bureau orLand Management (BLM) (col1~1t'~ferred to IS the "Fedm1lovamDCDt").
d1e California Resources Agency. mcludiDg the De)HUtwent ofFish aDd Game (DFG) _ '.
. (collectively memd to as the .State govemment") (the FecleraJ ad Stale IFJIdes are " "" .. ".
coUcc:tively referred to as tbc: i1wilcUifc agmcics.), md the City of SaD Diqo (City) bIft worked
to establish pririciple,s and policies as to cc:rtaiD issues, set out below, which will pidc the
deYe~opmc:nt and finalization of the Multiple Species Ccmservalion Propam (MScp)l. .
. This document sets forth guiclina policies IDd priDciples eDb~d by the abovementioaed
parties oo1y, and does Dot PWPO!1 to represent the positiODS of anY other j~ction participatiua
in 1he MSCP. .'
~
1. FINANCINGIFU"NDING/ACQUISmON
A. Fed~lIState Oblii3tion. The Federal government and the State of California have
,"d to meet a portion or the acquisition, maDliement and moDitorinJ requirements of the
MSCP plan. Specifically, the Federal aDd State covermnents will commit to colllribure jounly.
ovcrtbirty years. balf.oflhc lands to be acquired by public means up to 13.500 Ia'CS (subject to
no more than i 0% adjustmtnt, upward or downward. based on the evaluation of DeW
information), and will be rtsponsible for fftsn\agil\l the lands they Contribute to the preserve and.
for monitoring activities. .
In selecting the lands for acquisition. the wildlife Igcncies will take into account a number of
factors. including biological value, cost, wlncrability to development. met relationship to BLM
study areas. proposed wildlife refuge boundarieS, md existinl public Iuds. Emphasis will
funher be given to those lands that can be obtaiDccl tbroup UOD~ tranSaCtions (i.e. IaDd
cxchanlcs). The wildlife Irencics will also acek to select lands for acquisition $0 IS to equitably
distribute resources amoDg the participatinl. j\lris4:ictiODS.
The MSCP plan will reflect lhe commitment of the Federal and Stale ,ovemments to contribute
to the acquisition. management, and monitoring Deeds of the proJl'lft\. and to lake the Step$
Decessary to satisfy those commitments in. timely fashion. The plan will.bo identify the range
of funding and acquisition strategies that me)' intz:nd to pursue. .
If following the exercise of all Ivailable aumoril)' cd UtilizaliOD of all available rtSO\D'Ces the
Federal and/or State contributioD committed to the MSCP cazmot be provided.lhe MSCP will be
-
'For me purpose of this document. the "MSCP plan- Jdm to the tiDal framework' Plan. ' .
iDdividuI subarea plans. ..,d implcmentinc qrecmcnu. 'The ~es inteDd lhat me Ci~"s
poniOD of me MSCP plan will be developed in ,"ordazlcc with Ihese principles and policies
subject to appropriate envuoDmcDtaland public review. Tbc MSCP plD will c:omaiD provbioas
which implement and add speeificity to &he principles and policies set forth in this document.
1/- 3~
0S/08/96
10:20
MWWD ~ 6196915171
N::J.734 - W6
2
Revaluated. with possible adjustmentS UJade CO pemdt COwtale and assuruces. in light of chc
extent of 1he F ederallState colJtribution. - '"
-
B. R~ponaJ Fu~dinll ObJi,aQpn. The CRy, participatiq withothcrjurisclieticms ill the ~r:. ;
MSCP. will bejointly responsible for acquirlDg halfoflhe Iaads required for public acquisitiOD,
and for fuDding management, monitorinllDd admiftidzUive costs oftbose 1IDds EqUircd by die
jurisdictions respectively. The funding of the local share will be carried out OIl a reaional basis.
The City qrees to participate in pW$uing rqioual sources Df fuottil'1l. but this requimDcDt will
DOt precludC the City flom initially pursuiDg allemativc fuDdina sources. I.IDds acquiRd ..
through minlation for public Ot private projects or lbroup land use relUlaUon will DOt be
Credited &aaiast the acquisition obligations of1be parties. . '. '~. .
.-
The MSCP plan will reflect lhe commitment of the City to $CQIR adequate fuDdina to any out
the program, ~d identify the funding strategi~ the jurisdictions intmd to pursue. The plan will
also set out a timetable under which the City and the other partic:ipatiDsjurisdicciom will obtain
funding. The jurisdictions \\;11 begin a process to procure funding within 18 mon&hs DfFederal
and State ap'prova1~ of the rim subarea planes); and will have a fim=llOUI'Ce(s) in place within
aD additional 18 months. The ~i1dlife asencies IlC willing to adjust Ihis $CbeduJe if the ..
jurisdictions demonstrate that their good faith efforts RquUe adc1iuoDll time. Within this time
frame, the participatingjwisdictions will create a 5WCture through which regionally ,enerated
funds will be allocated.
.
The parties recogni%e that achieving the goal of a rqioDal fueling propam may be
compromised if any of the CWTent participants opt out of the MSCP or fail to complete I subarea
piau. Ir such circumstances arise before a SOUltc(s) of funds is Ie be in place, the wildlife
agencies md the remaining panicipants will joinlly reassess the feasJ"bility of I zelionallpproach
10 fUnding. If the wildlife agencies and the jurUdietions conclude that I regional fuDdiltl
. S1rategy is no longer Ceasible, UlC jurisdictions will decide on IUd implc:mCDt altcmative
S1rBtegies for funding the local share of the MSCP.
10 the event that adequate funding for the MSCP is Dot provided. the wildlife agencies will as5e5S
the impact of the funding deficiency on the scope end validity oflhe permits. The wildlife
agencies and the jurisdictions will meEt and confer to de\'elop a stntelY to address the fundinJ .
shortfall, and will undertake zll practicable cfforu to maintain the level of COVVlBC &fronied by
the permits issued under the prOifaln until the situation can be remedied. _
C- Baseline Measurem~ts. Lands which contribute to achieviq 1he eonservatiOD lolls of
the MSCP which have been acquired by the City end the FccIcral aDd StItc pvcmmca\S IiDcc :.
~h 1, 199', the elate of'the public release oltbc dIaft MSCP. willCOUDt tDwarci mediq 1bI:ir
rapective acquisition obligatioDS under 1bc propam. ".
-
/f - 33
esI'06/96
10:21
MWWD ~ 6196915171
NJ.734 G107
. - .
. 3
D. ASSURANCES/sPECIES COVERAGE
. ....
A. Habitat.based Species Coveraee. for UDeovered spmC$ depc:udaJt upon vqctatioD
communities {habitats),1bat have beeD identified as baDg -siJDi6ClDtly. caaserved widUD the .
MSCP J4cxm: ~ the wildlife agencies will contribUte toWard tbc:ir c:aDSCI'VIlion to IhC :
lime extent as committed within the MSCP for covered ~~aJ sbould such species be listed ..
UDder the state or federal endanaercd species .as iD the future. lbat is. the wildlife aacuciea will
contribute in partnership with permittees toward the Iud acquisiticm, ~ aDd .
mPDitorins zequired to achieve the level of ~OD DecesAtY fOt such lpedes to be
iDcluded in Ibe permit.
-
... :..
For uncovered species dependent upon vegetation communities (habitats) that are DOt
significantly ~DSCived within the MSCP preserve 1)'Stcm. the federal and state cndmleted
species ~ in effect at the time oflisti.ng shall apply.
The proposed MSCP'will significantly conserve the following WSCtabOU cODmlUDities:
beach
oak riparilll forest ...
southem maritim~ chaparnl
southern coastal bluff scrub
riparian sCNb
diStUrbed wetlands
riparian. fotest
saltpan
~utbem coastal saltmarsh
maritime succulent scrub
'coastal sage scrub
freshwater marsh
southern foreduncs
riparian woodland
torrey pine (orest
natural flood channel
open water
tecatc cypress forest
The wildlife agencies furU1er agree that for UDcoveml species depeadCDt upon vegC1ation
colDmw1itics (habitau) that have been identified IS beinl-lUfticicntly. c:oascrved within the
pmerve. the Federal and State 80vemments wiD use all ofdaeir lepl authorities to provide for
the couservation of ~ose species in the ewnt they are listed under the $tate lD4'or federal
endanacrcd sPecies aClS in the furure. This poliey, bowever, will become effee~ve once the cities
o( San Dieso, Poway, and Cbula Vista and the County of San Diego have all received subarea
plan approvals from the wildlife a~encies: The proposed MSCP will sufficiently conserve the
following vegetation 1;ommunities:
southern coastal bluff scrub
riparian scrub
disturbed wctlaDd
riparian forest
AltpaD
soutb= coastal saltmarsh
eoasta1 sale scrub (that poniOD of CSS that 1;ompriscs'lhe range of the Caliromia pateatcbe:)
. 'i~ ..
~ - > ..... ..;- p'" -'..
//-34.
e5/EJ8/96
10:21
~ ~ 6196915171
Kl.734 P0EI
. .
;.
4
lOuthem (oredunes
riparian woodland
tmrey pille forat
IIJItInl flood clwmel
. tecate forest
- ....
..
B. RCJU'ation of lJj1eqvered Soedes. 1be parties qree that 1be follovdns process will. be
used 10 amend the MSCP to add species listed pursuaDt to the state aadlor &c:Ieta1 aulaDgered
species adS to the covered speCies list:
.
J. In the event that an uncovered ~es occwriDg within Ihe pJu ~a is proposed
for listing under the Stale and/or Fedenl eAdaDaered species ~ the wil,d1ife &JeDCies
will determine whetl:er conservatioD IDeasuRS beyond those presclibccl by the MSCP ~
necessary 10 adequately protect the species: If DO such IDCISUlCS are DeteSsary, the
species will be added to the covered specieS 1is1 (followmg.the permit amendment
process).
2. If the MSCP conservation measures are determined U) be iDadequate to ICbieve
conservation goals. the wildlife agencies will work with the panicipatiDgjurisdictioDS to
identify and jointly implement the steps necessary for coverage. 1D developing an
adequate set of conservation measures, the parties will look to the followiDl, in order of
pr~ference:
'0
a. management practices and eDhancemeDt opportuDities within the
preserve s)'stem, provided these measulC$ do DOt advmcly affect any
covered species;
b. habitat acquisition d2r0ugh the rallocatiOD ofFedaal, State
andlor regional funds identified for MSCP implemartatiol1,
provided suen reallocation does not adversely affect IDY covered
spec,ies.
If the foregoing options arc not adequate to meet conscrvatioD rcquirmwus. the ~ildlire
agencies will detennine. consistent with the state and/or feda1J endanlered species acts.
the additional measures necessary to add the species to the covered species lbt. iDcluding
measures beyond those required by the MSCP. Preramee will be Jivcu by the wildlife
agencies to conscn'ation means that do not require additicma1 mitigation or dcdicanODS of -
land. Although conservation measures neUssary to add the species to the covered
species list may be identified at or after !be lpKia is proposed for Jisti"I. the City will
not ~ required to ipprove or implement these CODSaVatiOD JDeIS\JZ'CS 1IDtil such time as
the species is formally listed. lhe oblilations of me pa11ies eo NDd those measures for
spec:ies whose habillts are conserved by tbe plan arc set out in 1bis document (see
Habitat.based species coverage provisiou. sectioD liB).
//-3~
--
--~
05/06/96
10:22
MWWD ~ 6196915171
NJ.734 geg
. .
5
c. Ihi[~ Party Beneficiaries. Proponents oi~~ts approved by cbe City ill ~
with the ~SCP will be given ISSUraDces that their mitiptiOD obliptiODS will DOt subsequeDdy
be altered by the wildlife Igcodes (ccmsistcDt with !be Sccnwy of the IDtaiof. ~o Suzprises-
policy) or die City. TheSe ISSlIJ'IDces wiD ac:cnae ooce dcVe10pmaat IppI'OY81I hive _
obtained &om the City and mitigation bas beeDasure(! (eol. mitiptiOD boDd).1Dd will coDtiDue
as set forth in the paragraph below.
In the event that the City's take aulhorizatioDS Ire reVoked or suspcaded, the wildlife 19CDCies -
will CODtmue to recopUze these ISSW'lDCes provided to the third pany beDeficilries who fulfill
applicable miiiaatiOD obliJations as to the identified species covered ill the MSCP. As to.
coVerage afforded under the habitat-based assuriDees provisions, these assurances v.iU connnue
to be reeognized so Ions as me MSCP r=ains in effect ad the City's take authorizations have
Dot been suspended or revoked. . .
.
III. . PRESERVE MANAGEMEl'l"T AND BIOLOGICAL~ONITORINO
,
A. .COOTdination of Preserve Mana~emen(. A Rponal tecbnital committee will be formed to
coordinate the management and maintenance of the J'fCSCtve. The role of the teChnical
comminee will be to provide ptesetvc manalers with guidance ad expertise on iasues
concerning preserve management. The wildlife agCDcies will work with the tecbmcal committee
to furnish information and advice on habilat man,cement. momtorins aad maUrteDlnCe.
B. Rtsponsibilitv for Pre$crve Manaeement. Maintenance and MonitorinJ. The City will be
rt$poDSiblc for and will wuier1akc the managc:meut and maintenmce of its public ~ds
(including those wilh c:onstrvation easements), !aDds obtained as mitigiticm ~ those lands
have been dedicated to the City in fee title or wemenc.1Dd lands acquiJai willi rcgicma1 funds
within the C::ity's boundaries. Biological monitorina will be the jolls! lapOasibility of me City
and the wildlife agencies for all lands wi1hiD the City's boundaries. The City will prepare a
habitat manageme~t plan for those lands IS pan of iu S\1bama pll11l1ld implemeutml apecment.
Likewise. the Federal and Slate aBencies will manlp. maintain and monitor their present IInd
holdings, as 9.'1:11 as those they acquire on bchalfofthe MSCP, coASisteDt with che MSCP.
Private owncn of land within \he presel'\'e, who are DOt third party beneficiaries. ~i11 have no
additional obliS.tions for me manllscraw or maiDtenancc of their Janel.
Proper manalemen' of &he pres~rve sy~ will require oDlomg ud detailed analysis of the data
collected through monitoring attiVitics. To mnn UDif'ormity ill the pthainl_ treatment of
1his data. 1he wildlife agencies will assume primary rtSpOnsi"bllity for coordinating the .
mo~torini programs. analyzing data, IDd providinS information aDd technical assistance 10 the
jurisdi~ons.
//-3&
El5-1!18/96
1B:23
MWWD ~ 6196915171
Nl. ?34 P1B
. .
6
IV. LOCAL REGULATIONIPRESERVE DESIGN
- ,.
A. Brush Manaeement ~es. For existina projects'aDd Ippr'Oved projects ill the Oty. the
bNsh management zones, standards and locatioDS, aDd c1eadD.s tccImiques wi11 DOt cbIDp hID
those required under ex.isting resuJation. for IlCW pzojecu ill die City, tbe positiOD adopred by'
the NMC ~ommittee 011 bNSh "U'"egement will be modified 10 reflect dill tbe brush ,-.'
mlaalement zones 2 and 3 may be located withiD the prescnc acIcr the foUoWma ~QODS
(assumina coDC\lZTCnce of the City Fire ManbaU): .
-
1. the amount of woody vegetation darina sballllot excmI SCM or the
vegetation existing when the initial during is done.
, --
, ~:
2. the City, in consultation with the wildlife agencies. will develop a
vegetation clearing manual that describes how vegewion ~1earin1 will be done to
protect the ~iologieal attributes of the p~ to the msy;mWlt extent p~cable
and minimize the impacts of c:Jcarina on eovmd species.
3. the City will require that vegetation dearing for all Dew ~jeca is wried
out in a manner consistent with the manual.
.
.
.
4. impacts of the clearing on biological resources will be considered ilnpact-
Dewal, i.e. lands within the brusb mAnagement zones wiD DOt be considered
impacted or eligible for mitigation credits.
S. brush management zones wiU Dot be peater in size than is cwmnly
~uired by the City'$ regulations.
6. the project proponent (includinl bomeownm associatimis. special districts etc.)
will he responsible: for cooductina brush management ar;tivities.
B. CQns~atjon Ooals. The City will revise existing development resuJations for biological
resOUJ'Ce$ to include an encroaelvnent allowance of 25% on ~e least sensitive portion of percels
located within the preserve areas. No mitiaatioD will be required for the 25% CDaOIchment.
The City may pennit, on a ease-by-c:ase basis, additional encroechment to accommodate public
facilities within community plans, pro\'ided that the ovm.lJ level of preservation for 1he MSCP
preserve does not fall below 900A and that the biological objectives Of Ibe preserve are DOt
compromised. The additional encroachment will require mitiptioa within the preserve areas
CODSistent with the aforementioned ratios. BioloJic:aJ resources CNbide oCme preserve may k .'
aaoacbed upon without limit provided impacts are appropriately mitipted. - -.
-
...,i,-....>
Wildlife c:onidors and linkages, as'depicted in the City's subera plan. will be preserved through
the ('jty's land use planning processes.
//-07
. ~ .....~
e5-'0EY96
10:23
MWWD ~ 6196915171
NJ. 734 P11
----- ------ -
..
7
For ~ pools and certain species identified u .~w eDdemic species- that are located
within the preserve areas, the jurisdictions will adopt measures 10 easuze 1bal impacts to these
resources are.wicled 10 the awamum exteDt practicable. The proposed MSCP will RqUirc "
.voidance ofthc followillg DIITOW endemic species:
SaD Diego tborD-mim
SaD Di. IIDbrosia
Nevin's _~
Duzm's ariposa Hly
sbon-leaved dudley.
Palmer's cricameria
felt-leaved mcmardella
make cholla
.
*
-
.
Shaws agave
Euc:iDiw bacclwis
thrcad.leaved bIodiaea
Lakeside: ceaDOthUS
variegated dudleya
Otay tarplant
Gander', pitcher saee
Dehesa bear-pass
..
.
.
The City's iDteDtion is to design a process to ensure equitable c:oaisideratiOA or iDdividual
participatinllandowners' needs.
II
.
C. Miti,ation RatiQS and Guide1ine"s. The parties lIRe: that the classificatious of habitat
types and mitigation ratios, by tier (sensitive habitats have been divided into four tien, the: fim
includes the most sensitive, tlte fourth the least), based on rarity and ecological importance. that .
have been proposed in the MSCP Working Group chart. are to be adopted with plan approval.
with the: foUowinl modifications (see attacbed):
.
All Tier I impacts .~;ll require mitigation with Tier I habitat types rout of kind"). De
City will &s$W'e that a 90% level of protection is achieved withiD the preserve for each
habitat within Tier J. .
Tiers D and III impacts may be mitigated with habitat types of eicbcr tier, provided that
the mitigation occurs ~;Ihin the preserve. Mitiaation that ocan outside &he preserve
must be of a habitat ~'pe from the samc tier as the impacted habitat.
The parties further agree that the lands uscd co mitigate impacts will be located within the City
boundaries, except in the event of extraordinary cirtumstances and where the preserve function is .
significantly enhanced. .'
v.. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
'.
-
~,
.
A. Awroved Pmiects. For those projms withiD the City &hat received apptOval ~or co the
cfl'ccti~ date oCthe City"s subaru plan, UJd IlC CODSktercd wsted umScr CalifonUa law, or have
been determined by lhe City and the wildlife qencies 10 have .ppiopriately satisfied midladon
· rcquiremeub. DO additional mitigation will be souabt except to the extent ~uircd by the Federal
and State adanaered species aets fOT euneatly listed species. TIle City will iDcJude a ~ ill iu
S\Jbca plan of all such projc,ts.
;;< - 3~
e5/08/96
10:24
~ · 6196915171
NJ. ?34 P12
I
B. Wetlands. MitisatiOD for projects impac~ wetlands will be detenDiDcd Ibrouab 1be
permitting process set out in sectiOD 404 of tile c:ialwater Act ad sectiOD 7 oCtile Federal
EDdBpred Species Act. PraervatiOIl of ripIriaD areas DOt subject to t1Je Rq~~wCIlb of IeCtioD
~ is Iddre:sseci by the ~. ", ",
.
. ~l
. .. .~.
... ;
C. Plan 1mpl~llJentarion Monilo"", and Auditinr Tbe MSCP pIIIl will iDcJude objccUvc
critaia so that the wildlife agcQCies can evaluate wbetbcr adequate ~css toward .".; "
impkmc:Dtation orlhe plan is being achieved. III parUcu1ar, measurable ItIDdards will be .T -
. iDcorporated in the pllD 10 '~sure that deve10pmcm proceeds in roup step with babilll
;.esa vation. The parties will develop a process !bat will enable tbe wi1dli& aaCDCies to mom1Or .
the overall progras oCdle program without the nee4 forproj'cct-by-project approval. The .'". ..
wildlife: agencies and the City will work loaether to ezasure that project plans lie coDSistent with
the loals oftbc program. .
D. Pennil Suspen$j2.nIRev~ation. In the cvmt thal the City matc:ria1Iy breaCha a COuditiOD
of -= MSCP. and the City tlDnOt or refuses to cure the breach. ~ wildlife agencies may
tsuspeud or ~evoke .the CitY'$ pertnits. In ~"evem that the City's pezmits are revoked or
suspended. me City ",ill remain obligated to proWle adequate mitigabDll for aU activities
undertaken or approved prior to the breach. In addition. the City is obligated to carry out certain
.responsibilities set out in the MSCP plan, including enforcement IDd managemenL arisinS from
development activities approved prior to the. suspension and rc:vocatiOD oCme permits.
In the event circumstances arise which are likely to constitute jeopudy to . listed species. the
wilcDife agencies may, as a last rcson, and after mceti.ag and conf'eniDS with the City, suspend or
revoke a permit to the affected species.
-
,_.-._'J~.
t-....~.
//-39
BS/08/96
. ..
:.
.
.
'"
o
. 1=
~
=
~
o
-
....
4!
~
-'
t
~
==
o
1;:.0
.J
<
.",
~
i
A-
U)
.
=
~
~
:E
10:24
MWWD ~ 6196915171
- -
. . N
""
- -
N . .
-
- -
N ~
-
- -
.. .
- ....
., - 6
.... I
o .
toe::
~.t-
!
c
-
~
I -
N
.
~ -
c: . .
~ -
I -
Wi
. .
-
u -
! -
6
-
:J
o
,
t:
ft
-
U)
C:
-
c:
-
- -
.. N
C"'\
- -
N -
- -
N Iii
-
- -
~ . .
-
-
E-=
tilSCC
~u
of
o c
=~-
z:~
':=
cS
c:
-
c:=
_0
-
.=6
- -..
- -
~ ..
-
-
- ~
- ""
d
-
1'1
-
! -
, ,
-
.
.- -
Vi ..
-
-
.
- -
. . Vi
-
.
0
c :; .
_0
/
- -
~ .
-
-
- -
- Vi
,
Q
-
IWi
-
! -
. .
:3 -
.
- -
, , . ,
~ -
-
.
... -
, . . .
- ~
c
.56
.e
c: .,
~ ~
C
"'-;;.D-- ~ - .
~~ej~"C -G li
-oU=B.c:'" u ~!. e
~ ... CI'J g CI ~ Cl2l
U t:: -- g.- 0
!9..:~ol; ta tj~ ~
E c: ~ e.1 0 8 i~ .-
ii
,,>-s'=-.:Iat ~- 1
li & :1'5 '5 '= .:.c ~ tej
~~8~:I:2c! !u
o
~
,:
:r=
~
Q.
e
>-
E
-
~
'JIl
. to-
-
-
~
u
1=
.<
-
C'
a-
&I
~
//-4ti .
I:D
E
a-
:.
- -
Co; c
- -
Co; 0
.56
~;;
.I-}
~l!
~
t
.j:
NJ,734 "13
, ..
. :.
.
"!'i:' ~'-':..:-,-;:::.;. .
~,;: ,
. . ". j;. .
. C:' .
iJ
.~ ..
\e-
:sC
~~:9
.. ,.,. ~
eM_:S
1';10
1i"='
~.e
,~jS
.-IW-
~c r., G -0
0..... - c::
---
-'" .., ...
- E c: ~
&\ --c:
.- c.; ~ .-
.~ .c ~ -
e"CIl
.:!iiE
-,:5S_
JS-s
fI .... .-
.c'T.c
, 1E E-~
~.,. f-a
: ;...~ 1 E i
]~C::::;
[.rtc: .
;li=~.s
._ E SaC
. ''':'-;r. 0.-:=
~-::'ci<:
it.~ l~ i
i!: E <
....-_ r-
_c _
~!!.s2
:
-
. ..: f'oi ' ": .~
,";:-~. ~.
- -- .'..;:......~.,.
i1
!
Ii!5/08/96
...__ ___.:.-#_____.._____ __.... ..__.~4._._'.-.___..___..__.....~........__..__~_.__
10: 25
MWWD ~ 6196915171
tIJ.734 -"14
: .
City of Sa. Dieco
1iIIJ IS. 1)11. ",.n.,
"",01 tiltS A''''-'
,,, lIIftI,.... t<<QIlNLt
,fie I/I-,.we ",,,,,.
~ ," ""I" :
l"~"" .<
COUNCILMEMBER JUDY McCARTY
DISTRlCf SEVEN
MEMORANDUM
<' ,. ..'
.'
119614-$ PlellW "ftr to this numb'r when ruponding to tItU ".1110.
.~~...,-
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
April 23. 1996
~:,'>> :
."
.: ,,' ~1. .
Mayor and Couneilmembers
t:ouaciIm=ber Judy McCorty ~
MSCP Policy Direction - Counell McetiDg of Apri123. 1996
. .
.,
SUBJECT:
Over the Ia5t 5 years and $5 million. the City of San Diego bas worked on the Multiple SpeQes
Conservation Program. The Natural Resources and Culture Committee aDd the Land ~IC and HouIiDg
Om\mittee m:1 City staff have spent a significant _OUllt of time workiDa on policy dir=tiOll for MSCP.
Today the Couacu is being asked to direct our ~ OIl by policies that will impact what the Cilts MSCP
would look lib. Mayor Goldinl bas proposed a set of UDderlyiDs teoauts u guidiDa priDciplaand
policies iDchIdiDg assuran~ preserve design and lIDding ill her memo rc1cuccl1ast aipt. Secretary of
the Interior BI'1JCC Babbitt and Undenctrctary for R.esourtcs for the State of Califomia Michacl Maatcll
have apecd to the ICrics of guidina principles ideDtified by the Mayor for the City'. MSCP .It is
sipficant that the RaoW'CC Agencies have now provided coverage for 88 . DOt 87 -leDSitivc and rare
species. .
Today, I IDteIId 10 make the followiq mooon rcprdiDs MSCP:
.
Adopt1be Manager's RecommendatiollOllpoticy illUCS2, 6, '.10,12.13.15.1, 16 ad 17
(StaDdards - Covered Species List with tile .dditiOll ofthc Felt-Laved MooardcUa u. covered
spedes, Process of Plan Adoption. Severability After Adoption ofNSCP, blatiOll to Developer
Cootribution. Proc:as and Rmcw PIOCeClure$. Mdbocls ofPresa /ltioa. tile DCW PIedator
TnppiDg Jasuagc, Monitoring of Acres IIld Species IDd lDstituticma1 S1rucI=) L
mcorpozltctbe Mayor's proposed moclificd bmguage forpoticyilsucs 1.3.4,5,',9,9.1,11.14
aDd 15 (Future Listina of Species. AssunDces to Private LaDdovmers, CbaDlcd CircumltlllceS,
Pbascd Implementation. Local Funding. Fcdcn1 aDd State FuDdina. Nft""TliODS for Fi~
ADalysis. Amount ofDcvelopcr Contributioa. Buf&nI'" A LiDe is. LiDc,- .. ~ ami
~ Responsibility) .
Adopt my proposed Wetlands Definition plus the Mayor'. addilioaalllzlaulF for policy 11.1
Adopt ~ MaDater's Rcc:ommeudation for ll.c which states "1bc areas r-_i"i.,g in ~
aha11 maiD agricultural ZMinI." .~ 1'A.~ \. s~ -&,..c.J..~ "'.
Adopt the MiKeUaneolis Polley Issues IS jdemitied lD me Mayol's memo iDoludiD& IaDguap on
.~
.
.;:
..
.
.
//-4/
-
--
.
.
8SI0EY'96
10:25
MWWD ~ 6196915171
Kl.?34 ~"15
..
MSCP 4123196
. Page 2
.
'" ,,,,,,;;..r.~:. .". :-'.-
Approved Projects, Plan Implementation Monitorina ad AuditiDg, aod Permit
SuspensionlRevocation ..
Adopt the Mayor's Proposal for Mitigation Ratioa
IDcorpotate into the ImpJemeotina Agreemeut the CJty'. ability to termitUd~ the MSCP upon the
City CoUDcil making a findiDg thai COJ\tUJued participation in tbe MSCP is DO Ionicr feasible or ill
die event there is. material cbanae in stB!e or i:dera1law, u adopted in a 5-0 vote . the NRAC
Committee
Dizect statfto work with !he Resource Agenacs to develop a 9l~ by which Cbamise ChJpmaJ
ad Non-Native Grasslands will be added to the Si8Diicantly Coaserved Habitats List when
cea1aiD thresholds are attained '
Cllrify that DO additional fees will be charged to landowners for bioJosica1 moaitoring; that it is
the joint responsibility of the City and the wildlife agcDcies to ped'ODD bioloJical monitorina for
all Iuds within the City's boundaries '
IDcorporate into the City's MSCP a provi$iOD whereby property owm:.rs subject to the OR 1-2
Zone aDd with a developmentarQ lC5S than SO'" will have the ability to retain mitigation credits
for that portion of their property between the allowable developmeat Ira aDd 'SOOA of the pan:el
Direct staff to modify and reissue Manaacr's Report 96-101 iDcluding the chart to refled the
IaDpage adopted by Council so that there is ODe clocwnent dcscribiDa the MSCP policy
dnctions.
,--.;. ~'z;> ..
.',;;~~'.
.
.
.
.
.
Direct stdto finalize the MSCP PlaD, City of San Diego S~ Plu.. EnvinmmeDta1 RcportIStatement
(EQD 93-(287) and the following accompanyiDa documents: .
a. ~dlDarts to the Progress Guide aod GcIlcral Plan (Open Space, CoDservatiOD and LaDd Use
Eleants)
AmendmCDts to Community Plans (Carmel Valley. RaDcbo Peaasquitos. North Ciry Future
thbauizing .AJea, East EUiott, Olay Mesa-Nestor, Tljuaa River Valley,. ad Otay Mesa)
c. ~-m,..ents to the Local Coastal Plan
cI. City of San Diego ImplemenbDa Agreement
City of SaD DicIO ComcrstoDe Lands Agramear
ImplcmcntiDg RcgulatioDS (u part of the ZoDiDg code Update)
PJepate supporting cIocwneatatiOD to submit permit applications to the wildlife qeDCics
b.
e.
f.
I.
.-:1";''''
"IheIe is Itilla pat deal oCwork to be done on MSCP. TodaYI WOD gives polley clirlCtiOD; the detail
will be fOUDd ill tile cIoeuments that the City Councll wi1I be asked to Idopt over !be m:xt lIVeraJ months
iDcludiDa the Implemeutil1g Agreement. Sensitive LIDdI Rep1atiaD, Biolol)" Ouideli~_ Comzmmity and
General PlID amcadmeuts. etc. Our work ia just begjnninl_ . - .
;..-..~; .... ,-r
JM:ds
/1- ~.2
---
85/0EY96
10: 26
_~. ~.o" .__ .___....._ ___._.__......___.~_. ..._..__......._ _.~_..... _ *
MWWD ~ 6196915171
NJ.734 ' "16
D
NonCE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING -
MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROG~M CMSCP)
.
At aD April 23. 1996, public Inecting. the San Dieao City Co~i1 approved policies
for finalilin~ the MSCP Plan. City of San Dieao Subarea Plan and ICCOInpIDyin. '
documenlS. At that meeting. City ltaffwu directed to provide iIJformatioa OD '
severa! topics. which will be presented at tbe foUowing CoucacD meetiD&: 'u'~. "~':
Date: Tucsday.May2B,l996 (1!lmtn~,~,~.-.e,)
TJrftc:
location: 202 C Street, 12th Floor, City of San D'
tlHU'l&Mf. JJE"V ~
lDformatiaa ad ahanatiYe5 will be provided on. but DOl limited to. the folJowiD& topics:-. ..il.;",
. Options for assarine equity of regulations for property owners inside IDd outside the propoted preserve within
the City of San Diego, and options for increasina encroacbment limits for disturbed IIDdI (Tier IV habitats)
. UpcIam on i!'terim and Iona.tcm funding plans
. IDcrasiDg the Dumber of .significantly conserved" habitats in the future
. Lcation of existing agriculture ira!he City andtht permitting pocess for Igric:ultural_ to Wee covnd spec:ies
. fulln off.road yehicle ,im in the County and effects of &be NSCP 011 avc l'CCI'IlGion
Yo"; property's ~oning IllJ.d development rights nuzy be Gjfected II)' the MSCP
Pltm proposaL P,ivlllely owned or developed prlJpe11les in Dr u"r IIl'IHua open
spliCes, h.wever, lITe not proposed to be l'eZlJ"e4. Urbll1J op_ 6p1lCeS inclllde
.T~lote OInyon, Mission VIIUq hillsitlu t1114 CtlnyoM, Mid-ctty Itilbida ad
. cllnyons, IIl1d lJtho ",bll1l CIIIIJ'OII$.
FOR MORE INFORMAnON
If you bave questions about this ",eeting. or for more infonnatioft about the Multiple Species Coaserv1tioa Pro-
....... please call tbe 24-bour MSCP Information Line at (619) 570-1099. Copies ofdle City Manager'. Report
and SIIppCJItiDa information are available at the Plannin. Depaltment. 202 C Street, Fourth Floor. "
HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ; . c "
1bis iIan ilia)' begin at anytime afterrhc time specified. Any ~ persoo maylddressdlcCityCounciJ IOcxpnss
apportoroppositioa to chis issue. Tunc allotted to eadl speakerisdctamined by tbcOuUr, bowrNr:r. collec:CMtati--
moayby"wboIUppOrtOl'~anitemshallbelimitedIODOlDOnthm lS.,inutestatllpenid.. ' "~',,A?'>-'-
~~ ...;r ... h
TboM unable to attend the meeting may write a letter to dte NayOJ' and City ~il. AttBntion: City Clerk. City
AdmiuiJtration BuildiD&, 202 C St., Mail Station 2A, San DielO. CA 92101.
nis material is paiJable in alternative formats upon request. To order iuformation ill an a1tcnwtive format. or 10
...... for. aip "''-'0 01' oral antcrpretCl' fev tIa. m..ciaa.l'..... ..s..... Cit)r C&erk". om- at .... ftvo
WlIOrking clays prior to the ",eetinl at 533-4000 (YOic:e) or 236.7012 (TI).
.0 PriIdIld.. beyded Paper
1/- .1/3
ADMINISTRATIVE
DRAFT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBAREA PRESERVE PLAN
FOR THE
MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Prepared by
the City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
May 9, 1996
1/- 45
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa!!e
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................. 1
2.0 CONSISTENCY WITH MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
3.0 SUBAREA PLAN ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA SUBAREA \ COVERED PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
4.1 City Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1 Private Projects in the City Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1.1 Salt Creek Ranch .............................. 5
4.1.1.2 Salt Creek I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1.3 Rancho Del Rey ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1.4 Terra Nova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1.5 Bonita Long Canyon ............................ 7
4.1.1.6 Mid-Bayfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. 7 Sunbow II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1.8 EastLake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '.' . . . . 9
4.1.1.9 Other Private Properties .......................... 10
4.1.2 Public/Quasi-Public Lands/Projects in the City Component. . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.2.1 Sweetwater Valley Regional Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
4.1.2.2 Port District Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.2.3 Otay Valley Regional Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
4.2 Bonita Component ........................................ 11
4.2.1 Private Projects in the Bonita Component ..................... 11
4.2.1.1 San Miguel Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1.2 Other Private Properties .......................... 16
4.2.2 Public/Quasi-Public Lands/Projects in the Bonita Component ......... 16
4.2.2.1 San Diego Gas & Electric .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
4.2.2.2 Otay Water District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
4.2.2.3 Sweetwater Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.2.4 Sweetwater Valley Regional Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
4.3 Otay Ranch Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.1 Private Projects in the Otay Ranch Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.1.1 Otay Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
--
1/-4(,
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea PreseIYe Plan
Pa2e
4.3.1.2 Other Private Properties ......................... .27
4.3.2 Public/Quasi-Public Lands/Projects in the Otay Ranch Component . . . . . . 27
4.3.2.1 San Diego Water Utilities .........................27
4.3.2.2 Bureau of Land Management .......................27
4.3.2.3 Otay Valley Regional Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.0 COVERED SPECIES LIST ....................................... .31
6.0 LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS .....................................32
6.1 Existing Standards, Ordinances and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
6.1.1 Federal ..........................................32
6.1.2 State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
6.1.3 City of Chula Vista . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
6.2 Compatible Land Uses Within the Preserve ........................33
6.2.1 Existing Uses ...................................... 33
6.2.2 Public Access and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
6.2.3 Public and Private Lands ...............................34
6.3 Compatible Land Uses Adjacent to the Preserve ..................... 35
6.3.1 General Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
6.3.2 Project Specific Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
6.3.2.1 ......................................... .36
6.4 General Planning and Design Guidelines .......................... 39
6.4.1 Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
6.4.2 Roads .......................................... .40
6.4.3 Fire and Brush Management .............................40
6.4.4 Fencing, Lighting and Signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
6.4.5 Materials Storage ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
6.4.6 Mining, Extraction and Processing Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
6.4.7 Flood Control ......................................42
6.4.8 Scientific and Biological Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
6.5 Specific Project Exclusions ...................................43
6.5.1 Otay Ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
6.5.2 Otay Valley Regional Park .............................. 44
6.5.3 Salt Creek Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
6.5.4 Sunbow II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
.
1/-1/7
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
Pa2e
7.0 PRESERVE MANAGEMENT .......................................45
7.1 Plan Preparation .........................................45
7.2 Protection of Resources .....................................45
7.2.1 Interim Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
7.2.2 Agricultural Exemption ................................45
7.2.3 Permanent Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.2.4 Mitigation Plan .....................................46
8.0 FuNnING................................................. .48
9.0 SUBAREA PLAN AMENDMENTS ....................................48
9.1 Minor Amendments. . . . . . . . .
9.2 Major Amendments . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .48
. . . . . .49
10.0 REFERENCES .............................................. .50
11.0 APPENDIX ................................................ .51
11.1 Baldwin Tentative Agreement Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
11.2 hnplementing Agreement/Management Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
...
11-1f8
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
Pa~e
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
Figure 2. Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan Map - Alternative One Map Pocket
Figure 3. Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan Map - Alternative Two .. Map Pocket
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Vegetation Communities Within Multi-habitat Planning Areas -
Subarea Plan Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Table 2. Vegetation Communities Within Multi-habitat Planning Areas -
Subarea Plan Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Table 3. Uplands Mitigation Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
--
//-#9
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PRESERVE PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Chula Vista Subarea Preserve Plan ("Subarea Plan") was developed by the City's Planning
Department in cooperation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS "), the California
Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG"), property owners and other interested persons. This subarea
plan is a component of the Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP") which is incorporated
herein by reference. The MSCP is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program which
addresses multiple species habitat needs and the preservation of natural communities for a 900-square
mile area in southwestern San Diego County. It is one of three subregional habitat planning efforts in
San Diego County. The MSCP addresses the potential impacts of urban growth, loss of natural habitats,
and species endangerment and develops a plan to mitigate for the loss of plant and wildlife species and
habitat due to the direct and indirect impacts of future development of both private and public lands.
This Subarea Plan: (1) describes the geographical boundaries of the City's subarea; (2) identifies
various land use considerations, such as land planning within, and adjacent to, preserve boundaries,
roads and infrastructure; and (3) discusses requirements for achieving a functional preserve plan,
including preserve planning criteria, preserve management, interim protection, a covered species list,
consistency analysis, implementation, funding and other important components.
The City's preserve was developed using the design criteria in Section 3.2.5 of the MSCP. Boundary
adjustments can be made without the need to amend this Subarea Plan or the MSCP in cases where a
new preserve boundary would result in a preserve area of equivalent or higher value. The
determination of the biological value of a proposed boundary change would be made by the City in
accordance with Section 3.4.1 of the MSCP Plan, and with concurrence of the wildlife agencies.
The City intends to enter into an Implementing Agreement/Management Authorization ("IA") with
USFWS and CDFG. The IA may be similar in form and content to the final "Model Implementing
Agreement/Management Authorization" found in the MSCP. The IA does not preclude landowners,
the City and USFWS/CDFG from entering into separate Conservation Agreements, which provide
greater detail and assurances beyond those in this Subarea Plan. The City may enter into Conservation
Agreements in connection with the implementation of this Subarea Plan. Provisions in Conservation
Agreements shall be consistent with this Subarea Plan.
The City's Subarea Plan boundary, also the City's General Plan boundary, comprises approximately
_ acres of the South San Diego County Multiple Habitat Planning Area ("MHPA"), or approximately
_% of the total MSCP MHPA. Approximately acres located within the City's Subarea Plan,
but owned or controlled by a public or quasi-public agency other than the City of Chula Vista, are not
covered by the City's Subarea Plan. These properties will be addressed through individual preserve
plans prepared by these controlling agencies (e. g., water districts, Port Authority, etc.) (Please see
Figure 1). This plan is intended to identify major areas of open space and their implementation.
s-
Ij-5D
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
During the development of this plan, efforts were made to accurately reflect approved projects. It is
not intended that this document supersede the regulatory approval requirement for any property or that
it supercede any condition in existing County permits or maps. Furthermore, if there is a conflict
between the articles of this document and permit conditions, the permit conditions shall prevail.
2.0 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MSCP
The City of Chula Vista is preparing this Subarea Plan in response to direction from the USFWS and
the CDFG in an effort to meet the applicable requirements of the federal and state Endangered Species
Acts and the NCCP Act. The City's Subarea Plan is consistent with the MSCP and with the Subarea
Plan outline and standards agreed to by the USFWS, the CDFG and the other jurisdictions and entities
participating in the MSCP. This Subarea Plan, therefore, becomes a component of the MSCP upon the
adoption of the Subarea Plan by the Chula Vista City Council. If any standards, regulations or
requirements of the Subarea Plan conflict with those of the MSCP, the criteria of the Subarea Plan shall
apply.
3.0 SUBAREA PLAN ALTERNATIVES
The City's Subarea Plan has been prepared reflecting two alternative preserve designs. SUBAREA
PLAN ALTERNATIVE ONE consists of a preserve plan which is guided by the City's current General
Plan and previously approved development plans, as described herein and reflected on Figure 2. Unless
noted otherwise, all project descriptions contained in this Subarea Plan are assumed to reflect Subarea
Plan Alternative One. SUBAREA PLAN ALTERNATIVE TWO contains all of the elements of Subarea
Plan Alternative One, with the exception of preserve areas within the San Miguel Ranch and Otay
Ranch projects, each contingent on the approval of a range of tentative considerations and/or agreements
and modifications (See Figure 2, Subarea Preserve Map). Implementation of Alternative Two will
necessitate agreements between the City of Chula Vista, property owners and the Wildlife agencies, as
well as modifications to the City's General Plan and project development plans. Specific differences
between Subarea Plan Alternative One and Two are described in more detail in Section 4.2.1.1 (San
Miguel Ranch) and Section 4.3.1.1 (Otay Ranch). It is the intent of the City of Chula Vista to adopt
one preserve in this Subarea Plan which will be the subject of the IA (described in Section 1.0 above),
therefore revisions to this plan are anticipated before final adoption.
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA SUBAREA PLAN / COVERED PROJECTS
The City's Subarea Plan coverage, shown in Figure 1, consists of the entire Chula Vista General Plan
area and is divided into three components. These components consist of: 1) the "City Component"
(reflecting the current Chula Vista jurisdictional area), 2) the "Bonita Component," and 3) the "Otay
Ranch Component." Significant portions of the latter two components, which consist entirely of
unincorporated land, are anticipated to be annexed into the City of Chula Vista's jurisdictional control
and are considered to contain important preserve elements that should be addressed in this Subarea Plan.
Those preserve areas currently located within unincorporated areas may also be covered by portions of
the County of San Diego's Subarea Plan. For purposes of continuity and preserve integrity, both the
.
//-5/
~
Z
III
Z
o
a.
;!~
enO
-u
>z
~::5
::>>a.
:CIII
~~
0111
~~
-~
Ua.
c(
III
~
~
::>>
en
ro~': ~
,5 '5 ~
~~~
~~J
~@8
61--1
~~~llll~
~I~: 5~
J:
U
Oi'
i
....
~i!
~~i
~g8
~~'"
(,) ~
~
~
~
-{g
~
o
lX:I
c:
oS!
a.:
II]
e
II]
.Q
05
~
III
.<u ·
1/- S~
III
'" l!!
o ':"""'''''''.i
~~ ~".""'::,
t::CXl '<C
~ &"
"::
o
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
preserve lands in this Subarea Plan and the overlapping County preserve lands are depicted similarly.
All unincorporated lands depicted as part of this Subarea Plan shall only be a part of the Subarea Plan
coverage upon annexation to the City of Chula Vista. Where a portion of, but not all of a proposed
development project is annexed to the City, take authorization for the entire project area will be
addressed by this Subarea Plan, any subsequent Conservation Agreement and the IA. If the Otay
Ranchor Bonita Component is severed from this Subarea Plan for any reason, the remaining portions
of the City Subarea Plan will remain intact, including "take authorizations" for remaining areas.
The Subarea Plan preserve includes approximately 21,329 acres of MHPA land within the City
Component, approximately 10,918 acres within the Bonita Component, and approximately 26,157 acres
within the Otay Ranch Component (See Figure 2; Subarea Preserve Map). The City's Subarea Plan
contains both public lands/projects and private lands/projects, which are further described herein and
are considered as "covered projects."
The Subarea Plan includes portions of core biological resource areas and associated habitat linkages
within the MSCP subregion which have been identified in the MSCP. These core areas consist of the
Sweetwater River/Sweetwater Reservoir/San Miguel Mountain area and the Otay Lakes/Otay Mesa/Otay
River Valley area. The linkages consist of the Sweetwater River to San Diego Bay, San Miguel
Mountain to Rancho Del Rey area and the Otay River Valley west of Interstate 805. As stated in the
MSCP, these areas encompass one of the larger uninterrupted sensitive habitat areas in the San Diego
region with both high animal and plant diversity and large animal and plant populations. A portion of
these areas are also included in the proposed Otay/Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge, a 45,000-acre
expanse of wildlife habitat stretching from the Mexican border to Interstate 8. Habitat linkages from
these areas would provide connections west to the Pacific Ocean and the San Diego Bay.
The majority of the private lands/projects within the City's Subarea Plan have been either surveyed as
part of earlier project entitlement processes or were derived from additional biological resource
inventories prepared for the MSCP. The field totals for a project should be regarded as more accurate.
The database numbers, however, may be utilized for analytical purposes. Tables I and 2 show the
existing amount of habitat in the City's Subarea Plan and the amount of that habitat that will be
preserved once the Subarea Plan is implemented, depending on which Alternative is selected.
The development process in the City of Chula Vista consists of a tiered level of approvals until the
granting of entitlements. To implement policies of the General Plan a master planned development
must first obtain approval of a General Development Plan ("GDP") or Specific Plan ("SP"). The GDP
and SP act as a refinement of the General Plan policies, and a bridge between the General Plan and
the next level of project approvals, the Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Planes). SPA Plans consist
of the establishment zoning regulations for the project, including land use arrangement and
development guidelines. Entitlements are next obtained through the approval of a Tentative
Subdivision Map. This is followed by the recordation of a Final Subdivision Map and the issuance
of grading and infrastructure improvement plans in advance of actual building permits. Field surveys
have been incorporated into the MSCP Geographical Information System database. Some differences
may occur between field totals and the database.
.
/1-53
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
4.1 City Component
The City Component of the Subarea Plan covers all of the area contained within the City's current
incorporated boundaries. Significant open space preserve areas within this Component include
properties fronting on San Diego Bay, portions of the Sweetwater and Otay Rivers, and many finger
canyons between Interstate 805 to Upper and Lower Otay Reservoir. Most of this area has been built
out or planned for development and remaining open space areas are currently reflected on the City's
General Plan Land Use Diagram.
4.1.1 Private Projects in the City Component
4.1.1.1
Salt Creek Ranch
The project site contains approximately 1,197 acres of vacant land located north and south of Proctor
Valley Road, west of Upper Otay Reservoir and south of San Miguel Mountain. The property consists
of rolling to steep terrain focused around Salt Creek, an intermittently flowing drainage course. In
recent years, approximately 65 % of the property has been devoted to agricultural grazing and
cultivation.
The project has been approved by the City for subdivision into approximately 2,100 single family
dwellings and 509 multiple family dwellings, two elementary school sites, two park sites, a fire station
site and approximately 452 acres of open space, about 351 acres of which will be retained in their
natural state. Tentative Subdivision Map approvals have been obtained; however, final subdivision
maps have not received approval.
Of the 351 acres of retained natural open space, approximately 246 acres are coastal sage scrub and 6
acres are wetlands, both considered sensitive habitats. The open space consists of relatively narrow
canyons averaging 600 feet in width, narrowing to approximately 200 feet. These canyons provide
viable wildlife corridors that support extensive habitat. Please see Tables 1 & 2 for the amount of
significant on-site vegetation to be preserved.
4.1.1.1.1
Implementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 91-03 and adopted with
the approval of the tentative map for the Salt Creek Ranch (Resolution No. 16834), include the creation
and enhancement of 6 acres of on-site wetland habitat, wetland protection form grading sedimentation
and erosion, retention of 246 acres of coastal sage scrub and the planting of native scrub vegetation on
manufactured slopes. The project design creates additional contiguous open space, and the approval
resolution provides for the long-term conservation of native habitat by requiring the dedication of these
areas as natural open space easements. Protection of these easements would consist of fencing and/or
the planting of barrier plant species around open space, as well as maintenance through an open space
maintenance district, with the residents of the project contributing funds for these efforts.
..s.
1/-.5/j
~" ~.. "', ,-,~,-"-"~,."",,,-,,,-,,-,~~'-""-"~-""~'~~~-'_.''''~''''''-"",---
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
4.1.1.2
Salt Creek I
The project site contains 124 acres of rolling terrain located mostly on the south side of Proctor Valley
Road which also traverses the property's northeast corner. The parcel is bisected by recently-
constructed East H Street which presently terminates at the project's easterly boundary. The project
consists of 169 detached single family dwellings, 237 townhomes and 144 condominiums, the
construction of which has already occurred or is in process.
The post -development condition of the project's remaining natural open space consists of approximately
3 acres of natural coastal sage scrub and 3 revegetated acres of this species located at the northwest
corner of the site. In addition, one acre of Otay Tarplant, located in the north-central area of the site
will be preserved. Tables 1 & 2 indicate the amount of significant on-site vegetation to be preserved.
4.1.1.2.1
Implementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR 89-06 and adopted with the approval of the tentative map for Salt
Creek I (Resolution No. 15299), include the preservation of 3 acres of natural coastal sage scrub, 3
revegetated acres of that species and one acre of Otay tarplant. The tarplant has been fenced for its
protection. The habitat will be preserved and maintained by project residents through an open space
maintenance district as required by the aforementioned resolution.
4.1.1.3
Rancho Del Rey
The Rancho Del Rey project consists of three SPA Plan areas (SPA I, II & III). The entire project area
contains 1,585 acres located north and south of East H Street between Interstate 805 and Otay Lakes
Road and north of Telegraph Canyon Road. Site characteristics consist primarily of east-west trending
ridges, with side slopes of 15 to 30 percent gradient and intervening canyons. The primary topographic
features of the property are the three legs of Rice Canyon. The northern leg is the primary drainageway
of the project and contains sensitive biological resources. Developed areas are located on the higher
elevations or plateaus while the canyons and slopes remain largely in open space.
The combined project area consists of a mixed-use development regulated by a specific plan and 3 SPA
Plans authorizing the construction of approximately 4,067 dwelling units, a commercial/industrial
center, schools, parks and approximately 549 acres of open space. The project has been graded and
approximately 50% constructed.
The property contains a variety of plant species, including 497 acres of coastal sage scrub, and is
inhabited by several sensitive plants and animals. These include coast barrel cactus, snake cholla, San
Diego ragweed, California gnatcatcher and cactus wren. Habitat for these species exist in the retained
canyons and hillsides within the project. Tables 1 & 2 indicate the amount of significant on-site
vegetation to be preserved.
..
II-55
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
4.1.1.3.1
Implementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR-83-02, SEIR-87-01, SEIR-89-02 and SEIR-89-1O, were adopted
concurrently with the approval of three Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans and several subsequent
tentative subdivision maps. These measures included the preservation of 497 acres of coastal sage
scrub, 29 acres of chaparral and 23 acres of riparian woodland. In addition, a required revegetation
plan included replanting of manufactured slopes adjacent to natural areas with native vegetation, re-
establishment of canyon bottom biota and the creation of a cacti refuge. The habitat will be preserved
and maintained by project residents through an open space maintenance district, as identified in the EIR
and its supplements, and required by the resolutions of approval for the aforementioned tentative maps.
In accordance with Draft Findings for a 4(d) Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Loss Permit for Rancho Del Rey
SPA III (Case No. :CS95-01), a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for offsite mitigation within O'Neal
Canyon, dated October 14, 1994, shall be implemented. A total of 360 acres have been purchased in
O'Neal Canyon, located in the County of San Diego, and funding provided to assure open space
maintenance for this property in perpetuity.
4.1.1.4
Terra Nova
The Terra Nova project contains 419 acres located north and south of East H Street at its intersection
with Interstate 805. The development plan provides for 334 single family dwellings, 638
condominiums, 224 multi-family units and approximately 188,000 square feet of retail commercial and
office space, an elementary school, a neighborhood park and 125 acres of open space. The project has
been fully developed.
4.1.1.4.1
Implementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR-79-08 and the resolution approving the tentative map for the
project (Resolution No. 10416) include the preservation of 125 acres of open space which contain
coastal sage scrub, riparian vegetation and one vernal pool habitat area. The vernal pool has been
fenced for its protection and transplantation of some of the sensitive plant species has occurred. The
open space is being maintained by the project residents via an City-operated open space maintenance
district.
4.1.1.5
Bonita Long Canyon
Bonita Long Canyon lies north of East H Street, and south of Bonita Road. The project is bordered
by Country Trails Lane on the North, Otay Lakes Road on the west, East H Street on the south and
Corral Canyon Road on the east. The 650 acre subdivision encompasses areas with irregular terrain
and steep-sided canyons with considerable native vegetation. The subdivision includes 768 single family
dwellings and a 56 unit apartment complex, an elementary school, an equestrian center and a park site.
All discretionary approvals have been obtained for development and the project is considered to be built
out.
.
/1-5 "
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
Natural habitat present on the site is dominated by Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation. Specific habitat types
include sage scrub, cholla thickets, annual grassland, dense stands of sumac and toyon, dry-sand stream
beds and ruderal weak vegetation on abandoned cultivated fields. 281 acres are preserved as dedicated
open space. Equestrian trails have been included into this preserve. Important habitats included in this
preserve are: Maritime sage scrub, viguiera, hapoppus, adolphia, selaginells, ceanthos, Maritime desert
scrub, opuntia, ferocactus, annual grassland, hemizonia, ruderal grassland and Cleveland sage scrub
salvia clevelandi and artemesia palmeri (exists in the termporal streambed). Table 1 & 2 indicate the
acreage of significant on-site vegetation to be preserved.
4.1.1.5.1
Implementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR-79-02 and the resolution approving the tentative subdivision map
for the project (Resolution No. 11993), require the permanent preservation and maintenance of the
habitat by the project residents through an open space maintenance district. Also required are the
preservation of a 5-acre stand of Cleveland sage scrub, restrictions on brushing and clearing and
revegetation of manufactured slopes with native plant species.
4.1.1.6
Mid-Bayfront
The Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan Area is located west of Interstate 5, south of Highway 54 and
the northern boundary of the City of Chula Vista and north of L Street. The area encompasses
approximately 1,013 acres which are original uplands or filled areas above mean high tide and wetlands.
The area includes the 316 acre Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. Specific vegetation acreage
figures are found on Tables 1 & 2. The refuge is the largest remaining natural wetland area on San
Diego Bay. Adopted land uses include residential, commercial, industrial, public and quasi-public, open
space and a central resort district. Implementation plans for the Bayfront Specific Plan will required
the developer to dedicate open space areas. It is the City's intent to require that an open space
maintenance assessment district be formed for the open space within the Bayfront Specific Plan area.
4.1.1.6.1
Implementation Measures
Mitigation measures identified in EIR-85-1, EIR-86-1 and EIR 89-8 and adopted with the approval of
the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan for the Bayfront
Specific Plan, via Ordinance Number 2532, are identified below.
Mitigation measures identified in the EIR' s include: development of habitat restoration and management
plans, predator management plans, mudflat and wetland monitoring plans, as well as establishment of
100 foot buffer zones, vegetation screening of the "P" & "G" Street marsh employing coastal sage scrub
and maritime succulents, protection of mudflats and eel grass by energy dissipators and traps for oil,
grease and particulates in storm drain outfalls, and upland conversion to provide 3.5 acres of freshwater
marsh.
..
/1-57
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
Mitigation acreages for restoration of wetlands total 27.8 consisting of 5.5 acres of freshwater marsh
and 22.3 acres of salt marsh. 2.2 acres of coastal sage scrub perimeter screening and berm are also
included. Habitat enhancement acreage includes: 0.5 acres of salt marsh wetland and .5 acre of coastal
sage. Mitigation measures also include: a de silting basin, improved tidal flushing, 8.5 acres of new
coastal sage scrub/succulent scrub habitat in a primary buffer zone, a bridge structure to provide an
underpass for fauna, visual screening, and access control.
Long-term management and maintenance processes include: ownership and management of the 316 acre
Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge by the USFWS and predator management funded by Rohr
Industries. The funding of the Nature Interpretive Center is through the City's General Fund and the
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency.
4.1.1.7
SunbowII
The project site contains approximately 604 acres of vacant land located on the south side of Telegraph
Canyon Road at Medical Center Drive about one half mile east of Interstate 805. The property is
characterized by gently to steeply sloping hillsides with drainage occurring primarily through two east-
west trending canyons, the most prominent being Poggi Canyon through which the planned extension
of Orange Avenue would traverse.
The proposed project is a mixed use development consisting of 1,128 single family dwellings, 818
multiple family dwellings, 10 acres of commercial uses, 52 acres of research industrial, a 10 acre
community recreation center, a 10 acre elementary school site and 177 acres of open space. While a
Tentative Subdivision Map has been approved a Final Subdivision Map(s) has not been recorded and
therefore no development has occurred.
The primary vegetation within the open space to be retained is coastal sage scrub (approximately 134
acres) and introduced native species planted on manufactured slopes. Tables 1 & 2 indicate the acreage
of significant on-site vegetation to be preserved.
4.1.1.7.1
Implementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR 88-01 and adopted concurrently with the approval of the tentative
map for Sunbow II (Resolution No. 15640), include the preservation of 134 acres of coastal sage scrub
located throughout the project. The habitat will be preserved and maintained by project residents through
an open space maintenance district as required by the aforementioned resolution.
4.1.1.8
Eastlake
The 3,151 acre project site is located approximately 7.5 miles east of downtown Chula Vista and 8
miles north of the United States/Mexico border. Bisected by Otay Lakes Road, the property extends
west of the Upper and Lower Otay Lakes and directly south of Proctor Valley Road.
.<<
1/-.56
", '"_,..~h_"""",_"~"""",__,__'.,,,_,__,,,_._~_,__~"'_'_"_"""_.~___'~_'"'_"__"_"___"~_""'_
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
The topography consists of rolling hills cut by drainage courses. Various drainages extend into the
project site boundary, including Poggi Canyon in the south, Telegraph Canyon in the center, Long
Canyon in the west and Proctor Valley in the north and Salt Creek to the south. Upper and Lower Otay
Lakes are located along the easterly edge of the project boundary.
The planned community is a mixture of residential, employment park, office, commercial, recreational
and open space land uses. The project is regulated by three General Development Plans (GDPs) and
6 Sectional Planning Area plans (SPAs) authorizing the construction of 8,427 dwelling units, 42% of
which have been constructed.
Discretionary approvals that remain include design review for portions of EastLake I and II. A General
Development Plan has been approved for EastLake III; however, the developer is pursuing a revision
of the GDP, and adoption of SPAs, Tentative Subdivision Maps and Design Review approvals.
Habitats that have been or will be retained in open space include: coastal sage scrub, ponds and vernal
pools. Open space maintenance assessment districts will be used to assure the long-term maintenance
of preserve open space areas. Tables 1 & 2 indicate the acreage of significant on-site vegetation to be
preserved.
4.1.1.8.1
Implementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR-81-3 and adopted with Resolution No. 11935 consist of the
incorporation of approximately 104.3 acres of coastal sage scrub into the project design as open space.
The open space is maintained through an open space maintenance district with residents of the project
contributing funds for these efforts.
4.1.1.9
Other Private Properties
Other privately-owned parcels of land located within the Subarea Plan preserve and within the City
Component consist of approximately acres. Of these parcels, approximately 50 acres of
property located south of the Sweetwater River Flood Channel, and within this Subarea Plan, are located
within the jurisdiction of National City. Preserve planning and maintenance for this area are the
responsibility of National City.
4.1.2 Public/Quasi-Public Projects in the City Component
4.1.2.1
Sweetwater Valley Regional Park
The Sweetwater Valley Regional Park consists of 515 acres containing most of the Sweetwater River
flood plain and extends from Interstate 805, on the west, to the Sweetwater Reservoir on the east. The
City of Chula Vista portion of the Sweetwater Valley Regional Park, totalling approximately 178 acres,
extends from Central A venue on the east to Willow Street on the west, and is flanked on the north by
residential and Sweetwater Road, and on the south by residential, commercial and Bonita Road. This
..
11-5'1
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
area of the regional park consists primarily of open space uses, such as Rohr Park, Sweetwater Park
and the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. This portion of the regional park serves as an open space
connection from properties originating at the Sweetwater Reservoir and extending eventually to San
Diego Bay (See Section 3.2.2.4 for additional discussion of the Sweetwater Valley Regional Park).
Within the City's portion of the regional park, recreational activities such as picnicking, ballfields, golf,
hiking, and horseback riding occur in designated areas. The Sweetwater River meanders its way
through the City of Chula Vista on its way to the bay and serves as a significant biological linkage.
4.1.2.2
Port District Jurisdiction
The Port District of San Diego has jurisdiction over property below the mean high tide line within the
City's Bayfront area. This affects not only property which is located within the City of Chula Vista's
corporate limits, but also property within National City's corporate limits (salt pond area). The Port
District will be responsible for preserve planning and maintenance in its jurisdiction.
4.1.2.3
Otay Valley Regional Park
The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) is a planned regional park system consisting of approximately
1,100 acres, extending from the San Diego Bay to and including the Otay Reservoirs. Approximately
_ acres of the proposed regional park are planned within the City Component of the Subarea Plan.
The remaining portions of the proposed regional park are located within the City of San Diego and the
County of San Diego. All open space areas proposed as part of the OVRP Concept Plan within the City
Component, is consistent with the preserve goals of the MSCP and this Subarea Plan. A detailed
description of the Draft OVRP Concept Plan is provided in the Otay Ranch Component (See Section
4.3.2.3 herein).
4.2 Bonita Component
The Bonita Component consists of both existing and planned private and public projects/lands currently
located within the unincorporated area of the County; however, within the City's General Plan area.
This component contains two alternative preserve designs as described below and on Figure 2.
4.2.1 Private Projects in the Bonita Component
4.2.1.1
San Miguel Ranch
SUBAREA PLAN ALTERNATIVE ONE - The following is a description of an alternative land
use plan which represents the City's current General Plan and approved General Development Planfor
the San Miguel Ranch project.
The project site contains approximately 2,590 acres of presently undeveloped land located south and east
of the Sweetwater Reservoir and adjacent to the northeastern border of the City of Chula Vista. The
San Miguel Ranch project site is within the City's adopted sphere of influence. The property, which
~
) 1- (p1J
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
is predominantly composed of sloping hillsides, valleys and Mother Miguel Mountain, consists of an
1,852-acre northern parcel and a 738-acre southern parcel. The north and south parcels are separated
by property owned by SDG&E, which contains the Miguel Substation and associated transmission lines.
The project site is bounded generally by Proctor Valley Road on the west and south, the Otay water
treatment facility and San Miguel Mountain on the east, and the Sweetwater River and Sweetwater
Reservoir on the north and northwest. The northern portion of the project site is located within the
Sweetwater Reservoir/San Miguel Mountain/Sweetwater River core area of the MSCP.
The City's adoption of an ordinance (No. 2548) allowing the property to be prezoned as a planned
community, through the adoption of the Planned Community ("PC") zone, and the City's approval of
a resolution (No. 17049) adopting a GDP following the certification of a program environmental impact
report on March 22, 1993. Subsequent approvals, consisting of SPA Plan, Tentative Subdivision
Map(s) and Final Map(s) will be required.
The San Miguel Ranch GDP is principally regarded as a master planned residential community which
will provide a range of housing with varying lot sizes. Development was to take place within the 1,852-
acre Northern Parcel and the 738-acre Southern Parcel. The conditionally approved GDP includes up
to 1,619 dwelling units (up to 357 ,residential estate lots in the north and up to 1,262 residential lots in
the south), a commercial center, an elementary school, a public park and open space. A new property
owner has filed for an amended GDP which would concentrate all development on the Southern Parcel
and reserve the Northern Parcel as undisturbed open space.
4.2.1.1.1
Implementation Measures
The City approved the San Miguel Ranch GDP, subject to conditions, which must be complied with
prior to approval of the first SPA Plan for the project (See City of Chula Vista City Council Resolution
No. 17049 for conditions). The following are discretionary actions that will be required to implement
the proposed project:
a. A Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan, including a water conservation plan, air
quality improvement plan and a public facilities financing plan.
b. Possible County of San Diego approval of a bypass road or a General Plan
(Circulation Element) Amendment.
c. Possible annexation of the project area to the City from the County of San Diego.
d. Annexation to South Bay Irrigation District.
e. Detachment from Otay Water District.
f. Amendment to South Bay Irrigation District Sphere.
.
If - f.tJ1
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
g. Detachment from Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District.
h. Conservation Agreement/Development Agreement.
1. Tentative Subdivision Map(s)/Master Tentative Map.
j. Take-authorizations to permit the take of all Covered Species, including those
species not presently listed as Endangered, Threatened or Candidate Species under the ESA or the
CESA.
4.2.1.1.2
Implementation Measures
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR-90-02 and adopted with the approval of the GDP (Resolution No.
17049) are identified below. A 1603 agreement between the project proponent and CD FG, submission
of pre-discharge notification to the Army Corps of Engineers and a 404 permit are required as
mitigation for any filling of wetlands. Where impacts cannot be avoided onsite creation of wetland
habitat is required at a replacement ratio agreed upon with CDFG.
Placement of biological mitigation criteria on the northern parcel which will allow the City of Chula
Vista to require preservation of between 85 % and 100 % of all Diegan Sage Scrub habitat on the
northern parcel is required. Graded areas are to be hydro seeded with native plant species. Phasing
plans and the final site plan must be reviewed by a qualified city biologist and CDFG for compliance
with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.
An Otay tarplant preserve area of 42,000 plants on the Southern Parcel and preservation of
approximately 10,000 plants on the northern parcel is required. Further preservation of Otay tarplant
on the Northern Parcel may be required. Preservation of 1,000 plants of Palmer's grappling hook on
the Northern Parcel is required.
Preservation of approximately 40% of the 2,892 cacti on the Southern Parcel in situ, with
transplantation of the remainder is required. Preservation of an additional 1,226 cacti on the Northern
Parcel as mitigation for Southern Parcel impacts is required. Preservation of at least 60% of remaining
cacti on the Northern Parcel, with transplantation of the remainder at the SPA plan level is required.
Preservation of approximately 40 adolphia on the eastern portion of the Southern Parcel and
approximately 350 adolphia on the Northern Parcel as mitigation for impacts to the Southern Parcel is
required. Preservation of 50% to 100% of all adolphia on the Northern Parcel at the SPA plan level
is required.
Mitigation for the California gnatcatcher includes the preservation of 9 pairs of gnatcatchers on the
northern parcel and the preservation of an additional 80% to 100% of existing pairs, and 80% to 100%
of existing gnatcatcher habitat on the Northern Parcel at the SPA plan level. Preservation of 3 of the
4 existing occupied cactus wren territories on the Southern Parcel and 6 to 7 cactus wren territories on
the Northern Parcel at the SPA plan level is required.
..
1/-14:1.
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
Additional mitigation criteria include: fencing of open space areas, flagging of grading limits,
transplantation guidelines, development of habitat management programs, limits to grading activities
within 100 feet of areas of identified California gnatcatcher pairs or their associated coastal sage scrub
habitat. The development of SPA level mitigation plans incorporating a redesign of the proposed
development in the Northern Parcel, emphasizing a resource preserve design in coordination with
personnel from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Fish and Game, the City of
Chula Vista and the County of San Diego is also paart of the mitigation requirements.
Management of biological resources on the site and monitoring programs to retain the viability of the
open space for wildlife shall be incorporated into an Open Space Management Plan with the approval
of the City of Chula Vista, USFWS, an CDFG. The plan shall be approved concurrently with the SPA
approval. Funding sources could include an open space maintenace district with residents of the project
contributing funds for these efforts.
SUBAREA PLAN ALTERNATIVE TWO - The following is a description of an alternative land
use plan proposed for the San Miguel Ranch project. Because this plan is currently under consideration
by the City, the proposed modifications are reflected as a part of Subarea Plan Alternative Two.
4.2.1.1.3
Requested Proiect Entitlements
The landowner of the San Miguel Ranch is proposing revisions to the General Plan as well as the
approved GDP. These project entitlements, which are listed in Section 4.2.1.1.4, will require further
environmental review and documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA").
4.2.1.1.4
Other Considerations/Agreements
It is the USFWS's, the CDFG's and City's intent that because most of the Northern Parcel of San
Miguel Ranch has significant regional biological value, consideration should be given to acquisition and
protection and inclusion as part of this Subarea Plan. Tentative agreement to retain the entire Northern
Parcel and part of the Southern Parcel as permanent open space for habitat preserve purposes has been
reached between the USFWS, CDFG and the landowner, as Subarea Plan Alternative Two (shown on
Figure 2). The tentative agreement between the resource agencies and the property owner is contingent
upon the satisfaction of a number of considerations set forth below:
a. City Council approval of an overall residential unit total of up to 1,495 dwelling
units (including an approval as to a percentage of large lot residential units). To facilitate possible
approval, the landowner is requesting a GP A/GDP Amendment to the land use designations on the
southern parcel of San Miguel Ranch. The City recognizes that the proposed project meets certain local
and regional biological objectives and that up to 78% of the project site would be included in the City's
preserve but will consider these factors as well as others before making a final decision on the project.
.
/1-t-.3
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
b. The City and landowner acknowledge that the draft MSCP has provisions calling
for General Plan Amendments, cluster zoning, lot averaging, transferring of development rights and
other methods for allowing flexibility in project design to achieve the open space and resource
protection objectives of the MSCP Plan.
c. Due to the regional significance of the Northern Parcel to the establishment of the
preserve for the MSCP Plan and this Subarea Plan, the City acknowledges that the preservation of the
Northern Parcel constitutes a significant and extraordinary benefit to the residents of the City and the
region, and that preservation of a portion of the Northern Parcel may not otherwise occur through the
development exaction process.
d. Project-level biological impacts on the Southern Parcel would be fully mitigated
with implementation of the preserve boundaries depicted on Figure 2. Portions of the Northern Parcel
that are not excluded or otherwise used to fully mitigate impacts (approximately 166 acres), or required
to be dedicated as open space through project approvals resulting from development of the Southern
Parcel, may be acquired by third parties through fair market value payments to the landowner. Each
acre on the northern parcel is assumed to have "equivalent habitat value."
e. Coverage for the Otay Tarplant, selected raptors, and the California Cactus Wren
is provided for in this Subarea Plan for the San Miguel project in the event that these species are not
included in the MSCP Covered Species List.
f. Although funds for acquisition of portions of the north parcel are not assured or
guaranteed, the USFWS, the CDFG and the City will cooperate and meaningfully assist the landowner
in efforts to fund acquisition, if necessary, of those portions of the Northern Parcel (in accordance with
paragraph "d" above), including consideration of the public financing methods set forth in the MSCP.
(See MSCP ~3.3.6), or other funding methods that may be developed for this purpose.
4.2.1.1.5
VegetationlHabitat of San Miguel Ranch
The property has been surveyed as part of the earlier entitlement process for the approved San Miguel
Ranch GDP. The field surveys conducted were incorporated into the MSCP GIS data base. If
differences occur between field totals and the data base, the field totals for the project should be
regarded as more accurate. Tables 1 & 2 indicate the acreage of significant on-site habitat to be
preserved.
4.2.1.1.6
Implementation Measures
If considerations "a" through "f" above are met, a Conservation Agreement may be entered into
between the City, the USFWS, the CDFG and the landowner to further define the policies set forth in
the MSCP and this Subarea Plan. The Agreement, shall be consistent with the policies set forth in this
Subarea Plan. The following are discretionary actions that will require approval by the City:
.
/I-{,~
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
a. General Plan Amendment/GDP Amendment.
b. A Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan, including a water conservation plan, air
quality improvement plan and a public facilities financing plan.
c. Possible County of San Diego approval of a bypass road or a General Plan
(Circulation Element) Amendment.
d. Possible annexation of the project area to the City from the County of San Diego.
e. Annexation to South Bay Irrigation District.
f. Possible detachment from Otay Water District.
g. Possible amendment to South Bay Irrigation District Sphere.
h. Detachment from Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District.
1. Conservation Agreement/Development Agreement.
J. Tentative Subdivision Map(s)/Master Tentative Map.
k. Take-authorizations to permit the take of all Covered Species, including those
species not presently listed as Endangered, Threatened or Candidate Species under the ESA or the
CESA.
Mitigation measures, identified in EIR-90-02 and adopted with the approval of the GDP (Resolution No.
17049) and are included within the context of a tentative agreement between the owner, the California
Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This agreement generally
provides for 145 acres of open space and habitat preserve on the Southern Parcel, 166 acres of the
Northern Parcel to be preserved as full mitigation for project-level biological impacts on the Southern
Parcel development, conservation and/or acquisition of the remainder of the Northern Parcel
(approximately 1,686 acres), management of the preserve and retention of the approved land use
designations for those lands that are not successfully acquired.
4.2.1.2
Other Private Properties
Other privately-owned parcels of land located within the Subarea Plan preserve and located within the
Bonita Component consist of approximately acres.
tL
1/- (,5
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
4.2.2 Public/Quasi-Public Lands/Projects in the Bonita Component
4.2.2.1
San Diego Gas & Electric
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) owns approximately 301 acres of property located on the westerly
slopes of Mother Miguel Mountain. Equivalent NCCP-level preserve planning for this property will
be the responsibility of that agency (as requested by SDG&E).
4.2.2.2
Otay Water District
Otay Water District (OWD) owns approximately 509 acres of property located directly north of the Salt
Creek Ranch project. Equivalent NCCP-level preserve planning for this property will be the
responsibility of that agency (as requested by OWD).
4.2.2.3
Sweetwater Authority
Sweetwater Authority (SA) water district owns approximately 355 acres located along the southern
banks of the Sweetwater Reservoir. Equivalent NCCP-level preserve planning for this property will
be the responsibility of the agency (as requested by SA).
4.2.2.4
Sweetwater Regional Park
Sweetwater Regional Park is located in the Sweetwater River Valley between the Sweetwater Reservoir
on the east and 1-805 on the east in the Bonita/Sunnyside area. The eastern third occupies the high,
hilly ground between the reservoir and the valley below. The western two-thirds lies within the 100-
year floodplain of the Sweetwater River. Approximately 178 acres are located within Chula Vista's
boundaries (See City Component, herein). The unincorporated part of the park includes about 515
acres, and is under the jurisdiction of the County.
Vegetative cover on the County portion of the property includes the following: about 90 acres of
Coastal sage scrub, 40 acres of Maritime succulent scrub, 115 acres of Southern willow scrub, 170
acres of non-native grasslands, and about 100 acres of urban landscape, including mining and intensive
agriculture.
Sensitive plants present within the County portion of the park include Hemizonia Coniugens. Ferocactus
Viridescens. Iva Hayesiana. Adolphia Californica. Viquiera Lacinata. Dudleya Variegata and Selaginella
Cinerascens. Sensitive plants present within the City portion of the Park include sensitive wildlife
identified in 1979 and 1988 surveys (San Diego County Parks and Recreation Department, 1989) and
included: Black-tailed hare, California gnatcatcher, Coastal cactus wren, Least Bell's vireo, Yellow-
breasted chat and Yellow warbler.
-
II-fit,
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
Existing park uses include several houses, an equestrian center, limited retail commercial, a golf driving
range, a pine tree nursery, abandoned dairy buildings, trails and a campground. Maintenance of the
unincorporated portion of the Sweetwater Regional Park will continue to be addressed by the County
of San Diego.
4.2.2.5
Resolution Trust Corporation/Rancho San Diego Mitigation Bank
The County of San Diego and other agencies are currently in the process of acquiring approximately
160 acres of land, previously owned by the Resolution Trust Corporation as a mitigation parcel for the
development of the Rancho San Diego Specific Plan (located in the Jamul area of the County). Initially,
the site may serve as a mitigation area for a number of non-Chula Vista public projects which impact
coastal sage scrub and riparian woodland habitats. These lands will be managed by the USFWS as part
of a national wildlife refuge.
4.3 Otay Ranch Component
The Otay Ranch Component consists of both existing and planned private and public projects/lands
currently located within the unincorporated area of the County; however, within the City's General Plan
area. This component contains two alternative preserve designs.
4.3.1 Private Projects in the Otay Ranch Component
4.3.1.1
Otay Ranch
SUBAREA PLAN ALTERNATIVE ONE - The following is a description of an alternative land
use plan which represents the City's current General Plan and approved General Development Plan for
the Otay Ranch project.
The Otay Ranch is comprised of approximately 23,000 acres in the Eastern Territories of the City of
Chula Vista General Plan area. The Ranch is comprised of three major parcels: 1) the 9,449-acre atay
Valley Parcel, 2) the Proctor Valley parcel comprising 7,895 acres and 3) the 5,555-acre San Ysidro
Mountain Parcel. The atay Valley Parcel is generally located south of Telegraph Canyon Road, west
of the Lower Otay Reservoir and north of and including the atay River Valley. The Proctor Valley
Parcel is located north of Lower atay Reservoir along Proctor Valley including the Jamul Mountains
and south of the community of Jamul. The San Ysidro Mountain Parcel is south of Lower Otay
Reservoir and Otay Lakes Road, west of Highway 95 and the community of Dulzura.
The Otay Valley Parcel is predominantly characterized by gently undulating ridges and eroded terraces.
The most distinctive feature on the parcel is the Otay River Valley which traverses the southern portion
of the parcel and topographically separates most of the parcel from Otay Mesa. The floor of the valley
ranges from 300 feet to nearly one mile in width. Salt Creek, Wolf, Johnson, and O'Neal canyon drain
into the Otay River Valley. Savage Dam is located near the southern tip of Lower Otay Lake. Poggi
..
/1-h7
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
Canyon bisects the northwest quarter of the parcel and the Otay Landfill has leveled the adjacent
hillside. Telegraph Canyon forms the northern boundary of the parcel.
South, north and northwest of the Jamul Mountains, the topography of the Proctor Valley parcel
generally consists of broad gentle hillsides, while the terrain eastward toward the Jamul Mountains
becomes increasingly steep and rugged. This parcel is the most topographically diverse of all three
parcels of the ranch, with elevations ranging from approximately 500 feet MSL near the Otay
Reservoirs, to a high point of 2,053 feet MSL at the top of Callahan Mountain.
Terrain on the San Y sidro Mountains Parcel is dominated by hillsides and ridgelines extending north
from the San Ysidro Mountains. In general, the area immediately south of Lower Otay Reservoir
features broader, gentler hillsides, while the central portion contains steep mountain slopes and the
narrow drainages of Big and Little Cedar Canyons with elevations on this parcel ranging from 550 feet
MSL to 1,550 feetMSL.
4.3.1.1.1
Approved GDP/SRP
In October, 1993, the Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors jointly
approved a General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) for the Otay Ranch. The Plan
contains fourteen urban and rural villages and five planning areas that provide for a balance of
residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as other community serving land uses such
as a university open space and park facilities. With the exception of Village Three, the Board of
Supervisors and City Council approved the same land use plan for the entire 23,000 acres. The City
General Development Plan allows 23,483 dwelling units with Village Three as an industrial area, while
the County Subregional Plan provides for residential development in Village Three and a unit total of
24,224. By focusing development into the villages, and other discrete planning areas, large areas of
open space are set aside for preservation. There are 11,375 acres of open space planned for preservation
within the Otay Ranch. The boundaries of the Otay Ranch preserve are generally consistent with the
MHP A boundaries of the MSCP.
Currently, the Otay Ranch is located entirely within the unincorporated jurisdiction of County of San
Diego. However, the Otay Ranch is also included within the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The
City has applied to the Local Agency Formation Commission to include 13,616 acres of the Ranch in
the City's Sphere of Influence. The City's Sphere proposal would allow annexation to the City of
approximately 9,000 acres of the Otay Valley Parcel, the 2,100 acre Resort Site in Village 13, the
Inverted "L" parcel and other smaller non-Otay Ranch properties comprising 457.0 acres. The Chula
Vista City Council has authorized the annexation of the Otay Valley Parcel. Approval of the Sphere
and subsequent annexations would place Wolf Canyon, Salt Creek and the Otay River Valley in the
City's jurisdiction.
The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP also includes provisions for a University to be placed in Villages 9 and 10
and in the Salt Creek area "provided that the use of Salt Creek Canyon (including defining slopes) is
limited to trails, passive recreation, and biological research and educational activities in keeping with
..
//-&'8
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
the preservation of sensitive habitat and biological species located there. No buildings or structures
shall be permitted within Salt Creek Canyon. II
4.3.1.1.2
Resource Management Plan
The adopted Otay Ranch GDP/SRP includes Phase 1 of the Resource Management Plan ("RMP 1 "),
a comprehensive planning document that addresses the preservation, enhancement, and management of
sensitive natural and cultural resources on the 23,000 acre Otay Ranch. The RMP goal is to establish
an open space system for the 11,375 acres designated as Resource Preserve that will be owned and
permanently managed by a separate entity with experience in resource management. RMP 1 will be
implemented as part of the integrated planning approach on the Otay Ranch. The goals, objectives,
policies and standards in RPM 1 address the following issues:
. Identification of sensitive resources
. Preservation of sensitive resources
. Enhancement and restoration of sensitive resources
. Wildlife corridors
. Preserve management and maintenance
. Permitted uses
. Adjacent uses
. Interim uses
The tasks required to implement RMP 1 are collectively called the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
("RMP 2 "). The RMP 2 is comprised of resource related studies, plans and programs that are required
prior to the approval of the first SPA. Those tasks are identified as:
. Conduct resource studies and related research
. Select a Preserve Owner/Manager ("POM")
. Implement the RMP programs for:
Conveyance of preserve area to POM
Funding of the preserve
Resource protection, enhancement and restoration
Monitoring implementation
. Modifying preserve boundary to comply with studies and research
. Infrastructure plans
. Location of permitted uses.
The RMP 1 states: liThe approved Plan Preserve boundary, illustrated in Figure 24 of the RMP, has
been proposed that incorporates the key resource areas identified in Chapter 2 and fulfills the goal,
objectives and policies of the RMP. In addition to the conceptual Preserve illustrated in Figure 24,
additional restricted development areas totalling 1,166 acres have been identified as part of the planning
process for the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. These restricted development areas (Figures 25 and 26) are
assumed to be preserved in open space, although not included in the Preserve. The approved Plan
-
1/-"9
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
Preserve described in this chapter is 11,375 acres in size. Together with the 1,166 acres of restricted
development areas, a total of 12,541 acres are anticipated to be preserved in open space on Otay
Ranch." Concerning the Restricted Development Areas ("RDA"), Figure 25 of the RMP 1 (p. 149)
states that "Development within these areas is restricted pending future technical studies. The precise
configuration of the restricted development areas may be revised based on future studies carried out at
the SPA level that will further define the limits of the RDA. In no case shall the acreage to be retained
in open space be less than 396 acres for Proctor Valley area and 770 acres for San Ysidro."
Policy 6.2 (RMP 1) calls for the locating of "up to 400 acres" of active recreation acreage within the
Otay Ranch Preserve area, with priority placed on siting within the Otay Valley. A total of 400 acres
has been identified within the Otay Valley on three previously disturbed bench areas. These areas are
shown on the Subarea Plan (See Figure 2), and are identified as follows: 1) 127 acres south of Otay
River, adjacent to Heritage Road/Otay Valley Road, 2) 69 acres south of Otay River, east and west of
future SR125, and 3) 204 acres north of Otay River, extending approximately two miles west from the
mouth of Salt Creek. Section 6.2.4.2.1 herein contains specific guidelines designed to encourage a
biological connection between habitat areas within the river and habitat on the northerly slopes of the
river valley.
The RMP 1 is consistent with and will implement the MSCP on the Otay Ranch. The adopted Otay
Ranch land plan and RMP 1 are consistent with the draft MHP A boundaries of the MSCP. The Otay
Ranch GDP/SRP, including the Program EIR mitigation measures, as well as the RMP 1, meet or
exceed the MSCP performance standards for every species or habitat. Please see RMP 2 for a
performance comparison of the Otay Ranch resource protection and the MSCP (RMP 2, Exhibit 4).
The Chula Vista City Council and County Board of Supervisors have directed that this subarea plan
reflect the plans, data, policies and requirements contained in the RMP 1. The RMP 1, when
implemented through the RMP 2, meets all the components of a Subarea Plan, as defined by the MSCP,
and is incorporated herein by reference.
A Habitat Maintenance Assessment District is proposed to maintain the Otay Ranch Open Space
Preserve as identified in the draft RMP 2. This district is proposed to maintain all of the 11,375 acres
in the preserve and will be funded by the residents of the Otay Ranch. This district is limited to
charging a maximum of $25 per year per parcel by State law with adjustments for inflation. The
GDP/SRP does not require the developer or land owner to provide for recreation, education or research
funding. These functions are the City's responsibility under the proposed joint powers agreement
between the City and the County of San Diego for establishing the Preserve/Owner Manager. Future
non-General Funds will have to be identified and budgeted for these functions to occur within the Otay
Ranch Open Space Preserve.
The other functions of operation and maintenance of the open space preserve will be performed by the
County, supported by the Habitat Maintenance District. Also, in the area of education, even though
there is a requirement that the developer will identify the location and study funding sources for a
s
//- 7/J
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
Nature Interpretive Center, there is no requirement that they fund its construction. Please see Table
1 for vegetation acreage within Subarea Plan Alternative One.
All conditions and exceptions listed in the Otay Ranch approval documents, including the Resource
Management Plan (Volume I) are hereby incorporated by reference, with respect to easement
requirements, revegetation requirements, allowed facilties within the Preserve area, etc.
SUBAREA PLAN ALTERNATIVE TWO - The following is a description of revisions to the
approved GDP/SRP for the Otay Ranch project. Because this plan is subject to future consideration,
the proposed modifications are reflected as a part of Subarea Plan Alternative Two.
4.3.1.1.3
Tentative Considerations/Agreements
The USFWS, CFG, the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista have been discussing potential
considerations or agreements with various property owners of Otay Ranch, the results of which would
impact the preserve design. The results of these tentative agreements or considerations represent
Subarea Plan Alternative Two. Table 2 indicates the acreage of significant on-site habitat to be
preserved with implementation of these agreements or considerations. The following tentative
agreements or considerations have been discussed and constitute a portion of Subarea Plan Alternative
Two:
a. Baldwin Company Tentative Agreement
1. Elimination of Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Development Entitlements
The South County/Otay Ranch MSCP Subarea Plan will be prepared, and the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
Plan will be amended, to eliminate development entitlements for the following areas and to designate
such areas as part of the MSCP Preserve.
(a). Central Proctor Valley (Otay Ranch Village 14, See Appendix
10.1.1, Exhibit 1).
(1) PVl: Approximately 10 acres located west of Proctor Valley
Road designated "L2" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP containing approximately 20 dwelling units.
(2) PV2: Approximately 70 acres on the east side of Village
14, designated "L2" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing approximately 35 dwelling units.
(3) PV3: Approximately 119.2 acres of land in the southern
portion of Village 14 designated by the Gtay Ranch GDP/SRP as "LMV 3" and "LMV 2", containing
approximately 290 dwelling units.
(b). Resort Village (Village 13, See Appendix 10.1.1, Exhibit 2)
.
//-1/
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
(1) Rl: Approximately 40.5 acres of land in the eastern portion
of Village 13 designated "L2" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing approximately 81 dwelling
units.
(2) R2: Approximately 88 acres of development in the eastern
portion of Village 13 designated "LMV 3" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing approximately 264
dwelling units.
(3) R3: Approximately 9 acres of development in the eastern
portion of Village 13 designated "LMV 3" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing approximately 27
dwelling units.
(c). Southeast of the Lake (Village 15, See Appendix 10 .1.1, Exhibit
3)
(1) SEl: Approximately 42 acres of development in the
southwest portion of Village 15 designated "VLO.7" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing
approximately 16 dwelling units.
(2) SE2: Approximately 48 acres of development in the
southwest portion of Village 15 designated "VLO.7" by the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, containing
approximately 17 dwelling units.
2. Areas of Development Added to the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
The South County/Otay Ranch MSCP Subarea Plan will be prepared, and the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
will be amended, to designate the following areas as developable and remove such areas from the Otay
Ranch Preserve.
(a). Poggi Canyon, (See Appendix 10.1.1, Exhibit 4)
Land in Otay Ranch Villages One and Two, west of Paseo Ranchero (PI) will be designated developable
for residential users or for the construction of public infrastructure, (primarily Orange Avenue, related
utilities and a trolley line). The expanded residential development areas within Otay Ranch ownership
will equal approximately 140 acres (Village One and Village Two combined) and contain a land use
designation of "LM3", permitting 420 units. Development would also be permitted in the small Wolf
Canyon finger between Village 2 and Village 3, currently omitted from development as a potential avian
corridor linked to Poggi Canyon (P2). All these areas (Villages 1, 2 and 3) will be removed from the
Otay Ranch Resource Preserve and excluded from the MSCP Preserve. The Poggi Canyon area east
of Paseo Ranchero, between Village One and Village Two, is not part of the Otay Ranch Preserve, or
of the Draft MSCP Preserve because the area contains low quality, fragmented and isolated habitats,
s
1(- 7:1..
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
not sustainable in the long term. Entitlements may be approved and development may proceed in that
area resulting in the development of occupied habitats.
Portions of the land west of Paseo Ranchero (PI) are not within Otay Ranch ownership. These
properties would be governed by this agreement and would not be included in the Subarea Preserve.
Development entitlement for these properties would be determined by the City of Chula Vista, effective
upon annexation.
(b). Village Four (See Appendix 10.1.1, Exhibit 4)
RMl - Rock Mountain. Expand the development area in Village
Four to include approximately 70 acres roughly located on Rock Mountain and increase the permissible
number of dwelling units within Village Four by 350 units (the location of new units will be determined
by the land use jurisdiction through the GDP/SRP amendment process).
(c). Village 10 and 11 (See Appendix 10.1.1, Exhibit 5)
(1) SCl - Otay Valley Road, Realign Otay Valley Road/Hunte
Parkway eastward to the road alignment depicted in Figure E (which roughly equates to the alignment
contained in the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Progress Plan).
(2) SC2 - Village 10 and 11. Expand the development area in
Villages 10 and 11, eastward to abut the newly aligned Otay Valley Road/Hunte Parkway, adding
approximately 93 acres of development with a land use designation of "LMV 4.5", permitting
approximately 460 units. This will cause a minor adjustment in the configuration of the adjacent
community park to ensure that the area contains 25 acres of viable park land. (SC3)
(d). Village Nine (See Appendix 10.1.1, Exhibit 5)
SC4 - South of Otay Valley Road. Add approximately 10 acres in
three new development areas to Village Nine south of Otay Valley Road connecting the existing four
development "blobs". The land use jurisdiction may reallocate Village Nine dwelling units to the area
south of Otay Valley Road.
3. Other Considerations
(a). City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego will decrease
densities within the Otay Ranch transit village cores from an average of 18 dwelling units per acre to
14.5 dwelling units per acre, resulting in a decrease of 1,057 units (Villages 1, 5, 6 and 8).
(b). Draft the MSCP Subarea Plan and amend the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP
and related documents to eliminate coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub mitigation
requirements for restoration.
s
/ / -73
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
(c). California Department of Fish and Game agrees to approve the
establishment of a Habitat Maintenance District to fund the Otay Ranch Resource Preserve pursuant to
the provisions of the Habitat Maintenance District Act.
(d). The parties agree to support the establishment of a federal wildlife
refuge for the designated Otay Ranch open space areas east of the Otay Reservoir. Upon the
establishment of such a refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Agency will be designated the Otay Ranch
Preserve Owner/Manager for those portions of the Otay Ranch Preserve that lie within the refuge. The
City and the County will thereafter require that Otay Ranch preserve land be conveyed to the Wildlife
Refuge, consistent with the provisions of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, RMP and Preserve Conveyance
Plan. Land conveyed to the Wildlife Refuge shall be the maintenance responsibility of the Fish and
Wildlife Agency or its designee, without financial assistance from assessment districts or other financing
or exaction mechanisms imposed by the City of Chula Vista or the County of San Diego.
(e). The parties agree that the initial Otay Ranch Preserve Financing
Plan program will be established to generate sufficient revenues to maintain the entire Otay Ranch
Preserve without the creation of a Wildlife Refuge. However, if a Wildlife Refuge assumes
maintenance responsibility for preserve land, the first priority for revenues diverted from maintenance
of refuge land shall be for Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager tasks within the western portions of
the Preserve, which were not initially funded through the Phase 2 RMP finance mechanism (specifically
the establishment and maintenance of a Nature Interpretive Center and research and education programs
associated with the Nature Interpretive Center and the Otay Valley Regional Park).
(t). The Sensitive Resource Study (SRS) area contained within the Otay
Ranch Resort Village (Village 13) shall be removed from the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP and State and
Federal agencies shall not object to development of such areas pursuant to the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP.
(g). The State and Federal Resource Agencies agree to issue necessary
"take permits" for the development of Otay Ranch consistent with the land use entitlements contained
in the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP as modified through the implementation of this agreement.
4. Implementation Process
This agreement shall be implemented through the following process:
(a). Subarea Plan. The City of Chula Vista and the County of San
Diego shall proceed with the development of their respective MSCP Subarea Plans which incorporate
the Otay Ranch Planning Area. The Subarea Plans area shall reflect the provisions of the Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP as proposed for modification by this agreement. For those areas for which it is proposed that
current Otay Ranch development entitlements be eliminated (Section a above), the Subarea Plan shall
provide that take permits will not be authorized. For those areas for which it is proposed that additional
areas of development be authorized (Section b above), the Subarea Plan shall provide that take permits
..
//-7+
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
will be authorized. The Subarea Plan text shall also incorporate the provisions of "Other
Considerations" as discussed in Section c above.
(b). MSCP Process. The Subarea Plans shall be submitted to the City
of San Diego for inclusion in the revised MSCP, including necessary environmental review.
(c). SPA One. The City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego
shall continue processing the Otay Ranch SPA One application and related documents (including but not
limited to the SPA One tentative map, the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence, the initial Otay Ranch
annexation, the Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan and Otay Ranch Phase 2 RMP).
(d). General Plan Amendment. Soon after approval of the Otay Ranch
SPA One Land Plan, tentative map and the annexation of SPA One into the City of Chula Vista, the
Baldwin Company shall initiate General Plan Amendment applications through the City of Chula Vista
and the County of San Diego seeking plan amendments to implement the components outlined in a, b,
and c above. It is understood that as a private applicant, the applicant shall pay full cost recovery fees
for the processing of the General Plan Amendments.
5. Timing
(a). All parties understand that time is of the essence, with respect to
the preparation, review and action on MSCP documents and SPA One related documents (as outlined
above). Implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan agreement is a distinct and separate process from
the processing of SPA One related documents. Implementation of this agreement does not require delay
of the timely consideration of SPA One related applications. To the contrary, failure to proceed with
SPA One related applications jeopardizes the ability of The Baldwin Company to implement the
elements of this agreement.
(b). Implementation of the elements of this agreement is not dependent
upon resolution of outstanding MSCP issues involving Otay Ranch properties not controlled by The
Baldwin Company affiliates.
b. Other Otay Ranch Property Owners' Tentative Agreements
Other properties within the Otay Ranch, owned by entities other than the Baldwin Company, have been
the subject of on-going negotiations with USFWS and CDFG for potential preservation and acquisition
into the MSCP preserve. These properties, totalling approximately _ acres, are currently reflected
on the adopted Otay Ranch GDP/SRP (Subarea Plan Alternative One) as having development potential.
However, as the subject of a tentative agreement between the property owners and USFWS/CDFG,
these properties have been identified for potential acquisition for conservation. If acquisition of these
properties does not occur, then approved land uses would remain in effect, per Subarea Plan Alternative
One.
..
1/-7.5
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
4.3.1.1.3
University Site Refinements
A specific delineation of the University Site east of Salt Creek Canyon which would minimize impacts
to habitats within this area and still provide for campus facilities, consistent with the approved
GDP/SRP for Otay Ranch, is proposed under Subarea Plan Alternative Two. Negotiations are
continuing with USFWS and CDFG which could result in a refinement of this site, including any project
specific guidelines.
4.3.1.1.1
Implementation Process
As final determinations are made on the preserve boundary this Subarea Plan will be modified
appropriately. Associated General Plan and GDP amendments (including RMP amendments) that reflect
the final Subarea Plan boundaries will be required prior to subsequent discretionary actions. All
mitigation criteria is contained in the Otay Ranch RMP 1 & 2, incorporated herein by reference.
4.3.1.2
Other Private Properties
Other privately-owned parcels of land located within the Subarea Plan preserve and located within the
Otay Ranch Component are either designated as "Minor Amendment Areas" or consist of the 160 acre
Watson Land Company property, located north and east of the 1,200 acre Salt Creek Ranch
development project and surrounded on the north and east by the Otay Ranch. No entitlements have
been authorized for this property; however, the property owner has expressed an interest in developing
this parcel under the policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, which would allow up to approximately
226 units if annexed to the City. Approval of a GDP and SPA Plan will be required prior to
authorization for any development. A total of 47 acres of the Watson Land Company property are
identified on the City's General Plan as Open Space and this acreage has been also reflected on the
Subarea Plan Map (See Figure 2). Preservation and maintenance of this property is envisioned to be
through the adoption of an Open Space Maintenance District.
4.3.2 Public/Quasi-public Lands/Projects in the Otay Ranch Component
4.3.2.1
San Diego Water Utilities
The City of San Diego Water Utilities Department owns approximately 2,558 acres of land surrounding
both Upper and Lower Otay Lakes. Preserve planning for this land is included in the City of San Diego
Cornerstone Lands Subarea Plan.
4.3.2.2
Bureau of Land Management
While not covered within Chula Vista's Subarea Plan or General Plan, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) controls approximately 860 acres surrounded by the Otay Ranch, east of Proctor Valley and near
Callahan Peak.
.
11-7~
...._~"~.~~_q,.......~.~..._,~..~,,_____..~_.,_"'''''''~_._,....._~."_.~_k>",,,,,",,,",,..._.~"..~,,..,,.~,"~-..,_..",,.......,..,-~"_.-,...,...~,"_.-~_.".-
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
4.3.2.3
Otay Valley Regional Park
The Otay Valley Regional Park Focused Planning Area (FPA), including the Otay River Valley and
many of the drainages into the valley west of the Otay Reservoirs, stretches approximately eleven miles
from South San Diego Bay to the Reservoirs. The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) is being planned
through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) between the County of San Diego, the City of
San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. The goal statement adopted for the OVRP is as follows:
"The Otay Valley Regional Park will represent one of the major open space areas within
southern San Diego County linking south San Diego Bay and Lower Otay Lake. The
park will fulfill the need to provide a mix of active and passive recreational activities
while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, protecting cultural and scenic resources,
and encouraging compatible agricultural uses in the park." (see page 1-1 of Lettieri-
McIntyre, 1994)
The Focused Planning Area (FP A) of the Otay Valley Regional Park was adopted by the San Diego City
Council, County Board of Supervisors and City of Chula Vista in 1993. The draft Concept Plan for
the park is described on pages 134-136 of the draft EIR/EIS for the MSCP.
In 1995, the OVRP Policy Committee directed further review of the Draft Concept Plan for the OVRP,
and directed that its staff conduct further review of the Concept Plan, including environmental analysis.
The Draft Concept Plan consists of the identification of a proposed regional park boundary, within
which is a core area containing environmentally sensitive open space, a proposed interconnecting
regional trail system, trail staging areas, proposed recreational development areas, and potentially one
or more nature interpretive centers. Also included in the draft Concept Plan are special study areas
which will require future analysis. The following are elements of the Draft Concept Plan:
. The environmentally sensitive open space area of the proposed regional park consists of wetland
areas (including the Otay River), biologically sensitive areas subject to preservation and resource
enhancement, and habitat linkages. The boundaries of this area are consistent with the Multiple
Habitat Planning Area (MHP A) boundary contained within the draft Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP). It may permit some active and passive recreation uses, such
as trails, consistent with the guidelines of the MSCP.
. The proposed "regional trail system" is intended to link to the Bayshore Bikepath to the west and
serve as a continuing link as part of the envisioned Chula Vista Greenbelt trail system, a 28-mile
trail system encircling the City of Chula Vista, and parts east of the Otay Reservoirs. Trails
within the Otay River Valley will utilize fire and utility roads wherever possible in order to
minimize impacts.
. The "recreational development areas" identified on the draft Concept Plan include both existing
and proposed active and passive recreation sites. Many of these sites also contain existing
private development potential through zoning or development approvals and will require
.
1/- 77
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
additional land use analysis prior to adoption of a regional park master plan. The following
areas are identified on the draft Concept Plan:
Existing rock quarry (approx. 135 acres) on Rock Mountain, east of the mouth of Wolf
Canyon: the quarry operation is expected to continue for approximately 50 years, after
which the site may be used for active recreation.
Gun Club/Bird Ranch: This area and the area (approximately 225 acres) east has been
a gun club and ranch and would not be used for habitat management purposes under the
draft Concept Plan.
Lower Otay County Park (approx. 70 acres): an existing but closed campground; to be
refurbished.
The existing County Air Park, located east of Lower Otay Reservoir, south of Otay
Lakes Road: used as a landing field and observation area for gliders and parachutists
(approx. 60 acres).
The Otay Rios Industrial Park: planned for a multi-purpose amphitheater on disturbed
or prior development land (approx. 200+ acres).
. A "nature interpretive center" is envisioned near the salt ponds located at the mouth of the Otay
River. In addition, the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP), Phase I, calls for a
nature interpretive center to be located within the open space preserve on the Otay Ranch.
. The following are identified as "special study areas" on the draft Concept Plan. A determination
of appropriate land uses for these areas will be subject to future analysis:
Open space sites located on previously disturbed benches north and south of the Otay
River, within the Otay Ranch. The approved Otay Ranch RMP calls for the provision
of a minimum of 400 acres of active recreation, to be emphasized within the Otay
Valley. These sites will be subject to future special studies to determine the appropriate
use of this open space (See also Section 6.3.2 for additional information regarding these
sites).
Potential recreational development site located north of the Otay River, west of Beyer
Way. This site will be subject to future study to determine its local/regional recreation
or private development potential.
The Otay landfill, located approximately 1/2 mile north of the Otay River. With ultimate
closure of the landfill, potential active/passive recreation opportunities will be studied.
..
/1- 71
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
4.3.2.3.1
Implementation Measures
Implementation of the open space preserve within the proposed OVRP will occur through adoption of
the OVRP Concept Plan and subsequent Master Plan(s) for the regional park.
..
11- 7'1
" .. ,_,~"___,~,".,,_,^_._~~.,.___~,_____,,___~~____~""'_M'_'.__'_.".__~""","",__~_~_'~h~___k,~._";~'__..k.""",,"m."'_~'~~~~-.
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
5.0 COVERED SPECIES LIST
The following list of plant and animal species for which the resource agencies will be providing
Take Authorizations is identical to the MSCP Covered Species list, and as modified in the City of Chula
Vista's Implementation Agreement. It is recognized that not all species designated on the List occur
within the City's Subarea Plan.
MSCP COVERED SPECIES LIST
Plants
San Diego thorn-mint
Shaw's agave
San Diego ambrosia
Aphanisma
Del Mar manzanita
Otay Manzanita
Coastal dunes milk vetch
Encinitas baccharis
Orcutt's brodiaea
Dunn's mariposa lily
Lakeside ceanothus
Salt marsh bird's-beak
Orcutt's bird's-beak
Del Mar Mesa sand aster
Tecate cypress
Short-leaved dudleya
Sticky dudleya
Palmer's ericameria
San Diego button-celery
Coast wallflower
San Diego barrel cactus
Mexican flannelbush
Tecate tarplant
Heart-leaved pitcher sage
Gander's pitcher sage
Nuttall's lotus
Willowy monardella
Dehesa bear-grass
Snake cholla
Torrey pine
San Diego mesa mint
Small-leaved rose
Gander's butterweed
Animals
Salt marsh skipper butterfly
Thorne's hairstreak butterfly
Riverside fairy shrimp
San Diego horned lizard
Orange-throated whiptail
California brown pelican
Reddish egret
White- faced ibis
Canada goose
Bald eagle
Light-footed clapper rail
Western snowy plover
Mountain plover
California least tern
Elegant tern
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Least Bell's vireo
California rufous-crowned sparrow
Belding's savannah sparrow
Large-billed savannah sparrow
Tricolored blackbird
Pacific pocket mouse
Southern mule deer
..
11-91)
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
6.0 LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Existin2 Standards. Ordinances And Policies
6.1.1 Federal
This Subarea Plan has been prepared in conformance with the U. S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Clean Water Act (Section 404), and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and including all regulations promulgated pursuant to these laws
and is based upon representations by the ESA.
6.1.2 State
This Subarea Plan has also been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality
Act, California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)
policies, and all regulations promulgated pursuant to these laws and other sections of the California Fish
& Game Code, as applicable.
6.1.3 City of Chula Vista
The City has adopted the following ordinances/policies which will impact the Subarea Plan:
6.1.3.1 Ordinance 2602 created a voluntary coastal sage scrub loss permit process
sanctioned under Section 4( d) of the Endangered Species Act.
6.1.3.2 Hillside Modifying District (Section 19.52.210 ofthe Zoning Ordinance) regulates
development of areas with steep terrain.
6.1.3.3 Hillside Development Policy (Resolution No. 7088) provides policy direction in
the regulation of hillside development.
6.1.3.4
filling of land.
Grading Ordinance (Ordinance No. 7088) regulates the grading, excavation and
6.1.3.5
program.
Brush Management Program IS a vegetation and structural fire prevention
6.1.3.6 Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan contains policies that
provide direction toward the preservation and enhancement of the City's natural environment.
6.1.3.7 The City will be assessing the need to adopt a sensitive lands ordinance within the
one year of the adoption of this Subarea Plan which will further define development policies that address
..
11-8/
.._~,.._-_.~_._.-.~-..~.~..;.,-""-~-,_.~,,".._.._--....,~._.,~.,-~..,.~_.,=-".~.,.,._,..,.,--_..
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
resource protection. Prior to adoption of a future sensitive lands policies will involve consultation with
USFWS and CDFG.
6.2 Compatible Land Uses Within The Preserve
The following land uses are considered conditionally compatible with the biological objectives of the
MSCP and thus may be allowed within the City's preserve:
. Passive Recreation
. Utility Lines
. Roads (in compliance with policies in 96.4.2 below)
. Trails
. Limited Water Facilities
. Low Density Residential Uses (minimum lot area 10 acres)
. Agriculture
. Grazing
Existing uses, public access and recreation, infrastructure and various scientific and biological uses are
also allowed within the preserve. Guidelines for each are established below and in Section 6.4 of this
Subarea Plan. The intent of these guidelines is to ensure that the biological resources that are preserved
are viable over the long term.
6.2.1 Existing Uses
6.2.1.1 Existing uses are permitted by right within the preserve and shall be allowed to
operate as they have historically. However, there shall be no expansion or change of such uses, or the
clearing of additional areas, unless appropriate local, state and federal permits have been first obtained.
6.2.2 Public Access And Recreation
6.2.2.1 Public access and certain passive recreational uses may be permitted within the
preserve and/or its linkages. Access points, new trails and facilities, and a public control plan shall be
included in the Subarea Habitat Management Plan. The public control plan shall empower the preserve
manager to close areas to public use, temporarily or permanently, if such use excessively damages
habitat or during breeding season.
6.2.2.2 Active and passive recreation shall be defined as those activities allowed in the
cores, buffers and linkages indicated on Table 1 & 2, as well as all other forms of public access and
recreation determined to be consistent with the protection of the resources currently existing within the
preserve.
6.2.2.3 Provide sufficient signage to clearly identify public access to the preserve.
Barriers such as vegetation, rocks/boulders or fencing may be necessary to protect highly sensitive
..
JI-8~
",....._,.. .._,_..~"-~....~,.~--~.~_..~-~..~~-_.--.----
. ~._..~__~_,;""__.._._._~'''".-=._._.._".._."._"_~_..~..,.~..._..__""'...h."<<".
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
areas. Use appropriate type of barrier based on location, setting and use. For example, use chain link
or cattle wire to direct wildlife movement, and natural rocks/boulders or split rail fencing to direct
public access away from sensitive areas. Lands acquired through mitigation may preclude public access
in order to satisfy mitigation requirements.
6.2.2.4 Locate trails, view overlooks and staging areas in the least sensitive areas of the
preserve or restrict their use. Locate trails along the edges of urban land uses adjacent to the preserve,
or the seam between land uses (e.g. agriculture/habitat), and follow existing dirt roads as much as
possible rather than entering habitat or wildlife movement areas. Avoid locating trails between two
different habitat types (ecotones) for longer than necessary due to the typically heightened resource
sensitivity in those locations.
6.2.2.5 In general, avoid paving roads unless management and monitoring evidence shows
otherwise. Clearly demarcate and monitor trails for degradation and off-trail access and use. Provide
trail repair/maintenance as needed. Undertake measures to counter the effects of trail erosion including
the use of stone or wood crossjoints, edge plantings of native grasses, and mulching of the trail.
6.2.2.6 Limit the extent and location of equestrian trails to the less sensitive areas of the
preserve. Locate staging areas for equestrian uses at a sufficient distance (e.g. 300-500 feet) from areas
with riparian and coastal sage scrub habitats.
6.2.2.7 Remove homeless and itinerant worker camps on habitat areas as soon as found
pursuant to existing procedures.
6.2.2.8 Locate roads, trails, and other recreational use areas away from sensitive or high
value biological areas.
6.2.2.9 Review eXIstmg and future access areas to ensure that they do not inhibit
biological functions (e.g. breeding, nesting, roosting) and prevent habitat degradation or loss of key
sensitive plant species from trampling erosion by controlling access into sensitive biological resource
areas.
6.2.2.10 Construct trails to any prominent features or viewpoints that are likely to attract
hikers, thereby preventing extensive trampling and compaction.
6.2.3 Public and Private Lands
6.2.3.1 Public lands located within the proposed Otay/Sweetwater National Wildlife
Refuge planning area will be managed by the USFWS or its designee. Privately-held lands acquired
for preservation will be managed by USFWS or other entities as appropriate. Biological monitoring
and management will be performed by USFWS/CDFG or their designee.
..
1/- 93
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve plan
6.2.3.2 Approximately acres of the subarea preserve are expected to 'remain in
private ownership. Development on those private properties within the preserve boundaries reflected
on Figure 2 of this Subarea Plan, but not identified as part of a specific private development project
herein, will be subject to the Uplands Mitigation Guidelines reflected in Table 3. When combined with
the 100% preservation in negotiated areas on private projects/lands, the overall 90% preservation goal
of the MSCP will be met within the City's Subarea Plan preserve. The owners of these properties shall
have the right to fence and protect their ownership from trespassers.
6.3 Compatible Land Uses Adjacent To The Preserve
6.3.1 General Criteria
Residential uses will most often be located adjacent to the preserve, although commercial/industrial,
roads, manufactured open space, parks and recreation areas, utility facilities and other uses will occur
in some areas. Manufactured open space (e.g. parks, playing fields, vegetated slope banks, utility
rights-of-way, green belts), roads and recreational facilities are presumed compatible land uses adjacent
to the preserve. No additional transitional areas are necessary. The following guidelines will be
employed when planning and implementing these uses when they are located adjacent to the preserve.
These guidelines are intended to ensure compatibility and should serve to protect wildlife values in the
areas adjacent to the preserve:
6.3.1.1 Where feasible, plant materials used to landscape manufactured open space, road
cuts/fills and recreational facilities should consist of native species appropriate to the adjacent habitat
in the preserve. If possible, those species should be based on plants with genetic materials of the area.
6.3.1.2 Areas and structures subject to heavy human use (e.g., ball fields, parking lots,
landscapes/playing courts, equestrian centers, staging areas) shall, to the extent feasible, be located away
from the edge of the preserve.
6.3.1.3 Lighting within 100 feet of the preserve edge shall be confined to areas necessary
to ensure public safety, and shall be limited to low pressure sodium fixtures, shielded and directed away
from the preserve where possible.
6.3.1.4 Signage pertaining specifically to the preserve shall be limited to that necessary
to denote public access points, describe allowable uses and activities, and to identify the preserve
boundary .
6.3.1.5 Fencing along the preserve boundary is desirable, but not mandatory, and may
provide a barrier to fire, invasive species, and uncontrolled human access. Should a landowner or
preserve manager decide to install fencing, the type, style, and height must conform to local regulations
or those included in the applicable Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan.
.
11- f~
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
6.3.1.6 There will be no requirements for buffers outside the preserve system. All open
space requirements for the preserve system will be incorporated into the preserve system.
6.3.2 Project Specific Criteria
Each of the "covered" development projects discussed in Section 4.0 of this Subarea Plan are regulated
by referenced project approvals, including mitigation requirements. Where guidelines for adjacent land
uses are not specifically addressed, the general requirements above shall apply.
6.3.2.1
Otay Ranch
Allowable uses for areas adjacent to the preserve are discussed in Policies 7.1-7.3 of the Otay Ranch
RMP. The edge of the preserve is defined as a strip of land 100 ft. wide that surrounds the perimeter
of the management preserve.
The Subarea Plan Map (See Figure 2) reflects a total of 400 acres of potential active recreation land
area within the Otay Valley (per policy 6.2 of the Otay Ranch RMP 1). One 204 acre potential active
recreation land area located on previously farmed within the river valley, extending westerly
approximately two miles from the mouth of Salt Creek and is approximately 500 ft. + in width, could
create an obstacle to an existing biological connection now experienced between the riparian river
bottom and south-facing slopes on the north side of the Otay River Valley without adherence to
appropriate design criteria. In addition to general guidelines for land uses adjacent to the preserve (see
Section 6.3.1), implementation guidelines shall be developed in conjunction with planning for the Otay
Valley Regional Park to assure biological connections between the riparian river bottom and habitat
areas located on the northern slopes of the river valley.
Project specific criteria for the proposed University Site area, east of Salt Creek Canyon, may follow.
However, negotiations are on-going with USFWS and CDFG for this area at the present time.
..
/ / - 85
.....
~
Eo-;
<
~
~
Eo-;
~
<
~~
~==
r.:l
00<
f~
<
~
rn
.....
z
....
=
Eo<
~
00 ~
~,
; ~
o 00
uf
z
o <
8 ~
r.:l ~
~rn
r.:l
><
Eo<
00
....
>
<
s
=
U
roo.
o
~
....
U
~
~
=
<
Eo-;
~
'"
..
..
..c '"
'" ~
=~
~-=
~ ..
,.,=
s 8.
o e
'"
u
-=
~
8.~
e :J
'" ..
u ~
~~
'8
'"
j:Q
..
..
..c
o
,.,..c
~ ~
... ~
o~
..
..
..c
o
G:l..c
1; ~ ~
oo~~
..
..
..c
o
..
.>0:
~
':l
'"
~
f;:;l
~
'"
1=
00
-=
~
8.-;;-
e ~
'" '"
u-S
~
U
-=
..0 '"
~~
j:Q
~ ~ ~
"'.,Su
j:Q
~ ~
.. ..
.. '"
~z
'" ,.,
..c ..
~~
~ -..
~~
.>0:
.= ..
~ "'"
OOu
.>o:..c
~ t ~
oou~
~
..
3 ~
'" '"
E-< ..
~
~
biJ~
.. ..
>,S
_ -< . 'U;'
~ ~ toj) ..
... ....
~ >,S
~
- ..
~ ..
e; ~
E-<~
00
~
. '"
toj)..
.. ..
>,S
'"
= .~
~8
~~
> '"
u
2 ~ ~
.oU ~ &:
2~ ;:;s ., '"
~s ~ -g 8~"C~ tn
.0 ~~ ~_~ ~ ~~~~ 5
2 ~~ ~_ 0 u"'~C ~~
'" au ~"''''.oo ~tl-g, =~1i
~ "'~ "';:;se2~..o~gs ."'__
~ ~~ 8~~~a*~~?-1~g~
~~g~]E~=S~>~B~~o~>~
-c~-"'''.'''-'''?'''''CB''~?''
~!~~lB~'5'519a!!~t~~~
118e~8g~&~~~~z5~~QOOO
OJ
...
C>
IE-<
0;
::l
C>
Z
~
..
I;:
:s
..
:5!
=
..
..
..c
...
..
,.,
...
~
~
..c
=
~
~
o!:l'
]
.!!i
..
'"
..
os
i:l.
OJ
toj)
~
toj)
oS
...
o~
~
=
'"
:J
os
:s
.!
..
.s
..
rg
~
'"
..
..c
..
:E
S
jj
...
oS
~
'"
~
~
'"
o~
..
0::
...
o~
..
.,
'"
...
.,
...
'"
os
i:l.
o~
.g
~
..
~
....
'"
.,
'"
oS
..
..c
E-<
..
~
~
..
..
.s
~
~
'"
G:l
..
..
~
toj)
05
..
..c
<Ii
"1U
...
:E
os
..c
-g
.!!!
'OJ
~
..
..s
"Cl
..
~
-g
s
.,
-.,
.,
oS
...
..
=
=~
..
.s
05
os
:s
os
e
.s
.,
t:
..
'=,
..
i:l..
=~
C> ..
~ ~
.. ..
ig:
:= ctS
Os ~
..
..c ~
~~
., ..
'tOe'
!a
,5 ~
1"0
os ~
'::l .,
.. ..
~..s
.,
toj)
~
:8
.g
.!!!
==
os
e
.,
....
C>
~
'"
..
..
os
.,
os
..
'"
os
i:l.
.,
=
~
'"
oS
~
..
'"
os
-a
1:
:=
~
..
toj)
os
..
..
'"
os
]
,S
:a
~
-<
....
<Ii
t:
..
o='
a
~
o~
:a
05
=
C>
~
..
]
~
..
..
'"
~ OJ
..
I;: ...
'"
:a ...
'" ..
e ..
..
..
.. .,
..c ..
..
~ i:l.
..c
'"
~ "1U
= e
os
:::l' ...
] ~
'"
os ~
.. .:!l
OJ ~
...
= '"
C> ...
., ~ r--
os ~
..
.,
= b
'" i
toj)
~ ..
R '"
'"
'"
.. -<
~
N
Ii oS
'"
.. ~
,., i:l.
'"
,., =
..
.. ~
..
.. '"
.. oS
..
"1U 05
~ os oS
.s ~ .E!
o~ .. os
..
,., "1U
6 ~
e ...
o~
... ..c ..c
~ '" .!
'" :a a
~ ~
.. ., ~
e os .,
..
~ .. os
os ..
..
1i os
.g ~
~ ~
8. ~ '"
G:l
OJ ..
.. ..
s .9 ~
~ C> -g
'" .. os
oc
toj) '" .r
os OJ S
'" ..
os .. ~
., '8
]i '"
.. oc
~ .. toj)
"Cl -<
.. .E! -0
..
"1U '"
05 ..
~ .:!l ~
R ~ ]i
e;
0 E-< ~
...; ~ iii 11-'"
.w_"~__""-"__
N
~
~
=
~
N
~
-
~
~
~
~
~
<
z
~:s
~~
00<
~~
~~
~;:J
~rI.l
~~
Z
~ ~
~ ~
o 00
U~
Z
o -<
~~
t3 ~
~rI.l
~~
00
~
:s
~
a
~
~
-
u
-5=
=~-
~ 8. ~
~ e ~
<:UQ~
iSu
-=
cu~-
i8.~
Q e (,j
=Q~
U
-=
::!
8.'<'>
e ~
Q (,j
u~
.0
U
"C:l
CII
c; i:
... CII
Q III
... CII
It
ta -<~
'0
...
<:u
S f
Q <:u
...~
III
= .~
~~
~~
>8
..
CII
.:::
is
~.:::
<:u ~
... <:u
Ocz::
..
CII
.:::
is
~~
; & =
rIl~~
..
CII
.:::
is
.fa
<:u
...:i
...
III
<:u
f;;;l
~
Q
l=
-=
.,:, Q
~t
=
<:u
igf=
~.sG
e <:u
~ ~
...z
~ ~
~cz::
<:u"::'l
cz::~
.:.=
.:::: CII
<:u CII...
rIlu
.:.=.:::
:: ~ ~
<:u .. <:u
rIlucz::
~
. III
bllCII
CII ..
>~
~
. III
bllCII
CII ..
>~
~
. III
bllCII
'" ..
> (,j
~
.."...".'"
'" '"
""'.-
-
___OOl.()O"I._C"'"l
v:!v""''''~ ~
'"
_trl 'D
~ 0'.
v v 0'\ ('1-
('l') t'-- 00 ('I'j V
N..\O..N_V
-N N
-
O'.t-
'D
-
OOt'--t'--('1') 0
('f')lr)v-N
-\0 Nan
..,;
00"''''''
'" ;j
$~VV~..V~~~::!:~-
-
000
00 t-
"'.'"
'"
'"
'"
'D
'" --
"'VV
trlOO'"
_OOt-M
tr'loo M l.()
NN
v
VS~
~vt-v~~~~$v~~OOvv~vv~
-
-
-
00
..".
00
s
-
'D
-
'D
'D
t-
trl _
- v
'"
'D
'"
'"
00
o
'D
'"
'"
'"
0'.
'"
'"
s
8
..".
'"
('I\o::!:
'D
'"
..".
"'.
-
'"
'"
trl
trl
-
..".
..".
..".
~
v
-
V
o
-
0'.
..".
\OO\NNVVVNVOOOOt'--t'--OOOO\O('l')Ol.()
O'\-('l')('l')'-OOt'--t'--O\\OOO\.oV ('l')l.()vv-
\OVl.()-\OMN-t'-- ~- -~ ('Il.()
~~ ~ - ~ ~
,!:>
2
,!:> u
2C1)
u
CI)
]
~ ~
<I) '"
O;..c:l
u~
g <I)
CI) ~
';;l<l)CI)"O
- ;:: a - ;
~ ~:E ~ ~
'" ;g '" 8 el
8 u::E uc:l
,!:>
2
u
CI)
<I)
blJ
'"
CI)
-5l
...
'"
::E
~
<J>
~
o
-;; ~
~ at/} e ~
+-> ;g ~~~ ~ ~
<J>,!:>2g u",,::au ~13')...
~o;;>$..o-g~g~ a~.~
~ CI) ~ * &: ~.E "0 .;:: "0 ,!:>
<:: <:: i5,.0>. _ ~ <:: 8 B.. ~ g:IJ
."'.'" >-;> el 1:: .t:J <I) .9 i:ia ~ ...
~~e;;<::aa",~~....:....:<I)
.&.9- g g. ~ .~ .& 0 CJ.) ~ ~ -5
~~~OZCl~CI)ClOOO
~
e;;
CI)-5l
'$ ...
<J> '"
8::E
uB
8 '"
<I) ~
-5-5l
g ~
CI)~
'"
'"
"l
'"
0'.
t-
.."..
'"
'"
'D
'"
"'.
00
'"
0'.
trl
N
t-
'D
'D.
'"
-
'"
trl
.."..
trl
00
0'..
'"
trl
'"
'"
o
-
'D
trl
trl
t-
o
t-
'"
t-
::6
'"
..".
t-
'"
o.
'"
'"
:::
-
'"
00
'"
00
'D
-
t-
trl
o
~
trl
:9
Q
...
'-i
~
Q
Z
~
<I)
u
..
!!.
ta
bII
Jl
bII
.5
...
.~
~
=
Q
.:!l
S
:E
<:u
.:::
'"
,~
...
'~
'"
III
,g
.:!l
(,j
<:u
p,.
.8
CII
~
"C:l
CII
..
,g
"C:l
8.
Q
Ql
...
CII
"C:l
bII
.5
CII
,!:l
III
bII
;@
'0
.:::
.,:,
=
..s
=
<:u
e
III
....
Q
~
III
CII
..
<:u
III
<:u
CII
(,j
<:u
p,.
III
=
a
Q
,5
"C:l
CII
(,j
<:u
-a
CII
,!:l
~
CII
bII
<:u
CII
..
(,j
'"
ta
=
,51
:6
"C:l
-<
....
"C:l
CII
l.:
~
CII
:5!
=
CII
CII
,!:l
...
CII
~
'8
]
=
.51
...
<:u
:!
's
1l
...
CII
~
<:u
u
CII
,!:l
CII
:E
<:u
...
CII
..s
.5
=
~
Q
.:::
III
~
III
.~
]
~
CII
~
....
Q
III
III
oS
~
<Ii
E
:E
<:u
.:::
"C:l
=
~
CII
~
..
~
"C:l
..
<:u
'8
s
III
'IIl
III
oS
...
CII
=
:'a
1l
...
.5
<:u
.5
<:u
e
,g
.:!l
(,j
CII
'0'
..
p,.
=-d
Q CII
~ S
~ a
blip,.
+: =
's l
~a
:3
~
.:!l
(,j
.:!l CII
(j oS'
<:u ..
p,.p,.
.5 ~
"'g 00
~ ~
CII ..
:::~
....i
<Ii
t:
CII
'0'
..
p,.
~
"C:l
.;:
;a
.5
=
Q
"C:l
~
j
CII
..
Q
"C:l
~
Q
e
CII
,!:l
:3
~
"C:l
=
<:u
==
]
<:u
..
ta
=
Q
III
<:u
CII
III
=
Q
bII
;@
i
CII
"C:l
.:
<:u
CII
~
~
..
CII
...
CII
..
CII
~
~
..s
.~
iE
...
Q
=
Q
"C:l
CII
e
rJl
~
=
8.
ta
!:l
'3
(,j
'c
bII
<:u
III
<:u
III
~
CII
..
~
<:u
~
=
8.
o
...;
ta
...
Q
...
CII
...
..
CII
III
CII
l3..
.:::
(,j
~
e
...
Q
=
Q
"C:l
:a
<:u
...
,g
1l
...
00
(<')
i
..
Q
(,j
(,j
-<
oi
(,j
<:u
p,.
III
=
8.
Q
.5
.5
<:u
e
CII
..
~
<:u
e
.:::
u
:a
~
j
<:u
...
...
S
:E
~
.:::
...
.~
III
<:u
CII
..
<:u
"C:l
CII
,!:l
!:l
~
III
<:u
CII
..
<:u
"C:l
8.
Q
Ql
...
CII
Q
"C:l
=
<:u
or
!:l
'3
.~
..
bII
-<
.,;
JS
.s
.~
Q
..
.s
Q
..
Q
ta
..
CII
]
..
i
(,j
.5
:a
S
Q
...
~
~ 11,81
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
6.4 General Plannin~ and Desifm Guidelines
6.4.1 Infrastructure
6.4.1.1 Certain public infrastructure necessary for public health and safety is permitted
within the preserve system. Any impact to habitat, sensitive species or listed species shall be considered
to be incidental take. It is expressly intended that flexibility be allowed in locating planned
infrastructure within the preserve. It is also recognized that it may be necessary to locate public
facilities in the preserve that are not currently anticipated. Mitigation for the impacts of new facilities
is included in Section VI.B.4. Such facilities could include the following:
. Electric Distribution Facilities
. Roads
. Waterlines and reservoirs and associated facilities (e.g., pump stations, pressure control
facilities, and access roads), and water storage and treatment facilities
. Sewer lines and pump stations
. Telephone, cable televisions and natural gas facilities
. Storm drain and flood control facilities, including associated detention/retention basins
and dissipator structures
Mitigation for those public improvement projects which disturb habitat within the MHP A shall be
directed within preserve boundaries.
6.4.1.2 Current maintenance and operation activities for public infrastructure shall be
allowed, including access road maintenance, clearing/desilting of flood/drainage control facilities and
those activities which require the maintenance of cleared areas.
6.4.1.3 Maintenance and operation of new facilities shall be allowed in accordance with
standard practices existing at the time of completion, including access road maintenance and those which
require the clearing of certain areas.
6.4.1.4 To the extent feasible, sensitive habitats and species shall be avoided during the
planning, designing and construction of new infrastructure and access roads. The physical and
engineering requirements of the infrastructure shall be considered during the siting procedure. Impacts
shall be mitigated as indicated on Table 3 of this Subarea Plan. Areas temporarily disturbed shall be
revegetated.
6.4.1.5 Emergency repairs to infrastructure are permitted. The affected agency will be
allowed to enter the preserve and complete necessary repairs consistent with normal practices. No
additional permits or permissions shall be required. Areas disturbed by such repairs shall be revegetated
with native plant materials appropriate to the habitat that was disturbed.
.
11-1'6
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
6.4.2 Roads
6.4.2.1 Roads in the preserve areas are limited to those identified in the Circulation
Element, collector streets essential for area circulation and existing maintenance roads. Local streets
shall not cross the preserve except where needed to access isolated development areas.
6.4.2.2 Development of roads in canyon bottoms shall be avoided. Where roads enter
and traverse portions of the preserve, provisions shall be taken to provide for wildlife management, such
as adequate fencing to direct wildlife movement and undercrossings (preferably bridges).
6.4.2.3 Roads within the preserve shall be narrowed from existing design standards to
minimize habitat fragmentation and disruption of wildlife movement and breeding areas. Roads shall
be located in lower quality habitat or disturbed areas to the extent possible.
6.4.2.4 Preserve access points and maintenance roads, where they cross the preserve, shall
be gated and signed to control public access.
6.4.2.5 State Route 125 is exempt from the requirements of the Chula Vista Subarea Plan
because it will be reviewed and approved by USFWS and CDFG through a separate process.
6.4.3 Fire and Brush Management
Residential and commercial uses may not be compatible with the preserve and will be separated from
the preserve by a brush management zone which shall vary in width. In some cases, the brush
management area will be within the preserve to protect adjacent uses from fires as well as reducing the
possibility if catastrophic wildfires that could destroy much of the subarea preserve. Brush management
activities may include controlled burns, grazing and mechanical fuel load reduction. Fire management
activities shall be permitted when conducted according to a fire management plan approved by the
resource agencies, City of Chula Vista and/or appropriate fire suppression district. Preparation of a
fire management plan is optional, at the desire of the preserve manager or jurisdiction. It may be
prepared as a stand-alone plan or as part of the subarea-habitat management plan. It will protect the
resources within the preserve by absorbing "edge effects" that would otherwise occur within the
preserve. With implementation of the brush management plan and zone, no other restrictions on
residential, commercial or other uses are necessary.
The following guidelines are intended to establish how the brush management zone will be managed:
6.4.3.1 Plant materials existing within the brush management zone may be thinned,
moved, pruned and/or removed as necessary up to 50%.
6.4.3.2 Supplemental planting may be done at the election of the owner. Plant materials
uses shall be acceptable to the Chula Vista Fire Department, and shall consist of native species,
.
1/-8'1
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
appropriate to the adjacent habitat in the preserve. This guideline also applies to any road cuts and/or
graded disturbed areas within the brush management zone.
6.4.3.3 Ownership of the brush management zone may be by the adjacent land owner,
homeowners' association or the preserve management entity selected by the City to operate the preserve,
if any. Where feasible, the zone may be incorporated into project open space and landscaping plans.
6.4.3.4 Responsibility for brush management shall reside with the landowner, and may
be enforced by the Chula Vista Fire Department or homeowners' association. For residential
development areas, the individual Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall clearly define
the responsibilities of the owner with respect to brush management including when and how such
activities shall be carried out.
6.4.4 Fencing, Lighting And Signage
6.4.4.1 Fencing, lighting and signage are permitted in the brush management zone, at the
discretIon of the landowner.
6.4.4.2 Lighting shall be confined to areas necessary to ensure public safety, and shall be
limited to low pressure sodium fixtures.
6.4.4.3 Signage shall be limited to that necessary to denote public access points, prohibit
trespassing on private property and to call out the preserve boundary.
6.4.5 Materials Storage
No storage of materials (e.g. chemicals, equipment, etc.) will be allowed within the preserve or in any
areas that may impact the preserve, especially due to leakage, drainage or flood flows.
6.4.6 Mining, Extraction And Processing Facilities
6.4.6.1 In the long-term, it is envisioned that no sand or other mining activities will occur
in the preserve except on an interim basis, if determined necessary to maintain ponds, existing flood
control channels, or remove excess sediments from strategic floodplain locations ifthe sediments present
a problem to sensitive areas or to management of the preserve. Processing and other related mining
activities (e.g., asphaltic processing, etc.) are incompatible with the MSCP preserve.
6.4.6.2 All temporary sand mining and related activities, as indicated in Section 6.4.6.1
above, must be consistent with the objectives, guidelines, and recommendations in the MSCP Plan, the
City of Chula Vista's (future) sensitive lands ordinance, all relevant long-range plans, as well as with
the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975.
..
1/-90
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
6.4.6.3 Any sand removal activities shall be monitored for noise impacts to surrounding
sensitive habitats, and all new sediment removal or mining operations proposed in proximity to the
preserve, or changes in existing operations, must include noise reduction methods that take into
consideration the breeding and nesting seasons of sensitive bird species.
6.4.6.4 All existing and future mined lands adjacent to or within the preserve shall be
reclaimed pursuant to SMARA and should be designed to contribute biologically to the preserve. Native
habitats shall be restored as much as possible. Although man-made ponds are technically not native to
the region, where these provide native wildlife and wetland habitats, they are considered compatible
uses where they do not interfere with other local natural processes and wildlife movement.
6.4.6.5 Any permitted activity including reclamation of sand mining shall consider changes
and impacts to water quality, water table level, fluvial hydrology, flooding, and wetlands and habitats
upstream and downstream and provide adequate mitigation.
6.4.7 Flood Control
6.4.7.1 Flood control should generally be limited to existing agreements with Wildlife
Agencies unless demonstrated to be needed based on a cost benefit analysis and pursuant to a restoration
plan. Floodplains within the preserve, and upstream from the preserve if feasible, should remain in a
natural condition and configuration in order to allow for the ecological, geological, hydrological, and
other natural processes to remain or be restored.
6.4.7.2 No berming, channelization, or man-made constraints or barriers to creek,
tributary, or river flows shall be allowed in any floodplain within the preserve unless reviewed by all
appropriate agencies, and adequately mitigated. Review must include impacts to upstream and
downstream habitats, flood flow volumes, velocities and configurations, water availability and changes
to the water table level.
6.4.7.3 No riprap, concrete, or other unnatural material shall be used to stabilize river,
creek, tributary, and channel banks within the preserve. All river, stream, and channel banks shall be
natural, and stabilized with willows and other appropriate native plantings.
6.4.8 Scientific And Biological Activities
6.4.8.1 All scientific, research, monitoring and habitat restoration and enhancement
activities are permitted within the City of Chula Vista portion of the preserve, subject to approval by
the preserve manager/landowner and obtaining any necessary permits.
6.4.8.2 Any of the activities indicated in Section 6.4.8.1 above shall be carried out under
a regional program implemented by the resource agencies, City of Chula Vista or preserve manager,
and are not required elements of the Subarea Plan.
.
//-1/
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
6.4.8.3 Prior to beginning any of the above activities, the entity performing the work shall
indemnify the underlying landowner against any and all actions that could arise out of the approved
activities.
6.5 Specific Project Exclusions
6.5.1 Otay Ranch
6.5.1.1 Permitted Uses. Section 5.8 of the RMP indicates that: "the primary goal of the
RMP is to provide opportunities for passive recreation within the Preserve that are consistent with
resource protection. In addition, 400 acres within the Preserve are available for "active recreational
uses" (within the Otay River Valley, pg. 195).
With respect to agricultural uses, the RMP states (Section 5.9, pg. 195): "Establishment of the Preserve
will provide opportunities for creation of demonstration agricultural uses within the Preserve. The area
in the vicinity of Bird Ranch has been identified as an area suitable for demonstration agriculture.
Demonstration agricultural activities must be compatible with RMP policies and standards for resource
protection and enhancement. "
Revegetation of Preserve Lands. The RMP includes requirements for revegetation of certain disturbed
areas to be included in the Preserve; an Appendix in the RMP discusses conceptual revegetation plans.
Permitted uses within the preserve are discussed on page 103 of the RMP; they include an interpretive
center(s), native plant nursery and/or botanical garden, active recreation not greater than 400 acres
(depending on Otay Valley Regional Park design see map for location), a system of trails, motorized
vehicles necessary for preserve management and emergency services, limited fire roads, and
ecologically necessary controlled burning. Objective 8 of the RMP (pgs. 116-117) indicate interim uses
and activities that may continue within the proposed preserve until conveyance to the Preserve
Owner/Manager.
The following specific preserve exclusions are identified for Otay Ranch:
The proposed alignment for SR 125 from Otay Mesa through Otay Ranch along the preferred
alignment is excluded from the Preserve area, as is the alignment for Alta Road along a near
parallel alignment to the east. The specific alignment will depend on the final CalTrans and
USFWS/CDFG review and permit process.
The final configuration of the proposed Limited Development Area will depend on future
detailed resource studies, although the minimum number of acres is fixed. These areas are to
be excluded from the preserve area.
The Otay Ranch RMP (Pg. P-3, #3) contains a partial list of facilities as follows: SR 125,
California Water Authority (CW A) aqueduct easements, utility easements, the Otay Valley trunk
..
//-'1.1.
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
sewer, the proposed Salt Creek trunk sewer, and others (at this time, it is not known which of
these potential facilities would impact the preserve area). Refer to the draft (RMP II) for
specific facilities.
Other planned roadways that cross the preserve including: Rock Mountain Road, Otay Valley
Road, Otay Lakes Road (east of the proposed Resort site), Millar Ranch Road in Proctor Valley
and the future widening of Proctor Valley Road through Proctor Valley.
6.5.2 Otay Valley Regional Park Plan
A conceptual plan considered by the JEP A Policy Committee for the park preliminarily identifies a
number of recreational facilities as indicated in Section _' It is not known exactly where these
recreational facilities will be placed, but the draft EIR for the MSCP describes Policy 6.2 of the Otay
Ranch RMP, relative to the recreational area. In addition to the potential recreational facilities, other
facilities listed below may occur within the river park boundary (these exclusions are in addition to the
preserve exclusions listed above).
City of San Diego Clean Water Program reclamation facility (located in the western end of the
Otay Ranch, within the river valley (see Lettieri-McIntyre, 1994).
Proposed roads crossing the river: a) Paseo Ranchero; b) La Media Road; c) State Route 125;
and d) Alta Road.
Other local roads and trails within the park for local access.
Existing rock quarry (approx. 135 acres) on Rock Mountain, just east of Otay Valley Road; the
quarry operation is expected to continue for about the next 50 years, after which the site may
be used for active recreation.
The Gun Club/Bird Ranch: This area and the area immediately east (about 225 acres) has been
a gun club and ranch and would not be used for habitat managment purposes under the
conceptual park plan.
The site for the 400 acres of active recreation in Otay Ranch has been identified for the bench
areas on both sides of the Otay River.
Lower Otay County Park (approx. 70 acres): an existing, but closed campground; to be
refurbished.
The existing County Air Park, located east of Otay Reservoir, south of Dtay Lakes Road (not
in Subarea Plan): used as a landing field and observation area for gliders and parachutists
(approx. 60 acres)
.
//-1:3
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
The Conceptual Park plan also includes the George F. Bailey Detention facility and the 120 acre
mitigation/open space area located to the north of the facility (not in Subarea Plan).
6.5.3 Salt Creek Ranch
Three future two-lane residential roadways servicing residential estate neighborhoods in eastern Salt
Creek Ranch.
6.5.4 Sunbow II
The future extension of East Orange A venue from the west end of the Sunbow II property, east to the
boundary of the Otay Ranch.
7.0 PRESERVE MANAGEMENT
7.1 Plan Preparation
A Preserve Management Plan shall be completed within one year after signing of an Implementation
Agreement. Management entities may differ depending on ownership (responsibility for management
falls on fee-owner or easement holder of preserve land) and whether overall maintenance and operations
is contracted to a single management organization for the overall Subarea Plan.
7.2 Protection Of Resources
7.2.1 Interim Protection
Interim protection is provided through those standards, ordinances and policies listed in Section IV of
this Subarea Plan. The City agrees to make changes necessitated by the approval of the Subarea Plan,
including Interim Protection and General Plan amendments, if required, within one year after adoption
of the Implementing Agreement (IA) by City Council. The lA, as discussed in Section 6.2 of the
MSCP, is the instrument by which interim protection is assured.
7.2.2 Agricultural Exemption
For agricultural land users, a primary objective of the agriculture provision of the Chula Vista Subarea
Plan is to encourage voluntary habitat restoration or enhancement activities. The Wildlife agencies have
represented that a landowner who enters into a cooperative agreement with the Wildlife Agencies will
be given a "safe harbor" from any additional future liability under the ESA or CESA beyond that
existing at the time the agreement is signed. As long as landowners carry out the agreed-upon habitat
improvements and avoid impacts to listed species and their habitat which exist at the time they enter into
the program, they may farm, develop or make any other lawful use of the property, even if such use
incidentally results in the loss of listed species.
..
1/-91/
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
The intent of the safe harbor provision is to allow agricultural landowners to carry out measures which
would benefit the land in general, such as creating impoundments for holding water in floodplains,
contour grading, or allowing land to go fallow, with the result being the regrowth of native vegetation
and return of native species, and not have those good land stewardship efforts lead to potential conflicts
with ESA and CESA prohibitions on Take of listed specifies.
The City will facilitate the preparation of cooperative agreements to those landowners who wish to
participate in the program, and will provide the Section lO(a)I(B) permits and Management
Authorizations under the auspices of its Subarea Plan Implementing Agreement.
7.2.3 Permanent Protection
Permanent protection of preserved land is to be provided through recordation of conservation easements
senior to other encumbrances upon the fee title or dedication of the fee title itself, as appropriate and
consistent with the needs of the landowners conveying the property to the preserve. Both public and
private landowners may wish to retain compatible uses of the property while complying with preserve
management guidelines. This is accommodated with the grant of easement.
7.2.4 Mitigation Plan
7.2.4.1
Mitigation For Covered Projects Within Or adjacent To Preserve Boundary
Covered Projects shall consist of those projects described in Section 4.0 of this Subarea Plan. In some
cases, those projects will have fully mitigated their biological impacts through onsite dedications of
property or conveyances of conservation easements. In other cases, the mitigation for those projects
will be directed to available, qualified lands within the boundaries of the Subarea. The City will attempt
to link these available mitigation lands to those affected developments, thereby further enhancing
preserve acquisition and successful preserve implementation.
7.2.4.2
Mitigation For Other Permitted Uses
Other permitted uses include those projects not covered under Section 7.2.4.1 above and construction
of public and private infrastructure, as described in Sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 (Infrastructure and Roads).
Mitigation for such uses will be in accordance with the guidelines set forth on Table 3, herein.
.
1/-9.5
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
TABLE 3
UPLANDS MITIGATION GUIDELINES
Tier Habitat Type Location Location of Preservation I Mitigation Ratios
of Impact Inside Preserve Outside Preserve
TIER I: Regional Wildlife Corridor Inside 2:1 3:1
(rare Southern Foredunes Preserve
uplands) Torrey Pines Forest
Coastal Bluff Scrub
Maritime Succulent Scrub Outside 1:1 2:1
Maritime Chaparral Preserve
Native Grasslands
Oak Woodlands
TIER II: Coastal Sage Srub Inside 1.5:1 2:1
(uncommon CSS/Chaparral Preserve
uplands) Outside 1:1 1.5:1
Preserve
TIER ill: Mixed Chaparral Inside 1:1 1.5:1
(common Charnise Chaparral Preserve
uplands) Non-native Grassland
Outside 0.5:1 0.5:1
Preserve (wi sens. spp.)
Outside 0:1 0:1
Preserve (w/o sens. spp.)
TIER IV: Disturbed Lands Inside No Mitigation No Mitigation
(other Agricultural Lands Preserve Required Required
uplands) Eucalyptus Outside No Mitigation No Mitigation
Preserve Required Required
Notes: "Inside":
"Outside":
"Preserve":
Within covered projects located within or adjacent to preserve area.
Outside of boundaries of Chula Vista Subarea Plan preserve.
Area of MHP A included in the Chula Vista Subarea Plan preserve.
.
1/-913
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
8.0 FUNDING
Land within the preserve that remains in private ownership will be maintained in its current state (unless
approved plans dictate otherwise) and all costs to do so will be borne by the existing and any subsequent
owners, or in accordance with any final agreement between the landowner and CDFG and USFWS.
Land that is dedicated and ownership vested with a government entity or private conservancy shall be
maintained in its existing state and all costs to do so will be borne by the new public or private
owner/conservancy.
Land that is revegetated shall be monitored and maintained for the period of time specified in the
approving documentation by the entity responsible for the revegatation. Upon completion of such
activities in accordance with applicable permits, the land may be retained in private ownership with an
agreed upon open space or conservation easement, or transferred to an acceptable government entity
or private conservancy. That owner shall maintain the land in the state in which it is received and shall
bear all costs to do so unless other arrangements are made with the previous landowner.
The City of Chula Vista commits to adopting a general funding plan consistent with principles
established in the MSCP Plan and acceptable to the City within six months of signing an Implementation
Agreement.
9.0 SUBAREA PLAN AMENDMENTS
The Subarea Plan includes lands on which the location of preservation and development areas were not
resolved (amendment areas) and therefore take authorizations do not apply. However, a process for
resolving project design and mitigation issues has been developed that would allow for the properties
within the amendment areas to be covered by the Subarea Plan take authorizations in the future. Two
types of amendments, minor amendments and minor amendments, will be used to extend take to the
amendment areas. The amendment process would only be initiated at the request of the property owner.
9.1 Minor Amendments
Minor amendment properties are properties on which habitat could be partially or completely eliminated
(with appropriate mitigation) without significantly affecting the overall goals of the City's Subarea Plan,
MSCP and associated environmental documents. Minor amendment properties would be expected to
meet the criteria and achieve the goals for linkages and corridors as described in the Section 2.2 of the
MSCP and provide mitigation consistent with those provisions contained in Table 3 herein. Minor
amendments would require the approval of the USFWS's Field Office Supervisor and the CDFG's
NCCP Program Manager.
It is intended that parcels indicated on the Subarea Plan Map (See Figure 2) as "Minor Amendment
Areas" will be allowed to annex into the plan in the future. The procedure for handling such
amendments will be included in the Implementation Agreement. In all cases, the land may only be
.
//-97
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
added to the Subarea Plan with the consent or request of the land owner. The sequence of annexation
could include landowner's acceptance of the provisions of the Subarea Plan, revision of the Chula Vista
Subarea Plan to reflect annexation, approval by the City Council, and transmittal to CDFG and USFWS
for appropriate action.
9.2 Major Amendments
Requests for major amendments to the City's Subarea Plan's take authorizations would be processed
by the Wildlife Agencies consistent with applicable laws and regulations (including the National
Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act) in effect at the time the request
for an amendment is received.
.
11-91
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
10.0 REFERENCES
>>
11-99
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
11.0 APPENDIX
11.1 Baldwin Tentative Agreement Exhibits
11.2 Implementation Agreement/Management Authorization
.
I/-I/)()
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
11.1 - BALDWIN TENTATIVE AGREEMENT ExmBITS
//-//)I
";C~.~'~-1'i:i - -~J.~'. ,~..,-,~r<-",
.'..~c~~V'~~:);\.)~,
',;,,:, ,: ~ "'i\(~~.":'-
, BALDWIN TENTATIVE AGREEMENT
Y~-.~\PL~~J
- EXHIBIT 1 I ....'
1
s;:
\
~
~
~
~
~
-< "
"
~ \\
.~
" -
;; "',:V'
.
..... ).
~ " \'
<. ~ "
... ~.::::-::::-
~ 8 ~
0 '"
~-
~ ~
~
~ =-~
~ ~ \\. 'l \ If
,,::::,~ ~"=:::::_---~,
~ . .. -...../"-J .'
Q <
^' ~
,(
,
,
~ ~
0
;'::'~f..~;;: """!''''':~r;!;;;
o~ 'tQ;;: '~,,~~. 1] n-
~ 130~~ (
. ~ ~~)x
~ Very Low Density
Low Density Resic
I LM
Low-Medium Dt
- EXHIBIT 4
VILLAGE 5 r
,;--
~:~;~::_':~\. ,~~M~~~~
I' 0 I
.~... -'
.
A.. \
. . ":;'::'.~/+:',~1
.:~('
../>~)~.i
.;." .,.>
)
---~~ .:...' '-'--....,"-.J
-~-"'"
------', --------,
-', ~---"""'.'"
-< ) '-7 <-/ -- J=-::=-// (e L
~83", Q} - - ~<c ~cO:-;C/~~<-_, l
.... r ~';;t
-",,! ,',Ir
BALDWIN TENTATIVE AGREEMENT - EXHmIT 5
I-.
....
o
;:.
"-
III
co
III
~
IT
~ i:~
\\~
II
"
1/
- 1/
: II
OTA
?~,
r
A .,',,~Y
VILL
I
Planning Area 18-A
..
..
EUC ...
.__-,_/~ta'1D.iP_q../ .. _.___
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
11.2 - IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT/MANAGEMENT AUTHORIZATION
(NOT INCLUDED AT TillS TIME)
(Disk #1O:\mscpsub2.pln) Revised May 6, 1996
11-1 b 1
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Preserve Plan
11.2 -IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT/MANAGEMENT AUTHORIZATION
(NOT INCLUDED AT TillS TIME)
(Disk #1O:\mscpsub2.pln) Revised May 9, 1996
11-108
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item / ~
Meeting Date 5/14/96
Public Hearing: Municipal Code Amendment PCA-96-05;Consideration
of minor amendments to Municipal Code Sections 15.04.060 & 15.04.145
(Excavation, Grading and Fills) - City initiated.
Ordinance Amending Sections 15.04.060 & 15.04.145 of the
Municipal Code relating to the revised Landscape Manual and approval
of landscape plans
Director of PlalUling et!r.:_,." .
City Manager JG. ~ ~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X )
Staff recommends that this item be continued to May 28, 1996.
/02 - /
#/J-.
PUBLIC HEARING DiECK LIST
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: S \ \ l\ \q6
SUBJECT: \~~ C~L ~-0~~-~::/ \S.\)\\,C)o ~ \S.b\f \ \\.{S
~~~W~~A
\
LOCATION:
s\\ \S"=
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBtICATION -- BY FAX~; BY HAND_
PUBLICATION DATE :5 "-\ \ ~b
\
; BY MAIL
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS NO. MAILED
~R GC ~S4992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK'=:> \ \ \ q \0
COPIES TO:
~
Administration (4)
Planning
Originating Department
Engineering
Others
City Clerk's Office (2)
~~\
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
s \ \ \ q~
, "
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
7/93
.s
/ :1-..3
;(}J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering amendments to Municipal Code Sections 15.04.06 and 15.04.145,
to substitute the reference to "City Landscape Architect" with "Director of Planning or designee" as it relates to land
development permits. This will complete minor code changes to allow for consistency with the City Landscape Manual.
The application has been filed by the City of Chula Vista.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposal is exempt from environmental review as a Class
4(b) exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received by the City Clerk no later than
noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project Planner Garry Williams in the Planning
Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista California 91910, or by
calling 691-5098.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Council at or prior to the public hearing described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying
documentation and/or plans are on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
Tuesday, May 14, 1996
at 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, Public Services Building
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue
At which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodation to access,
attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and 5 days
for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley for specific information at (619) 691-5101. California Relay Service is available
for the hearing impaired.
Date:
Case No:
April 30, 1996
PCA-96-05.
PCA960S.NOT
Id-'I
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Page 1, Item: J:S
Meeting Date: 05/14/96
Public Hearing: PCM-96-14: Amendment to the Rancho del Rey
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I Plan for approximately 27.15 acres by
combining the Employment Park lA and Employment Park IB Districts
into a single Employment Park District, and modifying the permitted,
conditionally permitted and prohibited land uses allowed therein - Cinti
Land Planning representing various property owners
Resolution Granting the requested amendment to the Rancho del Rey
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I Plan
Director of Plann... ingot; (\'.
City Manager J~ ~ ~~\
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
Staff is recommending that this item be continued to May 21, 1996.
13 -/
r;t1'I'~
./
.--
PUBLIC HEARING CHECK LIST
PUBLIC ~ DATE:
SUBJECT: pL\"\ \'N~
\
LOCATION:~& M
~ \'\ \ 'f\ '" \.",
y~~ . ~ \
~\~T
SENT TO STAR NEWS FOR PUBLICATION -- BY FAX ~ ; BY HAND ; BY MAIL
PUBLICATION DATE S\~~,\C\\::' - -
.
MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS
NO. MAILED
j8fo
PER GC ~S4992 Legislative Staff, Construction Industry Fed, 6336 Greenwich Dr Suite F. San Diego, 92122
~ \cl-~\C1b
LOGGED IN AGENDA BOOK
COPIES TO:
Administration (4)
'\ \ :}... '\ \ ~b
Planning
Originating Department
'\ \ d-.l1 \ Sb
\ ~
Engineering
~
\\\~~\qb
~ ~
City Clerk's Office (2)
POST ON BULLETIN BOARDS
'\ \~D\Cj,b
'-
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
7/93
'$.
1.3-3
~~f?-
~:
...,.; ...,.; ...,.; ...,.;
----
----
CllY OF
CHUIA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City
of Chula Vista, California, for the purpose of considering a request to combine districts and amend the listed land uses
for the Employment Park districts in the Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area I Plan (SPA I Plan). This request
would affect the properties located east of the Price Club on the east and north sides of Tierra del Rey, those located on
Amena Court and those along Canarios Court, as depicted on the map duplicated on the reverse side of this notice. The
application, filed by Cinti Land Planning on behalf of multiple applicants, requests revisions to the SPA I Plan that would
combine the EP-l (EP = Employment Park) and EP-2 districts into one EP district and defme the permitted, conditionally
permitted and prohibited land uses in that district.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project falls under the purview ofEIR-87-0 1 and EIR-
92-02 and that an addendum to these environmental impact reports is the only environmental document required for this
project. This addendum is on file in the Planning Department under IS-96-11.
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received by the City Clerk no later than
noon on the date ofthe hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to the project planner Martin Miller, Associate
Planner, in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth A venue, Chula
Vista California 91910, or by calling (619)476-5335. Please include the Case Number noted at the bottom of this notice
in all correspondence.
The City Council reserves the right to: (1) Place the properties in the land use district proposed; (2) Not to redesignate
the properties; or (3) Place the properties in any other more restrictive land use district described and defmed in the
Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan and which, in the opinion of the City Council, best serves the public interest.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Council at or prior to the public hearing described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying
documentation and/or plans are on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
Tuesday, May 14,1996
at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, Public Services Building
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue
At which time any person desiring to be heard may appear.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodation to
access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings
and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley for specific information at (619) 691-5101. California Relay
Service is available for the hearing impaired.
Date:
April 25, 1996
Case No:
PCM-96-14
SEE LOCATOR MAP ON REVERSE SIDE.
M:\HOM:E\PLANNINGIMARTIN\RDRIEP\9614CC.LEG
13-1-
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691~5101
EAST "H" STREET
PROJECT
LOCATION
CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~~: Clntl Land Planning PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT Eastern portion of R.D. R. Reques1: The proposed project combines the existing
ADDRESS: Busi ness Center
EP.l a and EP- 1 b land use district regulations into a
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: single EP.l designation.
NORTH No Scale 1S-96-11 ---
13-6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'-DG')O' n...o"'CDO" n"'0(1' n",(;")iJ" n....L:I:O' VI N "'t,,1' "'."nVlO' VI",n;lOO" ~nnO" XX)(XXX XxxxV'tr
-cr 7 ~ ::r.....-};~.z. 'T.l'-)>.l' "",,1>':- .,.......rT".l" ~O";t;.:- 0 "-....~ nc....J>.,t. .....-4~~ X)(XXX)(' XXX)<~1> r-
-O:t:>O C.z:.. 3 ^,':J C\..n;Q.j C.o:XJ-::) CW::QO Z~-O "'001>0 ooazo 0 CO xxxxxX XXX><1>i;C J>
:I" , rrtI v.: , rV. , >:" , Z" -.J~r-... .... Z" ....~ ro 0 '0 XX)<)()c:)o:. )c:xx)<...r "
'Z'tlool-' ;r.zr>....... J>m_~ J>m-..... J>mJ>~ 0 m'" r-OJ-tO..o .... ....:r:'" J>w XXXXx>< Xxxx m
C3C: C;r-I..--C v::--c. v"..c V2'C -~ "- ::-c l>~"', V2A"CC C )<X)<X>rx )<)()<)<P ,
'" '" <'" -.... <,..- .... <'1':> <roo::> m::lC'n.l'- ZXx.;;O,,:, 0 w <.... xxx><><.><. XXXX30
I'T'~O _1T'<ro -~::;t" -.. a -'b>I"T'.l" C"l_c:..c e <:"0 l>V'OOl.L: _0 ><xxx)<x ><)<xxrrO
"'r-:t>o VI,..- r.-.--=: VI .."" VI Uo VI NC 01>30 -,)0 0 r-nrn,.."O VlO )(XXXxx xXX><Zoo 0
<. '2 C ....r r...c: ~c;zc """""c_c -c 0 Z"'C ~-.......rr-c mc:.izrc ....0 ><)(x>'x)c.. x)<)<)IC......O' r.
.t:--"l1 .." l>"'C )>~~ )>~N nml> ;-:'~"'1:)Z ........ I> xx><xxX x><)(x..", C">
v or rr Z 10, l> 7 ....v l>.... ,.. x)<x>x>< xXxx ,
VI nVl ." n ,..- r n 3 0-< '" C Nl,I'l,r;m xxxxxx )(XXX." J>
-r l>- " 10 " ~ " ...'" ~ ,.. ee -< XXX)<>c>< X>< )o')<r,- "
"- c .., '" N .... I> 0'1>'" ><XX><)(X xxxx VI r-
<. " ... , " " -c c- .- :r e r, c., >t'><)<)(')<'>: )(y)<)<;I01
m .... '- .... " .... .... .... m -.) Nmrz XXXXXX ><xxxm-D 0
". , " "- v " e .. \: "' x)<)<)()or)<; x)<; >'>C" 0- r.
:7 '-' r "" .... "- 1",t..:;'O-om XX><><XX XX><xCI C">
c 0 ~ fT' C 0 r r <:" v x)<>'x)<)< >r><)or><r~ r-
en VI ". a ... XXXXXX xx)(,xJ>..... '"
., ~ c :> c )()<)<)<)<)< )(>)<)C~ ,
"- X) ." '" xxxxxx XXXx_ ....
" " l> v >')<)0:)<)<)( >:>'>>,C
... ,..- z 0 XXXx)c:X XXXxz 0
. -< , ~ )(>)t)<.>>' )(>>>'v c
,.. VI xxxx><>< XxXx ....
. . "" XX)c)()()< ~~~~~ :!:
--_...,-.......
"';7<"')1#..""'''' ~
....
.eve' r,J' '7 r r"r<c l"....::O-c r ....:C"c r....o:o "2"-'r;7:C' ><xx)<)()( X>c..)<>>c)< 0-
"'l>-" I-.;r~ :ro;:-~ ILL-rr..,t. 2t-'C..t- :to;t.~ J>..........J>~ xxxxxx xXXxXX
o C C c("~c C'.rrc ("'lI.rc c .....'ZC c~,=--C' -f\...C:;:"c >:')o.>:)c)c)( ><>)<>.>-)<
-'" r "" , r", ,..- T,v,: ,..- ....'" ,..- %:.u.' -, no xxxxx>< XxXx><..x
,7:;' t- ): ;- .,. to- 1~l-t- 1" ,., 7_ ... 1" r 1:. l>~c~ C ~:rC' >)o.><>.)c)< )()<>>>)<
':=00 c. "".0 Cro VIce co"'-o V:Zc. ZInaO XXXxXx xxX>cxx
, . C::;II:r..... <~~I- c:, 0 <r~rrc- <rc-c ~C3 .- X)c)<)<)c)( )()r)< >')c)<
1"'T1..... -rr .... -rr',;t> v.: -p.;X:.c --;t> ""''I,J, -l> .... ra-co: xxXXX)c" XX)(XXX
r-, e l<r-c.c vr:;'" C ,,- l>e v 0 v <.e <rr'!"c. )C)(x)<)o:)< x>oo()()()(
,..-co -lrme -(,co -40-<0 -tOIC -lC'mo rrrr-C XXXX)(X x.><><xxx
" , l':r-~ "',C ):-o,,~ ,,>:C l>"" )()o.)<)<>>, )(>)()<>>
.. C C ><xXXXX X)(XXXX
V7 rv. ~ V "to r 6 r c :> )()< >)c.)<> x>>'>><)c
........ ......en l>...... .. l> l> m x><xxxx XXXxXx
rr C C ". )0. >)()<)<'> ><>)<>.)c>
-c ,..- ~ ,..- -c .c "- -c, -n xxxxxx xxxx><x
3 >- , >- , >- . '" >- ... " v )<)<)()(> > x)()<)()()<
"- -c, v .c C"> -c, "- -c, l> '" I> .... -c, xxxxxx xxXxxx
<. . l> . '" .- >: . c .- v " >- )<)<)<:)c)<>; x)c>')o.)<)o:
a c z 0 l> 0 0 C r 0 VI ~ XXXxxx xxxxxx
r '" r v " C U" )0:')0:>>)0::> ><)0<>:)<)0<)<
m ". J> ,..- 3 :> VIa XX)(XXx xxxx><x
, .. "' rr:/C >'> >:)c)< > >:>'>>>')<.
-< ,..- r- 3 .... "'''' XXXXXX xxxxXx
Z ". .. < x)o:')o:')o:')o:'X xxx)Cxx
r- xxX)(XX xxxxxx
C' r- )0:)<.)0:)<)0:)0: x)o:)<">')<:>'
." XXXXXX xXXXXX n
.,.#y.,.#v~~,.. Y-"'~."':""#
------ ------
..
~."o- n...c Io c;-D-o- n~3o- n-..l:i:.O" n~VlC"'. XXXX)I(X )C')(xxxx C
J"~ :ra-..t :rc-C"'..t :rv.'c ..t I""-~ :TCJ:o.t' )C')<)<)O:'XY )()o:')<")c)<)c C
""':> C:"C"'lQ COZQ C-..lZC Ct-'ZQ CI,J1Z0 xxx xxx xxxxxx
".... r co.. .. "." , ~.... , "'" , ~.... x)<>)C)<')<" )<)o:)c)c')c')<
2: ..... 1:'-7::-1-' 1> 2,"")"", )>ml>t-' j>""':)"", ~m>l-' )(XxxXX )(XXXXx
.=:c..c: C 7c- e _'c v:<e v^c v-e )<x)<)<x> x><)<;)<)<)<'"
-omN <^V"ll-' <:JC8..... <r""T'l"'" <r- zo <1>0 xxxxxx xXxxxx
".",... .r 0 ~rr .. -l:>""'c _l"r- C' f--f;>Z" )C.>CX)tX)< >C)c::)c::>')t)o<
-"'0 Vlr<.....:) Vlr-~O VI co VI co VI 0 xxxxxx x><XXXX
--cC --r-c-c -r:2'c -.c:-.,...c -'C"C-C -t:" 'Tc )c)t')e)(x)< )<)<)0:)0:)<)<
~"- l>>>:r: 1>l>0 1>"'''' J;:oo ::JOlT, I>"'l> )(")(X X x)(" x>,><'xxx 0
V >: .. " v )<>>)1.>-)< >>>>>> e
JlC nco n",m n Z n J> n n xxxxxx xxxxxx 0
....7 l>~rr :t:._v .. " " , l> e- )<X)(><>)< )()e)<')e)<>< C
.... 0 l> < xxxxxx xxxxxx 0
'" " . ... e " v " .c r- )0:')<)0")<;)<)< )()o:)<)<:)e)o: e
- .... .... .... .... :r: .... 0 .... VI xxxxxX XXXX)(X
3 ~ -c '" -c ;; .c ... -c v .... ... )(')o:')<;->.x)<: x>x)<)<)o: ~
'-' "- .... ~ .... '-' '" .... "- J> .... )(XXXXX xXXxxx
c r e- rr e- , c r 0 '" "- )()o::'>>>>- x)c.>>>,>
'" en VI I> '" XXX)(XX XXXxxX
e -< " .., e >>)0:>>)< )<>c)o:>c)<>
... E:l XXXXXX )("x>(XXX
l> '" " >)0:)<)0">_)0" >-)<)<")<)0: )<
l> xxxxxX xxx XXX
" X)<)o::')<)<> )(X)<)o:>,)<
l> xxxxxX x-...cXXXX
.., ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
,..,..,..--,.. -,..-,..,..,..
.r7- 0 r_.../. IC r..c:;ll:"o- r- 00,.1'" C" CO c-....rc ("".....30 v.t'r-~O" S....:::-:70 2"-r7C" X)t)c:)t)<)o<' )c:)of)c')o:)c:)c
jlD~ Icrl'T'l-t- :t~C~ :r:~ 0-" :t:N-~ IOC':- l>0"......:lQz., m03~z., J>~""'~'" xxxxxx XXXXXX
- a c:- C.J7C eucre e-.- 20 CIJ_C c..c".-c 2..t'C-C V'c~ro-c ...."-czc )c>X)()<> )<)c>XX>
_w r- ;<>w r- -<w r- NW ,..- ....w r- l>w '" nN .... "''''N --.) no xxxxxx xxxxxx
....2' ~ :z;..ZJ'-..... ".., >- ".rr "'~ l>rrr-e- :t>rrc~ C ~r--:..c V'-l"""","-- c- 3OTU" )c )< >0". )< )< )<)<)<>')0:')<
-:Vtc ox :::> 000 VI ,..-0 Vlmo VI"O -3", N n N ZInoo xxx><xX xxxx)(X
,.c" <,.-... <:7.......... <r rr'- <r e <,.....l>c ,.,--,c _rr,~ Cc(""'.rv. I>C3 "" )<)<)<)()(x )<)<")0:><)0">-
"Zw -," '" -mCD.." _l> VI.... -J>X~ -J> W C1::lOnZeD <'t70a~ r-a-ON xxx xxx XXXxxx
C l." r r r vr-7C v c ~ .-c V 70 rr"n-c ....t7:7c crn--C )0:>,>>'>>- >>>'>>>
-C">o ~ru::o -4rp.o ....0 <0 .....or- 0 -tomo Z mo ZZ"'t'''''OQ nmr-r-o XX)(XXX XXXXXX
~l> :r-. ~n l>t> 10.", ~ :>or- l>"" n1> ~ ~ l>C' C -"'- )0:")<:)<)0)<)< )<)o:")<).-)<'"x
-< 0 " '" J> m." m..'" .... Z'" xxxxxx xxx><xx
'" ("'" V'.... rv r C' r " r C' "'..,.. r- ....;:1> -<I> rr )()c")<)<)c)< X)c.)o")<)<:)<
....-n J>-4'7V 1>.... l> .. 3 I> -Dr-r-_ J>J>O" ..... <-0-< )(XXXXX xxxxxx
c: !: ,,< v <u.:- r"""7 >c.)o")<)<:)<)< )<)<)()<)<)c.
< -0 VI -0 '" '" -n '" .....omm -OITlO'(:l l> 0- XXXXxx )(X')(XXX
>- ~ >- >- C .- ~ >- vv .- Z <..2 )t")c)()o:)()(' )<)<)<)(X)(
<: '" ~ ~ '- '" .... .... ~ '" m< xxxxxx Xxxxxx
>- r >- >- C' >- '" >- ..- -c ~ r-rr, )<)c.x)<)<>" )<xXxX).-
0 0 0 "- 0 "- '" ....Z 0 .0 ....VI xxxxxx xxxxxx
rr r rrr- v .... )t )< >:)<: )0;. x >:)<)(>>-)(
< I> 0 VlO xxxxxx xx><xx)(
.. ,.. - rr'" )t)<.x)<)o")< )<)<)<Y><-X
z 0 Z "'VI ><.xxxxx xxxxxx
C- r n < )(")<)(')<')c")< )<)c.)<)c)<><:
m -< r- xxx xxx xxxxxx /j-f.
, z xx)o"x)<>' X)()CX)<)("
- xxxxxx xx><xxx
- ..............-.......... ............................
,,'X"Xy-..: >" xxXx
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
I
n .....1700-
~,,"'rT'.~
C.....V1Q
r _'"
1> me.....
vrrc
<r-zo
-J>~O-
VI *0
....0 0
..'"
n
..
-r
.....
.s:
.....
c
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
x;o<)(XXX
>,xx)('XX
xx><)(XX
X)()<)()<)<
xxxxxx
Y)<><)<:)c')(
xx><xxx
)<)<)('><>0<
XXXXXX
)(x)(')€>'x
xxxxxx
)<)(x)<)<)c:
xx><xxx
XY><>'>'>
xxxxxx
)<x>')<)(')<
xxxxxx
>:>.)<)<)<y
XXXXX)(
)()c)<>'>'>'
xxx xxx
>:>')()<>')<
X)(XXXX
)0'>'>>>>
XX)(XXX
>>> ><> >
xxx xxx
~~~~t.~
>>ry)<)<)o.:
x><xxxx
>)<')<>)t)<'
)<XXXXX
>>c>->>>
xxxxxx
)<)<X)t><)<-
)(XXXXX
>)t>)()c>
XXXXXX
>>>->')<)<
XXXX)(X
>><>>>>
xxxx)<x
)<")<)<.)<>:>
xxxxxx
)<.)()<"><:)o<>
XX)(XXX
>>>->>>'
XXXXXX
)<><>>')<.><
xxx><xx
)tX>)<)<)<
xxx><xx
)<>:X)<)<)<
XXXXXX
)O;)(X)C)<'>
~~~~~~
XXXXX)(
)<)()<)cxx
XX"><><X><
)o.)<)<'X)<')('
xxxxxx
)<:)<x)<)c;x
><xxXXX
><x>>'x)<:
xxX><)(X
>< >:)< >.-)()(
xxX'XX)(
)<>>'x)<)<
XXXXx><
:>C)c>)o.X><
xxxxx><
)()<)<x)<x
><x><><xx
><xxx><x
xxX xXX
>>:)<)t)<)<
xx><xxx
>,>-)o')()<'X
)(XXXXX
)<x>')c:><.)(
xxxxxx
X)<)()()(X
xxX xxX
~~~~~~
)c)c)o')<)<)<:
xxX xxx
)<)<x)<x)<
><)(XXXX
>:x)<)(")<>'
xxxxxx
)c>C:)<)c.)q,..:
XX><X><X
>>>>'>>-
xX"XXXX
)()(>;)<')()t"
)(XXXX)(.
)o,x)o;)t)()<
XXXXXX
)()()<x)<)(
XXXX)(X
X)(X)()<:)<
XXX xxx
>)c")t'X)<")(
XXX XXX
)<')<:)c:>>->
Xxx xxx
><)<X)<)()c:
XXxX)o(X
)t)()<)<>t)<
x><xxxx
)()c:)c:)(X:><.
XXXXXX
..... ~ 'W 'W_~ 'W
X --... ,.., x>' ).(
XX><Xv'l,
)()(xx-c;t>
XXXXJ:-.tr
)()c:X>t...r
XXXX
)<')<'X)r':t:
xxxx30
x)c:>c:)n....o
xx><xZce
x )< )c: )n....... U
x XXX""'"
)l)l')<)c.
xxxx"'O
>,)<.x)<.r-
XX)(X VI
)<><>')I'7't I
xxxxm.o
>)<)c")tt;' 0'
xxxXCI
)c:x)<>r......
X X X Xl>.......
:><)<)<">...,
)(XXX_
)o:)o;)c:>C
xxxxz
>>>->v
xxxX
~~~~~
X)<)<)()c>'
xxxxx><'
)<'>c:)<>>)c:
xxxxxx
)< >- > > >- >c:
xxx><x><
)()<)o:)<)<)<
xxxx><,><.
X)()<)t)c)<
xxxx><x
)(>)<">-)<">
xxxxxx
)<>:><>>>-
xxxxxx
)t)c:)< >>_)<
xx><xxx
)t)c:)t)c)()c
xxx><x><
)<)<)<>)<)<
xxxxxx
)c)o'Y>'.)<>
xxxxxx
)0')1'>'>>-)<
><xxxxX
xxx)()(>'"
xx><xxx
>>,>,>')<')<
><xxxxx
XXXXXX
)c:)<')t')t'>tx
xxxxxx
)(>,X>->-)<
XxxxxX
)()<)<y)()t
xx"<xxx
)<"')t:><>'>
xx'>Cxx)<
)<)<')<)<>'>'
x,<'C'v')(,><
)<>:)<>>)<
xxxxxx
)<)<)t)c)t)t
XXXxxx
)t)()()<)<)t
xxxx><x
>t)tXy)<>t
xxx:x><x
x)t>'>'>)<'
xx><xxx
>>>'>>:>:
')(,<xxxx
>.>-)o<.>)t)c
xx:.<xxx
>t>x)<>'>
x><xx><x
~~~~~~
ZNnnO'
:to-..........-~
-(N 0..-04 N
_..... OO(~
03'"
2:Ircr-
o "'0
'" '"
....no
n :J.U
....'" C
-0
-<"z
<'
nmo<
" "..~
-<V>
'" "..~
.... r..
'" C'
'" ."
C :<
m
2
....
v.l'c:-<O
1;00..... Cl.l'
2........rcr-..
\1lCZl....
C cc..r.
_<-4 ,,:
rr._-<3........
c:-:m m~
C:I 2"c
'" v>0
r~
..c:: n
c :l
""m '"
"
....... V>
,,<' ~
""I" ....
.'
.. Z
t-
O ..
C V
V>
:>
c
..,
)o<.)<)<)c)<)c
xxX xxx
)<>:)oc.)<)<)<
xxxxxx
)<)<)()<)(.)c
xxxxxx
)(.)c.)<)t>->:
xxxxxx
>>>>.:><)<
xxxxxx
>:>,)<x><)t
xxxxxx
)<'><>t)oc.>:>C
xX)c.xx)(
>><)c)()t)<
xxxx'Xx
)()<)<>><)O;
XXX xxx
)<)<)<")c)<")t
XX)('XX)('
X X)oll >')<)<
XXxxxx
)c)<)<)<:)c)c
xxxxxx
)()<)<)<)<.x
xxxxxx
)<')<" x:>< x)("
xxxxxx , '1
_V'W')C'V'Jo<'
~xx~,xx J -
.)
ZNO;;oO"
~"",""'1>..t-
-4NQZN
-~ rw
o 3I.o
Ire:.......
0", 0
c-o.t-
rmo
n rro
'"
.... '"
-<.. <
<("
nl"O
.
"
....
.s:
'"
c
r
."
""
"
o
v
o
ZNnnO'"
J>_...........l'
......NO-4N
, <l>
" ..:
2" c-c...
.. "'0
r
-< no
rrr :rc
....'"
-0
-<..z
<<
nmo<
~ rr-.......
-<V>
'" 1"-
..... r..
.s: c
'" ."
C :<
m
2
....
~.....rrc
~.........._..t-
..../" C--if\.
-...,J -<u..
'" .s:
:r:no.....
"'c
3 cr
C <
nm Ie
~" c
....
-<l' '7
-<
C''''c:
.. m
<<V
'" m....
" r"
o 0
v ""
o :0
"..
Z
( '" , , , , , , , " , , , , ( f \ , , , ,l ,) ,
-''''0- ZNn~O' ZNn,oO" 0......30' n.....r-a- 0.....00- n.....<fJ" n.....jll;)~O' 0....."'00"-
,..... b..........~.z- l>....I.....l>~ :r~C"'.t- I'..c_.r "T..t"rT"..t' .....~):>.t' ~....1>M'".t- ~.fo.r-..t'
:lZO .....NDZO -INOZO CO)OO C":--oO C......30 CCXl;JOO C-.JZOO C.QJaoO
n.... -...., n" -...., (""" r ~.... r rr u..~ r m" r"c-:la. r-..rc;Jt"u; r -<w
3:ION 0 3IN 3:ION ~~mN 1>1>::lON >J>V'lN .. "N .. ..N l>n,.;:.....
,[;;.1,.1.. z:!"rcl,.t. :!("":Ct>. c .... <"" c "c cv" <::-:z'-' "e:~
.. w "03 N 3 N <m<..... <'" ... <m ... <- ':l <-1>00 <1OV'l.....
-ocr c_oO" _eN _7~CX: _7C..t- _Z:t>oO -:t>-30" -..'" N -t:::' W
-mo <,mo rmO 1ft_%O VI-DO Vt-jOO VI "0 VI .....0 '-""02:0
rrc ~r-rc re -iCrY'C -4CZO -4C:JC -1c-"-C -<0 ce -1Z:t>O
-'" - -'" '" ....VI ....Z ""> 1>0- "0 '" ....r
-< Zr -< r v nVlQ -<" -< r -<
-<t> -< -<" -< nVl" nVl" n" n" "" n"",
< C("" ..c= "C' J:>C:C" " C I> :r I>c:><
nm - nmO r-< rO r m....
.. ,. .c" .cl'- .c..r " .c .. .c. v
...'" ..."'.. I-'A:!..... - - .... - I
.c. .c .c~ ,,-:;- ...r... rr " .c. " .c. re
.... .... -" ...."m ...."r .... - :>0 r" ... re
.c ~ ~ .. C C C V' C C .. C C r
" .Tic;. " 3 -< ." m
e v:>< C -< 3 -<
VI r m
" :- :><
r r r z -<
C
." "" "" I
"
7'r-...'~7:0 ,_n-O r....."""o r_nC r-~C'c: r..-:ro r .....'cre-
1>....,:.....1>.t- :t....,!:::L.t' :l..cC.t- :r-CVl,t- ::r....:t>..t' ::I......C.l' ::rV"mc.t'
f'\C:ZC C..: _c C-CCc C-u -c COTe c......, r c~o:-c
n" r z" r Z~. r r.'~ ronl"a.. ,""IT..... r OI""
::; =" l :t cf\. 1:--:t>cl" 1" :t-- "T f',. . ~I' . I' 1 r7 jIt...
nc.... < w <trW < .... <)>\,,0.. <O'w 1>1>0.....
" :? I' <rr-"1:"...... <nr~ elT'''''''' <- e <~cc <'1C::r~....
r -c.... _Zl>,c -zc...r _Z;:rJ1-' _J>-t...-..,J -1>-<v.. _c: ...
rec V~_C v~'cc v_~c v Cc v C vC,,~c
n<r. ro -t'=:lC'C -lOCO -tOeC -lC"><C -4C">TT'O -<z :>00
~" " ):-1'.... ~, J:~ ~Cn "c' ~" ..
-< m n :>c cr -<Z -<:>: n
~.. rc ~ r" C r".... rl.-- ("" l'r (""~ ~
<n "0" "OVl 1>0... .. .. z ..<
rne: r rv r" "2 "2 n v
" 3 .0.... ..c:t>-rT' -Gx:.:L -c '" .c .0 ....
~< ~" ~:><r ....7_ .. ... n ~ ...
.0 ..m ..to_ ..c_r ...o-m .0 .0 .0 ..
... ",v ..... .... ~" .. .. ... e.
.0 --< 0 0 < c- :r 0 0 0 m
" "c " n C , ~
0 VI'" 0 "'''' 0 I
v v r r
cr 0
r r r r c -<
'" :IO
." , ~
:r 0
-l..t'CC1' n--.J"C'" ll.....JOJo- n""TCT' n-..JnC" (j.....~O- ZNnnCT" n-rt'DO"
<ro. ... ~-....!r'!'".l' :r("r~.l' :r..r-.:- :rc-:r.l' :r t-'FT ..t' ,...,,,....._.l' ::I'\.T 1:1>.1'
3NOO COJOO cO"xo C-DZO CvJmo Ccr;:.:::o ..ooo4r",,::>-40 C.....:2"O
~e .... r "2.... r -<" r -.... r "2" rt--_l. .... -<" r Z"
m nN 1> 1> 1>"" :t-l>rn;'\J ;t>P.mN "I> N .. ON 3 ... 1>nm.....
v " cZ" <"" < "" <:r" <r" rCt- ~v...
~ IN <"'"ON <~ ... <m ... <m'TlO <_1>0 ."...., <'" ....,
,",3CO ....2",..-<:- ....::?:10- ....:;-:t r". _2_0- -" ... -. .c -C~\.1
-3C V'I_NO Vl_>O V1_>O VI- 0 VI -0 nO V'lCi-O
orl"!'c ...c- c ~r,c -lcrc _coc -lC7'C ("'re :re -2 r.c
",rV' ..,,:>0 ..,,'" ,...-< .. ,,- "0'" _:>0 e: ....:r
~ r ~ r "2 ~~ ... ~ I>
"',,- nVlr nV' nVl'" nVl.... n"z -<..z n..'"
1'<"2 J>Cl" "c... ..C :to. C-:3 I> < I><C"
mn rz r rr r.. '" nmo m
.c"c: .c." .c".... ,,~>' .c .... ~ ".~ .c. 3
...",0 ...'" ..."'< ...:>0- .... < <VI ... ....
'" .c .c.- ",... ..('-- .c-:J '" .c <r-< .r "
- ... ..."... ..." ...,.n ...." ... n - r.. - 0
.c .c. -- C , C C C v c .c c c C
m::> ,yo "'0 '" ""0 "" ::> .. '" ."
V" r "" c. V'~ IT " -. " c -. :J
VI -" VI '" - m '"
v " I> Z "
r r r -<
c :><
"" "
rc-,c ~,...(,"7C ,,,r~c 2'"r::lt"O r.....co r......'~.c ,.....':1 c r... cO' rt-~c r_cC'
J.....-~ >......,.......1>.l' l>"""'......>.l- l>~......l>.:- :r~~..t' :r...cC..t' :::r.crm.:- :r.....Xlb :r.....rn .:- :to" ~.z-
C"'C _r-c:ZC I'\..CZC -l"C;ZC C"cC C0'7C c,~c co- ~.:C c_rc C......-c
, -<w -...., n", ...., nw ...., nw r z", r -<w r :>ow .wmw ,1,J'I:tw r ."....
'" I' :?::I"- ",:r" ~:r,,- ~~rr" ~~:r"-' ~):..rT,,- ~ ~l'. " -<" :r:-r""'~
-now :r~a\.JJ z no v.. now <::O~ < W <"'w < w <m", ,,-...
.,.... ~_3 .... . '" ~ ~ 3 "- <". ... <,.,.:;:r:...... <rr~c <_"TC c_~c <7Z....
03 .... r _0...., r -0", r _0... _Z?O..... -ZOw -Z .0 -~:-Q..." -" ... -0 0-
{t' r r r C" n r v....cr'" v....-<c- V....-l..C v , r " "c" vr:l"C
nm ro nm ro nm ro -1030 -<0 0 -I '::n> a ~C'lZO -IC'lao -17.:-0
-;< " ~"" " ~r " ~,,-< ~~V "l'< ~C"("" 'C-< %> 't'.r
-< T1 -< m -< m .... -<- -< r
..-" -<" -<, (""v-c (""v3 (""v rr r~v Cil'-C- r~_
<n <n <n ..0 "0" ..0:>0 .. n .. .... ..<"
rnc r.rrc rrrc r r~ r' C r re3
.. 3 .. 3Z " 3 .0" "'''VI .0"'" '" .... .0 0 .0
<v -c< -c< ."c ..:>< ~^::: ... "'c .. rr .. e ...
m-< ..to ..m .0 ,.m .c "m .c_ .0... .. .c_,. '" V> .0 '" '" ....
re~ .... 2v ~ ;'V' ... '7 V' ....~ ~~r ......c- .. ... .... C" .... "
0 .0 --< .0 --< .0 --< 0 0 r 0 " 0 I 0 m 0 ..
-c " rrr v ".c v nC r n v -<
3 ::> VI'" 0 VI'" 0 VI:>O 3 C '" :r
". v v v -c r
z n m m
-< r r r :r IT
m Z
r I~.-'
m "
. . .. -. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. , .. , " , , ..
...."'0'
cr~
",mo
7,,"
<""'><....
>-....
"1>0'
C"c.....c
'OI'T'lO
Z <0
1>m
C"
1>'"
.....
m'"
c
o
.....:Ie
OC'~
,ere
-<""
r 0
~V'll-'
"''''o,!
=:r:-c
c;zc
zzo
~e
Z
'"
<'"
rT
....<-0'
I--')::...t
w-o
Z""
("') ....
l>'-':~
"'''''....
c:>>-
'0 0
Z"T"c
.1>.....
r
1>_
c.r
m_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
n...,NO'
,........~~
C\J\:;ItlO
r J>,,"
1>0........
C rr~
<0 w
-~:to-....,
VlO,..."::)
- flC
1>0<-
r..
n z
, C
'"
" C
....
,( C'
....
C
r,'-Ie'!
::II-'C..t-
C,'TC
r ;lO'~
J:'r:" r: ~
C"'....
<C \.0.
-~"'Oo:
vC:J:.c
-< "'0
"cr
"'C
<: "
1> r
,c :r
>- ~
,c n
.... "
o '"
3
""
'"
x
"
r
('"')""'''0"
"TI-rr.,r.
e.o:::oo
r 7u
:t:>O~"'"
CZ....
<r::JOLaJ
-~n.c
Vt::)NO
-< C
1>00
"'V'
n <""'>
" J>
70
,e
.... <-
.c ~
.... V'
c: ~
z
cc
'"
"
.
n-.,JmO'
"Tcr..t'
C-..IC"lO
r "-\.0.
1>OZ....
C_....
<COW
-'" w
VtOXlO
-l L'Q
1>00
"''''
n
J> C'
o
,e
.... C>
.c ~
.... 3
e "
'"
r:....,,, ("l
::rcrr..t-
('"..ere.:
r rw
J;. c. l- ~
Cz....
<cC';,1,t..
-;;JOrr...t'
vc~c
-< 0
:t.'C" r
701>
r ".
J> 0
r
,c -<
.... ".
,c
.... -<
o
n""",=O"
:rl--.r:-
Cl'"""no
r C\.o.
"0 ....
Cr....
ccCW
-:a.-v
V'lOVlC
c
1>0'"
;k~
("') 3
, >>
'"
,e
.... 1>
,e
.... 1>
C
.
(")..,JJ-O'
,..~<.t-
C:o>o
r zu
1>0-4,....
e ....
<O?t'N
-","o..c
V1DCI'O
-< "'0
J>ox
r-
n
>> -<
,(
....
,(
.....
r
<
....
-<
"
r
c-,....~ ("'t'
:rO~..t-
C~cc
r ~,...;
1: C r...
cr....
<CCI,t..
-,::-ZO
VC C
-< <-0
" cc
"'<-
r ...
1> '"
e
.c; V'
.... ~
'" n
.... :I
o I>
...
m
...
n-,zO'
:rCC~
CwZO
r >>\.0.
J;:oO ~
C"....
<:J~w
_'-31-
l,I')Ol>O
-< r e
1>0
"':I
n
>>
,e
....
.c
....
c
.
n-...lncr-
"T CO))> ..t'
C:o"JOo
r Cu..
1>00....
cv.....
COON
-'" V'
V'lO-nO
-< -0
1>00
"...
n r
"
3
,e ~
.... ~
,( >>
.... '"
c c
"
r
m
'7
I>
-<
r....,vo
::I01>.t-
C07C
,... nU.'
~C:Jt--
em....
<c,...,...
-'" 0
VCr-c
-< 1>0
"cce
"''''
r "
1>
...
,c
o
'"
....
o
....
C
-<
:r
n......::IO'
:rCJ:>.t
C~-<C
r rTu
tJoOV":.....
C ....
<on",
_;t::rr.....
VlaDC
TC
"DC>
"rT
n
" J>
.....
.c ...
.... m
,e "
.... 2
C "
,~c r......3C' r....vo r .....-:~: C" r.....,c.. 0 r......rc r....;?rC r ....-0 r.....ro r....<1:'" r.....~o r_~c
...."... ICl>.l' :r.....-.l' ::tNl>.l' :r.z.:J..:- :r:0'_.t' I\T "... :r.z.O.r- IwC.r- :r....-.r- :to;lC.l- :rOc:l..t-
-:e c C..-7-C c"rc Co -Ie C.l':rC cc~r CI- :zo C4-:X-C C...,2c cv..rC Cvrrc. c"~c.
rw r -<w r <w r mw r 2w r nw r Ow r -w r I>w r rw r zw r OW
reI- ):-("'-1- l'>r:J;.'...... l>C-TI- :t>rv~ :r:-r.:r.... ...co "...... J;>CCt- J>C .... J>Cl'-t- J>C);ot- )>C-t-
" .... I>Z .... I>V'.... 1>V'.- "C..... 1>m.... C r.... C .... C",.- C"'.... C"'.... cr.-
"r_ <~rro ...". " <;k 0 <~2"" c: ~-iV <C ...... <cc..:- cCr"..t <e \.0.' c.e- \.0. <crt\.
...OIN -':':)N(]) -o;;op -00:::1 _0 0- _0-4""" -'" "'''' -~O..:- -~r-o -~<-a- _?OZI'\J _"'O]>t:r
rl-r ve r vr-....(' vr- t c 1I C C- c_ vr_c vC -r veer vr-.. ,... vr- )'.r vr~r vr r
..,z~o ~z(.,.o ~zno -42.<0 -tZ~ :> -<2 0 -< 1>0 -< C;-;O -< -"0 -< -0 -< ro -< 3::-
"c :r-.~ c "" ". ,,>>- ",,- """ ",c ",ccr );ot:" "C3 >>ec >>cc_
'" I> 0 '" m '" I> "'I> "'..... ",m '" ",r
'pc r'to.r" r,,;< r:1;....... r ~.~ r ,,:z r C1 r v r ... r r 0< r J>
.<..... >..." >><0 ><-< 1><-< ><2 1> 1> > r I> 1> " ..... " '"
fTr; "":r rT..... rT_ " rrrT rT C rT ~ "
0 -0 -0 r -0 2 '" r '" -< '" r -0 '" <- '" n ,c '" ~ 0
T I- .. .... C .... " I- .... :r >- .... .... " .... ~ .... - .... V
1> .to ..... -0 n -0 .c .c -0 -0 .c; Z -0 3 .c V> -0
~. I- >> .... .... .... .... .... ....- .... e.; .... r> t- r t- C
0 0 z 0 1> 0 0 '" '" <- 0 0 '" 0 '" 0 0
'" :- " r> - r
1> C> ..... -< "
c .. -< rT
3 0 '/>
v
m 3
r 1~-1
::
. . . . . . . . . . . . I) . f . . . f
n
~
z
n~'"lO"
:rC'r~
=CIl......::J
r -\.0.
l>nm....
"">-
<TJOCJ'
_c-rrlJ
VI 0 ,,",0
. C'
l>J><-
C
n>:I.
Jc-..:7
"..
,(' ,...
....
,(
....
r
n~~a-
:TI"\.C~
C.l''F:'~
r ITu
J>("""JIO......
" I-
<-,e<-~
-OC"I-'
V"DJl:'O
-l~CC
1>1>1>
("')J>
"..."<
."
"
....
~
....-
<
r....~c
:r:,,->..t
cC"~C"
r ;q",
t("""-I-
1:>CI-'
,;:tee
_c: N
vc rc
.....2::'0
:t- ~ '7
m
rJ:"7
1><"""
...e
.c
I- r
.c; .....
.... "
'" I>
".
m
;?
("'\-...1;0::'0-
:r .....~-..t
c ~-<-:')
r 7\.0.
p~Op....>
J>O"....
<^'~o-
_C \.0.
V"::Jl>"J
-.l2rc
1>1>'"
"
nJ;1>'T'
>>...c
m
,e ..
.... .....
.c ~
..... 1>
e "
"
n-..JIO"
"~IT'.t-
COIOO
r Z~,
>('")l>.....
J:'Z'"
<~O\}'l
-C'~-..J
V"O......o
-~ C
1>"",
C
n,,-"
",<n
"..""
,e -<
.... 0
n~oo-
"T\.1'_':-
Co-30
r "\.0.
l>n."""",
,,->-
<-:'lOr\Jl
-c_w
VtOVlQ
~4:: C
1>1><-
e-
nJ>V'
}::ocr:--
m-"
" :r
....
,( .,.
.... ....
c r
J>
-<
:r
""
'"
Z
rT'
r
m
r
1>
r....v.c
IIJ'I..t
c,..,trC
r r\.o.
t-r-t
J>~I-'
c^Zu
-0 .l-
vcrC
~z:rO
:t>'t:f.
"
r}:. r-
1><m
rTV
'"'
I- r
,c .....
.... '"
'" "
"
n
...
r
z
'"
n.....,V'lC7'
TU"-4..t
CI..tJ~O
r Z"
1>0:1:......
ee:....
<OQ.z.
-~C..c
V'O 0
... <-C
>00
:<:v
n m
"' ~
:r
,c ~
.... 2
,( -
.... z
C' ~,
r....,7_0
:r:\}'lC~
Cv c
r "T'Lo.:
~- c: if"....
CI>'"
<r::V"
-;r;:~O
vc C
"'0
~t....
"'-<
r r
I> C
:2
.c; '"
.... v
'" 0
.... co
':l '"
n-..J\'lC7'
:rV"r.t-
C.....,J>O
r 3\.<..-
):ooCC......
C'I-
<':l \J'
~".O-I--
V'lO>Q
-< -<e
1>0
"c:
n
"
.r
....
,e
....
e
n.....,.:x.a-
~~m..t-
C\JlXlO
r Zu.;
1>01>,....
'=:71-
<Oo.r-
_:rtT'lv-
V'I0NO
-< 0
I>C'<-
"'''
n _
.. ':<
."
'"'
... 1>
~ ....
.... C>
e co
J>
C'
"
r
C
"<
m
r_~C"
I.t-f"!""I.t-
C....7c
r Coo
1 C C..-
C........
<C-~.t
_;It:. 0-
vC~c
-! me
"cccc
"''''
r r
1>
.c;
....
,c
....
o
n-....lV'O'
:r.t }::o ..t
C.Q7-:C
r """"'lo
l>Oc......
Cv....
<0 ...
~.7V_.
VlO'TlO
"0
"CC>
,,-
<""'> 0
"
'"
,e ~
.... m
.c; v.
.- -<
C rT
'"
0.....00-
-rw<z..
c.....,mo
r "'\.0.
I> 0 Vl.....
c-<....
<OXl.t-
_Jt'"...~
VlO"TlO
- ......0
1>0
"Tn-:
n '"
" r
;:. 0
,( '"
....
c
C....;:IfO
=l.6,;C.t
c .,{"-.lC
r "w
:t C c......
C~....
<Cv.t
_x "'I'\,,;
vc__c.
-< 0
l'-cc".
",C
e <'
I> m
;k
'"' -<
0"
,c <-
.... ~
::- V'
"
m
r
r
rT
-<
l'l",<0'
~..r~.l
c......ro
r n \.0-
~.:J;lO.....
c-...
<oo~
-, \.0.
VlO<O
-C
1>on
"...
n 0
" "
,e T
.... .....
,c 3
.... ..
C "
-"
z
"
...
r:....:::o-('
:rOr-:;.t
c .t7('
r c~
}'"t"r'"t-
"........
<, 0
_C"'QO
vrl-C
-lZ C. C
",.. r
c :t 1
1><....
r v
"- "
I- Z
.c 0
~ "
o 1>
n......\)O"
:rc:t.-..t
Co^'-::>
r ,....
pn_1-
"r>-
<'"Cr-o-
~c.c....
Vl':) 0
......z~c
"1>""
3
n:Prr
1:'<-'::
m
.c
.- ....
,e tr
.... '"
C' ...
Z
'"
1>
.;:
- ..
c ~
'"
'"
o
e
m
r
(*'_Co
:rwVl~
Cere
r ~l".o..
): r;. ..-
:P>C~
..: ~ ...,
-eta::
vcnc
~zJt'o
~ 'to.;:'
"
r ):.7
1><'0
..co
.to .....
I- '"
-0 '"
... ,
o
C"
n....,Jr,"]'
:!v..-rr.t
CNmO
r C\.o.
t>c: ......
,,~ 0
<JC.t>\JI
....c.. r..t
VlQ-lO
-'7fT C
1>1>'"
n"r
"...'
"'3
,( ..
.... '"
,e
... "
c
r
Z
3
('")-.;-,00
:I.tC.t
C:C030
r ~u
t;o.n;o......
"CI-
<~ \JI
_C-4\)"
V10-0
....~-.lC
b-:pQ
o
nl>"
J>.......
m_
,e 3
.... m
,e r
.... 0
c l'-
"
< . . . . c:.
...,r<:1' O-..JmO' n....._'TlO' n.....30' n....."T1O' nt-',c;.O' ZNnnO' n.....G")O' n-..lr-VlO'" 0......'"'0" 0.....1.110" 0.....(;)0'"
~~... """V..t Tu..:t:>_~ "T..t-n.r- .,...r-O..t- T.....rT'~ x:..........._.l' ::rt-C.t- :rCn:t>..t- Jt""lC..t- :Tr....'O..t- T......l>..t-
<:1'-<0 C..e-,,::> CN ZO cono CooX'O c.....no -4NO.....O CO".....o c:..o.:.aZo C~mo COIC C...,JZQ
-<.. r PI.' r m.. , C.. , e:'1> ru-:Iu.. " -<.. , -.. r _c..... , ;tl> , -.. , Cl>
:;:l,.... J>CXl..... ,.0 "'.... >0-<..... J>omt-' ,. ....... "3 .... ~3mt-' 1>3J>0..... J>(;)'tI.... J>G")V'I..... JIoc;"lJ>.....
crrt- et-t- e C.... e ... c .....- <rn- :rrcc :t>-""C .- <e Tfre r c rrc
:::> N <0>1-1 <0 ,.... <0-10 <0 0 <_,00 ..,'" <'1O~CXl <'" ,.'" <~::eCXl <m<-...., <mJ>.....,
7="TI..... _T- " ~,.. 0.. -A:r..c -;Jl"'3'V' -P .... , :J ". _.....mo, --< r... -l::':""'::IC _ceO" -0::: N
0,.0 V'lClc....O V>O L-'C Vlooa V'lOt>O V> "'0 -no VIaNO v>o C V>O 0 V)CHIO. 0 lIlQtDa
3-::- ~ n"C - ..... 3<.. -< .....c -4C;-UC n IC -<v C -<v -"c -v~c -fvZC -1Vn,c.'
-oJ- t>::;VI ,.0 ,. ,."',. 1>0-< 1>0 -< -'" C ,. D ,. ,. ... ,. ,. I> ,.
,.., re ;t < "-v "'I -<~ ... , -cC -c: -< ""V Tp T-<
-< n v. n n n m n,.r -<,. n,- nr ..... n,n n,..... n,'"
.. , p C p -, " > .. C < .. ,.. .. ,. .. c > r .. -
-< p C nn"O ,. ,. r N
7< .;: , .r -< ..c ..c to ..c ,.- " r ..c; Z '" 0 '" , .r " '"
C - - ..... .... - ..... - 0 < .... 0 - m .... - C -
v .. r ..c r .. ..c v '" c .. r- '" ..c ,.. .. " .. e ..
-< - n" .... ,. .... - ,. .... V' - r1> - ,. ~ ,. .... ..... - ;- -
r < c c " C .. e e ... c I C v C e
,. c:; <J' ." 0> V> 0
, ,.. e :; rr " r -
... p m :>0 Z 0
" " -< c ,..
-< :r 0 '"
> .. < C
Z l>
:: .. , rr
.....l'--C r....-c r:....rc r...;t.o r....'......~o C'i_30 r.....,ro r....At'" r...~c r.....r-c r _-Ie'
....,... :II'\.m.t- Iw-..e- ::r.....l>.,t. :x.t-3-.,.. I\J-l>.t- :r.....l>.t- I.....~.:- IClT'.l' I.....l>.t- INa-Z'
""r Cf'. r C C<:-;>c Cc.-c. cc_::2C C.t_c C,...:zC CU.~r CCTr: core Ct-7C
rrV. r rU. r Cu. r rou. r :tl,...; r J>... r z.. r -... r .. ..' , l>u. r "'I>
C7<t- t- c- C to- rev!- "C :rt- > C ~I- > C 0 J.3C~ 1;.";F]( ~ ~C'r... J.> c r ... l (' rr......
C-,t-' e t- c~_ CT,.... e e.... C"'~ p30 l:.mc :>0-<0 ;t,.C jIIC~O
cr"" <CC'.... <c::k..... <eel- <C -<c <Cl"'c. <x 0- <;It,...,cr <rr~o <"~... <rr
,.. N -;t;ro -^C~ -NNO _x DC _:xcr.... _.....::I:.JJ -.... " -e .... -0 " -ca.1.IJ
c:..e V'C 1;- C vc-3c vccc. vC C vcrc vc-~c v;cloc vc::!c VC;l("C VC;itC
Co .... no -< 0 -< 0 -< ZO -< .....0 -4Vl"JC'a -4V)rc -Hn> 0 -hnOO -4Vl_O
c-v "r ~ l:'r"T :t'c: :;0. > r :?. >-C "" .. C 1> rr >- ,.. " t" >- ..
,..-< "'m "'J> "',. ;t. ",m -" .".... .,,-< -"CO .".".
Z r r r ~ r l' r r r e r,.. rr.. rr c;rr rr
,. ... .. ,. n ,. ,. co p ..... l> Z l> >> .., l> "
r .... -< >- C C ...
V> .c .c -< .c r> .r V' .c .c .". .c '" .c , .c .c -<
... 0 O. t- ... C l- e l- e . e l- I- C t- ..
"3 '" -0 -< '" '" -< .c .c m -0 ..... '" '" .... '" '"
>- . ... 7< I- 0 e l- .- r I- r t- ... t- n-
'" c 0 c 0 0 V> 0 0 ,. 0 ~ 0 0 >> C -<
r v I "
m -< - 3 V>
r , .... ..
,. ::I -
r >> " -<
rr. ,.
Z '"
""" n--...JIO-- (""')-JTQ' n-...lct'::t- n"r!"CQ' ("'l-...lZO'" (j.....:::rCY" ("'l.....,V'l~0" n-.JVlO" (""'\-..!C"'>cr ~.....,V'C"
....,..... :rr-...fT ~ :r":x..t- :rl..:l'>~ I'" C.. :r\.'"J;--.t' :r(":t>~ :r.....c::.C'".t' :rC-4..t- :r......~.t :I1'\.:r..t-
NnO CO~C C'J:I1>::) co-r-e c..t-C1> 0 -=:N<O COlZa C...,J}O:.c:;) c.....ao Cf'..'XlO C\1IOC
rU. r >-.... r 7" r rU. r C71.' , "... r ....... r >>-" r n.. r r.. , r..
00_ :t,..;::'T1~ :Pen..... ,.0 .... ;pOZ-l~ .PO}:)...... 1>3r-.- :J>3-I.... ~3CD,.... >C"l-..... :r-C"I~.....
e I- e"l- ce... cc..... C ,. e,r I- ):~c ~t-c .." C "..C ,..mc
03N <01>..... <0 - <01>..... <::0 ro <ODD <~;:tII:..o <:;iOJ>ZO- <'" al <m " <"T'l-<-.J
'T:tv.: -" '" -7~u _T;;-I- ..." rr_ t-1' .. t-_ e ... -< C;-,C -~;lt"- -t:~o _C ..
'I:)'OC VlC':::ooO VtO-O V"O-o v>0 -<c V"030 VlO~C "'0 -<0 V'lc:DQ VlOZO V')C!XlO
-c -< -C rc - ..-c e -< -<c -.lVcc ~v Cc -lVCC -Iv-.C -!v-c
-0" ,.c:;n l>o:r "or "0 :I "0'" ,. 0> ,. Z ,. Z ,. 0 l> n
,.-z 7<I ,..~ , " " 1''' ""~ ~ ~rr -c::< -c::r
0 n ,. r> m n co r> .". n ,. n,z n, n nr-< nr- n,l>
> , .. r " ... " ,.. >- >- .. , .. >- C .. ,..
V> 0 < -< - r ,. .... 0
... .. .J:. r .J:. .. ... .. '" '" , .J:. ~ .c: ... .c: '"
n .... ,. - - n - r - '" - '" - -< - " .... - m
I .J:. '" '" " .J:. ;; -c ~ '" ..c; r .c: e '" " '" .c
10 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 0 - z - >> .... .... <
c c e rr C 2 C ~ .. c " c c " c c ..
C') '" <J' " n z
- e , C C >- I rr
- r V> .., 3 - VI
2 -< " :!< >- V
'" ,. -< C') ,.
Z >>
'" r m
~
,vc r....co r...::-c r_ -<c r....rc ('"....:;-0 2r-.rro r... :rc c-.....7C r....cO' r......r c r;...-c
.......... I......~~ :J:Nrn..t- :I:Wl>.t- :J:.l'-<.t' :J:\.71-.t' J>-.J.....-~ ~OO.t- INJ>.f' :J:,:)J>.l' ::rO-.t'- :rN~.t'
C~C cO' C-t". c('tC-c C~2C e" e Cc-CC f\.. C-4C CC"T1C Cl-3C C\J:x.C CCICC C..t2C
nw r :l:w r ow r C')w r "'w r nw " -<w r "'w r -w r nw r w , -I>
cII- :t;>C':;;-...... l~ C'Zt- ..C .- J; Crt ~ ~c::r.... :< .... ~3':!1-' J>:J x..... :t:-3-1-' :t;> C'.r.;.~ ~C"~...
Cl"..... C .... co:::;..... C-<_ C-<_ C-_ z neo ,.,.0 pmO ..>0 ",co ",,.e
C"" <cc" <CC... <.C:t>.... <CrTC <C C .. "T.J:. <jIt2'" <7,...0 <7< " <n_....; c:~I"....
..., ... _;lO:c.O -:<I 0- -;.CION _;:iOXI~ _Jtl~~ '0 <J' --< .. --< " _~l>UJ -'=' "" -~>...,..
c .. c v c :; ( vrrc " c c vC c Llclr ~ C vr:!C vr7C vc-rc vc7C vr C
< "'::> -< 20 -< 'T1C) -< no .... zo -< NO nmr- 0 -4V')l>Q ~~l>O ~VtmO -4V"lCO -4V'l3C
C:< J;t: ..c.: ..ec >-C-' ..c- 1>0::: C _T, " ,.. .. :J .. .. ~ p p
"',. '" "'z "" '" ",Z -< - """ ",,0 .",. ."..... ."Z
r .. r r r .-- c:: <<l>Zl'" rr (""";r-2 rr-:( rr:< nrC
0 ,. ..... ,. >> z ,. ,. '" < ,. :r > ,. 0 >> m ,. m
e r - ~ c-rrC< ..... ,.. " r
..... "" ,. -0 .... .<J .." "" .() ..... >> m_ '" n '" .... '" 0 '" '" .....
rr I- < .. ,.. t- .... .. " <v. .. p ... ,.. .... . :r .... rr
.-- "" m -C ..... '" n "" .., ,. '" m-< -c '" '" m '" '" '" m '" V>
< . T .. r. I- .. .... -< ... ,p ... C .. J t- ... .. " I- -<
.:;) .". 0 m 0 0 0 V> '" e 0 r 0 z 0 r 0 0 :r
,.- rr r c " "T .. C rr
>> ,.. 0 '" ,. n '"
r CO rr t> rr ....
Z , C
.. -<
,.
"
C , , , , f f . . . ( r f ,- !^ ,/.3-10
... ,
"",,0-
o,,~
~"O
"T1'-"
';"')-.....
.'1; C
"''-'0-
-=:ro::
':J~:)
./-(.:
V'
"'....
-0
"to
:r
e
'"
,Ie
"'....-
"vr
....'^'
r ~.
:"':'ZC
!"T CO
~V'-L
_. C
v>OC
C
"Z
r ~
r-
c
.",:::('"
"7::"rr..t
-Ze
Je.-.lv.
m.....
X7 c...
O--.,J
vt:>C
'" e
..c
r-C
r
C
I>
....
n
..
,
o
"
z
>-
V'
I
'"
".
....uc
~" -"
..ec
"''''
C-"'I-
"'me
n-""
,0 ....
r C- r
. V'l:c. 0
"
"-<
r
".
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
r
m
....
Z
C
'"
.
n..oJ:loO'
:rc("':..t-
c""mo
.-- ~....
>ZCh.."
c c
<:;0-0"..
_f"T'\1>C
V'Irc::o
-1rrC
"."'-
:<
("')V'Im
".-
3
"
I-'
"
I-'
C
r":;~o
:ram..t-
C ..c.'.-< c~
r my.'
J;:"v..
C 0
<"-~~
_m~.....
vr:3'C
-I,~O
)-:t-;Z
C
(" vC
......
"to
-C ....
. ("'
.c m
I- n
C
n."c",O'
:n-"~.z-
C<JliiOO
r ,,<.
l>Z'Tl.....
C"O
<'" -"
-rr-~"-
V"lr~o
-'rCc
"'".r-
'-'V'O
......'
'"
" <:-
I-' V'
.c I>
I-'
C ("'
r..cac
::r.....m.t-
C..c'Zc
r- ".'"
J;:>Z<t-
amo
<~2.t
_m-iw
vrr-c
....r- 0
)'>~.~
o
nvr
".......
'"
.cJ 0
I-
.cJ '-
I-' ,
o 3
".
r-
-
z
C
".
. .
.
.
<<
.
.
.
.
.
.
n-...J<C1'
:rl-"-..r-
CI'\J:;QO
r- ^~
1>.,.,m......
v-<c
<r- 0'
_'t>L...t'
V"l 0::>
_c..v(,...
J>~~
"
,
'-
I>
Z
,-, <
.. .,.
" r
~ '"
"
I-' Z
r r
n......V'lO'
:T"-~'z-
~.:DZO
r c;u;
1>mI....
1,..'f"""C
<rNC1'
_I> 0
V' <-.0
-Ie; C (..:
J>:JC1Vl
r-
n ....
>-
"
I-' '"
"
I-' ,-,
C
r....7c
IN_..l'-
C.l'CC
r- v,v.:
J n t--
vZO
<rC"C
-:t;..~t-'
v ~("
-tope
>- ,
r
..
.c
.
'"
I-
o
("';
n..,J-n::::O'
~ l' c-..t-
co 30
r ~<.
vrn 2"-
v co
<r c:a-
...J;:. f'Tr-
V' NO
-, C
..'" <-.
C
,-, V>
t ".
r-
,(
I-' ....
..r c::::
I-'
C C
....
("'
".
:r
r-
'"
n
,
'"
L
C
e
m
..
C
I
a'
"
C
r....rC'
I....O~
ceca
r- zw
}:-f'T- -1~
V'mo
<r7"O"
_J>3\"IJ
v >-c
-tc:ZC
.."
'"
("' ".
". Z
'"
'" -<
I-
'" r-
I- ....
o 3
-<
'"
:<
".
I>
n..om..oO"
:TO' n.t-
C...oV')zo
r r't...-
J>Z c~
C -c
<:10 ,",,-"
_,..... ,0-
V'r 00
-Ir c
,,1> 3
..
nv'> '"
t'~ r
m
.( r-
I-'
0..000-
T\.rX..t-
t:"'......o
r _<.
1> Z ""I-'
c c
<"1>\.11
-r""'"2":
V"I,OO
_rAfW
I>"m
~
nV>....
1;,~r
-<
.r
I-' ....
" :J
~ ;'
,
"
"
'"
.
r-
L
r-.~'TO
::r1J:t>-.,.
r.c:rC
r- ::-- v.:
l' ~ ...
G~O
<:;1:1'\1
_n-.3l.JJ
vr.....c
-fira
>-t~
ev-
......'"
c
~ V>
I- ....
.c
I-
""
r....crna-
:rC"'C':-
C.....V'I0
r ""
"PZCP.....
C~C
<~ClIJl
~~ ~
V'Ir:t>-o
-(,re
".".."
C
nv>z
I>....v
o
"
I-' r-
.c
I-' '-
C "
....
r
r-
(""",TO
:rO"c..l'
C u-......c
r- ow
~2 ~
00:>0
<~rrv
_mZ\JI
vr c...C
......-~o
l:'l-::l'
rV2
".-<
rr
,(J ....
I- ..
'" r-
I- _
:> n
"
r
. .
n..o>O"
'T.t-:t:>.zo
Cl-'~O
r cw
1>ZO.....
C -It,.;
<'" -"
_I'!'''''O-
V'r- 0
""""rnc
".".:r
"
nV'-
"'....v
....
" ....
.... m
" '"
_ m
C v
'"
r
r-..r-c
:J:.t--.t-
CvCc-
r- "
); ;- L I-
eoe
c::7rr.t
_rn,..c
vr c
-i r co
I>t~
<
(" v~
I>-<C
.
,(
.'
'"
l-
e
N
I>
e
n..cozO"
:r.t- rr, J:>o..t-
C..oICDO
r 1-'<.
~Z8N"""
C 7.:J:;-C
<?Ol>O\.1!
_rrrl""C
Vlr-::ro
-r~ C
".". :r
C
nV' 3
1>- ]:>
-<
C
C
....
"to
C
C
'"
I
Z
I>
a:>
:I
n..ooo-
Tr...:_..t-
C,,""30
r- ".""
J>>oZG"')t-'
c:C'c
<~-""
-r;C..t'
v>r- 0
....r~o
"...r-
or,
('")v>'"
......n
o
or
I-' ".
or ,
.... ~
c ..
o
r
r-
~
Z
0..000"
:r(')r:~
CCDZa
r <.
>Z,.......
C'-C
<;lOCW
_rr-o-
Vlr-"10
-<r c
".1>'-
~
nv>v>
l>-'-<
r-
or <'
.... -<
" ~
I-'
C
~
'"
r..cvc
ICC':-
C.r7C
r- ,,<.
l: ~....~
c::".C
<<'7 C-t..
_rr ......
vr J=>c.
....,0::0
"'n-
r-
ev
".....'"
,
.r "T1
I- r
.c r-
I- ~
o n
o
'"
o
r-
n..o~O'"
~r'\..:t>~
cono
r J>~
J>ZI.....
c-c
<JOr-w
_rrJ:>f"\
V'lr""V"IO
-<r c
"...'"
rT
nv>z
,""1>
....
" C
I-'
..
I-' ....
C '"
r-
n.cr,c
Il-'O.t-
co:xC
r- "'<.
.'" I-
er-o
<;rn~
-mew
vr2c
....r- 0
.>-c
....
r v:.;;;
".......
"
~ -<
I-
-c r-
I-
o
(""';..c"'O("
:r~-.l
C..c-zo
r "'''
J>zr-.....
L e
<:lCJ>W
...."..r.l'
V'lrr:co
-rrrc
J>l>;:C
nv>o
1>-
..
" '
.... <-.
'" C
I-' 0
C
rT
r-
I>
(""..coo
:J:~r-..t-
CC'"l>C
r- NW
~2l-~
000
<7."Cu...'
_m '"
vr~('
......,-<0
~1' rr
r-
rv....c
,,-<Z
,(J
.
'"
I-
o
n..onO'"
:ru:o':-
C.t';lOa
r Ou..;
!>zm.....
c;;Jt!o
<;lOOI'\,)
_M"' (Xl
V'lr-G"'lO
-4r-c
"...r-
"
nv>m
J::: -'~
....
.c '
I-' 3
"
-' ~
c ~
I>
:>
n
".
".
c-:...c.l>c
Iu..~~
Cr-7-C
r _t..,;
J::;-Ct-
cr-o
C:Al'-t'..
_m ..c
v,c....c
~r-l:>-O
:t:t ~
rv v
".....
.( ....
>- "
.c V'
.. :;
o rr
"
".
r
o
>-
n.,c,O'
:r"cr
CccnO
r ,<.
l:>-Zzl-'
ceo
<;10 W
~r.-:t-c.
V'lr-::oo
-4r3C
".".".
nV'o
~ -"C'
0< "
I-' ....
0< ".
I-' r-
e
....
I
I>
r...c~o
IN-,z.
C..r-trc
r- "'w
l:> ZIt--'
o 0
<7-C""":
_"Tl~"'"
vr ICe
.....,.....-0
l>:t-, r-
c-v7
".-<....
r
'" C
I- "
.r
I- ""
o
/3-11
. . . .
c
n..o;ilOO"
T.k-C'z
COlOO
r :;It;u.'
~Z-""
eee
<;JeICN
-""""'z
Vlr"'NO
....r- c
"'"...
..
nv>-
"'....:.
m
"
I-' '"
" ,
I-' 0
(" e
r-
e
'"
".
V'
n
"
("
..
....
r
G....~r
:rC:t>..t-
ec-er
r J....v...
:tr-t-
V"'l>Q
<rC-o
-I> "
v ~c
-Iece
:to?':;
c
(" ~
" 0
~ C\
. ,
-c ..
I- <:
..... v':
"
"
:J
"Z
m
.
. .
.. ,-
.... r:
(
"
c-
c-.....ro
I.l:' ?C.t-
rccc
r 3u..
1"" ..
V.-4C
<r~\.1
-)>3-.1
v C:c:
~C-10
l' 7:I
-<
e
" r-
~ z
.
.c n
I- C
o r-
n-
~
....
.c
I-'
C
r.c3o
I>J'l>~
C'-Ie
r- ow
J>~ 21-
omo
<7- \.1
_rno....
vrCC
....,.....JOC
1>1>:3
'"
c-v2'
".....
"
,0
I- L
'" '"
....
o
c:
. .
t""l..,(:t-~o
IN -~
C-L~);7r:
r- ow
~~ ~~
c:7 v...l'-
_rr. IJ'
vr :Ie
-.r'" me
:tlo r-
....
e v c
".-< '"
'" -0
. ,
'" m
I- v
e "
,
Z
.
n..cc;O'
=u.C..t-
c\,J\r.'::)
r Cl.
~Z<t-'
C "'c
<7VC)"t-
-" C'
V'lr-30
--r-c
".".n
I
nv>".
"-,,.
r-
.c
.... ".
'" ,
I-' 3
C "
r-
r.cc-C'
IwC.t-
C.c~r
r- <w
~zl>t-
0"'0
C:=--:s>..t'
-m .....,
ltr~c
-Irl>O
>>1><
r ve-
".-<
..
o ....
>- r-
'" m
I- v
o r-
~
m
. .
'"
l'l..cOO"
:rCCl..t
Como
r v<.
~za""
c c:
<J03VJ
_rr~O'
V'li('"lO
-'r:Ie
"."."
rr
nv>r-
>-....
".
" ....
I-' '"'
.r ..
I-' 0:>
o ~
r.c~C'
~a~.t-
c.......;ll:'C
r- "'w
:s>2C......
omo
<..-Zu.;
-"'T'IO.4J
vr~c
....r- 0
)>l:-:'!
".
("":l"Il7
.....C
rr
'" r-
..
,0
I-
o
0:>
. .
3
r""..rr:Jo
:rJ:---..t--
cJ-r--rc
r )>n""~
:t- 2: v ~
Ca:> C
c:., c"
-1"1"". J>\,J'
vr- <c
-Ii -0
"'. c:
C-v ,.
"..... ....
("'
.cJ ".
. -
'" ..
I- r
o C
~
".
'"
I
:3
r
m
N
I>
'"
n-
-<
:r
r
n-cG"'lO
:r..tcJ'
Co-c
r r'-'
1>ZO~
L C
<;'Om",
~rrCO
V'lr-_C
-Ire
....0:>
rT
'-'V''''
......-<
o
"
I-' 0:>
.r ,
I-' m
C r
<
V
..
:3
n-.)T"j'
:"rr-..r-
c..r-x::::)
r c"
t>rr-o?"l-'
VJ;-C
<,2:0'"
~- J.- ;r:--- C"
V> 0
-C'"c-c
~~V1
t
r. :;
>- C
....
.( 3
~ I>
or ~
.... D
C ~
;on
r.....r-cc
I.:::.>ZlC.::--
cc CC
r- OZw
~~rv....
v,ZCO
<r~~o
_~V') -...J
v r7c
~o ;::.::>
l?r:?'O
m
r "
I> -<
!l
>-
'"
b
.
.
(")......30'
::rt,..:P.::--
CO";:;O':;'
r -<.
p~"-"",
v~C
<r-m...n
....:t:""~
V' co
-C(""C
l>)c)>
,-
n r-
~ c
V>
"
I-' '-
" ,
I-' C\
C r
m
'"
'"
>-,
e
:;
r.......;c
'IWx>J:-
C"o:c-
r- 1>(...1
J:n-r;-~
V'DO
<r \J
_l>-xJ-r;;
v Co
......CC')O
1>" n
r-
C-
,. 0
'" ..
I- ....
,0 r-
I-'
o C\
.
-<
>>
"
(I (,
"
".
"
~,.c'TC
Iw-..t-
Co.~C-
r- 0,,-
!:>:Z:Z~
OOC
<~V"
_m ~
vr7c
.....r-mc
~:t:-V1-
....
C-VL
".....'"
.cJ "
.. ,
.0 :3
I- ..
o '"
".
r-
L
v
".
t .
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: /'1/1
Meeting Date: May 14. 1996
ITEM TITLE: Report: EIR 95-01; consider certifying the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One and Annexation Final Second- Tier
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Addendum as complying
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SUBMITTED BY: Special Planning Project Manager, Otay Ranch Qw {r-C,,:S3'
REVIEWED BY: City Managerg (4/5 Vote: Yes_ No.K.}
The public hearing for the Draft SPA One EIR held on November 15, 1995 was continued
to March 27 and 28, 1996 for additional testimony and comments. On March 28, 1996,
the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and review period and directed staff to
prepare the Final EIR with Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring Program,
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. On April 24, 1996, the
Planning Commission certified the Final EIR as complying with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution certifying that the
Otay Ranch SPA One and Annexation Final Second-Tier EIR 95-01 and Addendum
including Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations complies with CEQA.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
Resource Conservation Commission (RCC): The RCC met on March 11 and 25, 1996.
At the March 25 meeting, the RCC recommended certification of the EIR.
The Planning Commission: On April 24, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted
Planning Commission Resolution EIR 95-01 certifying the Final EIR and recommending
certification of the Final EIR to the City Council.
ccsrfeir. doc
May 3, 1996
)J/~-, I
Page 2, Item: _
Meeting Date: Mav 14. 1996
DISCUSSION:
A. Background
The Draft EIR evaluates environmental impacts of SPA One, Villages One and Five of
the Otay Ranch, seven minor amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
(GDP) and annexation of Planning Areas One and Three of the 1995 Sphere of Influence
Update Study and the Mary Patrick Estate to the City. In addition, the Addendum to the
Draft EIR analyzed the impacts of the Otay Landfill changing jurisdiction from the City of
Chula Vista to the County of San Diego. The Draft EIR is a second-tier document that
incorporates, by reference, the GDP EIR and Sphere of Influence (SOl) EIR to focus the
analysis on impacts that have not been previously analyzed on a site-specific level. The
analysis in the Draft EIR is based on the worst case scenario for each topic contained
within the report.
During the public review of the Draft EIR, new information became available concerning
three of the sections of the Draft EIR: biological resources, traffic circulation and
landform alteration. The Draft EIR public hearing was continued to a future date in order
to prepare revised sections of the EIR incorporating the new information. The revised
portions were completed and filed with the State Clearing House on February 9, 1996
which initiated the 45-day review period. The State Clearing House public review period
concluded on March 25, 1996 and the City's review period on March 28, 1996. Staff
received eleven comment letters on the recirculated portions of the EIR, mostly from the
project applicant and public agencies.
At the March 27 meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony on the Draft
and recirculated portions of the EIR. Only the project applicant and a representative from
the Otay Water District (OWD) testified at the March 27 hearing. The project applicant
and their biologist provided additional testimony on the effects of noise on gnatcatcher
habitat and grassland bird habitat issues. The OWD comments dealt with correctly
identifying OWD as the water purveyor for SPA One. No one testified at the March 28
hearing. The Commission closed the public review period and directed staff to prepare
responses to all comments received. Written comments were received from:
County of San Diego
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
CalTrans
LAFCO
The Baldwin Company
Otay Water District
California Department ofFish and Game
San Diego Gas and Electric
Sweetwater Union High School District
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Responses to all of these comments were prepared and included in the Final EIR for the
Planning Commission's review. The Commission determined the responses were adequate
and certified the Final EIR as complying with CEQA at their April 24, 1996 meeting.
ccsrfeir.doc
May 3,1996
II//!" :L
Page 3, Item:_
Meeting Date: Mav 14, 1996
The firm of Cotton/Beland/ Associates was selected through the competitive bid process to
prepare the SPA One EIR. On January 30, 1995, the City, the project applicant and
Cotton/Beland entered into a three party agreement for the preparation of the EIR.
Cotton/Beland has continued as the City consultant in the preparation the Draft and Final
EIR.
B. Analysis
Project level and cumulative impacts were identified and divided into three categories:
significant and unmitigable, significant but mitigable to a less-than-siginficant level and less
than significant. The significant and unmitigable project and cumulative impacts require a
Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to approve the project. The GDP
Program EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations and this statement are consistent.
The impacts by category are:
1. Significant and unmitigable project level environmental impacts
Land Use, Planning and Zoning
The conversion of existing vacant and agricultural land to urban use is considered a
significant unavoidable impact. The GDP EIR identified this impact, as did the Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Mitigation measures ensure proper planning
and development review. Land use impacts can be minimized if all site-specific
development is reviewed for compliance with the SPA One Plan. Impacts remain
significant, however, due to conversion of land uses.
Landform Alterations/Aesthetics
The Draft EIR identified impacts to steep slopes on-site in Villages One and Five. Due to
the neo-traditional, pedestrian orientation of the village concept, it is not feasible to avoid
all steep slopes on site. The total development of the Otay Ranch will, however, achieve
the performance standard identified in the GDP (i.e., preserve at least 83% of steep
slopes) on a Ranch-wide basis. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
project design to the extent feasible. Scenic corridors have been planned along Telegraph
Canyon Road and Orange Avenue. Landscaping and sensitive grading design guidelines
have been included in the project design. The mitigation measures also include a table to
track steep slope preservation throughout the development of the Otay Ranch.
Biological Resources
With the implementation of the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan, impacts
to biological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception
of direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and Otay tarplant. Direct
impacts to these species will remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed annexation
will result in significant unavoidable impacts to biological resources as previously
identified in the Program EIR 90-01.
ccsrfeir. doc
May 3, 1996
1'1/1'3
Page 4, Item: _
Meeting Date: Mav 14. 1996
Cultural Resources
As stated in the GDP Program EIR, impacts related to the annexation of the Otay Ranch
remain unavoidable at this level of analysis. The SPA One impacts may be mitigated to a
less than significant level, but have to remain identified as significant until the mitigation
measures are implemented.
Agricultural Resources
The impacts to agricultural resources, as a result of future development within the
annexation component of the project, will remain significant and unavoidable as previously
identified in the Program EIR 90-01.
Transportation, Circulation and Access
The Draft EIR traffic studies were based on the direction of the Transportation Technical
Subcommittee regarding the assumptions, methodology and scope of analysis. The
Technical Subcommittee was made up of representatives from the Otay Ranch Project
Team, SANDAG, Caltrans, California Transportation Ventures, MTDB, San Diego
County, Urban Systems, the project applicant, Cotton/Beland and BRW. Four networks
were tested in three time frames for the years 2000, 2005 and 2010. The study was
performed to analyze the impacts of SPA One and to identify mitigation measures
necessary to maintain acceptable peak hour traffic conditions.
The only significant and unmitigable impacts associated with buildout of the project are on
the freeway system. The Draft EIR recommended that the project applicant participate in
freeway deficiency planning by SANDAG and CalTrans to implement freeway
improvements and fund those improvements on a fair share basis.
Air Quality
Because the Otay Ranch GDP was not included in the SANDAG Series VII growth
forecast, the GDP, including SPA One, exceeds the current Regional Air Quality
Standards (RAQS). The GDP Findings of Fact (FOF) anticipated this, and Overriding
Considerations were adopted. RAQS mitigation measures were required as conditions of
approval. The significant impact occurs from an increase in emissions. The pedestrian
orientation of the village concept will help reduce project emissions, although not to a
less-than-significant level.
Noise
There are no noise impacts on humans associated with the project that cannot be mitigated
to a level below significant. The GDP Findings of Fact established a 60 dBA Leq level of
significance for Gnatcatcher habitat. Noise impact on areas containing Gnatcatcher located
along Paseo Ranchero and East Orange Avenue cannot be mitigated below the GDP
Findings of Fact level even with the change in standard to 65 decibels. Mitigation
measures to reduce the noise impacts are infeasible and the impact remains significant.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached for the City Council's approval.
ccsrfeir. doc
May 3,1996
11//I~1f'
Page 5, Item: _
Meeting Date : Mav 14. 1996
2. Significant and mitigable project level environmental impacts
Impacts in the following categories for SPA One can be mitigated to a level below
significance with the implementation of mitigation measures. Cumulative impacts remain
significant.
Geology and Soils
Paleontological Resources
Water Resources and Water Quality
Public Services and Utilities
Water, Sewer, Schools, Integrated Waste Management
Hazards/Risk of Upset
Mitigation measures attached to this agenda statement were approved by the Planning
Commissions and are available for the City Council's approval.
3. Less than significant project level environmental impacts
Impacts in the following categories were determined to be less than significant:
Population and Housing
Public Services and Utilities
Parks, Law Enforcement, Fire ProtectionlEMS, Animal Control,
Civic Services and Library
4. Significant and Unmitigable Cumulative Environmental Impacts
The GDP EIR provides a comprehensive examination of buildout of the Otay Ranch GDP
and other major projects in southern San Diego County. These projects will convert over
30,000 acres from vacant and agricultural uses to urban development with landform
alterations from vacant to urban uses. Biological, cultural and paleontological resources
will be lost and an increased population will be exposed to potential hazards. When
considered in conjunction with other development projects in southern San Diego County,
the following are considered significant and unmitigable cumulative environmental
impacts:
Land Use, Planning and Zoning
Landform Alterations/Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Agricultural Resources
Transportation, Circulation and Access
Air Quality
Noise
ccsrfeir. doc
May 3,1996
1'I/I~5
Page 6, Item: _
Meeting Date: Mav 14. 1996
These impacts are included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
5. Mitigable or Less Than Significant Cumulative Environmental Impacts
The following impacts can be mitigated or will have less than significant cumulative
environmental impact:
Geology and Soils
Paleontological Resources
Housing and Population
Water Resources and Water Quality
Public Services and Utilities
Hazards/Risk of Upset
C. Public Comments
All public comments received were distributed at the Planning Commission meeting of
March 27, 1996 and are included in the "Response to Comments" section of the Final
EIR.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. As provided for in the three party agreement, Village
Development/The Baldwin Company has paid for the preparation of the Draft and Final
EIR.
Attachments
1. Resolutions
2. Final EIR
3. RCC Miu.l;tR'1' ~ A. NNI'D
4. PlanningJllltlri~~th;utes March 28,1996
5. Statement of Overriding Considerations
ccsrfeir. doc
May 3,1996
11//I--~
RESOLUTION NO. ,7.1 8~
RESOLUTION OF THE CTIY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND-TIER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) AND
ADDENDUM FOR THE OTA Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City") circulated a request for proposals to prepare an
environmental impact report for the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and selected the firm of
CottonlBelandl Associates out of nine candidate finns to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). On
January 30, 1995, the City, CottonlBelandlAssociates and the Otay Ranch L.P. entered into a three party
contract where the City managed the preparation of the EIR,. Cotton/Belandl Associates prepared the EIR and
the Otay Ranch L.P. reimbursed the City for the full cost ofEIR preparation, and~
WHEREAS, the firm of CottonIBelandl Associates has prepared a Draft Second-tier Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR 95-01), a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and an Addendum on the Otay Ranch
SPA One Plan, Annexation of Planning Areas 1, 3 and the Ranch House, General Development Plan
Amendments, PC Zone Changes and Prezoning, an~
WHEREAS, this Second-tier EIR, the Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and Addendum
incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan
(GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as their
associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs. 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 Chula Vista Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on
November 8, 1995 and November 15, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue. These hearings
were continued by a motion of the Planning Commission to March 27, 1996 and March 28, 1996, at which
time the Planning Commission took public testimony on the adequacy of the information in the DEIR 95-01,
the Recirculated DEIR and Addendum. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and directed
that the Final Environmental Impact Report be prepared including the responses to the comments received
on the DEIR, the Recirculated DEIR and Addendum, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations and~
WHEREAS, to the extent that these Findings of Fact conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn,
the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement
those measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory but constitute a binding set of
obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the Project. The adopted
mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation
Jll- R -7
Resolution No.
Page 2
Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated
through the process of implementing the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED mAT TIlE CITY COUNCIL of the City ofChula
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission 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 and April 24, 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
1he decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6,
subdivision{s), shall comprise 1he entire record of proceedings for any claims \Dlder 1he Califomia
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code ~21000 et seq.)..
n. FEIR CONTENTS
That the FEIR consists of 1he following:
A. Final Environmental Impact Report 95-01, including the Recirculated sections
B. The Addendum for the Detachment for the Otay Landfill
C. Appendices I-N to the Final Environmental Impact Report
D. Technical studies
E. Information incorporated in 1he responses to comments
F. Additionally, this FEIR and Addendum was prepared in concert with two prior Program
EIRs: the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP EIR 90-01 and the Sphere of InBuence Update EIR 94-
03 as well as their attendant documents.
m FEIR REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
That 1he City Co\Dlcil of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered the FEIR
95-01 and Addendum and the environmental impacts therein identified for 1his Project, 1he Findings
of Fact, Attachment "A" to this Resolution known as document number ---J and 1he proposed
mitigation measures contained therein, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
Attachment "B" to this Resolution known as document number ---J and 1he Statement of
C:\EIR95_01.DOC
Jl/ R- ~
. _.~~_.""'--_..................,<<-----._~_............-.-."'"""-"'.~"-'
"' ........._.....,_,_.,_.~.~"~.",._."w.~~_._______...._
Resolution No.
Page 3
Overriding Considerations, Attaclunent "C" to this Resolution known as document number ---J prior
to approving the Project. Copies of said attachments are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPUANCE WITH CEQA
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR. 95-01 and Addendum, the Findings of Fact, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines (California Code
Regs., title 14, ~15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula
Vista
V. INDEPENDENf JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That the City Council finds that the FEIR. 95-01 and Addendum reflects the independent judgment
of the City ofChula Vista City Council.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, M111GATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A Adoption of Findings of Fact
The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, inCOIpOrate as if set forth in full
herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact,
Attachment "A" of this Resolution known as document number ~ a copy of which is on
file in the office of the City Clerk.
B. 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 ~ a copy of which is (Xl file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Coun"iJ
hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents
are feasible.
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 ~ a copy of 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.
C:\EIR95_01.DOC
I'fB-,
Resolution No.
Page 4
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 ---J a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City
Co\B1cil hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
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 feasibl~.
E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081. 6, City Co\B1cil hereby adopts
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in Attachment "B" of
this Resolution known as document number ---J a copy of which is on file in the office of
the City Clerk. The City CO\B1cil hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that,
during project implementatioll; the pennittee/project applicant and any other responsible
parties 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 CO\B1cil of the City of Chula Vista hereby
issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in the form set forth in Attachment "C", known as document number ---J 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.
vn. 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 filed with the Co\B1ty Clerk of the
Co\B1ty of San Diego. 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 proceedings for any claims \B1der the Califomia Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code ~21000 et seq.).
Presented by
Approved as to form by
C:\ElR9501.DOC Gerald Jamriska,
Special Planning Projects Manager
Bruce-M. Boogaard, City Attorney
)~~- to
REVISED 5-10-96
RESOLUTION NO. 18284
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND-TIER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) AND
ADDENDUM FOR THE OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City") circulated a request for proposals
to prepare an environmental impact report for the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and
selected the firm of Cotton/Beland/Associates but of nine candidate firms to prepare
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). On January 30, 1995, the City, Cotton/
Beland/Associates and the Otay Ranch L.P. entered into a three party contract where
the City managed the preparation of the EIR, Cotton/Beland/Associates prepared the
EIR and the Otay Ranch L.P. reimbursed the City for the full cost of EIR preparation,
and;
WHEREAS, the firm of Cotton/Beland/Associates has prepared a Draft Second-
tier Environmental Impact Report (DEIR 95-01), a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR
and an Addendum on the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, Annexation of Planning Areas
1, 3 and the Ranch House, General Development Plan Amendments, PC Zone Changes
and Prezoning, and;
WHEREAS, this Second-tier EIR, the Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and
Addendum incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere
of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as their associated Findings of Fact and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs. 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 Chula Vista Planning Commission held duly noticed public
hearings on November 8, 1995 and November 15, 1995 in the Council Chambers,
276 Fourth Avenue. These hearings were continued by a motion of the Planning
Commission to March 27, 1996 and March 28, 1996, at which time the Planning
Commission took public testimony on the adequacy of the information in the DEIR 95-
01, the Recirculated DEIR and Addendum. The Planning Commission closed the public
hearing and directed that the Final Environmental Impact Report be prepared including
the responses to the comments received on the DEIR, the Recirculated DEIR and
Addendum, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
1&41\-1:
the Statement of Overriding Considerations and;
WHEREAS, to the extent that these Findings of Fact conclude that proposed
mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not
been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself
and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These
findings are not merely informational or advisory but constitute a binding set of
obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving
the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval.
Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process
of implementing the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission 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 and April 24, 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 proceedings for any claims under the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code ~21000 et seq.)..
II. FEIR CONTENTS
That the FEIR consists of the following:
A.
sections
Final Environmental Impact Report 95-01, including the Recirculated
B.
The Addendum for the Detachment for the Otay Landfill
C.
Appendices I-IV to the Final Environmental Impact Report
D.
Technical studies
E.
Information incorporated in the responses to comments
F.
Additionally, this FEIR and Addendum was prepared in concert with two
I y. po. -t~
prior Program EIRs: the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP EIR 90-01 and the Sphere
of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as their attendant documents.
III. FEIR REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
That 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, the Findings of Fact, Attachment "A" to this
Resolution known as document number _, and the proposed mitigation
measures contained therein, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
Attachment "B" to this Resolution known as document number _, and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, Attachment "C" to this Resolution
known as document number ,prior to approving the Project. Copies of said
attachments are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEOA
That 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 CEOA Guidelines (California Code Regs., title
14, ~ 15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Proced ures of the City of
Chula Vista
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That the City Council finds that the FEIR 95-01 and Addendum reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council.
VI. CEOA 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" of this Resolution
known as document number _, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the City Clerk.
B. 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 _, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to
/4f\-13
- ,.",,-~,_-~,._-'------------"""""---'-""~-_.~"~"---~--'~-'""'~""-----".....-..,..--..-...<+-=..,. -.. "
Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEOA Guidelines Section
15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above referenced
documents are feasible.
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 II A" to this
Resolution known as document number _, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk, the mitigation measures/performance
standards set forth in the Findings of Fact for -ElR 90-01 for Gnatcatcher
habitat noise mitigation and habitat preservation for four grassland
species are infeasible. All other mitigation measures/performance
standards established in the Findings of Fact for EIR 90-01 have been
met for SPA One.
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 _, a copy of 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 "B" of this Resolution known as document
number _, a copy of which is on 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 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
ItfA- ilf
~ ^ __ - _. ._.._<_._~_._~_~~.~""-__,"~,""_,..~.,,,,_~",,.,..,~"~~__~_...-<_~..~_~.._~,.~,,,,,.....,.,.,_,~".,.,", ,_,~,~""""^,~__""",,,~_=~,~,,~,--,_,'."'__,""__'_~'~'"''''' .. .'0"
Considerations in the form set forth in Attachment "C", known as
document number _, 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.
VII. 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 filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. 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 proceedings for any claims
under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code
~21000 et seq.).
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Gerald Jamriska, Special Planning
Projects Manager
C/~~ f\,~~'ii ,~
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
. .
.
Attachments: .. ,,~
Attachment A: Fin#in &f Fact
Attachment B: Mitig n Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment C: St ent of Overriding Considerations
~
EIR95_01.doc ~.
fLi f\- .I~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 1"8
Meeting Date: May 14. 1996
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCA 96-02: Consideration of an amendment to the
Planned Community (PC) Zone.
Public Hearing: PCA 96-03: Consideration of an amendment to the
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code to create the Public/Quasi-Public
(PQ) Zone.
Public Hearing: PCZ 96-A: Application of said modified Planned
Community (PC) Zone by prezoning certain parcels of land within
Planning Areas One and Three of the Chula Vista 1995 Sphere of
Influence Update, prezoning the Otay Water District parcel to
Public/Quasi-Public (PQ) and prezoning the Nelson/Sloan rock quarry
property to Agriculture -8).
SUBMITTED BY:
Jerry Jamriska
Special Planning Proje s
City Manager yJ-
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X)
Three related applications have been initiated by the City of Chula Vista as a result of non-Baldwin
owned parcels being annexed into the City. These applications are being processed in conjunction
with Otay Ranch SPA One review. The first application (PCA 96-02) involves an amendment to
the Planned Community (PC) Zone, Section 19.48 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The second
application (PCA 96-03) proposes an amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to create the
Public/Quasi-Public (PQ) Zone. The third application (PCZ 96-A) involves applying this modified
PC Zone and the newly created PQ Zone to miscellaneous publicly and non-Baldwin owned parcels
described below and prezoning the existing Nelson/Sloan Rock Quarry to A-8.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing on the
proposed PC Zone amendment (PCA 96-02), the proposed creation of the Public/Quasi-Public
Zone (PCA 96-03) and the prezoning of certain parcels of land within Planning Areas One and
Three of the Chula Vista 1995 Sphere of Influence Update Study (PCZ 96-A); and adopt the
attached Ordinances.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission reviewed these items at the April 10, 1996 public hearing and took final
action on them at the April 24, 1996 hearing. The Planning Commission chose to follow staff
recommendation and approved all three items unanimously. Due to their concern regarding
property owners within the southwest comer, however, they also recommended that the City
Council initiate, at the City's expense, a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and
I'IP,/
Page 2, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 14. 1996
Environmental Review for parcels of land within the southwest comer. (See Discussion under
Section III ofthis report).
DISCUSSION:
1. Amendment to Planned Community Zone (PCA 96-02)
A. Background/Proposal:
The primary purpose of the Planned Community (PC) Zone (Section 19.48 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code) is to provide for orderly planning and long-term development of
large tracts of land in order to provide an environment of stable and desirable character, to
provide the developer with reasonable assurances that sectional development plans will be
acceptable to the City and to enable the City to adopt measures which provide for the
development of the surrounding areas compatible with the Planned Community Zone.
Implementation of the PC Zone is currently restricted to parcels of land under unified
ownership and of 50 acres or more and requires the concurrent submittal of a General
Development Plan (GDP).
The current amendment (see Exhibit A) would allow parcels, which are contiguous to
existing GDPs and under or over 50 acres in size, to be zoned PC without the concurrent
adoption of a GDP. Several parcels not owned by Village Development, but surrounded
by the Otay Ranch, are less than 50 acres in size, with one parcel larger, and are not a part
of the Otay Ranch Project. The proposed modification to the PC Zone would enable the
City to pre-zone these less than 50-acre parcels in connection with the annexation of the
Otay Valley Parcel.
Additionally, the PC Zone amendment allows an underlying zone consistent with the
general plan designation for those parcels which do not have, or wish to pursue, an
approved GDP. The underlying land use zone would be determined at the time of
prezoning. In order to develop their properties, the affected property owners of the noted
parcels would have three options: 1.) the owner could amend the adjacent GDP and annex
to it in order to be part of the comprehensive Otay Ranch planning effort, 2.) the owner
could seek an underlying land use consistent with the City's General Plan designation for
the site, or 3.) the owner could make an application to the City for a General Plan
Amendment to change the PC zone to some other designation.
B. Analysis:
The proposed amendment to the PC Zone would apply not only to the non-Otay Ranch
parcels as noted specifically below, but would also apply City-wide since the amendment
is to the City's Municipal Code. The amendment does not undermine the intent of the PC
Zone District and will most likely be applied on a limited basis in very specific
circumstances. In order for these noted exceptions to apply, a parcel must not only be
under 50 acres in size, but also must be surrounded by, or contiguous to, an existing
adopted General Development Plan. The amendment would allow parcels to annex into an
existing GDP and be part of a comprehensive planning effort, which would further the
goals of the Planned Community Zone District.
CCRPT514.DOC
5/8/96
1'10-.2.
Page 3, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 14. 1996
C. Issues:
No major issues have been identified with the proposed zoning text amendments. Zoning
text amendments have been addressed in the EIR for SPA One and Annexation (EIR 95-
01) and the EIR for the Sphere ofInfluence Update (EIR 94-03).
D. Conclusion:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft
Ordinance modifying the Planned Community Zone.
2. Creation of the Public/Quasi-Public Zone (PCA 96-03)
A. Background/Proposal:
The Public/Quasi-Public (PQ) Zone is being created (see Exhibit B) in order to be applied
as a prezoning to certain non-Otay Ranch parcels of land, such as the Otay Water District
and San Diego Reservoir parcels. The PQ Zone may also be applied in the future, as
needed, for other public agencies land uses within the City.
The PQ Zone will also address issues related to the landfill expansion should it be annexed
to the City in the future. However, at this time, an agreement between the City and the
County has been reached regarding the operating procedures for the landfill, and it will
remain as a Special Study Area within the County. The proposed landfill agreement
establishes specific regulations and guidelines addressing operations and the eventual
closure of the facility. The proposed PQ Zone also includes provisions for closure of the
landfill in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local regulations, including
regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board, the California Waste
Management Board and the Department of Health Services in the event the landfill were
annexed to the City prior to closure.
It should be noted that the proposed PQ Zone also includes water reservoirs and parks as a
permitted use. As noted below, the PQ Zone will be applied to non-Otay Ranch parcels of
land (e.g., the City of San Diego water reservoir parcel and Otay Water District parcel) in
advance of annexation.
B. Analysis:
The purpose of the PQ Zone is to provide for a limited number of unique land uses in
appropriate locations which are maintained by public or publicly controlled agencies such
as municipal and/or County agencies, school districts or utility companies (e.g., water, gas,
electricity, etc.) including, but not limited to, the City of San Diego water reservoir and
Otay Water District parcels as noted above.
C. Issues:
No major issues have been identified with the proposed creation of the PQ Zone. The
creation of the PQ Zone has been addressed in the EIR for SPA One and Annexation (EIR
95-01) and the EIR for the Sphere ofInfluence Update (EIR 94-03).
CCRPT514.DOC
5/8/96
II/P'J
.'
Page 4, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 14, 1996
D. Conclusion:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft
Ordinance creating the PQ Zone.
3. Prezoning of Specific Parcels (peZ 96-A)
A. BackgroundJProposal:
The parcels noted in Section B below and illustrated in Exhibits C through I were initially
addressed in the Sphere of Influence Update Study, which was approved by the City
Council on March 21, 1995. The Sphere of Influence Update was partially approved by
LAFCO on February 5, 1996 and is anticipated to be acted upon by LAFCO on May 6,
1996. Additionally, the City Council has approved a resolution to petition LAFCO for the
annexation of the Otay Ranch Annexation No.1, which includes the Otay Valley Parcel,
the Ranch House, the Inverted "L" property of the Otay Ranch and the Watson McCoy
property. The City Council also directed staff to submit an Annexation Application for
Planning Areas One and Three of the Sphere Study and the Otay Ranch House property.
The Annexation Application has been submitted to LAFCo. The Environmental Impact
Report, which addresses the annexation issues regarding the properties noted below, is
being reviewed concurrently with this application.
While the applicant is primarily interested in annexing only SPA One, City staff believes
additional territory is necessary for proper planning and future extension of City services
to serve the entire Otay Valley Parcel. The parcels noted below were included in the
annexation and, therefore, are required by State law to be prezoned.
The Otay Valley Planning Area is the largest of the Otay Ranch planning areas
encompassing approximately 9,000 acres. There are several parcels that are not part of
the Otay Ranch included within this Planning Area that are specifically defined below.
Generally, they include parcels of between 9 to 250 acres and include the Nelson/Sloan
rock quarry, the Otay Water District, the existing City of San Diego reservoir sites and
several other privately owned properties.
Planning Area Three is approximately 457 acres in size. Parcels which are not a part of
the Otay Ranch include the Watson property and the smaller Clarkson property.
B. Parcel Information:
The following is a list of parcels to be prezoned along with their proposed prezone
designation, the City General Plan designation and the current County General Plan
designation.
CCRPT514.DOC
5/8/96
I'll! ., 1/
Page 5, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 14. 1996
CITY COUNTY
PARCEL PRE- GENERAL GENERAL
INFORMATION APN ACRES ZONE PLAN PLAN
San Diego Water 644-070-04 19.59 PQ P/QP Intensive
Reservoir Parcel Agriculture
Clarkson 595-050-05, 7.5 PC Low Res. Multiple Rural
06 0-3 du/ac Residential
Dauz, AKA deGraaf, 641-030-09 7.82 PC Open Space Residential-6
Barnabas F dn.
EastLake Land Swap 643-020-40 106.31 PC Low-Med, Intensive
& 41; 45-47 Med-High, Agriculture
Comm. &
Open Space
Gerhardt 641-060-02, 11. 84 PC L-M Res Residential-6
03 (3-6 du/ac) Intensive Ag.
Groman 641-030-10 1.82 PC Open Space Residential -6
Otay Water District 643-020- 56.77 PQ P/QP Intensive
08,13,25,26 Agriculture
&27
Nelson/Sloan 644-060-06 136.47 A-8 Open Space Multiple Rural
Rock Quarry Use
Ross 641-030-03 9.9 PC L-M Res. Residential 6
3-6 du/ac
Southwest Corner 59.54 PC Open Space Impact Sensitive
(54.4)
Industrial (5 ac)
Burns 645-030-10, 14.94 PC Open Space Impact Sensitive
11, 12
Hofer 645-030-07, 14.62 PC Open Space Impact Sensitive
08,09
Kelstrom 645-030-04 5 PC Open Space Impact Sensitive
Ostling 645-030-03, 9.98 PC Open Space Impact Sensitive
13
Rabello 645-030-06 5 PC Open Space Impact Sensitive
Rowland 645-030-14 5 PC Open Space Industrial
Selman 645-030-05 5 PC Open Space Impact Sensitive
Watson 585-150-02 160 PC Low Res (0- Multiple Rural
3 du/ac) Use
CCRPT514.DOC
5/8/96
1'18'.5'
Page 6, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 14. 1996
C. Analysis:
All out-parcel property owners were contacted by mail during the processing of SPA One.
The owners were given the opportunity to meet with staff regarding the development
potential on their individual parcels which would exist after annexation into the City.
While many of the property owners did not respond, some contacted staff by phone with
questions, and several came in to meet with Planning Department and Otay Ranch Project
staff. Concerns voiced by the property owners dealt with the perception that their property
would have less development rights if annexed into the City than if it were to remain in the
County unincorporated area. Additional meetings were also held with the various property
owners in the Southwest Comer area and rock quarry, since these parcels have unique
issues associated with them. Those owners who were not able to attend the meetings
contacted staff by telephone.
D. Issues:
A detailed discussion of the parcels to be annexed follows. The prezonings have been
addressed in the EIR for SPA One and Annexation (EIR 95-01) and the EIR for the
Sphere of Influence Update (EIR 94-03).
Parcels surrounded by the Otay Ranch Proiect on three sides and located west of
Paseo Ranchero
APN: 641-030-09, Dauz, (AKA Barnabas Foundation). (See Exhibit C) Staff was
contacted by Mr. David Van der Ploeg who expressed concern that the property would
receive greater development potential within the County than in the City. The Barnabas
Foundation is not inherently opposed to the prezoning or annexation but would prefer that
their property be purchased by the SPA One project applicant. If developed within the
County of San Diego under the Residential-6 designation, the owner would potentially be
able to develop their 7.82-acre parcel with 46 dwelling units. Under the City's current
General Plan designation of Open Space, the parcel would have the development potential,
or density transfer potential, of one lot per 10 acres or one dwelling unit. It should be
noted, however, that the enactment of the County Resource Protection Ordinance in 1986
could severely restrict the development potential of the property if it were to be developed
within the County's jurisdiction due to slopes and habitat. The impact of this ordinance on
the development potential of this property would have to be further evaluated to determine
current development potential in the County. As indicated in the chart above, the proposed
prezoning of this parcel would be to Pc. As previously, indicated in Section 1 of this
report, the owner would have three options under the PC scenario. It is staff's preference
that the parcel be folded into the overall planning effort for the Otay Ranch. Policies are
also contained in SPA One that encourage the comprehensive planning of the area west of
Paseo Ranchero.
APN: 641-030-10, Groman. (See Exhibit C) Ms. Groman contacted staff by telephone
who expressed the same concerns that were voiced by Mr. Van der Ploeg. If developed
within the County of San Diego under the Residential-6 designation, the owner would
potentially be able to develop her 1.82-acre parcel with 10 dwelling units. Under the
City's current General Plan designation of Open Space, the parcel would have the
development potential, or density transfer potential, of one lot per 10 acres or one dwelling
CCRPT514.DOC
5/8/96
1'1/1"' (,
Page 7, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 14. 1996
unit. Since this parcel is contiguous to the Dauz (Barnabas Foundation) parcel discussed
above, the same constraints are placed on the property by the County's Resource
Protection Ordinance. As indicated above, the proposed prezoning of this parcel would be
to PC, and the owner would have the three options stated earlier in the staff report. City
staff would, again, prefer that the parcel be folded into the overall planning effort for the
Otay Ranch since the SPA One contains policies that encourage the comprehensive
planning of the area west of Pas eo Ranchero.
APN: 641-030-03, Ross. (See Exhibit C) Staff met with Mr. and Mrs. Ross who were
interested in the process but had no real concerns with being annexed into the City or the
land use designation they were assigned. If developed in the County under the R-6
designation, the owner would have the potential of developing 59 units. If developed in the
City under the underlying L-M Residential standards, the owner would have the
development potential of 44 units at the mid-point of the density range. It should be noted,
however, that the future trolley alignment is proposed to bisect the Ross property which
would limit the develop ability of their parcel. Again, staff would prefer that the area west
of Paseo Ranchero be developed as a unit per the policies indicated in SPA One.
APN: 641-060-02 & 03, Gerhardt. (See Exhibit C) Staff spoke with Mr. Gerhardt by
telephone. He was satisfied with the annexation proposal. The property is surrounded on
three sides by Village One. If developed in the County under the R6 designation, the
owner would have the potential of developing up to 44 units. If developed in the City
under the underlying L-M Residential standards, the owner would have the development
potential of 52 dwelling units at the mid-point of the density range. As indicated above,
this property is proposed to be zoned PC.
Parcels Surrounded by the Inverted "L" Parcel
APN: 595-050-05 & 06, Clarkson. (See Exhibit D) Staff was contacted by Mr.
Clarkson who indicated that he was satisfied that his property was being annexed into the
City and voiced his support of the annexation effort. If developed within the County of
San Diego under the Multiple Rural Use designation, the owner would have the
development potential of one dwelling unit per 8 acres. Under the City's current General
Plan designation of Low Density Residential (0-3 du/ac), the 7.5-acre parcel would have
the development or density transfer potential of 7.5 single-family units. As indicated
above, the proposed prezoning of this parcel would be to Pc.
APN: 585-150-02, Watson. (See Exhibit D) Staff met with Tim Wilson of the Watson
Land Company. He voiced his support of the annexation effort and was in favor of his
160-acre parcel being annexed into the City. If developed within the County of San Diego
under the Multiple Rural Use designation, the applicant would have the development
potential of one dwelling unit per 8 acres, or 20 single-family units. Under the City's
current General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (0-3 du/ac), the 160-acre
parcel would have the development or density transfer potential of 224-single family units,
based on the mid-point of the density range.
CCRPT514.DOC
5/8/96
leiS'?
Page 8, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 14. 1996
Planning Area One
APN: 643-020-40,41 & 45-47, EastLake Land Swap. (See Exhibit E) Staff has met
with representatives of the EastLake Company, and they are supportive of the annexation
and prezoning. If developed within the County of San Diego under the Intensive
Agriculture designation, the owner would have the development potential of 40 dwelling
units. The Chula Vista General Plan designates 19 acres of Low-Medium Residential with
a mid-point of 85 dwelling units, 45 acres of Medium-High Residential with a mid-point of
653 dwelling units, 52 acres of commercial, 11 acres of open space and 17 acres of
circulation. Approximately 55 acres of this land has already been annexed into the City as
part of the EastLake Greens Expansion.
APN: 645-030-3-14, Southwest Corner. (See Exhibit F) Staffhas met with three of the
property owners (Burns, Rabello and Hofer) on many occasions. All are concerned that
their property would be potentially downzoned upon annexation to the City of Chula Vista.
Currently, County zoning on all of these parcels is A-70 (Limited Agriculture), which
would allow them to build one single-family house on a minimum 4-acre parcel as well as
limited agricultural uses such as growing of container plants. While the area is proposed
to be prezoned PC, the underlying permitted land use would be Agriculture in order to be
consistent with the City's General Plan designation of Open Space. The Open Space
designation within the City allows one residential unit per every 10 acres. City policies,
upon annexation, would allow one dwelling unit per legal lot of record. Therefore, in
actuality, similar development potential could be realized either within the City or the
County .
In a site visit to the southwest corner, staff observed that all of the parcels are currently
vacant except for parcels 645-030-07, 08 and 09 owned by Mr. Hofer. Parcels 645-030-
10, 11 and 12, owned by Mr. Burns, have been rough graded and are otherwise vacant.
Staff noted an active trucking business, trailer office building and a metal building being
used for truck storage and repair on Mr. Hofer's parcels. We have not been able to verify
with the County whether or not this use has a valid permit. A grading permit, however,
was issued in 1989 for a controlled fill of 207,000 cubic yards on Mr. Burns' property.
We have not been able to verify from the County whether or not this permit is still valid.
In the event that both owners have valid permits, they would be annexed into the City as
legal non-conforming uses. In the event that the uses/activities are not legal, the owner
would have to pursue a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Environmental
Review in order to legalize them. Both owners testified before the Planning Commission
on April 10 and April 24 that it is their desire to pursue industrial uses on their property.
Since the land to the south, within the City of San Diego, is industrial in character, there
appears to be some justification for this type of use. The Planning Commission indicated a
willingness to assist these owners by recommending that the City initiate a General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change and the related environmental review for the southwest corner
as a General Fund cost.
The most southerly Parcel 14 is vacant but is dissimilar to the other parcels in the
southwest corner in that currently County zoning is M-52 (Limited Industrial). This zone
designation allows for a wide variety of industrial and commercial uses. In order to be
CCRPT514.DOC
5/8/96
/I/P"Y
Page 9, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 14. 1996
consistent with the City's General Plan, the area would still have to receive the underlying
zone designation of Open Space. The property owner would have to pursue a General Plan
Amendment and zone change in order to allow industrial use. The owner of this property,
Mr. Rowland, also owns approximately 20 acres of contiguous land within the City of San
Diego where he operates a storage yard. This property is zoned industrial and Mr.
Rowland has indicated he would like to maintain the industrial zoning on his parcel if it
were annexed into the City.
APN: 646-060-06, Nelson/Sloan Rock Quarry. (See Exhibit G) The rock quarry has
been operating since the mid-1950's within the County of San Diego and is considered by
the County to be a "vested" legal non-conforming use. The quarry operator, Nelson and
Sloan, made application to the County for an asphalt batch plant in the late 1980's. This
application was never completed by the applicant or acted on by the County. Should the
applicant wish to consider a similar intensification to the existing operation once annexed
into the City, an application for a Conditional Use Permit would have to be submitted to
the City. Staff has met with the quarry operator and the owners representative and they
have expressed concern with the term "non-conforming" and would like to be considered s
a legal use. Staff indicated to them, they could become "conforming" by applying for a
Conditional Use Permit since unclassified uses, which rock quarries are considered, would
be permitted with a CUP in the A-8 Zone. It is the intent to pre-zone the quarry to A-8
and allow it to continue operation as a legal non-conforming use until such time as the
applicant applies for a Conditional Use Permit.
Additionally, there are requirements of the State Division of Mines and Geology which will
have to be complied with once the quarry is annexed into the City. The Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act (SMARA) requires that a Reclamation Plan be approved by the lead
agency and kept on file with their state office. Additionally, a yearly inspection of the
quarry to ensure compliance with the Reclamation Plan is required by the state and is the
responsibility of the lead agency. An approved Reclamation Plan is currently on file with
the State, but the last County inspection of the quarry occurred in January 1994. The
operator of the quarry is also obligated to file an annual reporting form with the State and
to provide financial assurances that the quarry is operating in compliance with the
reclamation plan. The applicant currently has a bond in the amount of $136,950 on file
with the State which would payable to the State and the lead agency should Nelson Sloan
fail to comply with the approved Reclamation Plan. Once the quarry is annexed, steps will
have to be taken to update the name of the lead agency as the City of Chula Vista.
The Mining Board has also indicated that once the quarry is annexed into the City and we
become the lead agency, the City of Chula Vista must adopt a mining ordinance, which is
required to be approved by the State as well as the City Council.
APN: 644-070-04, San Diego Water Reservoir Parcel. (See Exhibit H) The site is
currently operating as a reservoir. The proposed pre-zoning is to Public/Quasi-Public
which would allow the site to continue operation in its current form. The site is
surrounded on three sides by Village Five, is currently operating as a reservoir and is
planned for reservoir expansion.
CCRPT514.DOC
5/8/96
1'18-'
Page 10, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 14, 1996
APN: 643-020-08, 13,25,26 & 27, Otay Water District Parcels (See Exhibit I) The
above parcels are proposed to be prezoned PQ, which would allow them to function as a
water reservoir site.
E. Conclusion:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance
(PCZ 96-A) recommending approval of the proposed prezones, with the stipulation that the
City initiate a General Plan Amendment for the southwest comer.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None: The project applicant is responsible for all processing costs. Most of the other non-Otay
Ranch property owners have paid their fair share contribution towards annexation and prezoning.
If the Planning Commission recommendation is followed on the Southwest comer for City initiated
General Plan Amendments and zone changes, the cost to the general fund would be:
Environmental Review for General Plan Amendment ranging from $1,000 to $5,000; General Plan
Amendment ranging from $2,000 to $4,000 and a Zone Change would amount to $2,000.
Attachments
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I:
Exhibit J:
Proposed amendment to PC Zone
Proposed PQ Zone
Dauz, Groman, Ross, Gerhardt parcels
Watson, Clarkson parcels
EastLake land swap parcels
Southwest comer parcels
Nelson Sloan Rock Quarry parcels
San Diego Water Reservoir parcel
Otay Water District parcel
Annexation Map
,
c,tJ
~
+0
Ordinance approving PCA 96-02/PCZ 96-A
Ordinance approving PCA 96-03
CCRPT514.DOC
5/8/96
J'I8-'/fJ
ORDINANCE NO.~'~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TO AMEND CHAPTER 19.47 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE THE PUBLIC/QUASI-
PUBLIC (PQ) ZONE (PCA 96-03)
WHEREAS, an application for an amendment to the Municipal Code to create the PQ
Zone was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on October 10, 1995 by the
City of Chula Vista ("Applicant"), and;
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code does not presently have a PQ Zone, and;
WHEREAS, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3 and the Ranch House will produce
a need for a new zone with regulations for properties that contain public and quasi-public land
uses ("Project"), and;
WHEREAS, the wording of said amendment to Chapter 19.47 is attached as Exhibit I
to this ordinance, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project
and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and tenants
within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing,
and;
WHEREAS, the 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 and April 24,
1996 by a motion of the Planning Commission at which time, said hearings were thereafter
closed, and;
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted 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, the Recirculated EIR incorporates and Addendum, by
reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan
(GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as
their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program
EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula 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, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures
11./ 8-/-/
Ordinance No.
Page 2
outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded
or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors
in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or
advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City
adopts the ordinance approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express
conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the
process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission 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 and April 24, 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, shall comprise the entire record of the
proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the amendment to create the PQ Zone attached as
Exhibit I finding that it is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that
the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice supports the
amendment the Public/Quasi-Public Zone.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01, the Findings of Fact, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State
EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
IV. A.
The ordinance amendment to create the PQ zone shall take effect and be in full
force the thirtieth day from its adoption.
V. ATTACHMENTS
JLJ.S-/~'"
Ordinance No.
Page 3
All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Gerald Jamriska, Special Planning
Projects Manager
c~ Y1l~~_ ~
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit I
A: \ccrs _ ord\pca96 _03 .doc
J46-J-.3
ORDINANCE NO..Q' 7 '3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
19.48 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE (PCA 96-02); APPROVE
THE PREZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 600.09 ACRES TO
THE PC ZONE, PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC (PQ) ZONE AND
THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONE (PCZ 96-A)
WHEREAS, applications for an amendment to the Planned Community (PC) Zone and
for prezoning 600.09 acres of presently unincorporated land were filed with the City of Chula
Vista Planning Department on October 10, 1995 by the City of Chula Vista ("Applicant"), and;
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code does not presently allow for the application of the PC
Zone on parcels less than 50 acres in size, and;
WHEREAS, the annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3 and the Ranch House (Exhibit II)
will create a need for the application of the PC Zone on parcels of less than 50 acres
("Project"), and;
WHEREAS, the wording of said amendment to Chapter 19.48 is attached as Exhibit I
to this ordinance, and;
WHEREAS, LAFCO policy requires that prior to a city annexing property, said property
must be prezoned. Thus, the proposed prezoning has been requested in order to bring those
certain parcels of Otay Ranch Planning Areas 1 and 3 and the Ranch House, which are to be
annexed to the City, into conformance with LAFCO policy ("Project"), and;
WHEREAS, those parcels to be prezoned PC are identified by their Assessor Parcel
Numbers as: 585-150-02,595-050-05,595-050-06, 595-070-26,641-030-03,641-030-09,641-
030-10, 641-060-02, 641-060-03, 643-020-40, 643-020-41, 643-020-45, 643-020-46, 643-020-
47, 645-030-03, 645-030-04, 645-030-05, 645-030-06, 645-030-07, 645-030-08, 645-030-09,
645-030-10,645-030-11,645-030-12,645-030-13 and 645-030-14, as shown on Exhibit II, and;
WHEREAS, those parcels to be prezoned PQ are identified by their Assessor Parcel
Numbers as: 643-020-08, 643-020-13, 643-020-25, 643-020-26, 643-020-27 and 644-070-04,
as shown on Exhibit II, and;
WHEREAS, that parcel to be prezoned A is identified by Assessor Parcel Number 644-
060-06, as shown on Exhibit II, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project
and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and tenants
within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing,
J46 -02-1
Ordinance No.
Page 2
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 and April 24,
1996 by a motion of the Planning Commission at which time, said hearings were thereafter
closed, and;
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted 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, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by
reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan
(GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as
their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program
EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula 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, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded
or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors
in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or
advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City
adopts the ordinance approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express
conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the
process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on the Draft EIR, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum held on November
C:\PCA PCZ.DOC
)4e-~- ~
Ordinance No.
Page 3
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 and April
24, 1996 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated
into the record of this proceeding. In accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21167.6, these documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers,
shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any claims under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the ordinance to amend the Planned Community Zone
finding that it is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice supports the
amendment to the PC Zone, attached as Exhibit I.
The City Council hereby approves the prezoning of 600.09 acres to the PC Zone, PQ
Zone and the A Zone as more full identified in Section III herein, and identified by their
Assessor Parcel Numbers as: 585-150-02, 595-050-05, 595-050-06, 595-070-26, 641-
030-03,641-030-09,641-030-10,641-060-02,641-060-03,643-020-40,643-020-41,643-
020-45,643-020-46,643-020-47,645-030-03,645-030-04,645-030-05,645-030-06,645-
030-07,645-030-08,645-030-09,645-030-10,645-030-11,645-030-12,645-030-13,645-
030-14,643-020-08,643-020-13,643-020-25, 643-020-26, 643-020-27, 644-070-04 and
644-060-06 finding that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
zoning practice supports the prezoning of said parcels, attached as Exhibit II.
III. PREZONING
That the property with Assessor Parcel Numbers 595-050-05 and 595-050-06, consisting
of approximately 7.5 acres, generally located 2,300 feet west of Proctor Valley Road and
3,800 feet north of Proctor Valley Road, as diagrammatically presented on the area map
attached hereto as Exhibit II, be prezoned Planned Community.
That the property with Assessor Parcel Numbers 643-020-40, 643-020-41, 643-020-45,
643-020-46, 643-020-47 and 595-070-26, consisting of approximately 128.84 acres,
generally located on the east side of the proposed SR 125 alignment, approximately 4,500
feet south of Telegraph Canyon Road, as diagrammatically presented on the area map
attached hereto as Exhibit II, be prezoned Planned Community.
C:\PCA PCZ.DOC
148-"-3
Ordinance No.
Page 4
That the property with Assessor Parcel Numbers 645-030-03, 645-030-04, 645-030-05,
645-030-06 645-030-07 645-030-08 645-030-09 645-030-10 645-030-11 645-030-12
, , , , , , ,
645-030-13 and 645-030-14, consisting of approximately 59.54 acres, generally located
east of the planned extension of Paseo Ranchero and north of the City of San Diego
boundary, as diagrammatically presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit II,
be prezoned Planned Community.
That the property with Assessor Parcel Number 644-060-06, consisting of approximately
136.47 acres, generally located on the north side of Otay Valley Road, on the east side
of Rock Mountain Road for a distance of approximately 300 feet, as diagrammatically
presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit II, be prezoned Agricultural.
That the property with Assessor Parcel Numbers 643-020-08, 643-020-13, 643-020-25,
643-020-26 and 643-020-27, consisting of approximately 56.77 acres, generally located
south of Telegraph Canyon Road on the west side of proposed SR 125, as
diagrammatically presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit II, be prezoned
Public/Quasi-Public.
That the property with Assessor Parcel Number 644-070-04, consisting of approximately
19.59 acres, generally located approximately 500 feet south of Rock Mountain and east
of the planned extension of La Media Road, as diagrammatically presented on the area
map attached hereto as Exhibit II, be prezoned Public/Quasi-Public.
That the property with Assessor Parcel Number 641-030-03, consisting of approximately
9.9 acres, generally located on the north side of East Palomar Street approximately 1,400
feet west of Paseo Ranchero, as diagrammatically presented on the area map attached
hereto as Exhibit II, be prezoned Planned Community.
That the property with Assessor Parcel Number 641-030-09, consisting of approximately
7.82 acres, generally located south of Telegraph Canyon Road, approximately 2,000 feet
west of the intersection of Paseo Ranchero, as diagrammatically presented on the area
map attached hereto as Exhibit II, be prezoned Planned Community.
That the property with Assessor Parcel Number 641-030-10, consisting of approximately
1.82 acres, generally located south of Telegraph Canyon Road, approximately 2,000 feet
west of the intersection of Paseo Ranchero, as diagrammatically presented on the area
map attached hereto as Exhibit II, be prezoned Planned Community.
C:\PCA_PCZ.DOC
1'"1 6 - ~.. J.f
Ordinance No.
Page 5
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01 and Addendum, the Findings of
Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State
EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. EFFECTIVE DATE
A. The ordinance to amend the PC Zone shall take effect and be in full force the
thirtieth day from its adoption.
B. The zoning of those parcels to PC, PQ and A shall become effective at the same
time that the annexation becomes effective.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Gerald Jamriska, Special
Planning Projects Manager
(L --(ltl~~. (~
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
A: \ccrs_ ord\pca yea.doc
Attachments:
Exhibit I
Exhibit II
~~\)
~O~sC
C:\PCA PCZ.DOC
1\f8 - ,g-.5
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: J'Ic
Meeting Date: May 14. 1996
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM 95-09; Consideration of seven General
Development Plan Amendments to the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan.
SUBMITTED BY: Special Planning Project Manager, Otay RanchQ,Q ~~6"S'3"
REVIEWED BY: City Manager q (4/5 Vote: Yes_ No.K..}
II
Seven amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) have been
proposed by the applicant and are being recommended by City staff. Two of the
amendments address processing requirements for the first Sectional Planning Area (SPA).
The other five address text amendments to clarify GDP language and requirements. The
amendments are indicated in this agenda statement by strikeouts and underlining.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct the Public Hearing on the
proposed amendments (PCM 95-09) to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, close
the hearing and adopt Resolution No. approving the General Development Plan
Amendments.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission met
on March 27, April 10, April 24 and May 1, 1996. The Planning Commission
recommendation on each GDP amendment is provided within the Agenda Statement.
DISCUSSION:
The SPA One applicant has identified several areas of the existing Otay Ranch General
Development Plan that they seek to amend.
A. Master Planned Villages
The GDP Land Use Plan Implementation Section, page 113, requires:
"Each village must be master-planned as a unit"
The applicant has applied to amend the Otay Ranch GDP to delete this requirement from
the plan. Staff believes the language proposed by the applicant is too broad and should be
scaled back to apply only to those areas where there exist some rationale for permitting
planning separate from the remainder of a designated village or planning area. Staff has
identified three areas of the GDP Land Use Plan map where it would be appropriate to
CCSRGDP3.DOC
May 3,1996
Jt/c - /
Page 2, Item:_
Meeting Date: Mav 14. 1996
amend the GDP to enable these areas to develop separate from the village in which they
are located: the Inverted 'L': the Ranch House property and the area west of Paseo
Ranchero in Villages One and Two. The applicant requested that the Freeway Commercial
area of the Eastern Urban Center be added to the exception.
The Inverted 'L" is part of GDP Village 14 in Proctor Valley. The Ranch House is part of
Village 13 and the area west of Paseo Ranchero is part of Village One and Two. The
Freeway Commercial area is part of Planning Area 12, the Eastern Urban Center. These
areas are separated from the village in which they are planned by topography or arterial
streets.
Applicants Proposal: Delete the master planned village requirement and allow these
areas to develop under their own approvals. If an exception is provided, then include the
Freeway Commercial area in the exception.
City Staff Position: Maintain the requirement for master planned villages but provide an
exception to allow the Inverted 'L", area West of Paseo Ranchero and the Ranch House
property of the Mary Patrick Estate and the Freeway Commercial area to develop under
their own SPAs.
Planning Commission Position: At the May 1, 1996 meeting, the Planning Cominission
took final action recommending approval of the master planned village exceptions for the
Inverted 'L", the Mary Patrick Estate, the areas west of Paseo Ranchero and the Freeway
Commercial in the Eastern Urban Center.
Recommendation: Amend the GDP to provide an exception for the Inverted 'L", the
areas of Village One and Two west of Paseo Ranchero, the Mary Patrick Estate property
and the Freeway Commercial area of the Eastern Urban Center from the master planned
village requirement as indicated in Attachment A.
B. Agricultural Irrigation
The GDP policies prohibit an increase in irrigation for farming purposes.
Applicant's Proposal: The proposed GDP amendment would allow irrigation if
authorized by the Preserve Owner/Manager (POM).
City Staff Position: The rationale for the irrigation prohibition in the GDP was to limit
the introduction of non-native grasses within the Otay Ranch. There are opportunities for
nursery and truck farm operations on the Otay Valley parcel. Each SPA is required to
address potential conflicts between urban development and agricultural uses as part of the
SP A agricultural plan. Staff recommends that the Preserve Owner/Manager be given the
discretion to determine if additional irrigated farm land is appropriate for Otay Ranch.
CCSRGDP3.DOC
May 3,1996
Jo/C-- ~
Page 3, Item:_
Meeting Date: Mav 14. 1996
Planning Commission Position: At their May 1, 1996 meeting, the Planning Commission
took final action to support giving the POM authorization for additional farmland
irrigation.
Recommendation: Amend the GDP to allow the POM to decide on farmland irrigation as
indicated in Attachment A.
C. Practical Use of Solar Energy Systems
The Otay Ranch Program EIR Findings of Fact provide that SPA plans must incorporate
"solar heating to heat water for domestic uses and for swimming pools" (page 119).
Applicant's Proposal: The project applicant has proposed that this standard be modified
due to practical limitations of solar energy systems. The limitations of using passive solar
water heating were reported in the 1992 Energy Technology Status Report prepared by
the California Energy Commission. The report concludes that those obstacles include high
capital costs, loss of tax incentives, lack of suitable sites, adverse structural requirements,
aesthetic impacts of equipment, poor public opinion of solar systems and lack of
manufactures and suppliers.
In addition, participants in the drafting of the 179-page Findings of Fact recall that the
reference to domestic water heating was to be deleted from the Findings. However, an
inadvertent drafting error left the language in the text. The following amendment to the
GDP would repair the mistake. This change would not result in altering the determination
of significance in the GDP EIR.
City Staff Position: Staff supports the proposed amendment.
Planning Commission Position: At their May 1, 1996 meeting, the Planning Commission
took final action to support the practical use of solar energy.
Recommendation: Amend the GDP to provide for the practical use of solar energy as
indicated in Attachment A.
D. Transit Policies
This amendment addresses two issues: flexibility of transit alignments and the appropriate
time to dedicate transit rights-of-way.
Applicants Proposal: The project applicant has applied to amend the Village One map in
the GDP text to indicated a revised alignment for the trolley. SPA One realigns the light
rail transit through Village One from the GDP alignment. The Village Cores are
conceptually located on the GDP land use maps and are more precisely located on the
SP A One land plan. The transit stations are planned in the center of the Village Core.
The new alignment is proposed to run from Telegraph Canyon Road up to Palomar Street
CCSRGDP3.DOC
May 3,1996
IJ/C"3
Page 4, Item:_
Meeting Date: Mav 14, 1996
in the area west of Paseo Ranchero in order to serve the Village One Core. The GDP
Village Core policies indicate the cores are conceptually shown on the land use map and
are allowed to shift based on more detailed studies. The same flexibility for transit
alignment is not clear in the Land Use and Mobility chapters.
City Staff Position: Staff supports the proposed amendment to allow the transit
alignment to shift based on the flexible village core policies for the precise location of the
core at the SPA level.
In addition, there is a technical problem with the reservation and dedication requirements
of the SPA. Right-of-way is dedicated at the final map stage. Dedication at the tentative
map stage could only be accomplished by a grant of easement for right-of-way.
Dedication at this stage is premature since the final map and improvement plans need to be
coordinated and consistent. The recommended amendment requires transit line dedication
as a condition of tentative map approval.
Planning Commission Position: The Planning Commission took final action to support
the transit right-of-way amendments at their May 1, 1996 meeting.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the GDP Village Definition and Organization,
Transit Policies (page 102), the transit right-of-way and transit stop policies for Villages
One, Five, Six, Nine and Planning Area Twelve (pages 123, 144, 147, 148, 160 and 178),
transit stop policies for Villages Two, Three, Four, Seven and Eight (pages 128, 133, 139,
152 and 155) be amended as indicated in Attachment A and transit stop policies for
Villages Ten and Eleven (pages 166 and 171) be added as indicated in Attachment A.
E. Residential Noise Amendments
The GDP EIR Findings of Fact prohibits residential development in noise impact areas
unless the specific noise studies indicate exterior noise levels can be mitigated to 60 CNEL
or below. This level is more restrictive than the City's current standard.
Applicants Proposal: Amend the GDP Residential Noise Standards to 65 CNEL.
City Staff Position: The applicable Chula Vista standard is 65 CNEL. The GDP
Program EIR does not explain why a different standard was proposed. Upon further
review, it is apparent the standard should have been set at the City's current standard of
65CNEL.
Planning Commission Position: The Planning Commission took final action to support
the revised residential noise standard at their May 1, 1996 meeting.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the GDP Residential Noise Standards be
amended as indicated in Attachment A.
CCSRGDP3.DOC
May 3, 1996
IYC"Y
Page 5, Item:_
Meeting Date: Mav 14, 1996
F. Habitat Noise Mitigation
The Otay Ranch Program EIR disclosed significant unavoidable impacts to riparian
vegetation that is potential habitat for the federally endangered least Bell's vireo.
According to the Program EIR, the San Diego Association of Governments in a 1989
study theoretically estimated that noise levels above 60 dBA Leq in vireo breeding areas
may impact the reproductive success of this species during their breeding season which
occurs from March 15 to September 15. The EIR disclosed that in an area where major
roadways are located or construction will be undertaken in close proximity to least Bell's
vireo habitat, mitigation below a level of significance may not be possible. There is no
least Bell's Vireo habitat within or adjacent to SPA One that would be affected by
construction noise. However, the Findings of Fact, adopted by the City in conjunction
with Program EIR 90-01, establish a requirement that noise impacts to Least Bell's Vireo
and California Gnatcatcher habitat shall be mitigated to achieve a level of 60 dBA Leq or
below. The recirculated Biological Resources Section of the SPA One EIR determines
there is no biological justification for requiring mitigation for 60 decibels, and a new
standard of 65 dBA should be established.
Applicant's Proposal: Amend the habitat noise standards to 65 dBA for gnatcatcher
habitat.
City Staff Position: Support the change to 65 dBA and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Planning Commission Position: The Planning Commission took final action to support
the revised habitat noise standard at their May 1, 1996 meeting.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the GDP habitat noise standard be amended as
indicated in Attachment A.
G. Grassland Species Performance Standard
The GDP established performance standards for four grassland bird species requmng
preservation of 80 percent or more of occupied habitat. These standards are rigid and are
not achievable due to the wide ranging, foraging and breeding habits of the birds. In
addition, the birds use disturbed habitat with non-native grasslands that are generally
considered not to have other biological value. In addition, the regulatory status of the
species has changed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working on how to best
identify future candidates from a large pool of at risk species.
Applicant's Proposal: Amend the performance standards to provide habitat within the
habitat preserve for these grassland birds.
City Staff Position: Support the performance standard amendment.
CCSRGDP3.DOC
May 3,1996
/J/c.,f
Page 6, Item:_
Meeting Date: Mav 14. 1996
Planning Commission Position: The Planning Commission took final action to support
the amended performance standards at their May 1, 1996 meeting.
Recommendation: The performance standard for the four species should be amended as
indicated in Attachment A.
FISCAL IMPACT: None, the project applicant has paid for the processmg of the
General Development Plan Amendments.
Attachments
1. Attachment A General Development Plan Ameildments. ~t,;);J
2. Resolutions ~'v
3. Disclosure Statement ~ <oC
4. Planning Commission minutes ~O
CCSRGDP3.DOC
May 3,1996
J 4C"'t,
RESOLUTION NO. J ~~ ~5'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTA Y
RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM 95-09)
WHEREAS, an application for amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
(GDP) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on October 19, 1994 and
September 7, 1995 by the Otay Ranch L.P. ("Applicant"), and;
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP involve six minor changes. These
amendments affect master-planned villages, transit, irrigation of farmland, solar energy
requirements, residential noise mitigation and habitat mitigation noise standards (Attachment A).
Except for the amendment applying to villages being master-planned as a unit, the amendments
will apply to the entire area affected by the Otay Ranch GDP ("Project"), and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said GDP
amendments and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by publication in
a newspaper of general circulation in the City and 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, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared 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, this Second-tier EIR, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by
reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan
(GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as
their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program
EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula 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, 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
) tJ~ C-,J---j
Resolution No.
Page 2
in interest, to implement 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 the resolution approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express
conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the
process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearings on the Draft EIR, the Recirculated DEIR and Addendum held on
November 8, 1995, November 15, 1995, March 27, 1996 and March 28, 1996, and their
public hearings held on this Project on November 15, 1995, March 27, 1996, April
10, 1996, April 24, 1996 and May 1, 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, shall comprise the entire
record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01 and Addendum, the Findings of
Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State
EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
III. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan was found consistent with the Chula
Vista General Plan when it was approved on October 23, 1993. The Otay Ranch
General Development Plan Amendments are minor in nature and do not impact
C:\PCM95 09.DOC
/,/; C-/-oZ
Resolution No.
Page 3
the land use, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public
facility uses set out in the GDP. These amendments will still advance the goals
and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP.
B. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS WILL
PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE
INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA One Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain provisions and
requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The
Public Facilities Financing Plan specifies the public facilities required by the Otay
Ranch, and also the regional facilities needed to serve it. The proposed
amendments to master-planned villages, transit, irrigation of farmland, solar
energy requirements, residential noise mitigation, habitat mitigation noise
standards and habitat performance standards will not have an impact on the
sequential development of SPA One.
C. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS WILL
NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The villages within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer adjacent
to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay
Ranch Planning Area One. Four neighborhood parks will be located within the
SPA One area to serve the project residents, and the project will provide a wide
range of housing types for all economic levels. A comprehensive street network
serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The
proposed plan 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. The proposed GDP
amendments will not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment,
circulation or environmental quality.
IV. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
C:\PCM95_09.DOC
/y. c,,/"3
Resolution No.
Page 4
The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set
forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the
Findings of Fact, Attachment "A" of this Resolution known as document number
_, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
B. 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 _, a copy of which is on file in the office of the
City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures
described in the above referenced documents are feasible and hereby 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 _, a copy of 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 _, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA 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 "B" of this Resolution known as document number _, a copy of
C:\PCM95 09.DOC
/'1~ c-;-y
Resolution No.
Page 5
which is on 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 CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in
Attachment "C", known as document number _, 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.
V. 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 filed with
the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. This document along with any documents
submitted to the decision makers shall comprise the record of proceedings for any
CEQA claims.
VI. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS
That the City Council adopt the Otay Ranch GDP amendments set forth in Exhibit A,
based upon the findings herein stated.
VII. ATTACHMENTS
All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full.
C:\PCM95 09.DOC
) 1/1 C' 1-">
Resolution No.
Page 6
Presented by
Approved as to form by
cL~/~
Bruce M. Boogaard, Citf - -
Attorney
Gerald J amriska, Special
Planning Projects Manager
A:lccrs _ ORDlpcm95 _ 09 .DOC
Attachments:
Attachment A: GDP Amendments
Attachment B: Findings of Fact
Attachment C:Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment D: Statement of Overriding Considerations
C:\PCM95_09.DOC
/1/, C-/-?
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 1i..D
Meeting Date: May 14. 1996
ITEM TITLE: 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 Geotechnica Report
SUBMITTED BY: Special Planning Project Manager, Otay Ranch
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/5 Vote: Ye,_ No.xJ
The Baldwin Company has submitted the first Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
governing Villages One and Five. SPA One covers 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 SPA/specific plan submitted to implement the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) jointly approved by the City and the
County of San Diego in October of 1993. The public hearing on SPA One was continued in
November of 1995 in order for new information to be added to the SPA One EIR. Portions of
the EIR containing new information were recirculated for public comment.
ISSUES:
The following are unresolved policy or design issues between the project applicant, City staff
and/or the Planning Commission or other parties. Separate analysis on each of these issue is
included in Section 5 of this Agenda Statement.
Small Park Credit/Criteria
Park Credit Timing
Eastlake Parkway Access
Gated Communities
RMP - Joint Powers Agreement
RMP - In-lieu-fee Program
Habitat Education/Recreation Funding
Project Phasing
Trigger Points
Multiple Ownership
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9,1996
I~ J) - /
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
RECOMMENDA TION:
That the City Council conduct the Public Hearing on the proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
(pCM 95-01); and, if the applicant pays its fees owing to the City,
Adopt Resolution approving the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan (PCM 95-01), subject to
the proposed conditions of approval, and including the Overall Design Plan, Village Design Plan,
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Regional Facilities Report, Public Facilities
Finance Plan, Phase 2 Resource Management Plan, Non-renewable Energy Conservation Plan,
Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan, and Geotechnical
Report as amended.
Adopt Ordinance approving the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Planned
Community District Regulations (PCM 95-01B).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Design Review Committee: On October 23, 1995, the Design Review Committee voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the Overall Design Plan for the Otay Ranch and
conceptual approval of the Village Design Plan for SPA One, Villages One and Five of the Otay
Ranch.
Housing Advisory Committee: On November 22, 1995, the Housing Advisory Committee voted
unanimously to recommend adoption of the Ranch-wide and SPA One Affordable Housing Plans.
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the SPA
One Parks Master Plan in August of 1994 and in January, March and April of 1995. On October
26, 1995, the Commission voted 5 to 2 to recommend approval of the SPA One Plan for Villages
One and Five with the pedestrian parks to receive partial credit from 25% to 50% to be
determined by staff only if the pedestrian parks are maintained by a homeowners association or
landscape/open space maintenance district.
Planning Commission: The Planning Commission met on March 27, April 10, April 24 and May
1, 1996 to conduct public hearings on the SPA One Plan. At the May 1, 1996 meeting, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution PCM 95-01 recommending the City Council approve
the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan (PCM 95-01) including the Overall Design Plan, Village Design
Plan, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Regional Facilities Report, Public Facilities
Finance Plan, Phase 2 Resource Management Plan, Non-renewable Energy Conservation Plan,
Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan, and Geotechnical
Report with the proposed conditions of approval. In addition, the Commission also adopted
Resolution PCM 95-01B recommending the City Council approve the SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations. The Planning Commission made separate recommendations on
each of the unresolved issues which are included in the Section 5 of this Agenda Statement.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9,1996
1'10- ,
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics:
SPA One is located in the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch on 1,061 acres south of
Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road. SP A One includes all of Village Five and the portion
of Village One east of Paseo Ranchero. Historically, this portion of the Otay Ranch has been
used for ranching, dry-farming, and truck farm activities. The site is currently vacant, unoccupied
and unimproved. The rolling hills of Villages One and Five are adjacent to Telegraph Canyon to
the north and Poggi Canyon on the south. The Otay Water District property is located on the east
side of Village Five, and the future Sunbow project is located to the west of Village One.
2.Zonin2 and Land Use:
Villages One and Five, along with the entire Otay Ranch properties, were prezoned Planned
Community (PC) as part of the General Development Plan (GDP) process. The PC zone
implements the GDP by requiring the preparation of a sectional planning area (SPA) plan. The
SP A plan provides for the orderly planning and development of large tracts of land with a variety
of land uses. The Otay Ranch GDP requires the SPAs to implement the pedestrian oriented
village concept. SPA One accomplishes that goal.
The Otay Ranch GDP and the PC Zone also require additional master plans and studies to be
completed in conjunction with the first SPA. Those include: 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 Geotechnical Report. These plans and reports are
outlined in the Document Organization Flow Chart, Exhibit 1-1, of the SPA One Plan and
summarized in the Project Proposal section ofthis agenda statement.
Since this is the first SPA application in the Otay Ranch, the GDP requires the preparation of
several additional Ranch-wide plans including the Overall Design Plan (ODP), Ranch-wide
Affordable Housing Plan and Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP). The GDP further
requires concurrent approval of the ODP and Phase 2 RMP Funding and Conveyance Plans and
Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) by the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista prior to
the adoption of the first SPA. The San Diego County Planning Commission reviewed and
recommended approval of the ODP at their May 26, 1995 meeting. On the November 17, 1995
the County Planning Commission recommended approval of the Funding and Conveyance Plans
and the formation of the POM. The Board of Supervisors on March 6, 1996 adopted the Funding
and Conveyance Plans, POM and Overall Design Plan.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
I~.D- :1
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
3. Proposal:
SPA One Plan
The Spa One Plan is the land plan proposed by the applicant and recommended by City staff with
modifications. This plan is a revision of Alternative B in the SPA One Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). The revisions were prepared to respond to staff concerns over the original
submittal. Staff is satisfied the proposed SPA One Plan meets the goals, objectives and policies of
the Otay Ranch GDP with the resolution of the policy issues and adoption of the proposed
conditions of approval.
The plan proposes initial access points to Villages One and Five off Telegraph Canyon Road.
These access points are proposed to enable the applicant to start construction of single-family
homes in the villages without the major infrastructure improvement costs associated with
constructing La Media. Second phases will provide access from Paseo Ranchero and La Media.
The plan also proposes pedestrian parks located in the single-family neighborhoods. The
applicant believes these parks are a key component of the pedestrian-oriented village concept.
Both villages implement the GDP village concept policy by planning the villages around urbanized
cores that contain future transit stations at the center of the village. Elementary school sites are
planned for each village just off the core along with large neighborhood parks.
Telegraph Canyon Road and East Orange Avenue are Prime Arterial streets in scenic corridors
that border SPA One on the north and south. The Prime Arterials providing north/south access
are Paseo Ranchero and La Media (the extension of Otay Lakes Road south into the project).
These roads provide sidewalks on one side and regional trails on the other.
Palomar Street is planned as a Village Entry and Core street and it is proposed that the transit
right-of-way run in the street median. Placing the transit in the median eliminates the need for
gates on the village streets under current Public Utilities Commission and Metropolitan Transit
Development Board (MTDB) design criteria. The transit alignment is designated on the SPA land
use plan, and its dedication will be a condition of tentative map approval. However, transit
alignment west and south of SPA One still needs to be determined and construction funding
identified for extending the transit to Villages One and Five.
The Village Core streets also have a 10-foot electric cart path in addition to a 5-foot sidewalk on
one side of the street. The Promenade streets provide the main pedestrian access to the village
core. These streets have a 6-foot wide sidewalk with an 8-foot parkway with trees on both sides
of the sidewalk. This design promotes a better pedestrian walking environment than City-
standard monolithic sidewalks by providing a shaded walkway separated from the street. The
Promenade streets run from the residential areas to the village core. Residential streets are
proposed to have 6-foot parkways with street trees and 4-foot sidewalks to enhance the
pedestrian experience. A specific list of street trees using root barriers has been developed to
avoid root damage to sidewalks.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
I~ b - If
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
While cart paths are part of the village design in the paseos, promenade and village core streets,
no provision is proposed by the project applicant to make electric carts available as part of the
home sale. The City's Environmental Resource Manager has identified funding sources that could
assist in acquisition by residents of electric carts in the future. Staff believes the carts will be
utilized when the village core or other destinations are built.
The pedestrian bridge between Villages One and Five has been included in the Public Facilities
Finance Plan and required by the conditions of approval. Its construction between the two
villages will be phased with other improvements. The future bridges to Village Two and Six are
proposed to be financed by the facilities portion of the open space maintenance district.
In November of 1995, the Baldwin Company modified their SPA One proposal to include eight
gates at entrances into the single-family neighborhoods north of Palomar Street. These gates will
restrict vehicular access but not public pedestrian, bicycle or electric cart access. The gates would
control the access to most of the single-family product in SPA One. They would not impede
access to the multi-family sites or any of Village-wide services in SPA One such as the
neighborhood parks, the elementary schools, the commercial areas in the village cores or the
community purpose facility sites. The Chula Vista Elementary School District will provide school
bus service on the private roads behind these gates. The proposed gates would be staffed or
electronically controlled and provide visitor lane with turn around and resident lane. Behind these
proposed gates, streets and pedestrian parks would be privately maintained but constructed to
City standards. The storm drains the gates would be private up to the point where they collect
runoff from public streets. The lighting located on the private streets would be private but also
conform to public standards.
Four gates are proposed for each village. The four gates in Village One would be located on the
Residential Promenade streets that provide the access into the single-family neighborhoods. Three
gates control the access from Palomar Street and the fourth is located at the entrance from
Telegraph Canyon Road. In Village 5, two gates control the access on the Residential Promenade
streets form the village core while the other two are located at the entrances at Telegraph Canyon
Road and from EastLake.
Village One
Village One comprises 585 acres located in the northwestern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel.
Village One is an urban village with transit and pedestrian orientation. The land use pattern
emphasizes balanced yet diverse land uses, environmentally sensitive development, transit and
pedestrian orientation, and creating a "sense of place" for the Village One residents. The village
core is centrally located and includes 1,566 multi-family residential units, an elementary school
site, two neighborhood parks, commercial and Community Purpose Facility (CPF) sites and the
light rail transit right-of-way. The Village One core is based on a traditional "main street" theme.
The main street concept is implemented with commercial, office and public/quasi-public uses
along a pedestrian friendly, tree lined main street with a transit station. The secondary area of
Village One contains 1,314 single-family homes with a range of lot sizes and two pedestrian
parks.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
1'fJ)-S
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
Village Five
Village Five is comprised of 476 acres located south of Otay Lakes Road between La Media and
the future alignment of SR-125. Village Five is an urban village to be served by the light rail
transit. The land use pattern emphasizes balanced yet diverse land uses, environmentally sensitive
development, and transit and pedestrian orientation creating a "sense of place" for the Village
Five residents. The village core is located in the southwestern portion of the village and includes
1,615 multi-family units, an elementary school site, two neighborhood parks, a town square,
commercial and CPF sites and light rail transit right-of-way. The Village Five core identity is
based on a traditional town square design. Commercial buildings, multi-family units, community
purpose facilities and a larger neighborhood park are planned around the town square park. The
transit station for the light rail has also been planned at the town square. The Village Five
secondary area contains 1,263 single-family units in a variety of densities.
Planned Community District Regulations
Part III of the SPA One Plan contains the Planned Community (PC) Regulations. These
regulations will be adopted pursuant to Title 19, Zoning, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and
are intended to implement and integrate the Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP and
the SP A One Plan. These regulations set forth the development and use standards for all property
within the Otay Ranch Planned Community District for setbacks, building heights, parking
requirements, landscape requirements, land use restrictions, lot sizes and signage regulations. The
PC District Regulations are organized into three different land use districts: Residential, Village
Core, Open Space and Parks. The PC will be adopted by ordinance by the City Council.
Each of the three land use districts are divided into specific land use categories as follows:
Residential:
Single-Family Three (SF-3)
Single-Family Four (SF-4)
Residential Multi-Family One (RM 1)
Residential Multi-Family Two (RM 2)
5,000-8,000 square foot lots
3,000-5,000 square foot lots
Small lot single-family detached housing
Attached multi-family housing
It is the intent of the residential regulations to provide one set of residential regulations for the
entire Otay Ranch. The SF-4 designation is proposed for small lot single-family home projects
such as auto court or alley products. The SF-3 designation will allow standard single-family
projects. The rural villages that have lower density single-family GDP designations will have the
SF-E, SF-1 and SF-2 districts designations. These designations are not part of this SPA One Plan.
The Village Core Districts contain the Commercial (C) and Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
designations, and the Open Space/Park District contains the Open Space/Park One and Two
designations.
Additional sections in the PC District Regulations cover special and conditional uses,
comprehensive sign regulations, off street parking and administration of these districts.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
IIfP-G.
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
Neo-traditional design concepts are described in the Village Design Plan and are included in the
PC District Regulations. The regulations require a minimum number of "Hollywood" driveways,
front porches and other neo-traditional elements to be provided in Villages One and Five.
The project applicant is concerned with the Community Purposes Facility requirements for SPA
One. The concern focuses on the amount of land required and the limited land uses allowed in the
designation. The Zoning Ordinance allows additional uses in the SPA CPF designation upon the
approval of the Planning Commission. The applicant may propose additional uses in the SPA One
CPF designation which staffwill bring forward to the Planning Commission at a later time.
Additional SPA One Documents
The SP A One Plan is organized as outlined in the Document Organization Flow Chart, Exhibit I-
1, of the SPA One Plan and summarized in this section of the agenda statement. Errata sheets are
attached for the SPA One Plan and Village Design Plan that propose minor changes to correct
topographical and grammatical errors.
A. Overall Design Plan
The Overall Design Plan (ODP) identifies the major design features that will tie the 23,OOO-acre
Otay Ranch Project together. The goal of the Plan is to identify the features that will be present in
all three major parcels to let people know they are within the Otay Ranch. The ODP is required
by the Otay Ranch GDP and is one of the plans that requires both City and County approval.
The San Diego County Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the ODP at
their May 26, 1995 meeting. The Board of Supervisors adopted the ODP on March 6, 1996. The
ODP identifies nine unifying elements that tie the three major parcels together. Those elements
are:
Riparian Meander, Mountain Landforms, Dominant Skyline Landscape Treatment,
Major Streetscapes, Landscape Palette, Signage, Furnishings, Linkages and Pedestrian
Design
The ODP design elements will be applied and implemented in two ways: through open space,
streetscape and landscape zones and by identifying elements, linkages and destinations. These
elements further define functional outdoor spaces, enhance natural features and create a cohesive
sense of community. Each feature is fully explained with text and exhibits. Special design criteria
are also provided for grading and viewshed development.
B. Village Design Plan
The Village Design Plan (VDP) is required by the Otay Ranch GDP for each village at the SPA
level of planning. Villages are the heart of the Otay Ranch communities, and the GDP requires
special attention to such design considerations as overall character, creation of a sense of place
and pedestrian/transit orientation of the village core. Village-specific design guidelines are
required to address the following: landscaping and streetscapes, signage, site plan, grading and
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
1'11)- 7
Page 8, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
architectural guidelines, special visual studies and the village core concept. Conceptual design for
the gates to the single-family neighborhoods are also provided.
The SPA One VDP is divided into three main sections. Part One establishes the overall
framework for future village design plans and addresses overall design guidelines and
administrative procedures which will apply to this and each of the subsequent Otay Ranch
villages. Part One also provides a description of the "village concept", addresses the required
design elements of the Overall Design Plan and presents guidelines for the pedestrian/transit
orientation of the villages. Part Two and Three address the specific design guidelines for Villages
One and Five, respectively. When the Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed this plan, the
graphics had not been updated to reflect the B-2 Alternative, so they recommended approval of
the plan in concept. No additional review of the plan by DRC is necessary since the B-2
Alternative was presented during their review.
C. Public Facilities Financing Plan
The Otay Ranch GDP and the City's Growth Management Program require the preparation of a
Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) in conjunction with each SPA Plan for the Otay Ranch. The
PFFP is required to ensure that the phased development of the villages is consistent with the GDP
and General Plan Quality of Life Threshold Standards.
The PFFP is based on the phasing of SPA One Plan. This phasing is done to assist in the
prediction of when additional or upgraded facilities will be needed to meet or maintain
compliance with the City's Quality of Life Threshold Standards. The PFFP provides
recommended mitigation necessary for the continued compliance with the Growth Management
Program and Quality of Life Threshold Standards.
Willdan Associates was selected to prepare the PFFP for SPA One. Public facility master plans for
all utilities have been prepared for the SPA One Plan as indicated in the document organization
chart. Master plans for water, water conservation, sewer and drainage were used as the basis for
the PFFP. Those plans reflect Alternative B-2 and indicate that acceptable levels of service and
threshold standards can be maintained if the recommended conditions are implemented. Approval
of SPA One includes the approval of these master plans.
The PFFP identified several issues that require addition attention in the Plan and conditions of
approval. The GDP indicates the developer of the Otay Ranch is to participate in the Otay
Ranch's fair share of the operation and maintenance cost for the light rail transit. The PFFP
concludes that the dedication of transit right-of-way constitutes the Otay Ranch's fair share
obligation for construction. For operation and maintenance, the conditions require the project
developer enter into an agreement not to protest the formation of a regional benefit district for the
enter South Bay line.
The PFFP indicates that the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) area does not
include the Otay Ranch. The PFFP indicates the PFDIF needs to be updated. The conditions of
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
J~D-ca'
Page 9, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
approval require the SPA One developer to finance the update prior to approval of the first final
map, and allow 100% credit for the cost of the update study.
The PFFP further identifies that the first high school and community park will be needed sooner in
the development of the Otay Ranch than previously anticipated. The conditions of approval
require the identification, grading and transfer of these two sites at specific trigger points during
the development of SPA One. The Baldwin Company has initiated the formation of benefit
assessment districts with both school districts.
D. Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
The Otay Ranch GDP requires the preparation of a Parks Master Plan for each SPA. The SPA
One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan is the project applicant's proposal to
satisfy the GDP requirements. The Plan presents the Otay Ranch Park System with its recreation
facility requirements including plans for open space, trails and community gardens in SPA One.
Phasing, funding and maintenance are also part of the Plan. This Plan satisfies the GDP
requirement for a recreation access master plan.
The Plan's proposals are sightly different from the standard City parks and open space
requirements. SPA One's local park obligation at 3 acres per 1,000 population is 49.7 acres. The
applicant has proposed that 2/3 of this obligation be satisfied by neighborhood parks within SPA
One, and the remaining 1/3 obligation would be satisfied by the future community park in Village
Two unless the location is change by subsequent GDP amendments. Based on a household
population of2.88, SPA One requires 33.2 acres of neighborhood park. SPA One proposes 41.7
acres of neighborhood and pedestrian parks. The 34.2 acres of neighborhood park exceeds the
park standard. The 7.5 acres of pedestrian parks located in the gated neighborhoods are not
eligible for park credit under current City policies.
The SPA One Parks Master Plan is based on the SPA One Plan. The Spa Plan is a refinement of
the B Alternative in the SPA One EIR. Staff supports and recommends approval of the Village
One and Village Five proposed neighborhood and pedestrian park locations with the exception of
Park P-2. This 7.3 acre neighborhood park is located in the single-family area on the south side of
Palomar Street east of the village core. Staff recommends this park be relocated just to the east to
better serve the single-family neighborhoods on the east side of Village One. The conditions
require the relocation of Park P-2 across the Promenade Street to the west end of Neighborhood
R-12.
The Parks and Recreation Commission has recommended the park plan as proposed by the
project applicant with conditions on maintenance and credit. They recommended maintenance for
the pedestrian parks not be funded by the General Fund but by an open space maintenance district
or homeowner's association. They recommended 25% to 50% credit for the pedestrian parks be
determined by City staff. Staff recommends that pedestrian park credit range from 25% to 50%
depending on compliance with small park criteria that will be developed by City staff. Pedestrian
parks located within gated neighborhoods will not receive park credit under current City policy.
The Parks Master Plan will be revised to reflect the plan adopted by the City Council.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
"t)- ,
Page 10, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
Open space areas and street parkways and medians will be maintained by an open space and
landscaping assessment district. Conditions are proposed by staff requiring the project applicant to
study the feasibility of forming a master open space maintenance district for the entire Otay Valley
parcel. Future SPAs will annex to this district as development occurs.
E. Regional Facilities Report
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) requires that SPA
applications be accompanied by a Regional Facility Report. This report identifies the forecasted
demand for regional facilities generated by development of the SPA One Plan and addresses how
that demand will be satisfied. The regional facilities considered in this report, as required by the
GDP, are Integrated Solid Waste Management, Arts and Cultural Facilities, Child Care Facilities,
Health and Medical Services and Facilities, Hospitals, Mental Health Facilities, Community
Clinics, Nursing Facilities, Community Health, Education, Screening and Research Organizations,
Medical Practitioners, Community and Regional Purpose Facilities, Social and Senior Services,
Correctional Facilities, Justice Facilities and Cemetery Facilities.
F. Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
The Resource Management Plan (RMP) is a comprehensive plan for the preservation,
enhancement and management of sensitive natural and cultural resources within the Otay Ranch.
The tasks required to implement the RMP are collectively called Phase 2. Phase 2 is comprised of
the resource related studies, plans and programs that are required prior to the approval of the first
SPA.
A Habitat Maintenance Assessment District is proposed to maintain the Otay Ranch Open Space
Preserve as identified in the Phase 2 RMP. This district is proposed to maintain all of the 11,375
acres in the preserve and will be funded by the residences of the Otay Ranch. This district is
limited to charging $25 per year per parcel by State law with adjustments for inflation. The GDP
does not require the developer or land owner to provide for recreation, education or research
funding. These functions are the responsibility of the Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) under the
proposed joint powers agreement between the City and the County of San Diego. Future funds
will have to be identified and budgeted for these functions to occur within the Otay Ranch Open
Space Preserve.
The other functions of operation and maintenance of the open space preserve will be performed
by the POM supported by the $25 per parcel Habitat Maintenance District. Also, in the area of
education, even though there is a requirement that the developer will identify the location and
study funding source for a Nature Center, there is no requirement that they fund its construction.
This probably means such a center will not be built unless other funds are found by the POM.
Timing and methodology of conveying the open space to the paM has become a major issue with
the other owners of the Otay Ranch. Conveyance of the open space to the POM is proposed by
staff to be based on developable acres. The project applicant initially proposed that when 50% of
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9,1996
IV-I) -10
Page 11, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
SP A One is developed 50% of the open space is required to be conveyed to the POM. The
balance is due for conveyance when 90% of the SPA is developed. The phasing of conveyance is
proposed by staff to enable the POM to generate sufficient funds from the Habitat Maintenance
District to maintain the preserve. The Board of Supervisors was concerned that conveyance
should occur as soon as possible in the development process and have required that conveyance at
final map. Staff agrees with this requirement and have included it in the RMP errata.
On March 6, 1996, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Phase 2 RMP for
SP A One as recommended by County staff and supported Chula Vista City staff.
G. Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan
The Otay Ranch GDP requires the preparation of a Non-renewable Energy Conservation Plan for
each SPA to address energy conservation within each village of the project. This Plan identifies
measures to reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy resources by feasible methods in
areas of transportation, building construction and operation, and land use patterns. Residential
measures focus on housing efficiency with attached and smaller detached single-family homes
which use less energy. Pedestrian-oriented villages, with public transit facilities in their core areas
and integrated urban villages with commercial and residential services, will also reduce energy
consumption. The compact design and integrated street/path circulation systems will encourage
pedestrian/walking trips to the core. In addition, the extension of the San Diego light rail transit
system through Otay Ranch and provision of electric cart pathways when utilized will lead to a
reduction in automobile trips.
H. Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Plan
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) requires an Affordable
Housing Plan (AHP) for the entire Otay Ranch Project area as well as an AHP for each village
within the Otay Ranch. The GDP/SRP requires the Ranch-wide AHP be consistent with the
Housing Elements of both the City and the County for those portions of Otay Ranch which lie
within the boundary of either jurisdiction. As a result of the first phase being proposed in the City
of Chula Vista, this AHP details how, at both Ranch-wide and SPA levels, Otay Ranch will satisfy
the affordable housing requirements of the City housing Element and GDP/SRP.
Under the current City of Chula Vista Housing Element, the Otay Ranch is required to provide
10% of the total units be affordable. At least 5% of these units should be for low income
households and 5% should accommodate moderate income households. Staff has proposed
tiering requirements for the Ranch-wide Plan indicating the level of detail and standards for each
Plan and subdivision map. The attached errata changes the timing requirement for the affordable
housing agreement from tentative map to final map.
I. SPA One Affordable Housing Plan
The SPA One AHP addresses the phasing and potential location of affordable housing units to be
provided in SPA One, including the area west of Paseo Ranchero. SPA One is projected to
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
1111:>-11
Page 12, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
contain 6,201 dwelling units at buildout, and the affordable housing obligation associated with this
construction is 310 low income units and 310 moderate income units.
Through a prior agreement with The Baldwin Company on Telegraph Canyon Estates project, the
City Council required a 3-acre site within Village Five of the Otay Ranch to satisfy that project's
affordable housing obligation. The applicant is proposing to satisfy the Telegraph Canyon Estates
obligation by providing an additional 34 affordable units in SPA One. The existing agreement for
the Telegraph Canyon Estates requirement will need to be amended by the City Council in order
to implement the applicant's proposal. No action is necessary at this time in relationship to SPA
One.
The AHP provides five potential sites for low income affordable housing within SPA One. The
governing site selection principles include density, proximity to parks and schools, and proximity
to transit and retail and other services.
A phasing approach is proposed within the proposed SPA One AHP, which encourages the
provision of both low and moderate income units in sequence with the proposed development
phases in SPA One. The attached errata changes the timing requirement for the affordable housing
agreement from tentative map to final map.
J. Geotechnical Report
The GDP required a site-specific geotechnical study at the tentative map level, based on proposed
development plans, prior to construction. In this case, the geotechnical studies will be used at the
SPA One level. The Geotechnical Report found no faults or geological hazards that can not be
mitigated to a level of less than significant within SPA One.
4. Analvsis
The SPA One Plan implements the Otay Ranch GDP policies for urban villages. City staff has
worked closely with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board and the Chula Vista
Elementary and Sweetwater High School Districts in designing these two villages. The plans for
Village One and Five are comprehensive, well-integrated and balanced. A wide range of
residential densities provide a variety of housing opportunities within each village. Alternative
modes of transportation are promoted with pedestrian, bicycle and cart facilities and the future
light rail transit. The village cores have been planned to give a sense of place to the villages by
focusing on the main street and town square commercial location surrounded by recreational,
educational and civic uses.
The proposed project phasing begins construction of both villages concurrently. Phases lA will
initiate construction in Village Five while Phase IB will open Village One. Both of these phases
are single-family except for one multi-family site in Village One. The first elementary school site
is proposed for Village One in Phase IB while the initial large neighborhood park will be in Phase
2A in Village Five. Pedestrian parks are proposed in Phases lA and IB. This phasing will allow
CCSRSP A2.DOC
May 9, 1996
lit I)-I"
Page 13, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
an initial deficit in the large neighborhood parks. The project applicant has proposed and staff has
concurred with the deficit up to 500 units after which the provision of neighborhood parks will
remain in surplus.
Initial Phases 1A and 1B will require off-site Telegraph Canyon Road improvements. According
to the traffic study at 10,295 trips, a 1,400 unit threshold requiring additional off-site road
improvements will be reached during the construction of Phase 2B. At this point in the project
development, either Palomar Street or East Orange Avenue needs to be constructed from the
western SPA boundary to 1-805. This phase of development will also require the identification of
the high school site as required by the high school district. Staff proposes that at the 1, 150th
building permit, a project review be initiated by the project applicant and reviewed by the City to
determine:
. Which arterial street is extended to 1-805
. Where the high school site will be located
. Where the community park will be located
. Which village should be encouraged to be completed before additional
development is allowed in the other village
. How can development of the village core be accelerated.
. How will the affordable housing requirement be met
The project review requirement has been included as a condition of approval. In addition, the
following condition concerning amendments to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance
is recommended:
" 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 the City's
growth management provisions, the applicant hereby agrees to comply with the
pending amendments to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance. Said
provisions shall also be included as a conditions of approval of the first tentative
map, and any subsequent tentative maps within SPA One."
5. Issues:
Several policy or design issues remain unresolved between the project applicant, City staff,
Planning Commission or other parties involved with the Otay Ranch. Those issue are:
Small Park Credit/Criteria
Park Credit Timing
Eastlake Parkway Access
Gated Communities
RMP - Joint Powers Agreement
RMP - In-lieu-fee Program
Habitat Education/Recreation Funding
Project Phasing
Trigger Points
Multiple Ownership
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
III J)-/3
Page 14, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
Separate analysis on each of these issue is provided in the following issue papers.
6. Conclusion:
City staff and the Planning Commission believe that the proposed SPA One Plan as conditioned
implements the goals, objectives, and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP, and the PC Zone and
recommends that the City Council adoption of the SPA One Plan as conditioned.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9,1996
}~J)-11f
Page 15, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
ITEM: Small Park Credit/Criteria
ISSUE: Should City criteria for establishing park credit for small parks, less than 5 acres in size,
be available prior to the approval of the SPA One Plan?
BACKGROUND: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Otay Ranch SPA One
project on October 26, 1995. The issue of size of parks and credit for small parks under 5 acres in
size was discussed at that meeting. Typically, parks under 5 acres in size would receive no park
credit because they are below the minimum size required in the City's General Plan. The applicant
has proposed six pedestrian parks, totaling 7.5 acres, in order to promote pedestrian accessible
neighborhood parks. These parks range in size from 0.6 to 2.1 acres in size. It was noted at the
Parks and Recreation Commission meeting that, even if the small pedestrian parks were deleted
from the SPA, the project would still meet and, actually, exceed the City's standard of 2 acres of
local park land per 1,000 residents. After much discussion, the Parks and Recreation Commission
voted to grant small parks under 5 acres in size partial credit if the parks were not maintained by
the City. They also decided that the amount of credit received should be determined by staff They
felt that the granting of partial credit would provide incentive for the applicant to retain the small
parks within SPA One, and that a precedent had been set by another developer in the City
receiving 50% credit for certain private parks.
At a subsequent Policy Committee meeting, the issue of how staff would determine the amount of
park credit was discussed. It was decided that a City-wide small park criteria study would be
conducted and each pedestrian park would be measured against this criteria. A potential range of
25% - 50% credit was established at the meeting.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The project applicant requests 100% credit of small parks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Condition VII.B which states, "Pedestrian parks less
than 5 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 to be determined by the City of Chula Vista".
ALTERNATIVES: Provide the criteria by which small park credit is measured prior to SPA One
approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On May 1, 1996, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommended small park credit of 25% to 50% credit based
on small park criteria.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
11+[)-/5
Page 16, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
ITEM: Park Credit Timing
ISSUE: Should park credit be assigned at the time of acceptance of the neighborhood park by the
City?
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The applicant has expressed concern with the timing of park
credit for neighborhood parks and has requested that staff discuss the possibility of establishing a
different point in time when credit is received. The issue was discussed at Technical and Policy
Committee meetings and several alternatives were brought up including: 1.) credit is received
upon commencement of construction of the park, 2.) credit is received upon completion of the
neighborhood park, and 3.) credit is received upon acceptance of the park by the City of Chula
Vista after the required 1 year maintenance period. Staff determined that the first option was not
feasible since the applicant would be receiving credit for a park which had not been completed and
which the City had no guarantee would be completed. Staff felt that the second option might be
viable but decided that the Planning Commission should make the final determination.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is in support of the alternate condition of approval
and believes they have fulfilled their obligation at this point. An alternate condition could read as
follows: "The applicant shall receive park credit for construction of neighborhood parks upon
completion of the park and prior to the 9-12 month maintenance period and acceptance by the
City of Chula Vista".
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Assign park credit upon acceptance of the park by the City of
Chula Vista and after the required 1- year maintenance period.
ALTERNATIVES: Assign park credit upon commencement of construction of the park or after
completion of the park but prior to acceptance.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion carried 7-0 on May 1 1996,
to recommend that the City support the alternative condition.
CCSRSP A2.DOC
May 9, 1996
I 'I- J)-/~
Page 17, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
ITEM: EastLake Parkway Access
ISSUE: Should vehicular access to EastLake Parkway be eliminated ?
BACKGROUND: Access to Village Five was discussed at length at the Technical and Policy
Committees. At least three access points were determined to be necessary for public safety.
Palomar Street provides two points of access and the project applicant had originally planned for
a third access to Village Five at Telegraph Canyon or to EastLake Parkway. Staff determined that
both would be appropriate to provide better access to Eastlake High School, the library and
community park. Staff believes the EastLake Parkway access will reduce trips on Telegraph
Canyon Road and Orange Avenue. The EastLake access was not included in the SPA One traffic
study. The three access points provided at Orange Avenue, La Media Road and Telegraph
Canyon Road provide sufficient access to the village according to the traffic study. The project
applicant had planned to gate this access.
The City is interested in this road as an access to the Otay Water District property where park
facilities may be built on top of the reservoirs. City staff is currently reviewing whether it is
feasible to put soccer fields or tennis courts on top of the reservoirs.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The project applicant proposes that the vehicular access planned
from Village Five to EastLake Parkway be eliminated, but that pedestrian and bicycle access be
provided.
OTHER POSITIONS: EastLake Development Company is opposed to the connection between
Palomar Street and Eastlake Parkway. They believe with the gate at the entrance to Village Five,
the connection will only serve the residents of Village Five and not their residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Maintain the vehicular access to EastLake Parkway.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1 Provide pedestrian, bicycle and cart access to EastLake Parkway.
2. Eliminate all access to EastLake Parkway.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On April 24, 1996, the Commission
voted unanimously to reduce the improvement requirements to EastLake Parkway provide
pedestrian, bicycle and cart access and to reserve the right-of-way for vehicular access if needed
by the City in the future. If SR-125 is not built, construction of this future road would be the
City's responsibility and the future overcrossing would be CTV responsibility. If SR-125 is built
and the City decides the road is needed, then the overcrossing would be the City's responsibility.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
)l!D-17
,,,,,~,.^,~.,_.,-",_.~..~-,,_.,._,,,,,"..,..,_._,.....~,,.,.._-".-,.._~.~~.,~,..,,,_.,~,._~.,_.._..~",,-_..",,,~~-'.~-----
Page 18, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
ITEM: Gated Communities
ISSUE: Should SPA One have gates that restrict access to the single family areas ?
BACKGROUND: The project applicant has proposed gates that will restrict public vehicular
access to SPA One. Consequently the City Manager has directed the Project Team staff to
prepare a policy paper, including development criteria, on the use of gates to restrict public access
to new residential developments. Upon completion, the City-wide policy paper will be brought
before the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. The purpose of this
issue paper is to apply the preliminary criteria for gated communities to the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One Plan. The following criteria may change as the Commission and
Council discuss these issues.
DISCUSSION:
GENERAL CRITERIA (DRAFT)
1. . "Gated communities which can not be served by police, fire, paramedics or other
emergency services within existing City-wide Growth Management Threshold Standards
(GMTS) shall be discouraged. However, the City may consider design solutions to
mitigate the impacts to these threshold standards. For example, fire sprinklers in homes
may help to mitigate fire response times and an "Opticom" Vehicle Strobe Detector
System may improve accessibility to the gated areas. A mitigation measure for Police
response times could be the provision of a private security patrol."
The threshold standard for emergency calls is 85% response to all City-wide emergency calls
within 7:00 minutes. The Fire Department believes that the gates could, potentially, increase
response times resulting in further non-compliance with the acceptable threshold standards. To
reduce the impact of gates as much as possible, the Fire Department would like guards at all gates
in SPA One and are willing to discuss this requirement with the applicant. Other design solutions,
as mentioned above, could also be used to mitigate the impact gates have on response times. The
Police Department has similar concerns and would also like to see guards at the gates.
2.. "The location of controlled access gates shall neither preclude public pedestrian, bicycle or
cart access to view points, public spaces, facilities or land uses such as open space, parks,
trails or commercial areas, nor impede the use of direct pedestrian pathways or access to
public transit stops and existing neighborhood pathway systems within or contiguous to
the proposed project."
The SPA One Land and Circulation Plans do not limit or restrict pedestrian, bicycle or electric
cart access to Villages One or Five, nor do the plans inhibit use of pedestrian pathways or access
to public transit.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
J'f. 1>-,if
Page 19, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
3.. "The street system in a gated community shall meet all criteria established in State
regulations, City ordinances, policies and design manuals and shall not unreasonably
restrict school buses, trash pick-up and mail delivery. In addition, traffic/parking
regulations shall be enforced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Fire Department and
Police Department."
The SPA One proposed land plan and development criteria is consistent with established State
regulations, City ordinances, policies and design manuals as they relate to the provision of
facilities behind gates such as roads, storm drains and sewers. Secondly, the SPA One Plan does
not impose barriers to restrict school buses, trash pick-up or mail delivery. Finally, it is
understood that traffic and parking regulations within SPA One must be enforced to the
satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista.
4. . "Proposed plans for gated communities shall be reviewed by outside agencies that could
be affected by the development such as the Metropolitan Transit Development Board,
Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District, US
Postal Service and trash collection and recycling."
The SPA One Plan has been review by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)
and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. The Chula Vista Elementary School District will
provide school bus service to the gated areas as long as their concerns regarding access,
circulation and liability are met. The applicant will provide proof to the City that elementary
school bus service will be provided to the gated areas to the City's satisfaction.
MTDB is not supportive of gating SPA One because they believe gating contributes to a
discontinuous street system and restricts mobility. They believe that discontinuous streets
increases automobile dependence. In addition, they believe gates form artificial barriers between
neighborhoods. MTDB sees the action of gating those units of Village One and Five as contrary
to the neo-traditional goals of the Otay Ranch GDP.
5.. "To reduce potential impacts to the surrounding and proposed communities, the number
of units built in anyone gated community shall be approved by the Planning Commission
and City Council. In addition, in order to promote and maintain interactive, balanced and
diverse neighborhoods and/or larger community planning areas, gates shall not be installed
in locations that are determined to separate or isolate segments of these neighborhoods or
community planning areas."
A goal of the SPA One Plan is to create definable neighborhoods which contribute to a positive
sense of community. Concern has been expressed that, due to the size or location of gate guarded
communities, they could undermine these goals. The SPA One Land Plan contemplates two
gated areas, one in Village Five and one in Village One. The proposed land plan contemplates
that each gated area would contain approximately 1,030-1,700 residential units.
The SPA One Plan proposes to gate portions of Villages One and Five and will largely effect only
the single-family housing product. It is anticipated that many of the multi-family projects will be
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
JYb-/?
Page 20, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
gated separately, and the SPA One does not propose gates to those areas at this time. The
individual gating of multi-family projects would be consistent with the current proposal and
should not effect the ability of Villages One or Five to achieve the goals of creating
neighborhoods that are interactive, balanced and diverse.
6.. "In considering specific gated community proposals, an evaluation shall be made of
community design options other than gating that would meet the same objectives of the
applicant relative to security and overall market appeal."
The SPA One Plan has followed the tenets of new urbanism and works to implement goals such
as increased neighborhood interaction and security. The applicant has taken steps to increase the
security of the SPA One residents through the use of innovative street design and by promoting
pedestrian access to public facilities such as parks and schools. They have planned roads to
channel traffic around residential neighborhoods by implementing a strategy to protect local
streets from through traffic by encouraging such traffic to use major streets. Attention to street
lighting, the treatment of parking and creating public spaces with activity and "eyes on the street"
have also been provided in the SPA One Plan. The SPA One proposal to install gates in certain
areas may serve to enhance the goals of new urbanism by increasing resident's feelings of safety.
If SPA One residents feel more secure, then there may be more neighborhood interaction and eyes
on the street.
7.. "Any proposed gated community, must be subject to a Homeowner's Association in order
to insure proper maintenance of private facilities such as roads, storm drains and sewage
systems. In addition, prior to the creation of a Homeowner's Association, the City shall
review and approve the proposed Contracts, Covenants and Restrictions that would
govern the gated community."
The applicant anticipates the need for the formation of a homeowner's association for SPA One,
including the gated areas, and agrees to the City of Chula Vista's review and approval of the
contracts, covenants and restrictions that would govern the gated community.
SPECIFIC CRITERIA (DRAFT)
8.. "Signs shall be provided on the public streets to inform the public of gated street areas and
specific information relating to 'not a through street'."
The applicant shall comply with this condition.
9.. "If public facilities, such as parks or trails, are located behind gates, adequate public
signage and direction shall be provided to encourage pedestrians to enter through or
adjacent to the gated areas to access such public facilities."
The applicant will comply with this condition.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
)y~- 't:-)
Page 21, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
10. . "The location of public facilities designed to be physically accessible to Chula Vista
residents such as parks, libraries, fire stations, police stations, etc. behind gates, should be
avoided. If they are located behind gates, access and maintenance responsibility must be
determined prior to approval of the gated community."
No major public facilities are proposed to be located in the gated areas. The applicant is
proposing to locate four private pedestrian parks in the gated areas. Two of these parks are
proposed for Village One and two parks are proposed for Village Five. All of these pedestrian
parks will be privately maintained. These parks are accessible to the general public either by foot,
bicycle or electric cart.
11.. "Proposals to gate communities shall be assessed as to their overall impact on maintaining
alternate access routes to significant attractors, such as schools, libraries, hospitals,
shopping centers and industrial/business parks."
The SPA One Plan will not impede access to significant attractors. Facilities to the south of SPA
One, such as high schools, libraries or shopping centers, will be accessible by either La Media
Road or Paseo Ranchero. If SR-125 is developed, it would also serve the southern parts of the
Otay Valley Parcel. If future gated communities are developed, they would need more analysis to
determine if the proximity of the communities cause barriers to such attractors.
12.. "Enforcement of parking standards behind gated areas shall be subject to specific control,
such as invoking the City's right to enforce the California Vehicle Code to issue tickets
and enforce restrictions on parking areas."
The applicant will enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista to guarantee the City the
right to enforce the California Vehicle Code to issue tickets and enforce restrictions on parking
areas.
13.. "The City may, based on design or other impacts, require any or all gates to be staffed."
The applicant will comply with the staffing requirements as decided by the City.
Engineering Criteria (DRAF1J
The applicant will comply with these conditions.
14.. "Gates shall be located to provide adequate vehicle stacking areas designed to
accommodate PM peak flows. Stacking shall occur on-site and shall not adversely impact
circulation on any public street."
15.. "Streets located within gated communities shall be privately maintained but constructed to
City standards with regard to structural section, horizontal and vertical curve design. The
Applicant shall disclose to the homeowners that the streets will be maintained at the cost
of the Homeowner's Association and not the City."
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9,1996
JY])-A I
Page 22, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
16.. "Private storm drains located within gated communities shall be private up to the point
where they collect runoff from public streets."
17.. "Lighting located on private streets within gated communities will be private but must
conform to public standards."
18. . "Public facilities such as roads, storm drains and sewer service that are provided behind
gates shall be maintained to City Standards."
Service Criteria (DRAFT)
The applicant will comply with these conditions.
19.. "The applicant will provide proof to the City that Elementary School bus service will be
provided to the gated communities to the City's satisfaction."
20. . "The applicant will provide proof to the City that US Postal service will be provided to the
gated communities to the City's satisfaction."
21.. "The applicant will provide proof to the City that trash pickup and recycling will be
provided to the gated communities to the City's satisfaction."
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The current proposal for the Otay Ranch SPA One includes
gating areas in both Villages One and Five. In Village One, four gates would only restrict
vehicular access but permit public pedestrian, bicycle or electric cart access. One gate would be
located at the Telegraph Canyon Road temporary access and three gates would restrict access to
the north from East Palomar Street. A total of 1,036 single-family homes would exist behind the
four gates in Village One.
In Village Five, four gates are proposed that would restrict vehicular access. One gate would be
located at the Telegraph Canyon Road access across from St. Claire. Two gates would restrict
access to the north from East Palomar Street and one gate would be located in between Otay
Water District's property controlling vehicular access from EastLake (Issue Paper 4.B.). A total
of 1,266 single-family homes and 439 multi-family homes would exist behind the four gates in
Village Five. A total of 2,741 dwelling units are proposed to be gated in the current SPA One
Plan.
OTHER POSITIONS: MTDB is not supportive of gating SPA One because they believe gating
contributes to a discontinuous street system and restricts mobility. They believe that
discontinuous streets increases automobile dependence. In addition, they believe gates form
artificial barriers between neighborhoods. MTDB sees the action of gating those units of Villages
One and Five as contrary to the neo-traditional goals of the Otay Ranch GDP.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the SPA One Plan with the conditions stated above.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
1~1> - ,?~
Page 23, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve applicant's proposal without conditions.
2. Reduce the number of homes to be gated in the SPA One area.
3. Do not allow gates to be installed in any portion of the SPA One area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion carried 7-0 on May 1, 1996 to
recommend that the gates proposed for SPA One be prohibited.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9,1996
J'J. J) .. ~3
Page 24, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
ITEM: RMP - Joint Powers Agreement
ISSUE: Should the Joint Powers Agreement (JP A) establishing the City and County as the
Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) be adopted?
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) requires
that portions of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan be jointly approved by San Diego
County and the City of Chula Vista. Prior to approval of the first SPA, the GDP requires the
identification of a POM. At its March 6, 1996 meeting, the County Board of Supervisors
approved the County and the City of Chula Vista to act as the Preserve Owner/Manager for a
period of five years. At that meeting, they also approved an accompanying Joint Powers
Agreement (JP A). At the end of the five-year period, the management of the POM will be re-
evaluated.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is in support of the JPA, which establishes that the
City and County will act as the POM for a period of five years.
OTHER POSITIONS: The Chula Vista Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) has
expressed a desire that a third party, independent of the City and County, be identified within the
next three years to act as the POM.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the JPA which designates the City and County and
their respective responsibilities to act as the POM for a period of five years.
ALTERNATIVES: Approve the JPA and any independent party for some alternate period of
time.
ATTACHMENT: Joint Powers Agreement (~ J9ffa.cJ,\1ee~~ fJ)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On May 1, 1996 the Planning
Commission voted 5-2 to deny staff recommendation on the formation of a JP A between the City
and County for the POM and recommended instead that a third party be appointed as the POM.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
Jff l) - II 'f
Page 25, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
ITEM: RMP - In-lieu fee Program
ISSUE: Should an in-lieu fee process be added to the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan?
BACKGROUND: The Otay Ranch General Development Plan requires that the Phase 2
Resource Management Plan (RMPttbe jointly approved by San Diego County and the City of
Chula Vista. Prior to approval of the first SPA, the County must specifically approve the
Conveyance Plan, the Preserve Owner/Manager selection and the Preserve Financing Plan.
DISCUSSION: The need for an in-lieu fee as an alternative to a land-based conveyance plan was
discussed at the March 5, 1996 Board of Supervisors meeting. It was noted that the majority of
property owners had adequate mitigation land to convey to the preserve, while others did not.
The lack of conveyance land could place an undue burden upon any property owner and/or any
future owners in a similar situation. While the actual amount of the in- lieu fee has not yet been
determined, the language providing for establishment of the fee has been added to the Phase 2
RMP as noted on the attached errata sheet. The County Board of Supervisors modified the Phase
2 RMP on March 5, 1996 by adding language which would establish an in-lieu fee as an
alternative to a land-based conveyance program
In addition to this concern, the Planning Commission, at their hearing of March 27, 1996,
requested that language be added to the Phase 2 RMP which would require an agreement
between the City and the applicant allowing the Preserve Owner/Manager to purchase mitigation
land at an amount equal to the in-lieu fee established.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is in support of the concept of establishing an in-
lieu fee process.
OTHER POSITIONS: West Coast Land Fund is in support of the concept of establishing an in- .
lieu fee process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the in-lieu fee program as indicated in the errata
sheet for the Phase 2 RMP and as amended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On May 1, 1996, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to support establishing an in-lieu fee program with the
amendment that the program explore mechanisms to tie the in-lieu fee to the value of the
conveyance land for SPA One.
~
S-ee
~~QY,--t
(3
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
IJot b -~5
Page 26, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
ISSUE: Preserve Educational/Recreation Funding
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The General Development Plan provides for a nature
interpretive center and recreation uses in the habitat preserve
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The project applicant supports the proposed Habitat Maintenance
District to fund the preserve maintenance program.
OTHER POSITIONS: Greg Smith believes the Phase 2 RMP should identify a funding source
for the educational and recreational activities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The GDP does not require the Phase 2 RMP to identify
funding for these as activities as it does the maintenance program. At this time a funding source
for the construction of a nature interpretive center and the operational costs for the educational
and recreational activities of the open space preserve have not been identified. Identification of
these sources wili be a function of the POM. The GDP does state that no General Funds will be
used to fund these activities.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission concurred
with the staff recommendation.
CCSRSP A2.DOC
May 9, 1996
IY-O- .It
__ ~,,~,,_,~,,__,~,,~,_,~"_~,.~,_~_,,_,_,"_""~~~_'~"'_<"_"_~.o__.___
Page 27, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
ITEM: Project Phasing
ISSUE: What are other alternatives to the phasing of SPA One?
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: At the April 10, 1996 public hearing, the Planning
Commission expressed concern over the applicant's proposed project phasing and tentatively
voted 6 to 1 not to recommend approval of the proposed phasing. Several Commissioners
proposed different scenarios for the development of SPA One. Concerns were also expressed on
the need for La Media to be the primary focus as the project's entry. The Commission requested
that the project applicant, West Coast Land Fund and staff meet to resolve the issue. A meeting
was held on Thursday, April 18 to discuss the issue. Consensus on a revised project phasing was
not reached at the meeting.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The project applicant is still proposing the phasing presented in
the SPA One Plan and Public Facilities Finance Plan which allows development to start in both
villages. This phasing plan will allow the applicant to generate Transplantation Development
Impact Fee (TransDIF) fees from approximately 1,200 dwelling units before the major road
improvements of La Media are needed. They believe the TransDIF fees will enable La Media to
be constructed when it is needed by the development in SPA One. The PFFP requires partial
improvement of La Media with Phase 2A and full improvements with Phase 2B. As a proposed
condition, at 1,400 units, either Palomar Street or East Orange Avenue will be extended to 1-805.
OTHER POSITIONS: West Coast Land Fund has indicated they believe development should be
limited to Village One and development should occur from a west to east direction with primary
access from Paseo Ranchero. West Coast believes this phasing will establish a village core
sooner, provide significant infrastructure and allow the project applicant to sell the super block
areas. They also believe this phasing would also allow the City adequate time to review West
Coast's concerns with the Village Five land uses. West Coast also points out that 593 acres of
open space could be conveyed under this phasing (the entire conveyance requirement for Village
One).
ALTERNATIVES: Staff has reviewed three different alternatives:
1. Focusing all development in Village One. This alternative would allow initial access from
Telegraph Canyon Road and then require Palomar Street, Paseo Ranchero and La Media to
be constructed.
2. Starting development in both villages off La Media. Partial street improvements to La Media
would be allowed in order to open development in both villages.
3. Allowing Village Five to develop with initial access from Otay Lakes Road and La Media.
This scenario would concentrate development in Village Five and provide La Media sooner in
the development sequence.
CCSRSP A2.DOC
May 9, 1996
IY1:> -R7>
Page 28, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the applicant's proposed phasing currently
indicated in the SPA One Plan and PFFP. This issue was previously discussed at a City
Department Head meeting. The facts are not different from that time and staff sees no reason to
modifY its position.
RELA TED ISSUES: Trigger points for the first elementary school, neighborhood park and
arterial streets may change if a different phasing is required. The PFFP will be updated to reflect
the approved project phasing.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On May 1, 1996, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommended to the City Council that SPA One phasing focus
initially on Village One with access from either La Media or Paseo Ranchero and delete the
temporary access to Telegraph Canyon Road.
ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Michael S. Woodward, attorney for West Coast Land Fund~
~ ~e
Q1*~\ ~C\'l-t ~
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
1'1- !;)-Il~
;
j
Page 29, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
ITEM: Trigger Points
ISSUE: Should the trigger points for parks, schools and public infrastructure improvements be
established?
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The following chart was presented at the Planning
Commission hearing on March 27, 1996 and was discussed at the April 10, 1996 meeting. The
Planing Commission was in support of the trigger points as established as they relate to the
applicant's phasing plan. The concern was raised, however about the adequacy of the trigger
points if the phasing plan were to be modified. Since the trigger points are based on dwelling
units, changes to the project phasing should not effect the provision of public facilities with the
exception of the first elementary school. The first elementary school is planned for Village One.
If the phasing program selects Village Five to develop first, then the school priority will change.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is still proposing to phase the project as presented
in the SPA One Plan and believes the trigger points established are adequate.
OTHER POSITIONS: West Coast Land Fund is advocating a phasing plan which would begin
initial development in Village One and allow building to occur from the west to the east. If this
phasing plan is approved, then the trigger points do not need to be modified.
ALTERNATIVES: Staff has reviewed three different phasing alternatives and has indicated
below the appropriate trigger points in relation to the phasing alternatives:
1. Focusing all development in Village One: Trigger points as established are adequate.
2. Starting development in both villages, with access from La Media: Trigger points as
established are adequate.
3. Allowing Village Five to develop with initial access from Otay Lakes Road and La Media:
Trigger points for schools would have to be adjusted, since the first elementary
school is proposed to be constructed in Village One. All other trigger points are adequate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the attached trigger points are adequate
and recommends that they be maintained as stated in the conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS: Trigger points.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion carried 7-0 on May 1,1996 to
approve staff recommendation on trigger points.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
Jij];)-~
/'
TRIGGER POINTS
REQUIREMENT
DEADLINE
500 units
1,150 units
2,650 units
3,000 units
3,900 units
Deliver graded first elementary school site with access road & utilities to the 500 units
site, in Village One 150 students
First Elementary School opened (Village One) 1,150 units
336 students
Deliver graded second elementary school site with access road & utilities to the 2,500 units
site, in Village Five 750 students
Second Elementary School opened (Village Five) 3,450 units
1,000 students
Deliver graded third elementary school site with access road & utilities to the 4,500 units
site, west of Paseo Ranchero 1,350 students
Third Elementary School opened (West of Paseo Ranchero) 5,300 units
1,668 students
Deliver graded high school site with access road & utilities to the site 2,650 units
504 students
High School opened 5,300 units
1,007 students
SCHOOLS
TRA~CRELATEDIMPROVEMENTS
Construct or guarantee the construction of offsite Telegraph 300 units
Can on Road
1-805fTele h Can on Road interchan e 500 units
Either: offsite 4 lane East Palomar St. and 1/2 diamond;
Or: Oran e Ave as a 6 lane rime arterial to Paseo Ranchdr'o 1,414 uivalent dwellin units
Either: off site E. Palomar St. & Orange Ave. to 4 lane majors
with 1/2 diamond at 1-805/Palomar;
Or: Palomar St. to a 4 lane major & Orange Ave. to a 6 lane 4,009 equivalent dwelling units
rime arterial to Paseo Ranchero
u
I ~I:> ~ 3d
Page 30, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
ITEM: Multiple Ownership Condition of Approval
ISSUE: Should a condition of approval be added which addresses potential City actions if
ownership of SPA One changes?
BACKGROUNDillISCUSSION: This item was raised at the April 10, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting, and staff has responded to the Commission's concern by drafting two
conditions which address the potential for multiple ownership within SPA One. The primary
condition regarding multiple ownership is noted as (I.d) which states:
"The applicant acknowledges that the purpose of planned community zoning is to provide for the
orderly development ofland under unified ownership or control. Applicant represents to the City,
that as of the date of this approval, SPA One is held under unified control by the Applicant.
Applicant agrees that if any portion of land within SPA One changes ownership in a manner that
the City determines in its sole discretion to represent a risk that the SPA One Plan will not be
implemented as approved the City Council may take action such as, including but not limited to,
requiring an amendment to Village Five of the SPA One Plan and any of the accompanying
documents, denying subsequent development approvals and stopping the issuance of building
permits within Village Five of SPA One. Applicant acknowledges its understanding that
irrespective of the approval of SPA One, the applicant is required to be in compliance at all times
with the City's ordinances, policies and regulations."
The other condition regarding multiple ownership is noted as (Ix.e) which states: "If the
applicant is unable to deliver any of the school sites required by conditions (a) through (d) at the
locations identified in the SPA One Plan, applicant shall, at the time such site is required to be
delivered, take such actions necessary to deliver an alternative site that is satisfactory to the
school district or fund acquisition by the school district of an alternative site."
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is opposed to the multiple owner condition.
OTHER POSITIONS: The City Council met in closed session on April 16, 1996 (per
Government Code Section 54956.9) to discuss anticipated litigation in the Tiger Development
Two bankruptcy. At that meeting the Council authorized the City Attorney to institute a motion
for relief from Stay in order to process SPA approvals unless Baldwin secures, on their own
initiative, said relief.
West Coast Land Fund also has concerns in this regard and requested at the April 10, 1996
Planning Commission hearing that the City suspend processing of the SPA One Plan and seek the
appropriate relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy proceedings involving Tiger
Development Two.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that Conditions (I.d) and (Ix.e) as written
afford the City with adequate protection should the ownership within SPA One change and should
be approved as written.
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9, 1996
I \f 0 - 31
Page 31, Item
Meeting Date: 5-14-96
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Commission voted 6 to 1 (Salas)
on May 1, 1996, not to adopt the multiple owners condition.
Attachments
1. Errata Sheets for SPA One Plan and Village Design Plan
2. Resolutions with Conditions of Approval
3. Board/Commission/Committee minutes
4. Disclosure Statement
CCSRSPA2.DOC
May 9,1996
J'l-D - :3~
ATIACHMENT A
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AND THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
FOR THE PLANNING,
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF THE
OTAY RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
THISMGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the to-!- 11
day of IIlC/~ , 1996 between the City of Chula Vista and
the County of San Diego, political subdivisions of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to collectively as Public
Agencies.
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1993, the Chula Vista city council
and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors jointly approved
the otay Ranch General Development Plan, (General Development
Plan/Subregional Plan ("GDP/SRP"), which sets forth a plan for
the development of housing, commercial, recreational and open
space within the jurisdiction of the Public Agencies; and
WHEREAS, the GDP/SRP delineates an approximatelY 11,375 acre
area as the otay Ranch Open Space Preserve, shown on Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the GDP/SRP provides that prior to the approval of
the first city of Chula vista Sectional Planning Area or County
Specific Plan Area, ("SPA/Specific Plan") a Preserve
Owner/Manager ("POM") for the otay Ranch Open Space Preserve must
be selected and retained; and
WHEREAS, the POM will be responsible for management of
resources, restoration of habitat and enforcement of open space
restrictions for the otay Ranch Open Space Preserve once the
Preserve is formally established and title to the land conveyed;
and
WHEREAS, the Public Agencies, each of which are empowered by
law to acquire land for park and open space purposes desire to
enter into this Joint Powers Agreement to plan, design and
operate the otay Ranch Open Space Preserve in order to quali~~ as
a POM and to satisfy the conditions of the GDPjSRP.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Public Agencies, in consideration of the
mutual benefits, promises and agreements set forth herein, agree
as follows:
SECTION 1.
Purpose.
This Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions of Article
4
000016 J~N Z4~6
I~ -,~
F+
1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the
state of California commencing with section 6500, relating to
joint powers common to public agencies. The Public Agencies
possess the powers referred to in the above recitals. The
purpose of this Agreement is to exercise such powers jointly by
coordinating the planning, design and operation of the otay Ranch
Open Space Preserve.
I
,
SECTION 2.
Term.
This Agreement shall become effective as of the date first
written above and will continue in full force and effect for 30
years from the effective date or until terminated as indicated in
SECTION 9. Aaencv withdrawal or SECTION 10. Termination. The
parties will review this Agreement every five (5) years. This
Agreement may be extended for an additional 30 years by the
written consent of the parties.
SECTION 3.
Description.
The real property to be planned, designed and operated is
located generally within the property depicted on Exhibit A. The
property is currently in various ownerships. As tentative maps
within each SPA/Specific Plan for the otay Ranch development
project are processed, land will be conveyed into the preserve
according to the Conveyance Plan, attached as Exhibit B hereto.
SECTION 4.
Ownership.
Title to the land which is conveyed into the Open Space
Preserve will be held jointly by the Public Agencies.
SECTION 5.
policv Committee.
A Policy Committee shall be established, consisting of two
(2) elected representatives, one each appointed by the governing
bodies of the Public Agencies. An alternate may also be
appointed by each of the Public Agencies. A quorum for the
purpose of conducting business will consist of one member from
each agency. In the absence of a quorum, a member may move to
adjourn. The Policy Committee shall at a minimum meet annually,
but may meet more often if agreed to by the members. The duties
of the Policy Committee shall be to establish policies for the
Preserve Management Team as set forth in SECTION 6 below, and to
review all operations conducted under this Joint Powers
Agreement.
SECTION 6.
Preserve Manaaement Team.
The Preserve Management Team consists of the City Manager of
the city of Chula Vista and the Deputy Chief Administrative
Officer of the County of San Diego. The Preserve Management Team
shall meet as often as necessary to monitor the implementation of
the otay Ranch Open Space Preserve Resource Management Plan and
s:
J'f t:>- '3 '-(
000017 JAN 2496
to assign staff necessary to carry out the duties and
responsibilities set forth in Exhibit C hereto, "Duties and
Responsibilities of the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager(s)".
SECTION 7.
Preserve Owner/Manaaer Staff Committee.
The Preserve owner/Manager Staff Committee will consist of
appropriate staff members from each Public Agency to be assigned
by each agency on an as needed basis. The Preserve Owner/Manager
Staff Committee will be responsible for operations of the Otay
Ranch Open Space Preserve as directed by the Policy Committee
and its organization and functions shall be established to '
conform with Exhibit 0, city of Chula vista and San Diego County
Preserve Owner Manager organization Chart, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 8.
Administration.
Day-to-day administration of this Agreement, including
preparation of assessment districts, operational funding,
preparation of budgets, agendas, maintenance of records, minutes
and meetings and conformance to other legally required processes
pertaining to records, purchases, and administrative matters
shall be the responsibility of the County of San Diego.
SECTION 9.
Aaencv withdrawal.
Either party may withdraw from participation in this
Agreement upon sixty (60) days notification and consent, in
writing, by the other party. Such consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Lack of adequate funding for the Preserve
maintenance and operation shall constitute reasonable grounds to
withhold consent. Any contributions made by the withdrawing
party toward the acquisition, development, management and
preservation of the otay Ranch Open Space Preserve shall be
retained by the remaining agency. The remaining public agency
shall continue to be responsible for administering the duties and
responsibilities of POM.
SECTION 10.
Termination.
This Joint Powers Agreement may be terminated upon the
mutual agreement of the Public Agencies if a new Preserve
Manager, acceptable to both parties, has been retained to perform
the duties and responsibil~ties required of the POM.
SECTION 11.
Governina Law.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California.
SECTION 12.
Partial Invaliditv.
If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or
J\ft>- 3S
to
000018 J~N24t;b
li'
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder
of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain
in full force and effect.
t.
1;
t
f;-
SECTION 13.
Execution.
This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in any number
of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed
to be an original but all together shall constitute one and the
same Agreement.
SECTION 14.
Notice.
Any notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to
this Agreement may be personally delivered or sent by certified
mail, return receipt requested, to the following address:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO:
John Goss
city Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Phone: (619) 691-5031
SECTION 15.
David Janssen
Chief Administrative Officer
County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Coast Highway
San Diego, CA 9210~
Phone: (619) S3~-S267
Entire Aareement.
This Agreement contains the entire Agreement among the
parties hereto.
IN WI~NESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed and attested by their duly authorized
officers, as of the date first above written.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO:
City Clerk
1'~ J. VdAJ-
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
City Attorney
Approved and/or authorized bv the BO<lrd
ot Supervisors ot the County o"t San Ci~gl)
Date ~ -(, - q" Minute Oreer No b
THOMAS J PASTUSZKA .-
Cler~ the B~h~rs
By 71 '
legality: Deputy Clerk
(ll/Jbd/~ r4A3~~
County Counsel
Approved as to form and
7
NT>-3'-
000019 JAN 249b
~'-
o
CI
.<
~
ft 0 ft
~ ~ g
Q.., .<.
_ 0 >-
i~'giJ:;
E 0 Cii E
CI
g':;g.E
c : '- '1J c5
o .. ~ >
::J a. " 0 !l-
ii 1 ~ Q :g
Ca.. 1 A-
D ~ ~ .
a: " _ ~ :::
"O~~li~
;O>cna:
~O~~i~
,
I
e
:::
-Q)
e
Q)
en
Q)
d: F
Q)
c.J
< CO
Co
~~ 00
c: ~
Q) ~
Co
)C 0
~ .s
c m
CO
~ -.
~ -~-...,.. .
a:s
~
0
w
w
)&.1 p -37
000021 JAN24"b
9J
.-.. ., ,-- _ "_ _ _ - _ A_
.....
;...
C":
-=
U
=
0
.:
C":
N
.-
=
C":
bJ)
;...
0
lIo..
QJ
bJ)
C":
=
C":
~
;...
QJ
=
6
QJ
~ >
fO ;...
QJ
" rIJ
~ QJ
.- lIo..
.L:J ~
.-
~ ,0
=
=
0
u
0
bJ)
QJ
.-
~
=
C":
00
"C
=
C":
C":
.....
rIJ
.-
>
C":
-
=
-=
u
~
0
.0
.-
u
IS a
'-= Q
f'-=
Q II:
~ t
~O'
~ =!
~ e 2
~E-<
- -=
5 Q
8 -
~ -= ... II:
~~.si:
-=..... ~
~
~ ~
..:.:
~ 8
~II:,.Q
1I:~~"tl
~ ~
'1
J't.D - ~
(
("
nrn
EXhibit .C"
Duties and Responsibilities of the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager(s)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RESPONSIBILITIES
Education and Research
Development of educational and research facilities and interpretive programs.
Implementation and/or coordination and accommodation of. research programs.
Provision of controlled opportunities, consistent with resource protection needs,
for the public to learn" about a.n:d appreciate the natural and cultural diversity of
the area including:
. its biological diversity and cultural heritage;
. the inter-relationships between sensitive species and natural habitats;
. the opportunity to observe biological and cultural resources in their natural
setting; and
. the importance of preservation of natural areas and understanding challenges
to the survival of rem~;n;ng natural ecosystems.
Provide a unique and multi-faceted living laboratory for research related to:
. habitat, paleontological and cultural resource protection and management;
. experimental approaches to enhancing and restoring degraded habitats; and
. understanding species and habitat needs and conditions that adversely affect
sensitiv~ plant and Slnhnal species.
Institutions such as the City of Chula VISta Nature Center and the Natural
History Museum are non-profit agencies. providing such serVices.
Active and Passive Recreational Programs
Development of plans and programs for the location and design of active
recreational uses, overlooks -and a passive trail network within the Preserve.
Coordination with the Otay Valley Regional Park JEPA., or subsequent park
pl~nning entity, regarding issues associated with Otay Valley Regional Park.
Law Enforcement
Enforcement activities as necessary to control and protect the resources of the
preserve within the incorporated aI-ea of the City of Chula Vista's portion ot-the
.Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve". Development of a law enforcement program
that will protect the visitor from the environment, protect the environment from
the visitor and protect the visitor from other visitors. Create a uniform code of
regulations for all cooperating agencies and an annual review "by law
enforcement and resource agencies of their appropriate roles.
JErA.roM'LDOC1i Pn"'M: lC)'1~
J-+D- 3-'
10
000023 J~Wt496
(
("
- -
SAN DIEGO COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES
!,
'f
;
t
i
I
1
Law Enforcement
Enforcement activities as necessary to control and protect the resources of the
preserve within the unincorporated portion of the County portion of the .Otay
Ranch Open Space Preserve". Development of a law enforcement program that
will protect the visitor from the environment, protect the environment from the
visitor and protect the visitor from other visitors. Create. a uniform code of
regulations for all cooperating agencies and an annual review by law
enforcement and resource agencies of their appropriate roles.
Maintenance Operations
Maintenance and enhancement of all resources through the prevention of further
disturbance, including controlling access to the Preserve, prohibiting off-road
traffic, enforcing .no trespassing- rules and cu~i1ing activities that degrade
resources, such as grazing, shooting and illegal dumping. Implementation of
maintenance activities including removal of trash, litter and other debris,
maintenance of trail systems, removal and control of exotic plant species (weeds)
and control of cowbirds through trapping. efforts. Develop a plan for the
controlled buming, erosion control and replanting to enhance the natural and
scenic values of the preserve. Preparation of a grazing, crop production,
integrated pest, insect and disease management control or other appropriate uses
if they do not result in conditions that are adverse to eventual recreational or
agricultural uses. Development of a restrictive area plan which prohibits public
access to sensitive wetlands, vernal pools, restoration areas and sensitive wildlife
habitat. .
Resource Protection and MsnJlgement .
Providing large, connected natural areas with varied habitats that offer refuge,
food and shelter to multiple species of native plants and animals; protecting
scenic, paleontological and cultural resources; and providing management tools to
assure that Preserve resources are not adversely affected by urban developmeD:,t
located adj acent to the Preserve.
Monitoring
Ensuring no reduction in habitat values and no adverse impacts to biological
resources are included within the Preserve by the following:
. Monitoring the resources to identify changes in the quality and quantity of
sensitive resources and habitats to assure compliance with the adopted
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.
. Implementation and monitoring of restoration activities, as appropriate.
. Establishing a comprehensive monitoring program for the biota of the
Preserve in conjunction with the Phase n Rl\1P.
II
JEJ'A.I'OM~DOC'Ii Prin-': IlVl~
)ll-D-Y~
~e9
000024 J~N 24 ~b
("
(-
. Developing and implementing an annual monitoring program designed to
identify changes in quality and quantity of on-site biological resources
includir1;g sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant species and sensitive
habitat types.
JOINT RESPONSmILITIES OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY
.
Maintain the management plan for preservation that facilitates effective, long-
term management of the Preserve consistent with the goals of the Phase I and II
Resource Management Plan and the .Otay ~ch Open Space Preserve",
Develop a Preserve Area Handbook which contains policies and procedures in
managing and evaluating the activities of the Preserve. The handbook should
include the purpose of the preserve, areas within the preserve including maps,
trails etc., the preserve area organizational structure, park system hierarchy,
land anm;n;~tion, financing, resource anmini~tration, facilities, public
relations, etc.
Develop a fire prevention program to protect human life, prevent modification of
park ecosystem by human-caused wildfire and prevent damage to cultural
resources or physical facilities.
Coordinate with the appropriate agencies involved with the Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP), or other adopted subregional habitat pl~""T'Iing
programs, 'to assure consistency with regional conservation efforts and plans.
Regional .presarve management agreements may be used to ensure working
relationships are established between other open space preserves. Coordination
with local jurisdictions, resource agencies and adjacent ownerships.
Implement the Phase I and n Resource M~n~gement Plans. Review proposed
preserve boundary adjustments, infrastructure plans. Comment on plans for land
uses adj acent to the Preserve and other activitie!V'studies. -
Formulate performance standards for the City of Chula VlSta and the County of
San Diego, in their respective areas of responsibilities, to ensure that the .Otay
Ranch Open Space Preserve- achieves the goals and- objectives of the Preserve.
JEPA-I"QM%.J.)OCN ..........: IWlCVJ5
10
)IID-'11
/J.
Pace
000025 J~N 2496
"
ATIACHMENT
1'.'
I
Otay Ranch
Phase 2 Resource Manaoement Plan
II. Preserve Manaaemen!.' Convevance. Fundinc
,
~
~
~
\
,
,
Preserve Land Conveyed - Forecasted by Villab2
A B C D E
A..{B+C) 0-1.118
Area Tow LDA Common Total -{LOA + Conveyance
Common)
Village 1 904 0 29 b74 :.039
Village 2 775 0 48 727 864
Vill.. {e 3 318 0 5 314 3;3
Vill.ge 4 607 0 1:1 594 i05
Village ii 493 0 26 467 555
Village 6 365 0 231 3421 407
Village 7 .a12 0 94 318 3--
.1
Village 8 343 0 19 324 385
Villa~e 9 364 0 20 3441 409
Village 10 334 0 68 266 316
Villare 11 ~5 0 70 38::il 458
PA12EUC 439 0 49 391 464
Village 13 (Reaon) 183 0 14 770 914
Vtii..ce 14 (Proctor Valley) 829 0 21 808 960
Village 1& (Sua Yaidro WesC) 800 0 13 787 934
Villace 16 (Jamw) 1.117 370 2 744 884
Village 11 (Sua Ysidro Easc) 1.611 115 2 815 968
PI..Dinc Area 18& 216 0 0 216 256
Pl&IlL.lnc Area 18b 70 0 0 701 83
Pluming Area 19 20 0 0 20 24
SRW 182 0 182 0 0
Public 20 0 20 0 I)
Arterials 69 0 69 0 0
"rOTALS 11.&24 1.16& 186 9.1.~" 11.374
/3
J 4j)-Y. A-.
000029 J~N 249b
- '
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WEDNESDA Y, MARCH 6, 1996
MINUTE ORDER NO.6
SUBJECT: Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve-Owner Manager Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement Between County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista, Prescn'c
Financing Plan, Open Space Conveyance Plan, and Overall Otay lUnch Design
Plan
(Carryover Item from 2/21/96, Agenda No.3)
(Supv. Dist: 1,2)
ISSUE/REFERENCE:
On February 21, 1996 (3), the Board of Supervisors continued the matter to March 6, 1996; directed
County Counsel to advise the Board prior to March 6, 1996, on the legal issues pertaining to this
issue; directed the Chief Administrative Officer to meet with all interested parties and property
owners (in the same room, at the same time) to find an acceptable conveyance plan that works; and
directed the Chief Administrative Officer to review the documents presented at the meeting,
including the document questioning the consistency of the proposed Resource Management Plan,
with the adopted General Development Plan and the original Resource Management Plan, and be
prepared to report at the March 6, 1996, meeting.
On January 24, 1996 (4), your Board continued this item to February 21, 1996.
Should the County enter into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEP A) with the City of Chula
Vista for the ownership and management of the Otay Ranch Preserve, approve the Preserve
Financing Plan, approve the Open Space Conveyance Plan, and approve the Otay Ranch Overall
Design Plan?
FISCAL IMPACT: .
There will be no fiscal impact as a result of executing the JEP A for ownership and management of
the Otay Ranch Preserve. Preserve costs are the obligation of the current and future developers_and
owners of Otay Ranch properties. Performance of operations, maintenance and monitoring tasks are
the responsibility of the Preserve Owner/Manager (paM). paM expenses will be funded by revenue
from a Habitat Maintenance Assessment District to be formed for the SPA 1 development and future
developments and by a direct contribution by the SPA 1 developer.
Since actual conveyance of ~and is not anticipated for at least three years, any current staff ___
participation will be provided through existing budgeted resources. Additional staffing requirements
will be determined as development and conveyance occurs in Otay Ranch and will be funded by
revenue from the District.
}Y.1> --. Y3
/4--
Costs associated with formation of the Habitat Maintenance Assessment District arc unknown at this
time. Costs associated with forming the District will be reimbursed from District revenue. In the
event that formation of the District is not accomplished, the County will bear the cost associated with
forming the District. Exact costs are unknown but are estimated at $10,000/$30,000. The source of
funding will be the General Fund. If the District is not formed another source of funding for the
County's management responsibility with the JEP A must be found. The Board does have the ability
to withdraw from the JEP A if necessary. .
There will be no direct or indirect costs to the County for adoption of the Otay Ranch Overall Desil!n
~~. -
RECOMMENDATION:
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER:
1. Find that there are no changes in the project or in the circumstances under which it is undertaken
which involve significant new environmental impacts which were not considered in the previously
certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), dated December 1992, and that no new information
of substantial importance has become available since said ErR was prepared; and review and
reconsider the information contained therein.
2. Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute the JEPA between the
County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista for the ownership and management of the Otay
Ranch Preserve (Attachment A of the January 24, 1996 Report, attached as Exhibit 1).
3. Select and appoint one member and an alternate from the Board of Supervisors to serve on the
JEP A Policy Committee.
4. Authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to serve as Administrator to the JEP A.
5. Approve the Otay Ranch Preserve Financing Plan and direct the Chief Administrative Officer to
take all required actions pursuant to Fish and Game Code Chapter 11, Section 2900 et seq.,
Habitat Maintenance Districts, to establish a Habitat Maintenance Assessment District pursuant to
Government Code Sections 50060 - 50070 for the purpose of financing the maintenance of the .
Otay Ranch Preserve. .
6. Approve the Conveyance Open Space Plan (as amended by Exhibit 2) for the Otay Ranch Open
Space Preserve.
7. Approve the March 14, 1995 Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan (Attachment D of the Jan~4,
1996 report attached as Exhibit 1).
8. Direct staff to continue to work with the City ofChula Vista and affected property owners to
refine the Conveyance Plan and Preserve Financing Plan to reflect change in ownership and other
factors.
J 'f j)- '+'1
I~ I
ACTION:
Commending and thanking the various parties for their involvement and participation in this
proposal, ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board of
Supervisors took action as recommended, appointing Supervisor Cox as member and Supervisor
Jacob as alternate member to represent the Board on the JEP A Policy Committee, including the use
of the developable acreage methodology for determining conveyance with the following additions:
Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to work with the City of Chula Vista to investigate, and if
feasible, develop an in-lieu fee program to be included in the RMP II as an exaction alternative to
conveyance ofland.
Amend the Conveyance Plan to require the actual conveyance of open space in title free and c1eJr of
all encumbrances to the Preserve Owner Manager (pOM) as a condition of the first and each
subsequent final map.
Said Final Map shall also be subject to a condition that the subdivider shall execute a maintenance
agreement with POM to the satisfaction of the jurisdiction approving the subdivision map, stating
that is the legal and financial responsibility for the subdivider to maintain the conveyance parcel in its
current and natural state until an agreed upon point, at which time there will be sufficient revenue
from the Habitat Maintenance Assessment District for the POM to maintain conveyance lands.
The actual amount of conveyed land for each final map shall equal the amount necessary to mitigate
the entitlement received in the final map, consistent with the conveyance methodology as
recommended to the Conveyance Plan.
Approve the Conveyance Plan solely for the processing and conveyance of preserve lands associated
with SPA I; nC' other village or SPA can be approved until the Conveyance Plan is amended by the
County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista to provide criteria for assuring that the conveyed open
space shall be in contiguous, biologically viable, and economically feasible (for management
purposes) configurations; and directed the Chief Administrative Officer to come ,back with
amendments to the Conveyance Plan that address the issues raised by the Board members.
AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater, Roberts, Horn
)y.])-~
1(P
State of California)
County of San Diego )ss
I hereby cenify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Original entered in the
Minutes of the Board of Supervisors.
ARLINE S. HULTSCH
Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
~. ~
By ffi ~f-'
Maritza C. teele, B. puty
,...~ ...,
.-~ '
, . . ......
Il/.b-yj.
/1
~cJ.meY\t .8
Olay Ranch Phase 2 Re~o":rceManagemenl Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
Exhibit 10
Difference Between SPA One Land Plan and
GDP Identified Acreage (Acres)
SPA Conveyance GDP
Villal!:e Area ADDlication3 Park School Net Obliltation Forecast Difference
Village One 585 21 12 552 656 1,039
Village Five 476 19 12 446 529 555
Total 1,061 39 24 998 1,186 1,594
West Of Pas eo 264 04 04 264 313
Ranchero
Total 1,325 39 24 1,262 1,499 1,594 -95
3. Conveyance Timing
The RMP provides that cumulative acreage conveyed
should be greater than or equal to SPA acreage. It is
self evident that actual conveyance cannot occur acre
by acre, as development proceeds, but must occur
through the conveyance of manageable and
biologically meaningful blocks of land. Thus, the issue
becomes what is a reasonable size block of land to be
conveyed, and at what point in the development
process should actual conveyance occur?
Conveyance of larger blocks of land cannot reasonably
occur upon initial SPA approval, at the start of land
development, because there is no revenue base from
which to fund management of the conveyed land.
Conversely, land should not be conveyed at the end of
the development of a SPA because the public interest
and RMP policies require that actual conveyance
roughly parallels the time of impact (development).
3 Based on the SPA One EIR Alternative B plan.
4 Parks and schoql sites will be located in the area west of
Paseo Ranchero. When a SPA involving that area is
processed, those acreages will be incorporated into the
analysis and conveyance obligation adopted.
Otay
Ranch
Page 63
February 5, 1996
J'fj)-Y"
;)1
Otay
Ranch
Page 64
February 5, 1996
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
This analysis recommends that actual conveyance
occur as follows:
. 50% of a villag-eo' oblig-ation to conT,Tey land oecurG
when the villag-e io 50% developed; the remaining-
50% of the land io conveyed upon 90% of
development of the villa{;e. ~
. 50% of the SP...^.. One oblig-ation to conTley land
occUrG when the SP...^~ io 50% developed, the
remainder would be conveyed upon 90% of
development of SPA One.
"Development" ao it applieo to the reeommendation
alone, io deemed to be upon the recordation of the final
mapo.
The applicant shall convey fee title to the POM upon
the recordation of eaeh final map for an amount of
land eaual to the final map's oblig-ation to convey land
to the Preserve. Each final map shall be subiect to a
condition that the subdivider shall execute a
maintenance ag-reement with the POM stating- that it
is the responsibility of the applicant to maintain the
conveyed parcel until the Habitat Maintenance
District has g-enerated sufficient revenues to enable
the POM to assume maintenance responsibilities.
Based on these principals and consistent with the
adopted Village Phasing Plan, conveyance is
forecasted to occur on a year-by-year basis as depicted
in Exhibit 11.
Exhibit 12 below, contrasts the amount of land
conveyed to the Preserve over time with the
5 To enDl:H"e that atay RalleR iEl not permitted to purEJlae a
pattern ef Tlillabo de\'eloflment whieh would result in a
series Elf villages aeveloped .....ithout any individual villabo
triggering the 50% eeTlelepment threElhold, all s1:l.eeeemng
gp~^.:8 eheuld be l'eEluired to find that the eonveyanee
pe1ieieo of the RMP are Being implementea in geed faith.
1\fJ)-~
3C!
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
anticipated acres of sensitive resources to be impacted
by development. Because development is likely to
occur on the Otay Valley Parcel during the initial
stages of Otay Ranch development, where there are
few sensitive resources, the preserve will receive
substantial preserve land well in advance to any
corresponding impacts.
I 't D- tttlf
Otay
Ranch
Page 65
February 5, 1996
8(
Gtay
Ranch
Page 66
February 5, 1996
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
Exhibit 11
Preserve Land Conveyed - Forecasted by Year
Year Acres Conveyed Cumulative
1 139 G 139G
2 347 G 485G
3 347 G-wg 8 2wg
4 347 G 11 8wg
5 496G 1.6 4wg
6 577 +9+ 225] ~
7 374~ 262E -l-;8U
8 271~ 289( ~
9 590 l;-l-+4 3481" ~
10 865~ 435 ~
11 903~ 525i: ~
12 628 889 5 88~ 4,88()
13 536 -l89 64H &;OOB
14 613 ee+ 7 03~ ~
15 568 -+84 760C ~
16 492~ 80m ~
17 49284i?r 8 58~ +,M4
18 475~ 906C ~
19 398~ 9 45~ ~
20 232G 969C ~
21 232~ 992 9;4U
22 210~ 1013 ~
23 210 QGg 10,342 A 01 r>
,~...'-'
24 210G 10,552 A 01 r>
,
25 137 G 10,689 A 01 r>
,
26 137 G 10,826 A 01 r>
,
27 137 G 10,963 f'I 0' r>
,
28 137 &+4 11, 100 A OAA
,
29 137 484 11,237 ' 0'7 A
,
30 137 G 11,374 1 01"1 A
,.....
6
The iRitial CBRveYaHee Tetleets half of SP f. ORe's oaligatioR. The
tBtal BaligatieR is 1,186 aeTas. ORe Ralfis 593 aeras.
/lfb-5d
3~
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
Exhibit 12
Contrast - Conveyance With Sensitive Resources Impact
Land Conveyed
Cumulative Cumulative Sensitive Compared to
Year Land Conveyed Land Impacted Resources Impacted
1 139 () 0 139 ()
2 485 () 0 485 ()
3 832~ 0 832~
4 1.178 ~ 71 1.107 ~
5 1.674 ~ 180 1.494 ~
6 2.251 -l,3.Q() 289 1. 962 -l-;l().l.
7 2.625 ~ 398 2.227 ~
8 2.896 ~ 488 2.408 ~
9 3.487 ~ 639 2,848 ~
10 4,351 ~ 954 3,397 ~
11 5,255.&,9Q.l 1,272 3,983 ~
12 5.883 4;800 1,497 4.386 ~
13 6.419 &,.009 1,715 4,704~
14 7.032~ 1,939 5.093 ~
15 7,600 e,a..w 2,111 5.489 4;d98
16 8.092 ~ 2,284 5.808 4;4l-8
17 8, 584 +,.M4 2,456 6.128~
18 9.060 8,W4 2,623 6.437 ~
19 9.458 8;-4()8 2,784 6,674~
20 9.6908;-4()8 2,890 6.800 ~
21 9,921 ~ 2,995 6,926 ~
22 1O.131~ 3,091 7.040~
23 10.342 ~ 3,186 7,156 !f.,()29
24 10,552 ~ 3,282 7.270 G,W4
25 10.689 ~ 3,354 7,335~
26 10,826 ~ 3,426 7.400 ~
27 10.963 ~ 3,498 7.465 ~
28 11,100~ 3,570 7.530 ~
29 11.237 ~ 3,642 7,595~
30 11.374 ~ 3,714 7.660~
) If]) -!/
Gray
Ranch
Page 67
February 5, 1996
33
Otay
Ranch
Page 68
February 5, 1996
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
(a) Fee-In-Lieu
The City of Chula Vista shall establish, in consultation with the
Preserve Owner Mana2er, a program to collect fees in lieu of
actual conveyance of land to the Preserve Owner Manager.
The fee-in-lieu pro2fam shall be designed to generate fee
revenues sufficient to acquire identified preserve land in an
amount equal to the acreage obligation of the proiect paying
the fees. Fees shall be payable upon recordation of final maps.
While fees may be held in trust by the jurisdiction imposing
and collecting the fees. they shall ultimately be conveyed to the
POM. The POM shall use the fees solely for preserve property
acquisition. Fee revenues may not be utilized for any pw:pose
other than preserve property acq.uisitions.
4. Conveyance Location
The RMP provides the following guidance regarding
the location of conveyed land:
. Priority is given to high quality resources.
. Priority is given to most vulnerable areas.
. Conveyance should begin with "keystone"
parcels (vernal pool areas, Salt Creek, Otay
Valley, Central Proctor Valley, Western San
Ysidro).
. Potential restoration areas should be
conveyed early.
A key additional consideration is the practical
constraints imposed by areas of ownership. Otay
Ranch is currently owned by several parties.
In ordor to facilita.to convoyaneo, tho ownorohip of tho
land oonT./oyod ohould, to the extont, praotieal,
eorroopond to the ownerohip of the land developed.
Exhibit 13 refleeto the ourrent ownerohip of Otay
Raneh.
1'+1::> -- ~A
37'
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
Exhibits 14A & 14B l1.U comprise the conveyance
plan based upon current ownership of developable and
preserve acreages. Other potential alternatives may
be developed which can achieve the GDP/SRP goals,
policies and objectives, and respect ownership
patterns. This convevance plan shall be utilized to
identify the lands to be conveyed for the initial Otav
Ranch SPA. No other SPA Plan may be approved
until the conveyance seauence and location is reviewed
and potentially modified bv the County of San Diego
and the City of Chula Vista to reflect consideration
that conveyed land be biologically viable. contiguous
and economically feasible for management purposes.
If the order of conveyance io modified in the future, the
chang-e in the conveyance ochedule ohall be approT:ed
by the City of Chula. Viota and San DiOl;O County in
coordination with the PrefJerve Owner&1:anag:er. In
making the decision, the impact of the conveyance on
the Preserve Financing Plan shall be considered. In
addition, the properties conveyed shall follow the
criteria of the GDP/SRP for the conveyance of the
"most vulnerable" areas that are most subject to
potential and ongoing distrubance.
a. Permitted Uses
Uses permitted within conveyed land must comply
with the provisions of the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. Seven broad categories of uses are
permitted:
. Open space, including preservation, recreation and
education, study and research, and management of
environmental resources;
. passive recreation;
. infrastructure consistent with approved GDP/SRP
plans
. interim agricultural uses consistent with the Range
Management Plan;
NJ> -53
Dray
Ranch
Page 69
February 5, 1996
35'
Otay
Ranch
Page 70
February 5, 1996
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
. active recreation (up to 400 acres consistent with
the Otay River Valley Regional Park Plan); and
. a university within the areas designated within the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan Land Use
Map, but excluding structures within the Salt
Creek Canyon; and
. an Interpretive Center.
The GDP/SRP allows certain uses in the Preserve.
The POM will allow any and all of these uses within
conveyed lands subject to the criteria and conditions of
the GDP/SRP. This Phase 2 RMP designated the City
and the County to act as the POM for an unspecified
duration. During this period, the POM will sell, lease
or gift areas of conveyed land to a third party for the
purposes of pursuing any of these permitted uses,
upon direction by the City and County. The City and
County may consider designating such a third party as
the POM for such conveyed areas and for such uses.
I'U) -Sy,
3~
Dtay
Ranch
Page 94
February 5, 1996
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
5. Restoration Analysis
The Otay Ranch RMP and Findings of Fact require the
restoration of 1,300 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS)
throughout the build-out of the Otay Ranch project.
The Coastal Sage Restoration Master Plan (Appendix
F8) identifies the candidate areas that are available
for restoration.
The purpose of this analysis is to identify the
obligation to restore coastal sage scrub and maritime
succulent scrub (MSS) on a village-by-village basis.
a. Coastal Sage Scrub
As depicted in Exhibit 15 below, development of the
Otay Ranch villages and planning areas would impact
approximately 2,105 2.736 acres of coastal sage scrub.
Another ~ 529 acres of degraded coastal sage scrub
(dCSS) would also be impacted ao woll 0.0 79 Gm'oo of
coaoto.l oo.bO ocrub/nativo bl'aoolando (CSS/NG) and 6.7
o.croo of CSS/M:C. Thus, the total area of coastal sage
scrub (of some variety or correlation) impacted through
the development of Otay Ranch is approximately 2,611
3.322 acres.
This calculation assumes that all the area within a
village shown within a GDP "development bubble" will
be impacted. However, some of these areas may be
preserved due to environmental or land use decisions
made at the SPA level of planning. On tho othor hand,
tho ano.lyoio dooo not includo tho coo.otal oabo oerub
roooureoo dioturbod 0.0 a eonooquoneo of dOTlolopmont
outoido of road or public facility improTlomonto of a
villa go.
As discussed in the conveyance plan, the obligation to
restore coastal sage scrub should relate to impacts to
coastal sage scrub on a village-by-village basis. That
)lfj;> - 55
)7
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
is, for every acre of coastal sage scrub disturbed or
destroyed within a village, the village applicant should
be required to restore a compensating amount of
coastal sage scrub elsewhere within Otay Ranch to
ensure 1,300 acres of coastal sage scrub will be
restored at buildout. rThe 1.300 acre figure reflects the
requirement that 85% of Otav Ranch coastal sag-e
scrub will be protected. 70% throug-h preservation and
15% 0.300 acres) throug-h restoration. If the
preservation amount is g-reater. the restoration
requirement will decrease.l
Under this approach, for every one acre of coastal sage
habitat destroyed on a village-by-village basis, the
applicant would be required to restore 0.492- acres of
coastal sage scrub elsewhere in Otay Ranch. Exhibit
15 below depicts the resulting restoration obligation
for this alternative.
Exhibit 15
CSS Restoration Allocation By Village
~ Mitigation
Impaoted -..
YT.n .. -- . . m. - . Ael:es
'T'" 1 GSS -lG G
Village 1 ('Vest ofPaoco GSS 4l -lG
~ . ,
"tT:ll 0 GSS W ~
'1 GSS & ~
,"tT:ll ._~ A GSS +& W
I TT_" 0 GSS ~ W
n GSS & ~
I TT'" ,1'\ GSS & ~
Villal;e 13 GSS ~ -l32-
Diot'lll'bed. C~~ 00 U
Village 11- GSS -lOO !7G
Diotl:1:l'Bea C~~ -*W as
Village 15 GSS 4!ffi -lOO
Diet'lll'bed. CSS 4& -l8
Planning Area Ie GSS ~ ~
Diot'lll'bed. CSS ga() 9-1
Planning .\rea 17 _ GSS MG ~
DiotlH'bed. CSS 4G -lG
Otay
Ranch
Page 95
February 5, 1996
)~j)-~~
30
Otay
Ranch
Page 96
February 5, 1996
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
~, ~ 10. G.SS -M e
....., A__ 1Ql-. G.SS .w 4
~ ~ 1n Dioturbcd CSS 2() g
Circulation Elomont Roado G.SS ~ 2M
Villal!"e No. CSS dCSS MSS TOTAL Restorat on
(Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres
1 57 - 11 68 7.2
2 29 - 2 31 2.4
3 5 - 1 6 2.4
4 71 - 10 81 2.4
5 - - - - -
- - -
6 - - - - -
- - - - -
7 - - - - -
- - -
8 22 - - 22 8.8
-
9 4 - 2 6 2.4
10 3 - 11 14 5.6
11 - - - - -
- - -
12 - - - - -
- - - - -
13 329 51 - 380 152
-
14 188 147 - 335 134
15 463 49 - 512 2 4.8
16 379 246 - 625 ~50
17 538 36 - 574 2 9.6
18a 10 - - 10 4
- -
18b 6 - - 6 2.4
-
19 16 - - 16 6.4
-
Circulation 616 - 20 636 ~ dA
-
Element
Roads
TOTALS 2,736 529 57 3,322 1.32 .80
b. Maritime Succulent Scrub (MSS)
Otay Ranch contains approximately 285 acres of
Maritime Succulent Scrub (MSS). The Otay Ranch
GDP contemplates that approximately 56 acres of
MSS would be disturbed through the development of
Otay Ranch. Identical to the rationale discussed above
in relationship to CSS, the obligation to restore MSS
arises when the MSS habitat is disturbed or destroyed.
The Otay'Ranch RMP and Findings of Fact require
that 56 acres of MSS be restored through the build-out
l'4b-S7
3'1
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
of Otay Ranch. In order to ensure that 56 acres of MSS
are restored, each village would have to restore 1 acres
of MSS for every 1 acre of MSS taken within the
village. Application of this ratio results in a village-
by-village restoration obligation as depicted in the
following Exhibit 16.
Exhibit 16
Maritime Succulent Scrub Allocation By Village
MitigatioB.
Area Impacted Restoration
Requirement
Villa~e/Plannin~ Area Habitat Tvpe (Estimate) (Acres)
Villag-e 1 MSS ll-l-l- 1 l-l
Village 2 MSS 2~ 2~
Village 3 MSS 12- 12-
Village 4 MSS 1O-l2- H +2-
Villag-e 9 MSS 2~ 2~
Village 10 MSS 11-l2- 1 -l2-
Circulation Element Roads MSS 20M 2( M
)~]) - ~
Otay
Ranch
Page 97
February 5, 1996
4'0
~-e6 16.31 FROM:
.10:
Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CoNVEYANCE, FUNDING
)
b. RegiolUd-ll_tf;/it. Qwo11u:nitks
As discussed throughout this document, the Otay
Ranch properties have an obligation to convey 11.375
acres to the Preserve OwnerJM:auager for the purposes
of establishing a preserve.-Bowever. the creation of
the 'Preserve establishes a location and or~ni'T.ational
tramework within which pronerties other than Otav
:Ra.tl~h or entities otJler than Clmla Vista and the
County can contribute agditional lands or 'Dreserve
imnrovements to b'qjJd an ooen space svstem of benefit
to the entire refrion. Exhibit 17 denicts some S'Oeci:fi&
on'Oortunities for such contribution. Tho o_stieR of
Em 11.a75 ae:re J~eser\~e &8_ the Otay RafJea
p:ro:[i)emes BNlEJot. aeeetEtia~ t8 State law, ~e reaGeB.a~lo"
l'clateEl ts the 13E1IeR _sates. BY tile e1.e'l'l'e18,me:at of
tho Jl'BJeFtr. Cen..r-emely) there Bl-l1St he a l'eatie:aahlo
relatioliGsji 1:tetween tile Benefits llr&V4ded lay the
eKaetien ElBa tae ae'WTelepBl0Bt.-
Tae p~Gen'o:e, ~ee8.Wl9 sf its SHe. relatio~ te etlle~
opea s,aee laBEle &BEl :relatia:aahi, t9 9thel' tle'\~aped
!&BEls. efiom J\l91ie he:a.eB.ts ~~~h are e:a.jayeEl weY.
bo~-eBa tae ~sideRts sf Ota:r Reeh. Th\le. while tile
8Q1T$Bt 9&11 Nture pre,ert3" sw&em &:ad 1'eGiaeats of
Otay Raeek He eeJigMeEi tEl meetly BE' HlElkeed~" pay
tor tae el'eatioB., BlamteBaee aaEi e,emti9a af te
jileserve, tile ee:aent af tae ,rese~ aeenies t9 moro
than j1iSt Ota~" Reek resirieats.
The 89lleeit of P8~Jlal tJeBefit 9f a lHge s9ale e,e:a
epaee system is tlloHllghly E1iseliSsea iB tile. Draft
MSCP Pre~ wEeh reeegBizes the Beea that aR Sa
DieSO CeQBty msiEleBts Be ~esseEl a fee &l' te to hel,
p8.~~ fer the geBeral puss j9:eont aesg~ ~te8. with tho
1lSCP preseN0 G3"'GteBl. 1_ similp- mtieaale 8.~pJies t9
the Oteq RaP1ea pl'eeeEV9_
f..:eeorttiBgl)"(. fer the 'I'e,e~ e~ers aBa llesiEleBts sf
OtSQ- Resh te 89 tl'eateEl iB &B eEl1:ii~a~la maj;jj-el, if
Iy.D-~f
"
PAGE 2/3
Otay
Ranch
Page 103
February 5, 1 i96
1"'. A '{ -j~:_~.___
;4-S6 16.32 FROM,
)
Otay
Ranch
Page 104
February 5,1996
IC.
Otay Ranch Pltase 2 Resource Management Plait
PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING
tae MSCP fllegram. or ether eem}J9;l!9.hle l'egie:aal e~
Gubre&iellal haliitat eeBeen~atieB pregE8:B'l is
ifBtJlementeEl tMsubh a Bread baseS. fee (511' tax far the
mamtOBQBee sd a~eE'8.tieB. af 8. regieBal preaeEVe, tAC
separate tinaReiel oh~tiaa _pased upen Ota.y
&aneh :resiElentG saelilEi he eliBWaatcd.
)'l-D- 40
PAGE 3/3
,-, ,.,., ", " ,.,'" ! [
I " - ;' ,- '-I '0 .;" i i r' \,
i... "t ~ ,-I", ... . ' 'wi '- ...
~tr'r Du'o'N" .rt~
r r-: U fll . I1 J (.,' ,i 0
~;132~~~:~~~~==-~::-
: :~! :J = ::::~.:
~Q.\w.~~ ~
A\N 0 ~ ::- I C ~ =, ""J F
PAFL. HASTl~(;S. .JAN()F~II\Y & \(\I.KER
~,'OUf.!"t~
i.~!= c::I J')^~,l~
'ot.....ClC,"""i ~ ,.....'::rrlNc:::t~
~,~C"J/'>.&.~.'l ~ .jANQJI"~..K'r'
;. I"'lQ,~...t.'~ M W.."'...."I;~R
.....V\F"i"-.i-Y-Thr~D =-[ '.~::';IM
'}.;l..A~.'''A f..j,.....lr.~.
'SUi....:::. ~4i.:JO
1""',-,::\ ....:':.\~tol-~~r: STI=>'!:.t:: 1 ;-. f"
"':"'1 ,;,.r'-ll.w.. r";I.:,;.\~I'~I.... :l("\..~::':~'..'..!.!.!
- '"t.::;':"I-lQNr: I..H''',) c,',:" i.'''~<':',:-~
A 1-'4101"....1':"':,,1;,. " ;=:...~. ,.....,:......:..'. ...., . ":'.'.,~^, ',"'11.
.;,;::;ANl":',r:. 1:~~~I".I"'r' i?r.'Ir'ICe:.
"'i"i"5 : '-~"TH F'1...0W!:"', '. -f,F;:-
.;:.~::. l'~wr.1 C~:".'YC'':: ~"~I'..'C
(~C';'l,.....~... M!,~A. C.'.L.lr"(",,}I=O'NIA A':;'4::'l';:C..,O':-'1
;r.:L.!:.1 '!'''ION I" 171""") t54i:!.,e-t6.:i!OC:
'",-.'.1:"'" ;'", .,-" T -,l"~'-: ~
l...05 A""'JGG:._L:";'. C;\LJFOH~...\ r;i.-JC-)71-;~37\
,',':', "'''Io';...l .....C...;N ~W_l.~""\'''~)
,!.ll:J.~~.',-Jt~r:. '=O".j"'j~C-C..J- ::'~""'-Jl'.::=-
TE'-t.,"'r~CNt! 1,(o'1':'1} ~~.1 ~.\~:)Q
r".'_'::"J'IooI<':;:".l::: 'i"~-".i! ~~, "-l:-.'.'~
'Nr."':,T ~ ,-..,0; .C\Nc.f.~E':. (HrJ"lC";~
I":'.JW ~C:a.:.A'~ ^.....r::r~1..lr:
;;:).6,N I'A MONll:~, C:~A1...1I"Cn::tNIA. ~C""'C'.~01H
Tr;I,r:PHC':lNt:: (:\1\"1 )1~"3JO"
--)(. ~IO-3Z1-""t''"I'-: ':l
..,r.AJ '~',::-~... ~.. ""....
.'A!..":",I......ILE: (~131 ~2-'.':...,0~
..:!'~'j t'A,Q" .':J....l"':"-.I.,r
"', ~\N ,,,,::,:;,,, ""'i.:'I'i "'0.;.4'" .;~.);..:. '...:-')'
. .";. r :H1QNI':''?:a: ~ r.:"1~:":"c.:;...,
IC~"~~ 1:;.,.",.'Ir::t:::.
........." N1'i.H'fl "U"'I~"I.".Nc,J1. JU'" 1"1.1.,}IJM
........... , .,'':''''~~... ~ 0:.:.. ':';'''''-'':':..
~,'=' t:lCi X ~;77
la'J:J. Al",.A.~,t"'~A l-t"::'HOMt.
MINA"C-~U, lOK.VO fQ?
n~.L.e::="H'N['" (t,::" 3GSC-4711
April 23, 1996
I.:~~.;, ::;)1-'\.:N':".'f''-.....-.loN1~ A./!:....lJ:'7 "..~,
NA',I-;f".:c:::.rO". r:. ,-:. :'nIl04'~-+'~(~
"I ....1::....I-tC)I"H:. ('::'.J~I ,;,,;c:~.,:,:..:..C'::
W=ZITr:;;p'~:.; Ol~'ccr OIA\., l'''ojUMaf:'~
uu~ ~'L.l!: N~:;;
(213) 683-6103
21784.61555
VIA FACSIMILE
Gerald J. Jamriska
Olay Ranch Project Office
City of Chula VIsta Planning Dept.
315 Fourth Avenue. Suite A
Chula Vista, California 91910
Re: Ota~ Ranch SPA One Phasing
Dear Jerry:
In our meeting on April 18, 1996, repres(~ntatives from ThE:
B;aldwin Company/Village Development/Otay Ranch L.P./Tiger Development
Two (the "Applicant") and West Coast Land Fund discussed with City staff
several different phasing alternatives for SPA One., in accordance with the
direction. given uy Lhe Planning Commission. The discussion at that meeting was
qualified at the outset by West Coast reiteratinis its request that the City suspend
processing of the SPA One Plan and seek the iippropri::lte relief from the
automatic stay in the bankruptcy proceedings in.volving Tiger Development Two.
The discussion also proceeded on the assumption that West Coast would
eventually complete its foreclosure action on a signific~nt portion of the SPA One
acreage, ~urrently oymed by Tiger, and. would bt~ in a position to either develop
that portIon or selin to a merchant budder for development. You asked for--
West Coast to submit its requests regarding the propost~d phasbg in writ~ng.
Once again, reiterating West Coast's requ(~st that the City scck an
appropriate order for relief from the autom~ltic stay in Tiger's bankruptcy case,
and assuming that the City will ne.vcrtheless continue to process the SPA One
pX,an and that West Coast will r.;umplcte its foreclosure of Tiger's property, we
halve set forth below several items that should be included in the phasing plan
for SPA One:
.
The Phasing Plan should limit development of SPA One to one
villnge at a time. Village 1 should be the fin:t village to be
'4b- "I
o 4 - 2 3 - 9 6 11: 0 2 AM
FROM PHJ&W 1+5
'" I' -H"+t 1- , ' r +t ,- , - I - - - - - -
1U #~10~4d~_:1~~~~ !o~L!
i.".
'_ '_"_1
Gerald J. Jamriska
April 23, 1996
Page 2
developed, and should be developed from west to east (Le.) old
Phase 2B would become the new Phase 1; old Phase 1 B would
become the new Phase 2 and extf'nct to T.a Mpdia, north of
Palomar). This sequence would further the objective of
establishing a functioning village community, as contemplated in
the GDP, allow significant infrastnlChm:~ to be developed early in
the process, allow the Applicant to sell off significant developable
super block areas,Y and allow West Coast's concerns with the
land uses proposed in Village 5 to be reviewed.
. Although super blocks can be created and sold off, a condition of
the Applicant's sale of any such block or area should be the
conveyance of the 593 acres of promised open space preserve;
owned by the Applicant. The ErR requires this conveyance early in
the development process (Le., in the fll"St 3 years of the
"development program"). Since the Applicant proposes to sell off
all developable acreage following approval of a "master tentative
map," good planning and zoning practice dictates that the
conveyance requirement be fulfilled while a unity of owncr:c;rup still
exists.
. Paseo Ranchero should be developed prior to La Media. A<) noted
above, the first phase of Village I development should be the old
Phase 2B area and the. second ph<:tse should be the old Pha~e IB
area and extend to La Media, north of Palomar. This sequencing
would facilitate some momentum in the development process
which, the Applicant indicated) should generale revenu~::; lhat the
Applicant can use to solidify its holdings and that the City can use
for major infrastructure costs such as La Media. Consequently, as
building permits are issued for development in Village 1, D[F fees
should be eannarked for the costs of improving La Media.
We feel that the phasing issues outlined above would go far in
addressing the Commission's concerns that the major infrastructure and village -~
character be established sooner rather than later, m order to assure the feasibility
of SPA One, yet allow the Applicant to obtain some realization on the investment
it has made in the planning process. As the l!!nc1osE"d newspaper ;trtirlp. indicatp.~>
1/ At our meeting last week, the Applicant's representative stated that it would not be
building any of the homes in SPA One and planned to seU off super blocks to various merchant
builders.
}If.b-'' ~
04-23-96 11:02AM FROM PHJ&W #5
'T''' H.rr' ~ " , "+r' " . . I - ", ~ ~' ;-
j U IHtl 0 0 ~ 'J +r .: _ :' -r ::..:. ' ,.1 '='.
~ :-, :~! :-, ~ -
Gerald J. Jamnska
April 23, 1996
Page 3
a conununity's expectations regarding amenities, parks and other issues can be
frustrated if development phasing is not carefully planned.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Enclosure
cc: Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director
Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney
Ed Dailey, Colony Advisors
.,' ;'" ' Very t~lY10ll.1Z:S"", "
II ~'L lc~, ~^<:{.{ to -S { <., UC {}"{l..) it. \ ( ",
Michael S. Woodward '
for PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER
)'fJ:) - ~
~k~e\1-t i
Sectional Planning Area One Plan Errata
(October 27, 1995 Version)
Page Revision
Part One SPA One Plan · ................... i ........ .............
i Universal Edit The Ot~' Raneh, L.P. Villa~e Development
11975 EI Camino Real, Suite ~.liM.
(619) 259-2900JA
1-4 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - ...SPA One Sectional Planning Area fhm, ...
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - These regulations establish standards for
development and address ...
1-5 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence - ...streetscape and landscape design, signage
programs, and architectural...
1-6 1st paragraph, 4th sentence - ...Brush Management Plan, and 'A'ildlife
Camear isslies.
2nd paragraph, 5th sentence - ...the Overall Design Plan, the SPA One
Land Plan, and satisfies the GDP requirements ...
1-7 4th paragraph, ...ranch-wide affordable housing plan to address the
FelatiaIl5hifJ eet\veeB the provision of affordable...
5th paragraph - The Otay Ranch GDP requires that ~ SPA One Plan
1-13 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - The SPA One project area contains
approximately I,Ge+.l.lQ acres of gently rolling terrain.
7th paragraph, 1st sentence - The Local A~ency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) took action on FebruaIY 5. 1996 to include mMuch of Otay
Ranch, including the SPA One project area, is ilie subjeet ofilie City of
CluHa Vista Sphere ofIBfllieB6e Update Study. The Study reeommended
that the Om)' Valley Pareel, iBellidiag the SP'^L ORe prejeet area, be
iRehlEiee in the Chula Vista Sphere oflnfluence. An ~plication to;-8:BEl
eveamally annexeS the SPA One prQject area. as well as other Omy
Ranch properties into the City of Chula Vista has been submitted to
LAFCO..
1-29 1st paragraph - A Sectional Planning Area Plan must be consistent with
the Otay Ranch General Development Plan ...
1-38 1st paragraph, 4th sentence - The <;lDP included 9.,7 acres ift cl
neighborhood park1and ... -- -
1 st paragraph, last sentence - ...reduced based on more precise grading
information 61:l1Teatly a~/ailaBle.
5th paragraph, 1 st sentence - Village One is located south of Telegraph
Canyon Road between the '.vestem preperty eage Paseo Ranchero and ...
1-45 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - Transition and separation between Villages
One and Five is accomplished through a 75 foot average buffer al2ni
1
l'th-' 'I
47
Page Revision
arterials from the major rea<< (La Meaia Road) dividing the villages.
1-46 Paragraph continued from previous page, last sentence - Single family
ami multi family resideatial8feas may be gated, if public pedestrian
aeeess is proviaea thrO\:lgoout the gated commtmity.
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - There are ~ l..Jli single family...
1-47 1st paragraph - ...defined architectural style; landscape theme;~.and
design ...
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - The Otay Ranch Sectional PI~ Area
(SP A) ~ Plan ...
I-53 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - ...planned interchange of SR-125 and
Telegmph Caayea Roaa Omy Lakes Road.
I-54 1st paragraph, 4th sentence - The GDP included 6.6 acres fa ci
neighborhood 'park ...
I-55 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - Village Five is bounded on the north by
Telegraph CcmyeB Road/Otay Lakes Road...
1st paragraph, 5th sentence - Limited scenic values extend along
Telegrapa C~'eB Roaa Olay Lakes Road...
4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - The northern buffer is Telegraph Canyon
and Telegraph Ccmy8B R-eaa Otay Lakes Road.
I-56 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - The Otay Water District property, a portion
of EastLake Greens and ...
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence - Transition and separation between Villages
One and Five is accomplished through the use of a minimum 100 liJoot
avera~e set9aek buffer from the prime arterial, La Media Road, dividing
the villages.
3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - The Village Five core identity is based on a
traditional plea town SQJl3l'e design.. This ....i11 be implemented ...
3rd paragraph, last sentence - 8iBgle family and multi family residential
areas may Be gates, if pliBlie peaeskiaB aeeess is provided througho1:H the'
gated eeHUlNHlity.
I-57 2nd paragraph - ...transit/pedestrian orientation, a diverse ...
3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - ... a 10.0 acre elementary school site, a
town sQuare, two neighborhood parks...
1-68 Tasks Performed by Later SPAs -
Otay River Valley Riparian Habitat Restoration Plan Condition of
Later Approvals.
1-69 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...being allowed as an interim use including
speeiaeati8B5 fer buffering techniques...
4th paragraph, 1st sentence - Land utilized for agricultural activity~...
1-70 1st paragraph - (Appendices F9. A, B; C and D).
1-73 1st paragraph - areas within ~ SPA One project area...
1-77 6th paragraph, 2nd sentence - Otay Ranch SPA applications are required
to plea approximately locate light rail transit alignments a, iaeRtify
14- 1:> -~
19
Page Revision
transit stations leeations aaEi reserve Future tentative maps will be
conditioned for dedication of right-of-way for the light rail transit system.
1-78 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - ...and La Media will be signalized ~
future. as traffic requires.
1-81 1st paragraph, 4th sentence - The SP.^~ plan is reqtlired to identify the
light rail tnmsit aligmneftt, statien loeatien, and reserve the right of vIa)'
for the tiamiit line.
3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - The SPA One Land Use Plan and
I Circulation Plan provide for designation the approximate location of the
right-of-way at the SP.^... 8HEi~ tentative map ~ will be conditioned
for dedication of the ri2ht-of-way for the li2ht rail transit system. aaa
reservatieB ef.tBe Ri2ht-of-way will be reserved at the fmal map ml for
the trolley station and light rail transit ...
1-82 2nd paragraph, list of roads
Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road
1-86 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence - ...the village core to the arterial/major road,:,
v"ithin beth Villages OBe ami Five, Village EBtry Streets and contain the
right-of-way
1-90 1st paragraph, 4th sentence - It is iBtenaea that eCarts, bicycles and
automobiles m.u travel within ...
4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - Village Plaza Streets are used in villages
with plaza or town sQJlare themes (Village Five). Parking is prohibited
on Village Plaza Streets immediately adjacent to the Village Plaa
Square. It is iBteB<:ied that eCarts, bicycles and automobiles ~ travel
within ...
1-91 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence - Separate pedestrian, bike and cart ...
1-95 2nd bullet - Plan skelila stri~/e to retain the ekaraeter of the existing
laBafeml5 te the elaeftt feasiBle B)' f!~ela~ development to topography
and natural features. and strive to retain the character of the land forms to
the extent feasible.
1-97 5th paragraph, 1 st sentence - Pl'esemly Ilfreliminary soils and
geotechnical reports have been prepared...
5th paragraph, 2nd sentence - More refined studies will be provided at the
teBtative mal3 aRa final engineering stages of this project.
1-105 Add new 4th paragraph - The Otay Ranch GDP requires that applicants
prepare an Urban Run-off Plan for the first SPA within the draina2e area
of the Otay Reservotr. Otay Ranch SPA One does not drain into the Otay-
Reservoir draina2e basin. thus there is no requirement for additional Otay
Reservoir urban runoff plannin2 as a condition of this SPA.
4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...integrated solid waste management, arts
and cultural, ehila Gllfe, health and medical ...
5th paragraph, 1st sentence - FreEllleatly, ~Ithis chapter ...
5th paragraph, 2nd sentence - 8l3eeifieally, iEinancing and phasing...
3
1'1- D -lo~
41
Page Revision
1-111 Footnote 11 - ...Sphere ofInfluence EIR and related ...
Footnote 13 - This document has not been approved, but approval is
expected ...
1-112 7th paragraph, 3rd sentence - The iatent of tThe Otay Water District
intends is to provide ...
1-113 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - ...San Diego County Water Authority
(CW A), facilities planned by ~ CW A and ...
1-114 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...primarily residential development, the
emflRasis eftfte discussion!s-eft emphasizes urban water control devices.
1-116 1st paragraph, add to end - The Reclaimed Water Uses and Restrictions
Plan is addressed in the SAM? the Otay Water District Reclaimed Water
Master Plan. and the amy Water District Reclaimed Water Rules and
ReiUlations.
1-117 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - Eveamally, Otay Ranch may eventually be
required to oversize ...
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...constructed within the streets constructed
during Village One and Five development.
4th paragraph, add to last sentence - ...up to the 980 Zone to serve SEA
One.
1-126 6th paragraph, Ist sentence - ...will reduce post-development conditions..
4I2evelopment of this basin ...
1-141 6th paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...increase generated by SPA One will
require an additional ~ 21 officers ...
1-142 Paragraph continued from previous page -Approximately 5,112.5 sq. ft.
of police facilities would be required to house the additional ~ 21
officers.
1-145 Add to end of 2nd paragraph - Otay Ranch SPA One will be served by
existini CVFD fire facilities.
1-146 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - Since the vasel majority ...
1-147 iii. Municipal Fire Insurance
(PeBsmg) The City has determined that municipal fire insurance is not
feasible at this time.
Add to end of 1st paragraph - Otay Ranch SF A One will be served by
existini fire and emeriency service facilities.
1-150 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - Based on the methodol02Y in the GDP.
+1he SPA One project area ...
1-155 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - Prior to completing the applicaBtiQn, the - -
applicant must attend ...
1-168 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - ...Regional Purpose Facility land use
desi2llation.
1-177 11 th bullet - Shopping centers oriented to promote use ey cl mass transit
...
1-181 1st bullet - The SPA One project consists of two transit oriented villages
4
ItJ.b-le7
So
Page Revision
with a transit faeility station site included within theH: ~ core areas.
1-188 Footnote 28, 2nd sentence - ...shall be consistent with the policies and
programs contained in ~ revised housing element.
1-194 Add a new bullet - Consider the provision of affordable housin2
opportunities.
Part Two Index ofSPARequiiements . ./d ... ..
11-5 Community Gardens - Performance Village DesigR Plans Parks.
Recreation. Open Space and Trails Plan, Appendix B 12
11-10 Transportation Phasing Plans - Performance TraffiC;) :\Ralysis
Transportation Phasini Plan
Part Three Planned Community DistrictRegulations .. ..
III - 7 Last paragraph, 1st sentence - ...Otay Ranch SPA One Zoning District
Map (see Exhibit ~ llI:l)
III -16 Table 11I-2 - Agriculture crops, remove footnote from P (SF3) and P
(SF4).
III -1 7 Table III-2 - Other temporary uses as prescribed in Section ~ YJ.
III -19 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - The residential property development
standarcb have been developed ...
Footnote 8 - Second story ~ projectieft allov:able with-2' into the
required setback.
111-20 Change maximum square footage in table -
~~
~llM
~ 2.100
1st paragraph - ...in accordance with the Chula Vista Design Manual and
the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC1
111-21 1st paragraph - Refer to Temporary Use Section ~ YJ..
7th paragraph, 1 st sentence - ...predominately of trees, plant materials
shrubs, ground cover and ...
III - 22 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence - ...as follows in Table Y-4 ~...
111-33 Table, Lines 2-6 - in table under CPF column, change G-to N.
III -4 7 V.2 Unclassified Uses
B. Campgrounds: See CYMC Section 19.58.G8G M!l
111-48 F. Churches: See CVMC Section 19.58.G8G llil
H. ...See CYMC Section 19.58.Q8G..llil
III-69 Table III-8, 10th line - Churches... Minimum Off-Street Parking Required ~
column -
...1 space/45 square feet of gross floor area within the main auditorium
where ~ 1hm are no ...
III - 72 2. All landscaped parking lot islands shall have a minimum inside
dimension of three (3) five (5) feet ...
)\I~-,-i
Sf
Page Revision
III - 78 A. Purpose
The purpose of ~ Site Plan and Architectural Review and Design
Review approval is to review proposed projects to determine compliance
with the provisions of these regulations and the Villa~e Desi~n Plan and
to promote orderly and harmonious development with good design
character. Design review may be concurrent with site plan review aHhe
~licaf1t's risk.
2nd paragraph
B. .^.pplieatioa Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures
~ this site plan and architectural review approval process fs applicable
to prajeets withiB RMJ, R142, and C districts. In addition, all attached
resic:leatial ar aBY eemmereial projects shall require design review
appraval. for sin~le family detached units on lots of or exceedin~ an
averaie size of 3.000 square feet. includin~ all proposals in the SF3 and
SF4 zone desilP1ations which have tentative subdivision map approval.
shall be a staff level review associated with the buildin~ permit process.
All proposals shall be consistent with the Planned Community District
Re~lations. Villaie DesilP1 Plan and the Chula Vista Desi~n Manual.
All staff decisions may be appealed to the Zonin~ Administrator and all
Zonini Administrator decisions may be a,ppealed to the Desi~n Review
Committee.
3rd p~-aph Speeial aensiaemtiea is gh'ea to areas '.vithin the village
aores. These 8:feas shall Fe~ a precise plaa; refer to Sectioll IlLS
C. Design Review Procedure
The DesilP1 Review Approval Process procedures shall be as specified
described in Section 19.14.~m through Section 19.14.~Q.ilil
(inclusive) of the CVMC is lWplicable to all proposals within RMl. RM2
and C zone desiinations.
D. Precise Plan
Special consideration is ~ven to areas within the villaie cores. Approval
of a precise plan will be reQJ1ired as described in Section 19.14.570
throuih Section 19.14.580 (inclusive) of the CVMC. Section IlLS of
SP A One also discusses this reQJ1irement.
VIllA. Scenic Corridor Criteria
Add - - f-
4. Walls
45,. Signs
~. Utilities
III - 79 last paragraph, 2nd sentence - In the event eft Qf conflicting standards ...
6
14 b--'7
5).
Sectional Planning Area One Plan Errata
(October 27,1995 Version)
Page Revision
:i:~m~~~~~::m:;!~,I!~~j:~!ii~~~~J:~~~l~@~;;:;:U\H;:)~:(:ij~J;::><;.;?!Y';;::, ;:~;.;:: ;:.:;:~: :;~:;.::~::,:;::
::. ':"':'..~.,:..:.' .:.. ..
III -18 Table ill-3, 17th line - Distance Between detached Units, underRMI SPl
Detached alley product shall maintain an 8 foot minimum and 12 foot
~verage side yard setback for zero lot line OToducts.
1II-20 Table, 3rd line - RMl1 The floor area ratio for alIeN product to be
~termined during Site Plan Review.
III - 23 2nd paragraph - In the RM Districts. including the converslon of
apartments to condominiums where permitted. the following f)Crformonce
standards shall be met:
Add new text -
VlL DesiiJl standards shall he required which specify limitations on
p::'ltio strnctures. room additions and other modifications to the projec.t..
IDOtay\SP Al \Errata2.doc
4/2.4/96
14.b- ~
53
Village Design Plan Errata
(November 9, 1995 Version)
Page Revision
Part One Village Design Plan Framework
Universal Edit - The Otay Ranch L.P. Village Development
1-4 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - Parts Two and Three of this document,
which contain the Village Design Plans for Villages One and Five, i5 ~
..,
1-7 3rd paragraph, second sentence - Single family detached residential JIeas
'.'lith lots 3,000 sq. ft. or larger in any residential district may use the
tentative tract map '.':ith typical building elc':ations and typical building
locations on lots as a substitute for elevations and siting of all buildings.
1 -15 2nd paragraph, 1 st sentence - Each village is planned to facilitate
alternatem methods modes of transportation.
1-19 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence - Where feasible, the park~ should be ...
1-20 2nd paragraph - ...shall be a minimum of25 acres.. and offer ...
1-21 1 st paragraph, 5th sentence - In addition to this development frame'l.ark,
tIhis chapter ~ identifies an ...
1-22 1 st paragraph, 1 st sentence - The Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan fuf
Otay Ranch ...
1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - It serves us a design context for the more
detailed Village Design Plans
1 st paragraph, 3rd sentence - The excerpts from the Overall Design Plan
provided below also help !Q establish the design approach/philosophy
which is to be implemented at the village level through this Village
Design Plan~.
1-24 Make graphics larger to improve legibility.
1-25 1 st bullet - Where grading for roads or development occurs in any of the
defined scenic corridors, contours should be carefully modulated and
softened.. toe blending with ...
1-26 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - correct punctuation.
1-27 1 st paragraph, last sentence - correct punctuation.
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - In addition to its:thcir mobility function ...
2nd paragraph, 3rd paragraph - The following descriptions of village
streets.. along with the plan and section drawings.. identify ...
1-28 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - Village Core streets are be urban ...
1-29 1 st paragraph - The key elements of a Village Core sStreet are:
3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - The Village Main StreetIPlaza Street
streetscape creates an urban atmosphere ~ support~ an...
1-30 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence - ...patterns with a larger walkway witH-a and
H:\Otay\Design\ VDP\Errata.doc
4/2/96
I \f J) ...... 71
/C
Page Revision
a double row of trees...
1-34 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - This chapter addresses guidelines for this
type of development, while identifying supporting policies ...
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence - ...these guidelines are intended to direct the
context ...
3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - A "walkable" environment is tfle key ~
to the concept.
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - Pedestrian oriented development seel~s to
brings many...
1-41 1 st bullet, 2nd sentence - ...public buildings ~ such as a town hall,
community building, recreation facility, post office or library}.
1-44 3rd paragraph - Commercial building heights in the Village Core must be
compatible with the heights of adjacent uses.
1-45 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - A mix of housing densities, ownership
patterns, prices and building types ...
1-46 continued paragraph from previous page - Setbacks reduced to zero may
be appropriate for special desi~ns stron~ly oriented to the street. subject
to Fire Marshal approval, for special designs strong oriented to the street.
1-47 1st paragraph continued from 1-46 - A setback from the front building
facade of 2 1/2 feet or ~reater is encouraged for a front garage.
3rd paragraph - "Hollywood" style driveways with a landscaped median
are stron~ly encouraged ...
1-49 2nd paragraph, 1 st sentence - Parks should be developed throughout the
village to meet the City of Chula Vista Park Land Dedication Ordinance.
as well as specific population needs.
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - Five to ten acre nei~hborhood parks ..
3rd paragraph, last sentence - Clear pedestrian access should be provided
from the green square or plaza ...
4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - Buildings should not randomly ge change
from ...
I-50 Park and Plaza/Square Design
2nd paragraph, 1 st sentence - Various types of parks and plazas squares
can be designed for a village to establish a:H nei~hborhood identity or
character for i.l neighborhood.
3rd paragraph - A generous amount of sunlight into the green square or
plaza is essential for people to want to encoura~e the use and enjoyment
of the facility.
Park and Plaza/Square Landscaping
5th paragraph, 1 st sentence - Park and plaza/square landscaping should
provide trees and plants that ~ ~ ...
6th paragraph 1st sentence - Because parks and plazas/squares are ...
I-51 4th paragraph, 1 st sentence - School sites and larger neighborhood parks
(over 12 acres), because of the size WId impact, should generally be
H:\Otay\Design\ VDP\Errata.doc
4/2/96
2
?/
l'f])- 7~
Page Revision
located near the edge of the Village Core or within the Secondary Area
because of their size and impact.
5th paragraph, add new sentence to the end of the paragraph - Pedestrian
and bike routes should connect the two along the shortest possible route.
I-52 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - ~ Qn wider, busier streets, the feeling of
safety for pedestrians can be enhanced by the planting ef trees along the
curb line.
4th paragraph, 4th sentence - +he Automobile parking of cars along the
curb can help te create a safer pedestrian feeling.
4th paragraph, 6th sentence - Narrower streets also reduce energy use and
materials for construction, reduce materials and reduce reflected summer
heat.
I-53 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence - A series of pfromenade sStreets ...
3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - Promenade sStreets should form...
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - On street parking should be provided..
Wffi!e dDriveway cuts should be minimized ...
I-58 1 st paragraph, 3rd paragraph - Primary pedestrian routes and bikeWttf5
lanes should be bordered...
I-59 4th paragraph, 1st sentence - A coordinated system of bikeways ~ ...
1-62 1st bullet, 3rd sentence - Rather& community-serving ...
1-65 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence - Parking lots should be landscaped with
trees to break-up the mass oflarger lots and pro':ide shade the lot...
1-67 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence - ..."Design Manual" which addresses these
issues in a manner illld...is applicable to new development ...
1-72 1 st paragraph, 5th sentence - Signage is also more invol','ed elaborate
because ...
2nd paragraph, 1 st sentence - Where access is controlled, such as a gated-
guarded ...
1-73 2nd paragraph I st sentence - Beyond providing the number of parking
spaces required,...
1-80 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - ...development project or parcel& while the
more typical...
1-82 I st paragraph, 1 st sentence - A sSpecial intersection design
considerations...
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence - All intersections. of Promenade Streets (core
and residential) with Village Entry and Core Streets. shall ...
1-84 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence - Typically, non-automobile routes parallel
automobile oriented streets wffiefi leadin& from the garage to destinations
wffiefi and provideing parking lots for automobiles.
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - add punctuation.
2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence - ... bicycle and cart traffic through the end
of the cul-de-sac ...
2nd paragraph, 4th sentence - The open cul-de-sac can provide direct
H:\Otay\Design\ VDP\Errata.doc
4/2/96
3
) 'fJ:>- 73
?,f
Page Revision
access to the pfromenade sStreeta ef Paseo, te and..open space, or merely
. ..
2nd paragraph, 5th sentence - ...both internally and as perceived from the
outside through the "windows" provided created through ...
2nd paragraph, add to the end - Special desi2ns shall be considered \vhich
permit access even in situations were sound wall conditions are present.
1-85 Add open cul-de-sac with off-set sound wall graphic
1-86 In terms of vehicle pa:rbng facilities, carts can utilize automobile parking
spaces.
Add 2nd sentence - Carts may utilize automobile parking spaces.
1-87 Delete pilaster from graphic.
1st paragraph, 1st sentence - The interface between uses or "edges" are ~
extremely important in creating harmony in community design.
2nd paragraph, 1st sentence - ...village development areas (see alse
Overall Design Plan).
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - These are primarily slope areas and
canyons located between development parcels villages.
1-90 2nd paragraph, 1 st sentence - Where down slope conditions to residential
uses is are unavoidable ...
1-94 1 st paragraph, 3rd sentence - correct punctuation at the end
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - Such projects should have increased ...
1-95 1 st paragraph, 7th sentence - Stairwells should be integrated into the
overall building design,... pfrivate spaces such as patios or balconies are
encouraged for each unit. Another design consideration is the need to
ffiHfef gQroup parking areas should be buffered from the street and
adjacent properties.
1-102 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - A specific sign program will be established
at the Precise Plan level for the commercial areas within the Village Core
at the Precise Plan level.
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence - As with signs, a theme lighting program
will be utilized implemented in the commercial...
1-103 5th bullet - Compatible with the nature, character and design of the area
in which they are located... and ':/rnch are
. aAppropriate to the type of activity they are identifying.
I-I 04 Delete first "....."
1-107 2nd paragraph, 1 st sentence - ...are considered and reflected in the
development plans..
4th paragraph, 1 st sentence - ...designing and building safer communities
and to create "livable communities."
1-108 Add punctuation to bullets.
Last paragraph - Security guards or police provide organized strategies
for surveillance and access control but are labor-intensive and can be cost
prohibitive e~{pensiYe.
H: \Otay\Des ign\ VDP\Errata.doc
4/2/96
4
1'1-1)- ;If
/3
Page Revision
1-113 2nd paragraph, last sentence ...including theaters, .a library ...
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...physical proximity to the ll...S..LMexicQaH
international border.
1-114 1st paragraph - The following guidelines apply to siting and design Qf
village multi-use facilities:
1-116 Capitalize 1 st word on each bullet
1-117 Insert spacing between 2nd & 3rd bullet
1-118 2nd bullet - Other sites for consideration are along major pedestrian ways
such as paseos or trail head/staging areas entering open space or major
parks should be considered.
1-120 1 st paragraph - This chapter specifically address~ Village Core design...
3 rd paragraph, 1 st sentence - Because of its importance, size and
diversity of uses, coordinated and comprehensive planning for the
Village Core as a '""hole must occur.
3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - In order to move forward with efthe
Village Design Plans ...
1-121 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence It also depicts typical building character,
scale and proportion, massing and materials through conceptual
elevations.
2nd paragraph, last sentence - or a Master Precise Plan from the
perspcctiye ef:fur the entire Village Core as a whole.
3rd paragraph - The fe€.Hs ef.tfte Village Core is-tfle commercial core or
mixed use area 'Nhich is the heart of the village. The GDP specifies that
each Village Design Plan will delineate the intended village form (i.e.
main street. town square) village ':;ill emulate the form of either a "town
square" or main street.
4th paragraph, 1st sentence - Both Main Street and Town Square village
forms for village cores ...
1-122 5th bullet - ...weather protection and.a sense of enclosure...
1-124 1st bullet - A..Town Square plaz:afpark ranging in size from 1 to 3 acresA
surrounded by streets. ~ The town square ~ area is well defined
..
2nd bullet, add to end of sentence within ( ) -1Q1JQ1
3rd bullet - ...speeds and volumes fronting commercial buildin~ on the
square.
7th bullet - ...weather protection and.a sense of enclosure...
9th bullet - Landmark or taller building elements should l?e located at the
corner sites, or used to identify focal points..
1-126 1 st paragraph, last sentence - Accents in color, texture or pattern changes
should be used to provide interest and provide scale.
1-130 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence - ...graphics and signs are coordinated with
each other and contribute...
4th paragraph, 1 st sentence - ...deve10ped as part of the Master Precise
. H:\Otay\Design\VDP\Errata.doc
4/2/96
5
~~
Jlf.J) - ~
Page Revision
Plan submittal.
4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...compatible and part of the commercial
district architecturai style for the commercial district.
4th paragraph, 3rd sentence - Signs associated with the identification of
tlhe community trail system and afleillary villa~e pathway ~ should
be designed as part of the overall streetscape vocabulary plan e.f fur site
furnishings, lighting standards and special hardscape materials.
Part Two Village One Design Plan
II-I 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - ..Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch G-Q-P.
area-and roughly...
2nd paragraph, 1 st sentence - .. between the western Ota)' Ranch property
edge Paseo Ranchero and the planned extension of La Media Road.
II-6 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence - ..includes medium-high density residential
units, and elementary school site,...
3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - The surrounding Secondary Area includes a
range of single family housing homes and parks.
III-7 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence - The theme is consistent with the ranching...
2nd paragraph, last sentence - ...location, landscape and high visibility
buildings to make a combined statement...
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...commercial and civic buildings at in the
Village Core...
3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - ~ ~ore and secondary residential uses
would complement the theme must be less strict in its execution
interpretation.. .
III-8 5th bullet - Windows, entries and door should vary in sizea shape and
detail.
6th bullet - ...to provide second floor connections to other buildings by
through the use of bridges.
II-9 1st bullet, 1st sentence - ...required in all buildings within an individual
Core area or complex.
1 st bullet, 2nd sentence - These elements should be identified at the
Master Precise Plan stage.
1 st bullet, 3rd sentence - ...neighbors but it should address...
1st bullet, 4th sentence - ...more distinctive elements:
II-20 2nd sentence ...bring a sense of open space and therefore transition the
character...
II-23 2nd paragraph - Note: Final Eucalyptus selection subject to Fire
Marshall approval.
II-24 1 st paragraph - A planting zone adjacent to and. incorporating ...
II-26 1 st sentence - add punctuation
11-27 2nd paragraph, 1 st sentence - Stone markers, low walls and orderly
landscape pattems provide identity...
II-37 1 st paragraph, last sentence - Broadleaf e'lergreen and deciduous trees are
H:\Otay\Design\ VDP\Errata.doc
4/2/96
6
Iff]) - ~
7S-
Page Revision
permitted.
Add approved tree list.
II-38 The development of a non-vehicular circulation system is a key
in;redient component ffi ill the SPA One Plan.
II -4 1 1 st paragraph, 5th sentence - This corridor is expected to be ~ most
heavily used ,..
2nd bullet - 10' wide cart path with 5' wide sidewalk (south side) ~
Village Pathway)
II -4 2 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...will have integral color, a special texture
and a more intricate scoring pattern.
II -4 3 1st sentence - ,..on-street anglesd parking and pedestrian...
II -45 2nd sentence add to end (Condition A),
3rd sentence add to end (Condition B).
II -49 Missing symbol top right of page.
1st paragraph, 1st sentence - ...recreation facilities near residence homes
in the eastern portion of the village.
II-50 1 st paragraph, 4th sentence - ...unique character appropriate to the
community nei~hborhood it serves.
Delete COND, B from graphic.
II-54 1 st paragraph, 4th sentence - ...monuments, provide eH the first built
images depicting the character of the :V:yillage.
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - Theme walls and fences are used at
exposed rear and side yeaf5 ~ as a visual barrier.
II-56 Add to graphic Optional Plexiglas Panels
Revise graphic to show pilaster off-sets variation.
II-57 1 st paragraph, 1 st sentence - The village lighting design guideline
concept is geared to focuses on the quality of light along ...
1st paragraph, 4th sentence - ...be manufactured of high quality material~
which is ~ visually pleasing.
4th paragraph, 1 st sentence - Ballfield and tennis court lighting is
intended for field/~ illumination for organized sports to facilitate
night time use of facilities.
II-59 1st paragraph - East Orange Avenue is a 6 lane major road through Otay
Ranch located alon2 the southern ed2e ofVilla2e One.
II -60 Ranch Theme Street (Pas eo Ranchero, La Medial
add punctuation to last line
II -61 Add punctuation to end of 1 st paragraph.
II-62 1 st paragraph - Village Main Streets are characterized by two lane roads
adjacent to pedestrian oriented commercial development. Diagonal
Angled on-street parking ...
II -65 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - Pedestrian scale, sidewalk oriented lighting
is encouraged.,.. The lighting should be similar to the Promenade Street
lighting concept.
H:\Otay\Design\ VDP\Errata.doc
4/2/96
7
?~
I '/.b -- 7 7
Page Revision
II-67 1 st paragraph, 3rd sentence - Certain parcels ha';e the There is an
opportunity on certain parcels for multiple and/or mixed-use
development.
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - Because of its importance to the overall
design character of the community ...
II -68 1 st paragraph - ... within the Village Core concept will be utilized
established.
2nd paragraph, last two sentences - "^Jl architectural style is also
conceptualized for the core. The ':illage structure landscape and
hardscape palette have also been established, creating the conte~ct within
which the building design on each site must be formulated.
II -69 1 st paragraph, 1 st sentence - ...Core Master Plan, and Main Street
Concept Plan are depicted in the following exhibits.
1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...in response to changing market
conditions, the need for adaptability flexibility with regard to the Concept
Plan is recognized as essential.
1 st paragraph, last sentence - ...design and should not be viewed as the
only acceptable core design.
2nd paragraph, 1st sentence - ...plans will be prepared to analyze the
detailed specifications ...Conceptual building elevations will be provided
at the Master ~Precise ~flan stage.
II-76 3rd bullet - Reserve light rail transit ROWand a station site.
5th bullet - Utilize formal landscape and hardscape schemes in the design
fef Q[ the Main Street commercial area.
2nd paragraph, add a period at the end of the paragraph.
II - 77 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence - The CPF-3 site is included in the~
commercial area. In applying these guidelines, it should be remembered
that each of these parcels ...
II-78 Delete bullet after 3rd bullet ....
6th bullet, 2nd sentence - The Park (P-l) should be provide ...
II-79 5th bullet - ...should relate to the pedestrian scale.. ~ aArchitectural
accent lighting is encouraged.
6th bullet - Illumination of walkway/trail connections should be provided
~throu~h the use of...
II -80 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence - The design district relates primarily to the
Park (P-l) and the CPF-l site located at eaeb opposite ends of the Main
Street ...
II-81 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - A Master Precise Plan shall be prepared
concurrent with the development of the first neighborhood multi-family
or commercial area...
1 st paragraph, last sentence - If necessary, the individual precise plans
will provide an even greater level of speeifie detail.
II-82 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - Significant setbacks are provided to respect
H: \Otay\Design\ VD P\Errata.doc
4/2/96
8
) 'iT) -;tJfJ'
?7'
Page Revision
natural habitat and provide the ability to undulateing graded slopes.
Village One is designed to provide direct vehicular, transit, pedestrian
and cart linkages to Village Five directly to the east. Access to the
Village Five core is simple and direct from all portions of Village One,
via the Village Entry Street '.'lhich extends the length of Village One and
through the Village five Core. Villa2e One is linked to Villa~e Five via
East Palomar Street and the Villa~e Pathway. Views to the northeast and
east are capitalized upon enhanced by providing the through cuI de sac
design ','lith passive viewing areas...
II -83 Paragraph continued from previous page, 1 st sentence - The light rail
transit line is sensitively integrated into the community through its
placement within a the East Palomar Street median location.
3rd paragraph - Detailed SPA level planning at the sr,'\. level for the area
west of Paseo Ranchero has been deferred. When such planning is
completed, it will address the transition issue. as well as along with slope
preservation ...
II-84 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - Diagonal Angled parking is provided in
front of the stores~ with the majority of parking located to the rear of
buildings.
3rd paragraph - Right of , ,'lay f-or transit shall be reserved at the sr,'\. level
and irrevocably offered for dedication at the Tentati';e Map level. .L.igb1
rail transit line rights-of-way shall be approximately located at the SPA
level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level.
5th paragraph - ~ Village One ~ contains the minimum number of
village core units per the GDP.
6th paragraph - A transit trolley stop and/or station shall be reserved
approximately located in the village core at the SPA level and irrevocably
offered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level.
7th paragraph - A transit trolley step station is identified in the form of a
median station location adjacent to the main street commercial ~
9th paragraph - Specific services will be subject to future marketing
studies at the time of the village core implementation, however, sufficient
commercial land and community purpose facility land exists to provide
services to these areas outside the village~ core should this be desirable.
II-85 4th paragraph - This habitat-is has. be~ing studied ~ in the Phase 2
Resource Management Plan and will be ~ subject te Q[future SPA level
studies for the area west of Pas eo Ranchero.
6th paragraph - The natural open space character is maintained along
Poggi Canyon consistent with the GDP and the concepts in the Overall
Design Plan.
II-86 1 st paragraph - One hundred to 700 foot setbacks are provided along the
scenic corridors to assure consistency with the GDP and Overall Ranch
Design Plan.
H:\Otay\Design\ VDP\Errata.doc
4/2/96
9
JY:.b - 7f
?iT
Page Revision
3rd paragraph - The visual analysis at key points along the Telegraph
Canyon Road corridor is included in the SPA One Environmental Impact
Report.
5th paragraph - ...consistent with the GDP and Overall Ranch Design
Plan.
7th paragraph - AH Transit aAlignment sS.tudy for the transit is included
en in the SPA ~ P.ffiH Land Use Plan.
I1-87 1 st paragraph, 1 st sentence - This chapter provides detailed guid:mce
guidelines for the development...
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence - Development is required to cert:lin conform
liLminimum. ..
1st paragraph, last sentence - For eaoh plar.ning area, a A-design
summary checklist along with and a site design graphic for each planning
ill1d! is provided in this chapter.
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - Compliance with the adopted standards
provide~ a design foundation...
2nd paragraph, last sentence - The applicable PC development stand:lrds
are summarized in the following table.
11-88 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - For purposed of design guidance, each
parcel within the SPA One ...
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - The PC District Regulations and these .,.
II -91 3rd paragraph, 1 st sentence - Identifies development edge where a
smooth transition should be achieved where in response to a change in
use or ownership occurs.
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...on both sides of edge, and/ofr
placement...
11-94 3rd paragraph - Identifies connection points for pedestrian and/or bicycle
paths to community or regional paths 1rnils..
11-95 Add symbol for "Town Center"
Part Three VilIageFive Design Plandi .>>d ...... .
...
III -1 1 st paragraph - The SPA One project area is located within the Otay
Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch GDP area ...
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - delete hyphen between light rail
4th paragraph, 1st sentence - Limited scenic views extend to Village Five
from aleHg Telegraph Canyon Road...
111-2 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence - ...and the Telegraph Canyon SPA Estates
and EastLake Greens projects. Two reservoir site~ out parcels owned by
...
3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - Preserve open space areas within the
Village Five will slliToood residential The preservation of open space
along Village Five's edges directs neighborhoods, public improvements
and amenities, creating in:tQ..a well defined community.
III - 7 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - This theme is consistent with the ranchffig
H:\Otay\Design\ VDP\Erratadoc
4/2/96
10
Jl/J:y ~O
?;Jl
Page Revision
and agrarian images described in the Overall Design Plan.
2nd paragraph, last sentence - ...high visibility buildings to make a
combined statement greater than the individual elements.
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...intensive uses, commercial and civic
buildings at in the Village Core,...
III-8 Top of page - ...complement the theme but be less strict in i-t5 execution
interpretation.. .
Last bullet - Windows, entries and doors should vary in size. shape and
detail.
III-9 1 st bullet - ...to provide second floor connections to other buildings By
through the use of bridges.
2nd bullet, 1st sentence - Certain standardized architectural elements
should be required in all buildings within an individual Core area or
complex. These elements should be identified at the Master rfrecise
rflan stage.
2nd bullet, 4th sentence - ...share one or more distinctive elements:...
1II-20 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...sense of open space and therefore
transition the character and setting ...
1II-22 2nd paragraph - Note: Final Eucalyptus selection subject to Fire
Marshall approval.
III-23 1 st paragraph - A planting zone adjacent to and incorporating ...
III-26 1 st sentence - add punctuation
III-27 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence - Stone markers, low walls and orderly
landscape patterns provide identity...
III-34 This entry is both the Village Entry and a Ranch corner marketr Effie-.te
their proximity. A stone monument and the extension of the street tree
onto this road denotes the point of entrance as will the extension of the
street three of the entry road with is a Secondary Entry Street.
III-38 1 st paragraph, 4th sentence - This street is lined with tall palms ...
III-39 1st paragraph, 4th sentence - To provide a pedestrian scale and help
nullify neutralize the presence ...
Add Accent tree choices
III -41 1 st paragraph, last sentence - Broadleaf evergreen and deciduous trees Oi"e
permitted.
Add approved street tree list.
III-42 The development of a non-vehicular circulation system is a key
ingredient component ia 9.f the SPA One Plan.
III -45 1 st paragraph, 5th sentence - This corridor is expected to be ~ most
heavily used ...
2nd bullet - 10' wide cart path with 5' wide sidewalk (south side) ~
Village Pathway)
III -46 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...will have integral color, a special texture
and fl more intricate scoring pattern.
H:\Otay\Design\ VDP\Errata.doc
4/2/96
11
c;6C
)~])--<il
Page Revision
III -4 7 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - Village Plaza Streets te promote the urban
village theme with on-street diagonal an~led parking...
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence - The Village Plaza Street focuses Q!l the
urban ...
1 st paragraph, 4th sentence - Broad pedestrian walks are located adjacent
to diagonal angled on-street parking.
III -4 8 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence - The Core Promenade contains a 6'
hardscape parkway.. fwith tree well ...
III -49 2nd sentence add to end (Condition A).
3rd sentence add to end (Condition B).
III-54 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - This park site has a link to the village to\\ 11
square ...
2nd paragraph - ...will have access to the outdoor turf areas...
Add - Location: North of East Palomar Street adiacent to the Village
Five School Site.
III - 5 6 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...commercia1 functions at the edges of the
park.
Delete ~ on graphic.
III - 57 Delete "COND. B" on graphic.
III -61 1 st paragraph, 3rd sentence - Perimeter walls, along with entry
monuments, provide efl the first built image...
1II-64 1 st paragraph, 1 st sentence - The village lighting design guideline
concept is geared to focuses on the quality oflight along ...
I st paragraph, 4th sentence - ...be manufactured of high quality material~
which is ~ visually pleasing.
4th paragraph, 1 st sentence - Ballfield and tennis court lighting is
intended for field/~ illumination for organized sports to facilitate
night time use of facilities.
III -66 1st paragraph - East Orange Avenue is a 6 lane major road throuf;h Otay
Ranch located along the southern edge of ViII age Five.
III -67 Ranch Theme Street (Paseo Ranchero, La Media)
III -68 Add punctuation to the end of the paragraph.
III-69 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - Diagonal Angled on-street parking...
1II-72 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - Pedestrian scale, sidewalk oriented lighting
is encouraged~.. The lighting should be similar to the Promenade Street
lighting concept.
III-74 1 st paragraph, 3rd sentence - Certain pareels have the There is an
opportunity on certain parcels for multiple and/or mixed-use
development.
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - Because of its importance to the overall
design character of the community ...
4th bullet - Implement a "Town Square"~ concept for the
commercial core.
H:\Otay\Design\ VDP\Errata.doc
4/2/96
12
I J~ l::>~ S-~
q;-/
Page Revision
6th bullet - ...pedestrian oriented urban design concept and which is
consistent with the community character.
III-75 I st paragraph - .., Village Core concept will be utilized established.
2nd paragraph, last two sentences - .'\11 LH'chitectural style is ~lso
conceptualized for the core LH'ea, as illustrated in the Conceptual Buildin;
Elevations. The village strueture landscape and hardscape palettes h~':e
also been established, creating the context within which the building
design on each site must be formulated.
4th paragraph - ...Core Master Plan, and "Town Square" Concept Plan...
III-76 top of page - ...in response to changing market conditions, the need for
adaptability flexibility with regard to the Concept Plan...
I st paragraph, I st sentence - ...plans will be prepared to analyze H:l:e
detailed specifications...
I st paragraph, 2nd sentence - Conceptual building elevations will be
provided at the Master pfrecise pflan stage.
III -81 2nd bullet - Preserve light rail transit ROWand g station site.
III -82 1 st paragraph, 5th sentence - ...or angled parking are te-6e accommodated
in the frontage street.
1 st paragraph, 6th sentence - The character of these streets is te--be
defined by the subordinated vehicle activity...
III -83 1st paragraph - In general A the exterior elevations...
III -87 3rd bullet, 2nd sentence - ...these sites will be somewhat less formal than
the town square commercial LH'ea. The chLH'acter of interior LH'eas may be
less formal consistent '.'lith 1Q provid~ffig a relaxing living environment.
III-88 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - ... with the development of first
neighborhood multi-family or commercial area within the Village Core...
1st paragraph, last sentence - ...will provide an even greater level of
specific detail.
III -89 last paragraph, 6th sentence - The transit line traverses the village ffi....a
street median location within the East Palomar Street median.
III -91 1st paragraph - delete - The follo':nng policies shall guide the design of
parks and opeFl spaces in ',Tillage five.
last paragraph - Right of way f{)r a Li~ht rail transit line ri~hts-of-way
shall be reserved approximately located at the SPA level and irrevocably
offered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level.
III-92 2nd paragraph - A transit trolley stop and/or station shall be reserved
approximately located at the SPA level and irrevocably offered will be
conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level.
III -93 1 st paragraph, 1 st sentence - This chapter provides detailed guidance
guidelines for ...
1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence - Development is required to certain conform
ill minimum property ...
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence -...by these design guidelines ffi and future
H: \Otay\Design\VDP\Errata.doc
412/96
13
J 't b-- 9~
c6;(
Page Revision
precise plans...
3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - For purposes of design guidance, each
parcel within the SPA One...
4th paragraph, 1st sentence - ...along with the PC District Regulations...
III-94 last sentence - ...with the approved PC District Regulations and this
Village Design Plan.
III-97 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - Identifies development edge where a
smooth transition should be achieved where in response to a change in
use or ownership occurs.
3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...on both sides of edge, and/ofr
placement...
III-I00 3rd paragraph - Identifies connection points for pedestrian and/or bicycle
paths to community or regional J*Hhs ttails...
H:\Otay\Design\ VDP\Errata.doc
4/2/96
14
)If J)-~Y
C63
.'". 't._J ... '.,.'
,',
-,
Village Design Plan Errata
(November 9, 1995 Version)
J
Page
l(>>llrt'I'W9
11-39
Revision
......'Y'iU~g~QD.epe$ig.JJ:),.~~( }(O:}..({::.....>............. ........i..........'............"'.' . ,,'"
Circulation -Non-Vehicular - add potential bus stops along E. Palomar
Street.
Third bullet - Urban Character/Architecture - Identification of
architectural style and key urban elements, includini the transit station
desi~.
..PartTJ11"ee'....,..... 'Y'iJ.ISlg~Jtiy~J>iigJ:l..~mll: .........:.:::.:......,:,...,',', ":...::'O:.}}....................:.:.:.:...........'..:..:..........,...............',
111-43 Circulation -Non-Vehicular - add potential bus stops along E. Palomar
Street.
Third bullet - Urban Character/Architecture - Identification of
architectural style and key urban elements, includioi the transit station
desi~.
11-81
111-88
H:\Otay\Design\ VDP\Errata2.doc
4/23/96
I'ti)-~
k'Llo':J.," +- J ""
ORDINANCE NO. ~6,?i./.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE OTA Y RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PCM 95-01B)
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 Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations are
intended to ensure that the SPA One Plan is prepared in accordance with the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP), to implement the City of Chula Vista General Plan for the
Eastern Territories, to promote the orderly planning and long term phased development of the
Otay Ranch GDP and to establish conditions which will enable the Otay Ranch SPA One to exist
in harmony within the community ("Project"), and;
WHEREAS, these Planned Community District Regulations are established pursuant to
Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 19.48 PC Planned Community
Zone, and are applicable to the Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan of the SPA Plan, and;
WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan project area includes all of Village Five and the portion
of Village One east of Paseo Ranchero. The SPA One Plan project area is comprised of
approximately 1,061.2 acres of land located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo
Ranchero and the future alignment of SR-125. The area west of Paseo Rancho has been
excluded from the 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 SPA One to be processed without the area west of Paseo
Ranchero, and;
WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan refines and implements the land plans, goals, objectives
and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on October 28,
1993, and amended on May 14, 1996, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project
and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and tenants
within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing,
) 4 D-I--I
Ordinance No.
Page 2
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, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted 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, this Second-tier EIR, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by
reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan
(GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as
their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program
EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula 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, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded
or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors
in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or
advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City
adopts the ordinance approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express
conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the
process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission 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,
pcm9501b.doc
III (>-1" ~
Ordinance No.
Page 3
1996, April 24, 1996 and May 1, 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, shall comprise the entire
record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the ordinance adopting the Planned Community
District Regulations for the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan finding that they are consistent
with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that the public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practice supports their approval and implementation.
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01 and Addendum, the Findings of
Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State
EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
VI. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the thirtieth day from its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
U^'- Y1~ .~
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
Gerald Jamriska, Special
Planing Projects Manager
A: \ccrs _ ord\pcm950lB.doc
pcm9501b.doc
JlI t:> - J- ~
RESOLUTION NO. Ii5J C6ft
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS
ON THE OTA Y 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 project area includes all of Village Five and the portion
of Village One east of Paseo Ranchero. The SPA One Plan project area is comprised of
approximately 1,061.2 acres of land located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo
Ranchero and the future alignment of SR-125 ("Project"). 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 Pas eo 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 SPA One to be processed without the area west of Paseo
Ranchero, and;
WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan refines and implements the land plans, goals, objectives
and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on October 28,
1993, and as amended on May 14, 1996, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project
and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and tenants
within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing,
I'-/D-~-I
Resolution No.
Page 2
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, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted 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, this Second-tier EIR, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by
reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan
(GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as
their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program
EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula 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, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded
or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors
in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely 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 referenced 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, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista on the SPA One, 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
pcm95 _ 01.doc
J LI D.. :2 - ~
Resolution No.
Page 3
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission 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 and May 1, 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, shall comprise the entire
record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01 and Addendum, the Findings of
Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State
EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
III. CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL
The City Council does hereby approve SPA One and associated documents subject to
paragraph IV of this Resolution and the conditions set forth in Attachment "D".
IV. PHASE TWO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVAL
The City Council does hereby approve 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
first tentative map approval for SPA One, to implement the terms of said Plan.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
pcm95 _ 01.doc
)tfD-~-3
Resolution No.
Page 4
A. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE OT A Y 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 SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA One Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain provisions and
requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The
Public Facilities Financing Plan specifies the public facilities required by Otay
Ranch, and also the regional facilities needed to serve it.
C. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with a grade-separated open space
buffer adjacent to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and
within the Otay Ranch Planning Area One, four neighborhood parks will be
located within the SPA One area to serve the project residents, and the project
will provide a wide range of housing types for all economic levels. A
comprehensive street network serves the project and provides for access to off-site
adjacent properties. The proposed plan closely follows all existing environmental
protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site impacts through the
provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch Environmental
Impact Report.
VI. 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
pcm95_0 1. doc
J'f~-~ 'f
Resolution No.
Page 5
forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the
Findings of Fact, Attachment II A II of this Resolution known as document number
_, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
B. 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 II A II to this Resolution
known as document number _, a copy of which is on file in the office of the
City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081 and CEQA 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 II A II to this Resolution
known as document number _, a copy of 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 II A 11 to this
Resolution known as document number _, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA 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 "B" of this Resolution known as document number _, a copy of
which is on 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
pcm95_0l.doc
1 '-It:>- k S
Resolution No.
Page 6
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 CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in
Attachment "C", known as document number _, 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.
VII. 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 filed with
the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. This document along with any documents
submitted to the decision makers shall comprise the record of proceedings for any
CEQA claims.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full.
IX. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and/or Applicants shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided, 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 document approval herein, that is not otherwise provided by state and federal law.
pcm95_0Ldoc
)If ~-:c ,
Resolution No.
Page 7
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Gerald Jamriska, Special Planning
Projects Manager
.~.~~
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
Attachments:
Attachment A: Findings of Fact
Attachment B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment C: Statement of Overriding Considerations
Attachment D: Conditions of Approval
pcm95 _ Ol.doc
1'1 D- ~ 7
ATTACHMENT D
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.
4) The Applicant acknowledges that the purpose of planned community zoning is to provide
for the orderly development of land under unified ownership or control. Applicant represents
to the City, that as of the date of this approval, SPA One is held under unified control by the
Applicant. Applicant agrees that if any portion of land within SPA One changes ownership in
a manner that the City determines in its sole discretion to represent a risk that the SPA One
Plan will not be implemented as approved, the City Council may take action such as, including
but not limited to, requiring an amendment to Village Five of the SPA One Plan and any of the
accompanying documents, denying subsequent development approvals and stopping the issuance
of building permits within Village Five of SPA One.
ENVIRONMENTAL
5) 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
Reporting Program (Exhibit -->.
6) The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Phase 2 Resource Management
Plan (RMP) as approved by City Council on
1
Il/~-~ -~
5/1196 PC conditions
5/9/96
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.
7) 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
8) 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.
STREET, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS
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 a 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
time, ("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.
2
fl.ID- ~ - f
5/1/96 PC conditions
5/9/96
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.
COMPARISON OF
OTA Y RANCH STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
TO
CITY STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
FOR DETERMINATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS TO BE UTILIZED IN
TENTATIVE MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN PREP ARA TION
FOR OTAY RANCH USE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
CLASSIFICATION OF CITY 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.
3
III ~ - 0.... -It)
5/1196 PC conditions
5/9/96
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.
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 1oo-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
4
Jl/D"~II
5/1/96 PC conditions
5/9/96
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)
21) 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 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/WILDLIFE PRESERVATION
General
23) The SPA One project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park Land Dedication
Ordinance (PLDO). 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
5
)'-/ b - ~-:--11t
5/1/96 PC conditions
5/9/96
residents) of the 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,OOO
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 for said PAD fees minus the City's cost of
processing and administering this 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.
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.
6
)'-11)- ~- 13
5/1196 PC conditions
5/9/96
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 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 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,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.
7
14 1:> ~ ~ -IY
5/1196 PC conditions
5/9/96
32) Community Parks
The applicant shall pay PAD fees for the Community Park based upon a formula of I 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.
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 I, 150th dwelling unit. Said relocation may
require an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan.
Notwithstanding that the community park requirement (1 acre/I,OOO 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,OOOth 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 of 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
8
III D - ~--15
5/1/96 PC conditions
5/9/96
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.
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 the Otay 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 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 final map.
9
1'-1 D.. ~-/~
5/1196 PC conditions
5/9/96
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 Mello
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 participate financially in proportion to other developers in a
collaborative study analyzing local park needs for the area east of the 1-805 Freeway prior to
approval of the first final map.
40) The applicant shall prepare a design study to determine the feasibility of providing grade
separated intersections for East Orange A venue 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 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) prior to approval of the first final map
within SPA One.
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 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 (LRT)
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
10
l4.b-~~'7
5/1196 PC conditions
5/9/96
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 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 2,5ooth residential building permit (750
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.
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 4,5ooth residential building permit
(1350 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.
a. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of Conditions 9, 14, 36, 37 and 41, the
. phrase "final map" shall include the final master map.
MISCELLANEOUS
11
Ittb-~-/~
5/1196 PC conditions
5/9/96
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 be 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 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.
12
)'-1 D .. ~-/9
5/1196 PC conditions
5/9/96
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 standard 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
13
)'1 t) - A.-c?/b
5/1/96 PC conditions
5/9/96
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 1,40lst 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 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 within the SPA Plan may be amended subject to approval by the
Planning Director and the City Engineer.
60) The Public Facilities Finance Plan shall be adhered to with improvements installed in
accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of
Chula Vista. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond
to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan adopted by the City. The City
Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to
warrant such a revision.
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 with 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 (19.09.090), 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.
14
J4f:>-~-~1
//
5/1/96 PC conditions
5/9/96
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:
i. 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.
ii. 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 lO(a) permit applicable to the
property.
69) 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.
15
}Lll:>- ~- ~~
- "----.....~.......~..,-~"..'.- ~~.,"~", ,',-
RESOLUTION NO.~~?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR
INDEMNIFICATION FOR ACTIONS TAKEN BY CITY
RELATED TO OTAY RANCH
WHEREAS, on October 28, 19993, the City approved an
application submitted by Otay for a general development plan for
the area commonly known as the Otay Ranch; and
WHEREAS, Otay has current applications with the City of
Chula vista for various approvals ("Current Applications for
Discretionary Approvals") related to the Otay Ranch, including but
not limited to certification of Final EIR 95-01, approval of the
sectional Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One"), Amendments to the
General Development Plan, Amendments to Chapters 19.47 and 19.48 of
the Municipal Code, and Prezoning of the certain parcels of Otay
Ranch Planning Areas One and Three, the Otay Ranch Property Tax
Agreement, approved by Resolution No. ; and
WHEREAS, the City is in the process of considering the
approval of the Current Applications for Discretionary Approvals;
and
WHEREAS, Baldwin Builders, a California Limited
Partnership, which owns property in the Otay Ranch, has filed a
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings in the Central District Court of
California Case Nos. ND95-1305-7RR and ND95-13058RR, and Tiger
Development Two, which also owns property in the Otay Ranch,
including in the territory of SPA One, are the named debtors in an
involuntary bankruptcy proceeding in the Central Court of
California (collectively referred to as the "Bankruptcy Cases"),
and
WHEREAS, it is in the pUblic's interest for City to
require The Baldwin Group to indemnify the City against the adverse
risks and costs of a violation of any automatic stay in force in
any of the bankruptcy cases to which Otay and/ or Baldwin are
parties, as a result of City's actions in considering the approval
of the current applications for discretionary approvals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE
City of Chula vista does
Indemnification for Actions
Ranch, a copy of which is on
as Document No.
IT RESOLVED the city Council of the
hereby approve an Agreement for
Taken by City Related to the Otay
file in the office of the City Clerk
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
vista is reby authorized and directed to execute said
e t for and n behalf of the City of Chula vista.
Bruce M. Boogaard,
C:\rs\baldwin.ind
JIf D-3-1
RESOLUTION No.~lt7
<,-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR
INDEMNIFICATION FOR ACTIONS TAKEN BY CITY
RELATED TO OTAY RANCH
WHEREAS, on October 28, 19993, the City approved an
application submitted by Otay for a general development plan for
the area commonly known as the Otay Ranch; and
WHEREAS, otay has current applications with the City of
Chula vista for various approvals ("Current Applications for
Discretionary Approvals") related to the Otay Ranch, including but
not limited to certification of Final EIR 95-01, approval of the
sectional Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One"), Amendments to the
General Development Plan, Amendments to Chapters 19.47 and 19.48 of
the Municipal Code, and Prezoning of the certain parcels of Otay
Ranch Planning Areas One and Three, the Otay Ranch Property Tax
Agreement, approved by Resolution No. ; and
WHEREAS, the City is in the process of considering the
approval of the Current Applications for Discretionary Approvals;
and
WHEREAS, Baldwin Builders, a California Limited
Partnership, which owns property in the Otay Ranch, has filed a
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings in the Central District Court of
California Case Nos. ND95-1305-7RR and ND95-13058RR, and Tiger
Development Two, which also owns property in the Otay Ranch,
including in the territory of SPA One, are the named debtors in an
involuntary bankruptcy proceeding in the Central Court of
California (collectively referred to as the "Bankruptcy Cases"),
and
WHEREAS, it is in the pUblic's interest for City to
require The Baldwin Group to indemnify the city against the adverse
risks and costs of a violation of any automatic stay in force in
any of the bankruptcy cases to which Otay and/or Baldwin are
parties, as a result of City's actions in considering the approval
of the current applications for discretionary approvals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE
City of Chula vista does
Indemnification for Actions
Ranch, a copy of which is on
as Document No.
IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
hereby approve an Agreement for
Taken by City Related to the Otay
file in the office of the City Clerk
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
vista is reby authorized and directed to execute said
e t for and n behalf of the City of Chula vista.
form by
Boogaard,
C:\rs\baldwin.ind
JIf D-3-(
Agreement for Indemnification
for Actions Taken by City Related to the Otay Ranch
THIS AGREEMENT, made May 14, 1996, for the purpose of
reference only and effective as of the date last executed by the
parties, is made between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a Chartered
municipal corporation of the State of California (" City" ), The Otay
Ranch, L.P. ("Otay"), a California limited partnership, and Village
Development ("Village"), a California limited partnershipll acting
on their own behalf and on behalf of various other Baldwin-related
entities they have been empowered to act as the agent for in the
securing of entitlements, Tiger Development Two ("Tiger"), a
California limited partnership, James Baldwin and Al Baldwin,
(Otay, Village, Tiger, James Baldwin and Al Baldwin may collec-
ti vely be referred to herein as "The Baldwin Group", and when doing
so in the context of a duty or obligation, shall constitute a joint
and several duty on each and everyone of said entities) and is
made with reference with the following facts:
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1993, the City approved an application
submitted by Otay for a general development plan for the area
commonly known as the Otay Ranch, and;
WHEREAS, Otay has current applications with the City of Chula
vista for various approvals ("Current Applications for Discretion-
ary Approvals") related to the Otay Ranch, including but not
limited to certification of Final EIR 95-01, approval of the
sectional P1lanning Area One Plan ("SPA One"), Amendments to the
General Development Plan, Amendments to Chapters 19.47 and 19.48 of
the Municipal Code, and Prezoning of the certain parcels of Otay
Ranch Planning Areas One and Three, the Otay Ranch Property Tax
Agreement, approved by Resolution No. , and the Otay Ranch
Landfill Agreement, approved by Resolution No. , and;
WHEREAS, the City is in the process of considering the
approval of the Current Applications for Discretionary Approvals,
and;
WHEREAS, Baldwin Builders, a California Limited Partnership,
which owns property in the Otay Ranch, has filed a Chapter 11
Bankruptcy proceeding in the Central District Court of California,
Case Nos. ND95-1305-7RR and ND95-13058RR, and Tiger Development
Two, which also owns propery in the Otay Ranch, including in the
territory of SPA One, are the named debtor(s) in an involuntary
bankruptcy proceeding in the Central Court of California (collec-
tively referred to as the "Bankruptcy Cases"), and;
1. Baldwin to verify that this is a funded partnership.
e:\indembld.wp
May 9, 1996
1
Page 1
Agreement for Indemnity
)4-D- ,-~
WHEREAS, creditors in the Bankruptcy Cases have alleged that
approval of the Current Applications for Discretionary Approvals
may constitute a violation of the rules, regulations and orders,
including the automatic stay order, of Bankruptcy laws and courts;
and,
WHEREAS, it is in the public's interest for City to require
The Baldwin Group to indemnify the City against the adverse risks
and costs of a violation of any automatic stay in force in any of
the bankruptcy cases to which Otay and/or Baldwin are parties, as
a result of City's actions in considering the approval of the
current applications for discretionary approvals, and;
WHEREAS, in addition to litigation arising from the Bankruptcy
Cases, various other third party claimants as well as The Baldwin
Group and other Baldwin related entities, themselves, may attempt
to legally contest the city's actions in approving all or any part
of the Current Applications for Discretionary Approvals including
but not limited to challenges to the EIR and related approvals,
Landfill Agreements, SPA One and related approvals; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the pUblic's best interest for City to
require Baldwin to indemnify, defend, consent to City's actions,
terms and conditions for all Current Applications for Discretionary
Approvals, waive any claims against the City, and covenant not to
sue the City; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
I. Warranties and Representations.
The Baldwin Group warrants and represents that at least Otay
Ranch, L.P. and James Baldwin and Al Baldwin have the financial
strength and solvency to be respond monetarily to the obligations
herein assumed by The Baldwin Group.
II. Third Party Claims.
A. Indemnity.
The Baldwin Group hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the
City, and each of its officers (including elected officials),
employees and agents ("Indemnitees") harmless from and against any
and all claims, suits, actions, or other proceedings to which the
Indemnitees are exposed ("Proceedings") and from and against any
and all losses, expenses, expenditures, costs, judgments, decrees,
and orders (including orders for the payment of attorney's fees and
costs) to which the Indemnitees are exposed or which the In-
demnitees have incurred ("Losses") relating to, caused by, or
resulting from the Indemnitee's preparations, review, approval or
e:\indembld.wp
May 9, 1996
2
Page 2
Agreement for Indemnity
JltD-3.=.3
implementation of each and all of the Current Applications for
Discretionary Approvals ("Indemnitee's Actions"), including, but
not limited to, (1) any and all Proceedings related to an alleged
violation of automatic stays that may apply in the existing
Bankruptcy Cases or future bankruptcies, or (2) aly and all
Proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the
decisions or determinations that the Indemnitees make in connection
with the approval of the Project, including but not limited to,
circulation and certifications of Environmental Impact Reports, and
the making of findings, approval of mitigation measures, approval
of a mitigation monitoring and reporting programs, and statement of
overriding considerations, or (3) any and all Proceedings contend-
ing that the Indemnitee's Actions constitute one or more incidences
of exercise of imminent domain, directly or inversely, or (4) and
and all Proceedings contending that the Indemnitee's Actions are
invalid as not roughly proportional to the impact of the develop-
ment, or (5) any and all Proceedings asserting any other theory
contesting or challenging the lawfulness or legality of the
Indemnitee's Actions.
B. Attorney's Fees and Costs.
The Indemnity herein contain includes (without limitation), as
a covered Loss, any and all attorneys fees and costs incurred by an
Indemnittee. In addition thereto, The Baldwin Group furthermore
promises to pay all of Indemnitee's attorney fees, expert witness
fees, and other costs incurred by an Indemnitee in connection with
defending any Proceeding which is covered by the Indemnity herein
contained, or which if the outcome of the Proceeding would produce
a Loss to an Indemnitee, the Loss would be covered by the Indemnity
herein contained, and to reimburse an Indemnitee for any court
costs, attorney's fees, awards and other litigation expenses which
it may be required to pay because of such decisions or determina-
tions.
C. Indemnitee's Option to Tender Defense.
At the option of each Indemnitee, an Indemnitee may tender the
defense of any covered Proceeding to any member of the Baldwin
Group, and upon doing so, the Baldwin Group agrees to defend at
their sole cost and expense, any such covered Proceeding.
Any Indemnitees exercising such option to tender a defense
shall reasonably cooperate in the defense of such action, which
duty to cooperate shall be subject to and limited by the following
terms:
a. Such Indemnitee shall notify at least one member of the
Baldwin Group promptly of any claims or actions of which it
becomes aware. Failure to do so shall not nullify the
e:\indembld.wp
May 9, 1996
3
Page 3
Agreement for Indemnity
}4D- 3-lf
duties herein contained to indemnify or defend the Indemni-
tee.
b. City shall, at the sole cost and expense of The Baldwin
Group, make, at a minimum, an appearance in the litigation,
and undertake or participate in the defense of any such
action, to the extent the City deems advisable but such
participation, or lack thereof, shall not The Baldwin Group
of any obligation imposed by this Agreenebt and shall not
require City, in so, participating in the action, to
interfere with the exercise of the City's business or
litigation judgment or discretion.
c. City shall reasonably cooperate with The Baldiwn Group
on the selection of special outside Counsel, but City shall
have the final choice.
c. City shall use good faith to keep litigation expenses
reasonable.
D. Settlement Discussions.
Any party shall have the right to initiate negotiations with
a claimant in a covered Proceeding to end litigation by settlement.
Each party has the duty to notify the other parties of settlement
negotiations, at the earliest possible stage, if the subject of
such negotiation involves a change in the scope, content or
conditions contained in the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, attendant EIR,
Findings of Fact, or mitigation measures, unless such party
believes in good faith that to do so may jeopardize the chances of
aChieving settlement, but if such notice is not given at the
commencement of settlement negotiations, as soon thereafter as
disclosure becomes feasible without risk of jeopardizing settlement
discussions.
E. Reservation of Governance Discretions.
The City shall retain sole authority to grant other or
different discretionary approvals made in connection with the Otay
Ranch SPA One Plan, or reach different findings, or otherwise
exercise its discretion. City, at The Baldwin Group's sole cost
and expense, shall consider any changes to its discretionary
approvals of the Project requested by Otay and Baldwin, or any
other changes the City deems appropriate or necessary to implement
the terms and conditions of a settlement reached between a third
party claimant and The Baldwin Group. Nothing herein shall
obligate the City to grant such change requests, a matter which is
solely reserved to City's discretion.
F. All the provisions and obligations of this Agreement are
e:\indembld.wp
May 9, 1996
4
Page 4
Agreement for Indemnity
)I.f D - 3-5
binding on The Baldwin Group jointly and severally, and their
successors in interest. The parties contemplate that this
instrument may, at the discretion of any party, be recorded in the
office of the County Recorder for the County of San Diego with the
Baldwin Group, and each of them, recognized as a Grantor.
III. Baldwin Claims
A. Warranties and Representations.
The Baldwin Group, including Tiger, warrants and represents
that they are aware of, and familiar with, all of the terms and
conditions the City proposes to impose on the Current Applications
for Discretionary Approvals or will become aware of and familiar
wi th all new or amended such terms and conditions ("Terms and
Conditions") .
B. Consent , Waiver, Covenant Not to Sue and Agreement to
Implement Terms and Conditions.
The Baldwin Group, including Tiger, consents to all such Terms
and Conditions currently proposed in written format and, unless
unequivocal written objection is delivered to the City Council at
or prior to the time the City Council grants all or any part of the
Current Application for Discretionary Approvals, The Baldwin Group
including Tiger consents and shall be deemed to have consented to
all such new or amended Terms and Conditions. The Baldwin Group
including Tiger further waives claims, actions and rights to
attack, set aside, void or annul any of the decisions, actions,
determinations or Terms and Conditions the City has made in
connection with the approval of the Project, including but not
limited to circulation and certifications of the Environmental
Impact Reports, the making of findings, approval of mitigation
measures, and approval of overriding considerations. This waiver
of claims applies to any and all of said Terms and Conditions as
they may appear in the final form of such Discretionary Approvals
unless, as provided, unequivocal written objection has been
provided to the City Council prior to the approval thereof. The
Baldwin Group, including Tiger furthermore covenants not to sue or
seek relief by writ or other special proceedings with regard to any
or all of said Terms and Conditions. The Baldwin Group, including
Tiger, furthermore covenants to implement all Terms and Conditions
according to the requirements therein stated.
IV. Baldwin Processing Accounts Outstanding.
The Baldwin Group, including Tiger, promises, that if the
applicant therefore has not done so earlier, to pay to City all
costs City has incurred for processing the Current Application for
Discretionary Approvals prior to the City's approval thereof, and,
e:\indembld.wp
May 9, 1996
5
Page 5
Agreement for Indemnity
I~ D- , - I-
as one of its several remedies for a breach hereon, City may, but
shall not be required to, withhold approvals of the Current
Application for Discretionary Approvals.
V. Nuisance Easements.
simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, The
Baldwin Group agrees to deliver, or to cause delivery by any entity
owned or controlled by any member of the Baldwin Group that owns a
fee interest in any property within a zone ("Buffer Zone") 1,000
foot distant from the exterior boundary of the Otay Sanitary
Landfill or Otay Annex Landfill, an easement ("Landfill Nuisance
Easement") in the form attached hereto as Exhibit
If and to the extent that any such portion of the property
which is the subject matter of the Landfill Nuisance Easement has
in the record title thereof, a lien or encumbrance superior
thereto, the Baldwin Group agrees to cause the removal of said lien
as soon as possible, but not later than prior to an incident of
default thereunder.
VI. Baldwin Group's Duties Run with the Land.
The parties agree that any and all duties and covenants of The
Baldwin Group herein contained are binding on their heirs,
successors and assigns. The parties futher agree that the covenant
not to sue and agreement to implement the Terms and Conditions
touches and concerns the land within the territory of Otay Ranch
SPA One, and are for the specific benefit of the City. The parties
agree that such covenant not to sue and agreement to implement the
Terms and Conditions runs with the land.
VII. City Consideration.
A. City agrees to process and continue to process, at the
sole cost and expense of the applicants therefore, the Current
Applications for Discretionary Approvals.
B. Nothing herein shall obligate City to approve the current
applications for discretionary approvals.
VIII. Miscellaneous.
A. The Baldwin Group understands and agrees that should any
action be taken to enjoin the approval of the Project, and at any
time prior the vesting of rights in such approvals either by the
substantial expenditure of funds as defined by the law of the State
of California, or by a Development Agreement between the parties
specifically reciting the fact and extent of vesting, the City
shall have the right to revoke, modify or suspend without cost or
e:\indembld.wp
May 9, 1996
6
Page 6
Agreement for Indemnity
/4.1)- 3-7
expense to the City, the approvals granted, including any subse-
quent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein.
B. The City is not certain that the provisions of Bankruptcy
Law providing for automatic stay of all actions taken against a
debtor or as an exercise of control of the property of the debtor
apply to all or any of the Current Application for Discretionary
Approvals. They will continue to evaluate their obligations to
seek such relief. This agreement shall be deemed voidable by The
Baldwin Group if the City institutes a petition for relief from
stay in the Tiger Development Two Bankruptcy Case.
C. In the event it becomes necessary for any party to
insti tute litigation to enforce any of the provisions of this
agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable
attorneys fees and costs in such amount as may be order by the
court.
e:\indembld.wp
May 9, 1996
7
Page 7
Agreement for Indemnity
)11 D- 3- cg
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto do hereby agree as of
the date indicated adjacent to their signature below.
Dated:
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Shirley Horton, Mayor
[attach acknowledgment]
ATTEST
Date
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Bruce M. Boogaard
city Attorney
Date:
THE OTAY RANCH, L.P.
Kim John Kilkenny
Vice President
Village Development,
By:
Tiger Development Two
By:
James Baldwin
Al Baldwin
e:\indembld.wp
May 9, 1996
8
Page 8
Agreement for Indemnity
}'tD- 3- 7
n
~
n
o
~
~
n
t=
~
~
~
(i
==
t;IIj
>
;
~
UI
I
I-"
01:0.
I
\C
'"
l
o
M
UlO
...... .....
~!S-
\DO
0"10
.....
0"1
~
(j
~.
"'Ij ....
5 e.
t:l. tt.
tx1g
= .
~[
. =
~OQ
~=r
ii g-
PI~
"'dii
~[
~~
ii ~
PI o.
"'Ije,
5 ....
t:l..g
. ~
"'dA
o ....
cto
e. g-
e,
(jtl
o 0
~. a
tIl tIl
fa. ,a
g. 'g
tIl ~
~ "'d
i [
o~
~
tt.
o
?
t""'tx1
~~
~ ~~
=
I
~
=
I
~
"d
nt""'tx1
N=~
~Efo
~o::!.
..... = '<
"d
n
>t""'tIl
\Og~
O\l-jO
~o::!.
w ='<
~~~~~~;o~~
;:l.N"O"O ~ ~ ~o 1:1
!:l Cfd d S tt.oo'S 1:1
=-=)<!<:==o tD
~ 0 ....0.... .... ~ =-
o ;;, ~ ;.d: 0- g- :> n
..-....octO ;. 6=
>N~"'d o~oEl
- o' 0'1 ~ "'d !;; = EI
~ ii 0 ~ (j ~. a Ii
= ~ ~ e. N.... 0 ~
o = 0 = o' ~ = ~
t:l.\OOQ =~....
;.~o o(jo--;:a
o~.... 8.(jD
tIl oSN
0- "0 e>'
;. ct~
o ....
g" "g (j
.... 0
g.C'l~
~ O. e!.
~ =
"'d
o ;'0 '"l
= 0
o ...."g
po; ~
~ 0
~~
~. ~
-
-
"O"'d
::2. ~
o N
.... 0
0- e.
~~.
o tIl
~ ii
tt. C'l
o 0
= tIl
.~
=
I
:-"
"d
n
>
\0
0\
~
tN
"d"d"d
n(?n
N.....>
\0\0\0
0\0\0\
~~~
.....WtN
~;o~dl~=E(jg~~(j~
.... ~ oS e: t"'" ~ ;E ~. ::g ~ fg >
o.....~....ezltt1~...,l >
g-~~~@~>~~ ~f
~o ~= ~!2~"'d::j~~.~
~~g~0~~~@~~8
ii ~. a e: ~ (j - g 0 Z ~ ~
.... 0 ;:;. :::c ..., ~ t"'" "'Ij ~ tI1 S
Ie O"'dV.ezl~...,t:
~~~R~~~g~2E
o S ~ tI1 tI1 ~t"'" li1 Fa c: ::j
o-,*=~ C:~fg @"'d~@
.... tD ..., 0 t"'" I
><:O"'Ij~ts~~~
f~~~~i0~~
. ~ (5 fii "'d tl (j -;:a ~
~,Q Z t"'" (j10,o fti
~~g~IO ~~
drp~~ ~~
>"'dtlo ..~
~~.~~~-;:a~d
8 (j~ "'d >-;:a9 ~ ~
r<-;:a ezl(jN6
d..o O-ON
~g. ~ fg - 0 ~ t3 .~8 ~
~~g..-..~~~~~z~
~o > 0 tx1 ezl(j
g.~ ~~~"'d~ ><: SI:tJ
=~= Fa~"'d"'dtI1>
. ~.;;. 0 0 fg ~ R ~ ~
Jg R ~""tI1o~::jo
~ ~ o~~~~~g
t:l.~ ~ ~o ~d
e: ~ ~ ~ ~ Q go ~ ~ ~ g- ~ ~ ~ ~ g- ~
g. 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ :> g. ~ e. :2 g. ~ ~. e. :2 g.
.0 S = e. S. 6 = a. ~ = .g. a. ~ =
S O=~OC'l 0 ~ tIlO ~
~ 0 . OQ .... is.. =. "'" = .
(j is.. ~;. g a 3. s ~ . (j s ~ .
.... ;. N ~ ~ "'d a 0 (j a 8. 0 (j a
000 00~-v. =Ov. 0=0v.
00. ii~e.~6 ~~6 0-~~6
.~ fl) "1 = e.... = s.... C'l = S ....
'<: = ~ tt. =' 0 OQ tIl' 0 .... OQ tIl' 0
= (j t:l. !ii g OQ > ;. fa. > ~;. fa. >
g)g ;..... "0 og:g ctog:g
. = 0 0 "0 "'d .::; ;. ....
~ o. > ;. d (j ~ 0 ~
- 0 ~ 0 "'d 0
,0
~
=
~
~g. ~
o .... 0
~ .... =
tt. ~ a
o ~ 0
? N e
o ....
e. ~
~ R
~ ~
t:l.~
:>;'~O>!!!;'(jezlo-!!!;'(jezl
No:g e:t:l.:3 0 O,a ('):3 0 O,a
g' ~ d ~. ~ 9 0. ~ 'g g 9 0. ~ 'g
o ~. ~. ~ ~ S. ::I. .... &. ~ S. ::I.
. N ~ = tIl 0 S' tIl
o' ~ 0 (j fa. ;. ;. OQ (j fa. ;.
iict"'d(j;.ggoo;.ggo
. ~~~'O fl >:2 0 = >:2
~O\~(j"'d:::':C'li ~ag~
N g e. g ~ 0 g. . ~ !;; 0 o' e.
o' 0 = = 0 .... = =~. .... = =
= \0 OQ C'l = ~ ~ OQ 0 .... ~ ~ OQ
o .... 0 E = . "0 E ::I
~~ -. st:l. e,st:l.
t:l.~ ~> (j~>
g-s .g g..g
.... ....
!=
>
I
:-"
t!I!J
!;:l
\0
Ul
~
....
....
f'o
~
~ >
....~
~l"l
l"la:~
=0 >
~~
l"ll"l
=0
>
~
l"l
~
....
rn
rn
~
"a
00
rni
~
....
0=0
:z
rn
n
0
:z
rn
l"l
to
~
:z
n
l"l
rn
~
n
0
i~
~$
>
~
0
:z
~
8~
~~"a
~d
~
~>S
Inn
~~o
~o~
Q\2
n
t=
t!I!J
!;:l
\0
Ul
b
....
~~[~~~[~~3~~~
s;'S ~'S 0 9 d ~ ~ ~ > > ~
~ ~'B ~ Qt:l.s;."d 0~'@6
~.Eta'~gs 0 0 >~fg"'d.."':'
O~=tt.. ="'Ijo >,....
= ,. OQ OQ e. .... "tl - \.
tIl ~ ~~.~ ....[g zS2~@
eog= Sezlt!I!J~qtIjezl
g,~~1 !~!;:l~m~~
~ ~. ~ B 9- c ~ t3 ~
3 0 ott.)>- iZ
e; s' ~ ::I. ~ t: ~ 0
~ OQA ~ ~t3 g
t:l. >E;~~
(jezl~g::j~
o~..-..zo
~~gtl~o
asa>~z~
~~-~~Fa
R tIl nezlO
g.g 0tI1~
? ~ ~8-<
0- t""'~~
~~(j
o~::r:
~tI16
ii!~~
(j~~
~~ts
j~~
:> 0
[ [ ~ ~]. a
~~g~s~
~ ~ ~~ ~ g.
e. = e <: S =
= 0 tIl tIl 0
OQ ~. "'" ~ ....
. "'d. ~ tIl
(j 0 tt. =
g ~ ~~ ~
a ii ezl~
o "'d
~ >
n;'(jezl
~o. ~ ~o ~
.... 0
.~ .::1.
= tIl
OQ (j fa. ;.
;.000
0~~:2
"'Ij.... g ~
~. ;;; o' e.
~o==
tI1lS~OQ
?St:l.
o' >
= t:l.
o
'S
~~g-~
i"" tIl 0
e. :2 g.
= ~ =
g' g. ~
(j OQ a.
O(ja
a. 0 v.
~~6
= ....
OQ tIl' 0
;. fa. >
00"0
"'Ij=~
.... 0
[ ~
n
~
n
o
~
~
n
t=
~
~
t'"l
n
g;
>
~
~
UI
I
....
oI:lo.
I
\0
C\
"'d
del
o
N
VlO
\2)!iJ"
......:;,"
1.00
O\~
0\
~
"'d"'C
i~
0::'
~8
>~
-8
entTl
~~
O::j
~~
ts~
~~
p~
8~
zO
o~
~o
"'C'"'i
i~
tj~
~~
d
~
Cll
8-
1il
~
o~
~ g
[g
.g[
O. '::!'l
Cll 0
en "1
P-
r>
?'
~
-
Cll
"1
"'C
~
> .....
<So ~
E. [
[ g,~
..... <~
3. = ~
~ ~~
~. Cll '0
g ~ ~
5 :::;:.g .~ (j Er Q.. ~ t::. ~
::I ~ '2 :=0 0 Cll ~ Q.. E;. :=0
~::::ene;so.6-i~e;
e'ia~. ~]::::~ ~
Ci Q.. S' > So Cll ~ ~ >
~oo~ ~e'O~~
~ ~ Cll ~ ~. ~. a ~
~ Q.. Er ~. ::I Cll ~.
S' e: ~ ~ Er ~ e. g, ~
g-g'i~ Clllaa~~
!;;~::::Cll ~S'~~
g' ~ ~ S' "1 ~ -
. Cll
~
Cll
8-
1il
~
o~
i 0
g~
g.g
~ @'
~Q..
~. S'
Cll "1
~ i 0 ~. ~ ~. ~ ~. ~ Q.. i ~
:::t S :=0 ~:=o Q..'O g :=0
en:3 Iii ~ -o:r_Cll "1 s;'O e:
o ~. [!!. P. 5 5 Ef fa..g ~ ~ I;;
..... g ~ 0 - ~. '0 ::I. ~. 0 Cll
S"=Q..::I-~~ la....,.....>
g: a::l' [. ~ [ ~ p. 2. ~ 3: if ~
S Q.. ~ - 0 0 ~ (j~ "'C ~
r+ 0 en ff 0 -<: S tIl ~. ~ 0 ~.
~8 n- ~ ~g if~g'.~~
~. ~. ir e. ~ g. '];1 g ~. ~ ~
o ~ -c:lCll 0::1 ~_
5l ~. > "1 ~ ~ ~. _
s . en. ::rO
~[g~g~~~
if~~s~ffS-S
S('S~~Q..(j~Q..
~. O. '::!'l Er - ::r 0 Er
::I~OCllOCll...,Cll
~_ "1'0 0\"1 "Ij"'C
ffOErt'>>v.e-~a
o~ g,~~s:~~
SOO~>S ~
'< ~. e; . - W =
~Q.. ::IQ..tTl
S g. ~ g ~. ~ !:a
O ~. el Cll Cll
aen
::r s' ~ if
-Q..
en~
~g.
o
W::I
i ~.
Cll Q..
g.6
g. 0
F' >
1
~~
l:ll e.
W~
~ a.
Cll a
::I v.
frb
g.o
F' >
'0
~
~
Cll
g,~4l>
g.ct~g
a ~. ~ 8-
o' g Er
[~9Cll
~.:g ~ 8
3. a f"1 "'C
~'g -
J:t C). 0
o'::;!" a
::I ,. -
. -~ 0
~ ~ ~
la-Er
o' 0 Cll
::I
en~
~g.
wg
8 0
~ ~.
Cll Q..
g.6
g. 0
::I >
~
~
Cll
o ~ ~
~ r-: ~.
::l .-
--
en01i
~!~.
~~
a6'
~ <
... a.
ErCll
~.Q..
!!
~
:;.::l
=
""
I!.
f>> ~
~ ~
!""
"'l:l "'l:l
n n
a: a:
\C \C
CJl CJl
b b
\C \C
O>"'l:l~"'C
S'O n (j
'<~a: ~
~~~~~
g. if \C ~."?
8~g~(j
"'CCll"'l:len~
~~dS
Cll C1l ::;j tTl
ag,~~
oSo::j
ErS'"'iO
Cll->Z
"" -<
~~
g~
oZ
~5i
~~
tTltj
~tTl
t'"'~
Ot'"'
o ~. ~ ~ ~
g.[.a ~~
"'C Cll e. ~ ~
~~8."'C~
. ... '0 t'"' "'C
g::l. ~ t'"'
~.o ~
o "1
::I _
o 0
.....
Er
Cll
en
"'C
>
=.....'O~~~Er(jen
::I~a =CllO=
~Cll~_ 'Cll(j~:g
"1 ~ 0: Cll g ::I~. 0
~' a Cll ~ =. S- ~ en' ~
~~_::I ,...en~
o ~ =' g ~ \ ~ ~. o:r
~t'"' o:r~OOCll
::l ~~ CllffS::l"'C
~Qa"1 0>-
~a>o~..8 ~:=og.~
> _ g. ,...; e. ~ 0 e.
. O::lS'Cil~~::I::I
Q.. ~~ O~~
CllO '::!'l Cll;:l -::I
<:"1enCllo=Q..
!!.Erg-e ::rg.>
.gCll-S'O::lQ..
"1 tj .g
~ -
enS:~WErE::
So S rtl Cll 0
I:ll e. 0 0 "'C e.
wg ::rg:-~ g
o ~ ~ 0 0
o v::l .
~ Cll' ~ S ~ ~.
CllQ.. Cll(jQ..
::Iv. ::IO~
frb ed~b
g. 0 ~~, 0
F' > Er fa. >
'0 CllO'O
'0 ~::I'O
"1 "1
o ~
~ '< Cll
w
o
~O
~ <So
J~g.
::I
g,
8 ~ if
~~~
So~
5'~ ~
~ a en
= ::I -
~ 0 0
. :;' ~
!!l.Er"'C
ll) Cll a
~ ::;'1i
~5~
::I
~ ~ ~
o 0 ::l
~~~
~ ~ en
e. S' 'H
r> ~ g
~.
~
::I
~
8~W
~~O
~'f!'
::I Cll
~ Er
5l ~ Cll
~ tIl Z
~ Cll
BEn
!~
::I E!?
9 ~
?'
tTl
] ~.>
gag
!ii~::I
g,CllS
ErgS
Cll =:or
~6'~
S. ~. g
~ ~ (j
~~~
~ Er~
9 Cll ~
~NQ..
'00'0
a Er Cil
'0 Cll 0
(\) "1 Cll
':1 ::I Q..
0'. 0 Cll
Cll ::I ::I
en 60
. Cll
~ ~.
~~
o S'
::r"1
i'~f"'Cf ~ ~2.~~
a: 'e:eng~~e.
~~ D aErS'~ "'C
O(j~el~"1::1-
g'Oen=~ErQ..~
::I~aCll-ClltTl~
.8 ~. ~ ~. ~ i ~. ~
1=, ~. Q.. gig a ::I
~g~ "1-:3rJ
8.g-:g ~ g,g,g g
:;-g. i'~e!r
e:oa Q.. ~
en a ~. I;;l
'< ::I Cll
i
i
o
l
~~~
~to1
to1~~
=c >
i~
to1to1
=c
>
~
to1
~
~
rIl
~
"U
00
a~
~=c
rIl
n
~
rIl
to1
,0
~
~
n
to1
rIl
~
n
0
i~
~S
>
~
~
~
~
>8~
~ii
~
~
n
~
Ul>><:
Inn
~~o
~o~
Q\~
n
Fl
oS8~O~Er~
:3 0 ::I :=0 ~ o' Cll :=0
~ ~. ~ a ~ Cll e. ~. ~
e.::I :::lCll tilenCll
gg.~a>if~5>
. ::I~. Er ~ ~ ;So ;; ~
ifg~~s~5~
Cll '0 Cll o' p.- ::I = o'
~. Cil ~. en t:; g ~ en
~.~::::~ P-o [
::I ~ ::I Cll ~.
~ag. ~
i Cll
n
~
n
o
~
n
t=
"'d
i
~
~
>
~
~
Ul
I
....
~
I
\C
0'1
=
I
~
~ "tl
l"l
~ n
t""'ttl t""'ttl ~ ==
~~ ~ ~ ... I.e
~ Ul
fl o .... ~ ~~ 0 6
=~ ~ ., ""'
.., ~~~~~~~l~[~[~~~~f~~ .~~U~~
....
e.
~ ~ ~...... g. 0 :Itl ~ 0 0 ~ JI> en o' ~ e. g. .....
[ ~ p n ~ ~ ~ f oS ." n - _. = ~ '"
0 en 1ll=Q.W ...... 'gllltltl=OllOUl ~~~~~~
0 ..... ~ g: g ~ g' ~ i lS ~ en a. e: ~. ~. [ ~ g- S
en 0
en Cil ~~ ~:g~'g E; s:f~r-~ ~.~~ fA~~~
0 e: "'d ~t%1~~~PO
t%1 .... ~ ~o g~t%1~R~~Ftl~:g:gg-~~>
~ S' ~~ts~g~
.... (') ~ ~ ~ ~ Oll f ~ ~ i ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ en 0 ~tl.g 0 -000 ~~.~~~g
~. S':I: ~ Oll = 0 .... ~ = ::r "tl
"'d g: c::t. Oll 0 S~ en~~ .oeni'
~ (') :g!;i 0 '2 "'d Oll:gg ~~6~~~~
"Og. ::1. ~.... 0 = 0 _ .. ~
~8. fi) = ~ .... 0 ~ o' t%1~~(')O
~ ::1. Oll ~ [
III ~6~~~~
CiliOt%1 ;::t.~ g,el en ~~ en 25@~g~~
en 0 el g -a s- f!l. ~ R
.... - S e:-a ~ z ~ ~ t"'"
go ~. g F g, ~. 0 ~ ~ .... .... ttl ;lO~en"'dtl
~ ~ o' ~ S'~ a
8....1!Q.0 0 tsh;~~f2
-=0 ::o;-=Cil' .... .... ~
i g s.:g .g~~'g:il en "0
- = 0 [Cil ~~~~~en~
~~Rr1l g.. fij S- III Cil -Cil'
"0 :il en ~~.., ~ ts
O....s-en ~ g ~~ g: ~ ..... ~O~(')~
es-~s- ~q'g 0 ero .><: ~
o 0
.... . C
.... Q. III ~. cr *' ~(')en>~
0 .... 0 0 Ot%1..,
= 0
~ t%1~NOt"'"
(')t%1~~ ~. 'R g- ~ ~~o~ ~~ W ~t%1~Z>
O~eno~
~~e:S =' ~ ....~ [[8.[ ~ ~'S ~~~~g
o ~ a s' .... . ~ ....
Ofij S -Q.0Q. ~[[
~0~"O ~Q. '2 "O=enC19 ~~g~s
~Illlll ~ g, 5'. <' g.oo
Q. .0 g o 5 0 0 ::0;- ~o
o .0.... III e: "0 0.9': .... t%1ts ~Z
o~RS' 'R~g,?
o en ~ ~ i:l~ ~ a..[ :I:~ t%1ts
= en en s-cro
::1. a ~
'" 0 0 0 8.0 'Q. . < 0 @~ ~~~
~.[ ~ ::r. 0 o S
. e: a . Cil '" 0
='~ g,g z
0 Oll........ e: g-~ 0
= ....
~f. ~. ~ Q B ~ ]! ~ I e. a .g ~~6:
= q .... ::0;- ~ e. 0 "8 0 g..g
e-. fi)&g,g~ . s en
!.:::aa~' ::r=....
a. en !:t. s-
o = !~[~! = "'d 0 0
"'d~ .... 0 0 Oll > = (')
~[ o (')g,....."o Q. o~ ....
I III ..... 0 ::1..... VI N ~
lN~g-~ ct9<=6~er ~="Oq
o .... (')
~ ~ 8.gSj"o..... ~. ~ ~ ~en "'d~o
. p,;"O ~ [ o - . 5
~ . s.1~ ~.g = ~ =
O~Q._ fij Oll 0
0 en ::0;- III .... . ~s-:=;
0 ocr=
en .,'< [0 0 Q.O
en _~ R
.... s-s- j
0 o 0 . <
.... 0
III
~i~~ '8g,l!gw~ en~ r ~~ Q g- ~
e: .... !:t. [S-::o;-e:8 ;::to ~g. o a ~ ~ !:t.
a~~El o ~ .... ~ 0 0 o ~;s.. El
. ~ Q..g 0 = W~
~ ~ 0 0 = = '" 0 ~
~ ~ fr ~. @:~.;; ~~. ~ ~. !is ~ Oll 5' 8.
s- = a .
fA S' !:t. Q. o ., S ;::t.Q. o Q. ~~W"'da
'" .... 0 0\ -<S-aEl6 fr6 lS-O\
~"8F:l6 :g~_~6
Q.fi)tlo ~. g- g. [ 0 g. 0 g ~ a. . 0
~ g. e: tl F:l > . 00ll>
ctg"="Otl Oll g. = :g
a o. 0 ~loao "0
;s. III ~ . .....;s = "0
Q. .... S- .~ ~ en a
o 0 en o .0 go en ~ ci
g-~ o ~ ~
VI 0
-fij
~::r
\OR
O\R
0-
P..
~
~~~
~l'ol
l'ol~~
~ >
~~
l'oll'ol
~
>
~
~
~
II)
~
"l:l
00
ai
~~
II)
n
0
~
l'ol
to
~
:z
n
l'ol
II)
~
n
0
i~
~
~
~
>8~
~Ii
~
~
n
UI>~
Inn
:i:~o
~~~
n
t=
'"d
1>1
(JQ
R
W
n
~
n
o
~
2:
n
t=l
'"=
~
=
~
n
g;
>
;
~
Ul
I
~
~
I
\C
C'\
i
o
.j:>.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ [ [ ~
'" e1 s...... '"
e. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ o E.. e.
0 !"">~ w N - ~ .... Q.O
>-; '" ~ . >-;
~ ::0
0
'"
~. 0 ~
~
~ '"
0
0 a~
[
~ = 0
en "'tl !:t. ~[ ~
>-; 0 ao
~ o = 0 ~ a
0 1[ ~ ;;l~ n
= a >~ 0
0 '" tr1 "'tl I.
"'tl ~~ t""'- ~ =
~ (D' ~ o .....
o "'tl
e: !:t. = I !3 -
S' = 0 if 9' o ~ !:t.
ao ao = a. ~
~~e:~~!3el~ ~~f.s~g;g,a~Q ~n"'tl ! ~! ~E =-~er8> g'o
~'a~ o~=:tln o a ~Q.o~:g -:g
=' '< . en = er = e: ~ S'el"g
~ 'g '" ~ :. ~. !a ~ 1~!1!~~i~Jl~ ,..... g~~:g.en .... 'a ~ =: ~. '"
e.aa~eer'aQ. t""'t""'q Jga~~~ o 0
(D' ~ !:t. g ~. [ s. .... '"
. er' oger~~ Q.~~~p. [~ . ~::i. ...... ..... 0
= Q. 0 q~~ er "'l Q. 0 !:t. .... 0
o ~ 0 .... ~~~~[$:g.]~[ W"Tj~ 8..0.....0g' ~ S
O~!:tft~~a ..... ftQ.g' ~Z"'-
~ 8. a o~ g' = .~ ~ .... gg
::30 0 <' Q. 'a en <:: s .... o. ~ [s ~ .... ~'ag =: g ~ . $!
<G':g ~ 'a ~ ~ e: g ~. !:t. ~ $! . -0 = !:t.
..... S. ~ ~ Q. Q. d' g ~ ~~[ ,c' a. ;; '" o 0
ele~e:~ o =
[=:~ a.~ [& g .... 8 n g' !3 g. : ~:g ~ ~ ~<m ~~
~ d ~..... 0 ~s~o 0 "'tlo::oaer S. ~ 8-
. ~ 0 ..... =' s a oe:n 0
..... = af4 ~ 'n S g
Q. 0 aoq . a
~~8~ .gsn ~8g,~ ~ ~ g-tccT]~tl Q.~ ~ ~ g,
Q._o~ 0 ~'a e:o
S=Q.~a ~ 9 ~ ~~W[ ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ s. er e. a"'l 'E.. ~
~ g. 0 !:t. ~ g .$! '" Q. 0~Q.g''"'l0e. =:laQ. 0
~ el ~ ~. .w:g g, a> 8. Q g, ~ . ~ 0 .a
elcTc:ler g ='~ el
S ....0 ~fts ~ ~ ~ Oaenders~ ~ ~ ~
~.....:e.!:t !"
Q. . ero<:= 0 .ctR,..
~ 0 ~ s. ~. ~ ~ ~~er o s e. "g er!ii' g j> 1iS-<'",'a
eno 30", .N",g..
oso~ Q.O ~ 0 0 "'tl =.; g, "" () ~ ~ el
g ~ e: ~.....-
~g,.go Q.~i ?>t::>erOg.....E..~ 00....
~ !3 ..... Si ~ s ~'s o o;;l 0 Q.:g o 0
0 o 0 eroo !3 en~q~ a
a p. ..... o ..... = "'tlQ. <:
o ..... > 0
Q.
'a> er ~ = er .... 0 ~ .... ::g~~Q d 1 el ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ >
a:g o oog-go g- ~er~g~
oQ.ao '"'l = ~ e:= !. ~ ~ ~ i er .... 'a
'g a o a
tl ..... g 0 Si =' Si <:' ~ ~ i ci aer~e:~
'" -< "'tl 0 0 .g a g.ao ~
ao aooer~ .0 !:t.o
. ~ P1. Sl .... [ ~ !:t. oQ. ~er ftao.....o
~g. n = .... ~. ~ s = er
Q.~cr= f; 0 ofrO= dg-~erO ~ ..... 0
er'a er =.;er] g = ~ !:t. ~ t-- .g=:tl()'o~ . 0 g' (;1
Q. ,c en
o g- o Q. .... 0 '" g, g e: (D' ~>-;() o .... S ~
~ !3 q "'tl ~. 8' ~ = '" ~ .... > o = .
>ra. "" ~ !:t. = &er"gq~ ~ 8 S' 0
i~ ~og,~o>-;e; '" 0"Tj
.... [
~. ~. er ~ g. !:t: o Q. 0 =.; ~. ~. ~ e: !3 ao =
n'~ = 0 0 e-: >-; 8.. Q. g. ~. ~ g. ;
'" 0 .... = 0 . 'a
~ 0 g:~ ~~fij [ ~ a ~ 0 n
r*1 g. 1 . ..... 0 o' ~ ~
'" '< ~ ~~ '" 0
~ g' , .... o ~.
el '" er
g ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ e:~ 8ir!3e:en~ Q;e:~a=: ~~~ [~
= gd~O o . 0
~ooeroo!:t. '" ~ ~O[g. g. g a !:t. '" ~ !:t.
..... -~o !:t. g ''a ~ g '" 0 g~
~~~~.g = !3 . ~r o~= .... =
'ao f4!30~ o 0 . = 0 ~ a~ 0 ~ = g, ~
. = g8.SS~ . >-;
=-~o~g= ~ elOfr . enao I
"'tl ~ .
no=-o.....g. . ~ss.goa: er e. !:t. a >fta
~~a~g!:t.a
'< '" 00\ = Q. er !:t. - = -...I oqgy. o~O\ a.
s o 0 fr ~ 0 6
g~g8'~F'6 8'0 er(;1 6 ;c "" N
P5>S . >-; .~
:;co~!3-"Tj"'" >-; >-; <: 0 ~ !:t. ..... o S
og S'~o R ene. 00 s:;:e.'a tl a.~
~",s:;:oao tl ~~~ ;~ cT
Q. '" ....0 0 . Q.~. 0 go ....
. .....e:ero 0 ~ g'~~ 'ae: ~
o 0 ....~ o g,.... s: ~ ..... g..s:
. >-; = e =er~ ~ o en -
~ 0 . en fA
. [~ ~ 0 0 ~ -.....
....
!a 0
VlO
.......rt
~::r
\00
0\0
S-
o.
~
i >
~~
..~ l"'l
l"'l2~
i= >
!~
l"'ll"'l
i=
>
~
l"'l
~
~
III
III
~
~
00
a~
~i=
III
~
~
III
l"'l
.0
~
2:
~
l"'l
III
~
~
0
m~
~~
>
~
~
~
8~
~i~
~~i
~
~
~
lJ>>~
.~~
~,..;jo
~o~
0\2:
~
t=
~~
~::r
\O~
O\a
0\
~
'=' '='
I I
~ ~
~ "'l:l ~
n ~i
txl ~ a::
~txl ~ Ie t'"'txl
Ul ~ . = ~
[~ e. b ~~
~ a ~
0 = FT =~ qtl
'"1
~~i[ tlo>"'l:l
~. ~ :g n ~
o 0'"'"1 ftI . "tl a '='
sfr~~ ~ - _.
~ti=-
o s: 0 -. W s- :I. !:t. ..,
a . s- ~ 't:l ::1.
aa8.oQ. -
!::!'lOQ 0 = 0 OQ
~s-:x;l::t. ~.Q~f i ~
s-oog '"1
o....e.> o~,<! d'
"tla= ~ ~ = ;;l S'
"1 0 !:t.~ ~ S-
o ~ 0 e: !il'
~. = ftI .0 = 't:l tI1
~ . a q po f<O () ~
. ftI ~~ 0
g. a =
()> e: -
....
0 ....... en
= !:t. po
g 0
Q.
~ ~ gog; ~
~ ~ i~o =
8. .> ~
!:t.'t:l
. 0 't:l
= -
~ ~.
a-
Q.g-
g-=-:
~
0
en
g-
gogo. ~; ~.E ~~g-~[~ ~s-..,
~5.q o()O-O S 0 ::1.
~ g ~ ~ go e. W ~ .... ~ ~ ~ o'~ gg
. s' = a en.q () ~ ~ ~
o ~ '< !:t. Q. () 0 0 .... ~.gd'
~ ~o ....0 '"1-q
M) t'1> Senoen.g
s-a~ o ~ Q. i g-s.[a 0 Q. ::1. S'
o 0 fii~
't:l g =-: = Q. ~ ~-~ogct
..9 =' go -g g-g- ~~~ !:t. "1
~~6- ~. ~
o OQ :::; Q. 't:l
~ -.... S'o ::g~ ~ g-~ = .
. 0 q ~ OQ go
[ g a. ~ ~a~ . a, g'
o ~ Q.
=W> tlll)s-ncn gQ()> ....~ g tI1
Q.eng. (;;.:g 0 0 = a~g8: ~:!~
s. "1 o~ ~
(s-'a ~ ~. q' '::l .gae:g ~g. =-:
. !:t. s- o !:t. = o a en
= en '"1 0 e: S =-: . po
o 0 W OQ () l!l. s- ~ ~ ~ !:t:
EJ=() ooos-
!:t. ~ .... 19-~~; =cta,o ~r'
O't:l q OQ~ = el ~ S.
= '"1 ~.oo=-a~ .... >-
>~. Q o "tl 0 . S 't:l 0 ~ !:l~
~ > 0 . ! i'] ~
1i~~ . of1= = a~~'"1
. ~ OQ ~ . 'g
as-=- ~~Q. . ~ ~ 0 = 0 ~ ....
o 0 Q. = - =- =
"tlo> ~ g!il'
F ()OQ. s- 0
.g 0 -g.
.... en '"1
- '"1
~ ~~g-~ g~s=: ~~
> = g
o 0 "tl!:t. e: ~ o' ~8'
"tl--o
()g~= g. =
~ g' . ~ = 0 ~
. = ~ I
Et ~ OQ o' fr .
. 't:l () Q. !:t. 8-
~aoO\ g If' g.6
w :;. ~ 6 . -
i = - ~i g. 0
OQ '0
s-!!l. > Fl >
g. 0 g :g ~ :g
= en '"1 '< ~
en "tl ~ en
. > 0 ~ 0
~. >
10004~
~l!Oj
l!Oja::~
~ >
~~
l!Ojl!Oj
~
>
~
~
Io004
l"I2
~
~
00
8~
~~
l"I2
n
~
l"I2
l!Oj
iO
~
~
n
l!Oj
l"I2
=
n
0
~~
~~
>
::f
~
8~
;Ii
~
n
Ul>~
Inn
~::fo
~o~
"'~
n
t=
n
~
n
o
~
~
n
t=
"tl
i
~
=
;
~
Ut
I
I-l
?I1o.
I
\C
Q\
"d
cfcl
~
VI
#14-
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE SECOND-TIER EIR
FINAL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
and
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(DA TE)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................. 2
SECOND- TIER EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
RECIRCULATION OF THE SPA ONE DRAFT EIR ..............7
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .............................. 8
TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA ... 10
LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS ........................... 11
MITIGA TIONMONITORING PROGRAM . ,j[). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
:;::::}} ,::::::::::~:} :::::::::::::: ::::::}::::- .;::=<<:: ;:::::::::::: ::;:;:;:;:;:;:
"\/)\'" .-://?\) .r:>> =tt\\ ../)\f{ :j)) ~rrjj
A ""1'/.,.,. )I"'ft'.".",., PI n"""""" d""rT'" ...",'.",., ,.,.,.,.", """""""". .. 24
.Ljli~U~6se; a .fimg, an'LiiQUlng<< . . . ((. . . . . .{i;. . . . . . . .
B. Landform Alteration/Aesthetics ........................ 26
C. Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
D. Cultural Resources ................................. 43
E. Geology and Soils ................................. 47
F. Paleontological Resources ............................ 52
G. Agricultural Resources .............................. 56
H. Water Resources and Water Quality ..................... 58
I. Transportation, Circulation, and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
J. Air Quality ...................................... 85
K. Noise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
L. Public Services and Utilities .......................... 95
M. Hazards/Risk of Upset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
XI. CUMULA TIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES ......................................... 120
120
121
123
125
127
128
129
130
132
133
134
136
145
147
XII.
A. Land Use, Planning, and Zoning ......................
B. Landform Alteration/Aesthetics .......................
C. Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Cultural Resources ................................
E. Geology and Soils ................................
F. Paleontological Resources ...........................
G. Agricultural Resources .............................
H. Water Resources and Water Quality ....................
I. Transpon~tion, Circulation, and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
k. ~~is~~a~~r . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
L. PubUpS~icesand.Utilitices,;,. .
M..J.IiizaidSJlisk q~Upset .J?>. . .J;. . . .
N .'A.ggreg~t% ResqprceslNatw;~IB-~pi1rces
....... ....... ......, ................-...........
....... ....... ....... ............ .......
....... ....... -...... .......... ......
....... ....... ....... ...".... .......
....... ....... "n"_ ......... ......
....... ....... ....... ......... .......
...... ....... -....,. ........ ,......
....... ....... ....,.. ........ .......
....... ........ -...... ......., .......
....... ....... ....... ....... .......
....... ........ ...,." ....... .......
......, ....... ....... ........ ....-..
FEASIl!3JLITY'<lF P(j)JENTIA.L; PROJECT
148
A. No Project Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156
1. Project-Related Impacts ....................... 157
2. Other Impacts Associated with the No
Project Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 157
3. Comparison of No Project Impacts
with Project Impacts ......................... 157
4. Project Objectives ........................... 157
5. Conclusion .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
B. SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
1. Project-Related Impacts ....................... 158
2. Other Impacts Associated with the
SPA One Alternative A ....................... 162
3. Comparison of SPA One Alternative A
with Project Impacts ......................... 162
4. Project Objectives ........................... 162
5. Conclusion ................................ 162
ii
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
C.
SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan ................
1. Project-Related Impacts .......................
2. Other Impacts Associated with the SPA One
Alternative B-1 .............................
3. Comparison of SPA One Alternative B-1 with Project
Impacts .............................. '. . . .
4. Project Objectives ...........................
5. Conclusion ................................
SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan ................
1. Project-Related Impacts .......................
2. Other Impacts Associated with the SPA One
Alternative B-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.~9mparison of SPA One Alternatiy~)3-2 with Project
4";". E~~~~~~i~~~::::/:: : : :'~1L: :1:'~.~~'; : : : : : :
IPAO~~Altem~H\re C EahdD~~Plan;(... ~:;l::. . . . . . .
""""''1 "PtH. {"'Related Impacts ':""""'" ',',,",,",. ':',',',',,",
2:11~:rc~~mpacts)}xssoci~t~ci . ~ith' . th~' rlrA' '6~~ . .
"" ...: ~ltern;;luve C ;j\~.. .j.. . . . ?:.. . . . . t;:. . . . . . . . .
3;< t5ompafison of SPi\.fJneAlternative C IrHp~ with
Project Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Project Objectives ...........................
5. Conclusion ................................
Existing General Development Plan Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Project-Related Impacts .......................
2. Other Impacts Associated with the Existing General
Development Plan Alternative ..................
3. Comparison of Existing General Development Plan
Alternative with Project Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Project Objectives ...........................
5. Conclusion ................................
Annexation Alternative A ...........................
1. Project-Related Impacts .......................
2. Other Impacts Associated with the
Annexation Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Comparison of Annexation Alternative
A with Project Impacts .......................
4. Project Objectives ...........................
5. Conclusion ................................
D.
E.
F.
G.
Hi
PAGE
163
163
166
167
167
167
167
168
171
171
172
172
172
172
176
177
177
178
178
178
182
182
183
184
184
184
184
184
184
185
XIII.
XIV.
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
H.
Annexation Alternative B ...........................
1. Project-Related Impacts .......................
2. Other Impacts Associated with the
Annexation Alternative B .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Annexation Alternative
B with Project Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Project Objectives ...........................
5. Conclusion ................................
Annexation Alternative C ...........................
1. Project-Related Impacts .......................
2. Other Impacts Associated with the
Annexation Alternative C . . . . . . .,..,.' . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ypmparison of Annexation Alterq~uve
".,',..".:.4.,..,..........i;i,lt~~~~;i~~~~~~M~i;i: : il;jll~;k;: . .
5. <ConclUStofi ... <>/. . . ;;. . . . ;;. . . . .
3.
I.
3.
,::::::::;:,::;' .~///:: }{:;:;:::::)::::\ }}}
..........-,-, ..-......... ............... ,................-:....,.., ....;_....:.'
....... ....... .."... ....,..... ... ......... .. "-'
.........',..' .-.-.-......:- -..........;... ..:...:......,......:-.,................-:. .........:.
......., ....", ....... ...,....,....... ..... "," .... ....
....... .......- ...... .... ..,.....,..,............ .....
....... "'-', ........ .........,.".... ........ ", ......
............ ........ ........ ...... .......................... ........
PLAlNNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDAwION . .
iv
PAGE
185
185
185
185
185
186
186
186
186
186
186
187
188
189
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
(Date)
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 development of the 1,110 SPA One property. The
SPA One plan proposed l:ilnix of land uses including residenHl:iJ, park, school, community
purpose facilities, commerqil/retail use, circulation, and open$j:ice.
....... .,...., ....
......'....... ..-.-.-....... ............
. . . . . ' . . - - . - . - . . . . . .
........-.... .....-....... ...........
....... ......- .......
._.... "_po .......
....,-.......' .....-...,... ..............
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
In addition to th~Jqly42.;1994~rA.Qne J::>l~~thCffEI~~yal~edm~~J~rnatives to the
proposed projecyTheseiti9)'t.1ded:~HPr()jectA1terna.ti.ye; spAgne Lall.d J.l$ePlan Alternatives
A, B-1, B-2, C;I~isting Gtt~eral ~'Velopme~~nlffi'l~~t~native~~d Anne~~~ion Alternatives A,
Band C. :::::::::::::; .::::::::;:;::: :::::;:::::::; -::;:;:;:;::::::--;:;:;:;:;:::: :;:;:::;:;::: :::::;:::;::::
:;://::; /:::::::::::: :::::;:::::::: /::::::::::. ::::;::::::::: :::::/:::: ::::://:
.:.:::::t>... ..::CjiHH ::H:~~:H ::Hi/:\ ../[:}//:: UU:H :[;:?~{:
(Disi:JijsfJiflaiprojecttevisions7tllt~tlJ.diHt(!selectiil by City (J<'#lJ.pil)
1
City Council of the City of Chuta . May 14, 1996
II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project consists of the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One (SPA One) Plan, the
annexation of three areas currently within the City of Chula Vista's Sphere of Influence, and
related discretionary actions.
SPA One is comprised of Village One (west of Paseo 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 site of 10.0 acres, 11.6 acres of land zoned for
community purpose faciliti~~, 3.6 acres of commercial/retail, 22A.~~res for internal circulation,
15.1 acres for external cirqijlation, and 90.2 acres of open spa9~~)
.... . ......
.... .......
...... .....
....... ......
.... .....
.... ....
.... ......
....... ......
....... .......
....... ....
..... .......
. .... ...
Otay Ranch Sectj9JOn:g.I~iping~rAA9ne(~~.AQ;p~) PI@.pk
SP A One is comprised of Village One and Village Five as were previously established in the
Otay Ranch GDP. Village One consists of604.9 acres, and includes 1,249 single-family dwelling
units and 1,764 multi-family dwelling units for a total of 3,013 dwelling units. Village One
includes 23.5 gross acres of park space, an elementary school site of 11.1 gross acres, 16.1 acres
of community purpose facilities, 11.5 gross acres of commercial retail, 120 net acres for internal
circulation, 19.9 net acres for external circulation, and 145.3 gross acres of open space.
Village Five is comprised of 490.9 acres, and includes 1,085 single-family homes and 1,793
multi-family homes for a total of 2,878 dwelling units. Village Five includes 21.5 gross acres
of park space, an elementary school site of 11.1 gross acres, 12.4 gross acres of community
purpose facilities, 5.8 gross acres of commercial/retail, 87.5 net acres for internal circulation, 10.9
net acres for SR-125, 14.7 net acres for major arterials, and 92.9 gross acres of open space.
2
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Annexation
The proposed project includes the annexation of Planning Areas 1 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, however, proposed for annexation
as part of the proposed project include DauzlGorman, Ross, Gerhardt, Rock Quarry, Southwest
Corner, 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 OI'1~ Plan Regarding the Detachment ofJ.P.t Otay Landfill (March 27,
1996)] ....... ............
.....," ...........
....... ....... ......
. ..... ....... .......
...... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... ......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ......- .......
....... ...... .......
The Project object~y~s~~~~~forthmt,p~finak~~cAu96(ier p.~~~peI't;p~~q99rPorated by this
reference. (Fin~J$econd+m~er EI~;p. 2-24 and p.24?$) In ~iving at .~t$. final decision, the
decisionmakers19Qk into ,gpsider~pon objec4y~~~~forth imtl1e Final ~~ond- Tier EIR, the
Final PEIR, and. gpjectives,Epnsistmit with tl!~evidenq~before~pem at th~pearings held by the
decisionmakers.< .... ...... ....... ....... ....... .......
Discretionary Actions
The discretionary actions taken by the decisionmakers in approving this Project are:
. General Development Plan Amendments
A. Amend page 113 of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan as follows:
"Each Village must be master-planned as a unit, except for the Inverted "L". the
areas of Village One west of Paseo Ranchero. and Ranch House property which
mav have their own SPA Plan approved prior to development of the particular
area."
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
3
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
approved bv the Preserve Owner/Manager. 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 of solar eRergy systems.
"Use solar energy systems, as practical."
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 and California Gnateateher habitat shall be
mitigated to Cichieve a level of 60 dBA Leq or beI9>>'~"
...... ...........
....... ............
n._" .............
....... .............
....... ..............
....... ..............
......- ...........,.-.,...
.. . ........... .
....... ........
....... ........
....... -........
....... . ..... .
"Noise level~lvithin gnatcatcher habitat shall. t~the extent feasible. achieve 65
dB~~H()'Yeyer. forp~ses of.achievillg the~a.tcu\tcher~~d.l1rd of 52% those
grHlteatchersifupact~by65 dBA>or greater shallnot be cotJrited as preserved."
F.
-...... '---.'.-" ...,.,...., ..
......' ..... ..... ..........
........ ........ .-..... ......
....... ....... .......~ .....-.....
...... ..........~. . .. . . .
....... ......... .... .. .................-..
....... ............... -..','- ,_.. -. ......
....,.. ....... ... ." ", ............... ....
......, ....... .....,,- ... ...... .............. '.'
......., ....... ....,.... ............... ...........
.....,. ....... .-.-. ..... .............. ... ','
........ ....... ,...... ................. ...........
...,.., ....... ....... .. ..... ...... ..............
~end the~$idenjia.I noise$a.HCIardg.n page
D~y~!oPIl1t7*tPlan ~~follows: . ... .
...... ..."..
....... .......
...... .......
....... ......
..... .......
.".... .....
.. .....-.
....... ....,
...... ..,,-,
....... .-..,
...... ......
...... ......
~&1 of the.ltay Ranch General
"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 6G
CNEL 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 homed 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."
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]
4
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
.
Sectional Planning 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 Map(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, inc::Jllding Village Design plans, which wHlpe prepared concurrent with
SPA plans. ....... ............
.
.. ...... ...
....... ...........
....... ....... ......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... ......
...... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
.... - ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...--. .......
~:~~;~~ l?ili:~..P~\'~~i~~1.~~I~~1;0If~~I!~...~~e~~e~~y~~~I:~~ngT~:n~~l~:~:
~~~:ft~jrd a~~~~.~~sfllt;~n g~~l~df~lr~~~~ilt:d~11~al, and community
Phase 21~$outcSlanag!ent PIJ~asks0~ guidetbr the iJ~I~entation 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:
.
. 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")
5
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Other non-discretionary actions that do not require CEQA review by the City of Chula Vista are:
. Preserve owner conveyance plan
· Tax agreement
· Funding Plan
. 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
SP A One Plan, including areas of public benefit as well as areas of development, will
occur in a reasonable and orderly manner.
. 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 Permiif4d permit) - the Interim Habitat Lo~pertnit willneed to be acquired
from the United sties Fish and Wildlife Service (U$lrWS) thrp9gh the 4( d) permit
process un,qe;~n~geral !H~ered~~cj~f1ct. :' .........
Annexatig~~ Aru:J;~tion ~~:~l, or P~:i9n~~~~lanniiAreas lid 3, and the Mary
Patrick as.~te (RanqljHou~~) into th~Rityof Gbula VisW-as apprdv~d by the San Diego
County ~l Ag~9~ Fo~tion Commissiop-(BAFCql; .............
Detachment - Detachment of the Otay Landfill complex from the City of Chula Vista by
LAFCO.
.
.
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 EIR 90-01 and Chula Vista Sphere
oflnfluence 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 EIR 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. "
6
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
The Otay Ranch Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #89010154, City EIR #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 Chula 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 oflnfluence 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 ............. ..........
. .-'" ....... .......
'" ..... ......' .......
'"' ,.. ....... .......
........ ...... .......
:::>-:-:::::: . :::::::::;::: :::::::::::::
. .... ....-.. .......
". ". ....... .......
/RECIRC'ULAl'ION.OF THESPA ONEDRAFTEIR.
Pursuant to the decision to recirculate the Draft EIR, the City revised the following sections of
the EIR:
. Section 1.0 Introduction/Executive Summary
. 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.)
7
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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.~nd the findings set forth below, ap:~pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21167.6, the administrative record of the :ehy Coun~jj decision on the
environmental an~b~~is(:)f.lis Proj~k~lijill cQ~isJ9f~e fQU9wmg: ..............
.
.
....-.. -""-", ,....... .-,'---- ........., ...... .......
....-.. ....... ...... ',"",- ," ..... ....... .......
....... .......-. ....... . ,".. ..... ...... ........
....... .......- ...... ,----.- ........... ....... ......
....... ........ ,....... .------ ",-,",,',' ...... .......
....",. ......... ...... ......- ", .... ....... .......
....." ......... ....... ....--- ".",' ...... .......
....... ,......-. ....... ..-....- ......,.. ....... .......
.......... ......... ....... .-.---... ... ..,.. ...... ......
.....- ..,......- -...... '--.-'..- ........,.. ....... .......
.,.--. .......... ....... .- .... -.....,...... ...... .......
....--. ........... ....... .-.- .. ..... ...,. ....... .......
......-- .,......... ........ -..-.... ".- -." . ...... .......
TheA4dendUin to the Draft Sec&ntPTiiM Envirolimental Impatt Report for the
Otay 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;
.
All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents
prepared by the planning consultant, 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;
8
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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 c&~s generally may not consider evid~cehot con~ained in the
trial record when t~yiewing such findings, courts geriially may:,"..ot consider
~~~~~:t~~~,t.~.f~~_f:~e l~p~~in~djr~:~~~lsI~ii~~I~d~~~..:.~l;1~~Q~]~
We alsosgnclude tlj~t extr~tfecord evi9!Mm.;i~generalIYrot admil~ble to show
=IT:~Ii;i.i~ii~:I~~~~~~t~ID~:'~;E~~:7;
a different rule in CEQA cases. II
(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court ("WSP A") (1995) 9 Ca1.4th
559, 565 [38 Cal.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, lithe 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. II (WSPA, supra, 9 Ca1.4th at 573, fn. 4 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139], citing
Del Mar Terrace Conservancy. Inc.. v. City Council of the City of San Diego (1992) 10
Cal.App.4th 712, 744 [12 Cal.Rptr.2d 785].)
9
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
VI.
TERMINOLOGVrrHE PURPOSE.OF FINDINGS UNDER CEOA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effect
identified in an EIR 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 substantially 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 permissible
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 Resoy,rces Code Section 21081, on which C~QA Guidelines section 15091
is based, uses the term "~~tigate" rather than "substantially l~~~en." TheCEQA Guidelines,
therefore, equate "mitigatipg" with "substantially lessening. "$uch an ::qpderstanding of the
statutory term is.(;:An$i$t~#twith~tlPUQ Respgl'cesQpde ~9t~g1:l>? I QQX;.Wbj~h declares the
Legislature's PoU9y.disfa\i'gr~ng tIi~~ppr()vaFof proj~~s withn~gnificanimvrronmental effects
where there are (,asible nYqgatio~measures9f~~~1il.tives tij~i could "iybid or substantially
lessen" such sig~~pcant eff~Rts. ............. </ ii ..:.:.
o:<iU:[l\;.. ../~rftu /?::H t:UU\. ..<:f~{)h :}}} ~rrt:
For purposes ofthe$t'iflnWngs,tlte term liav~idWsffiill refer/to the abtnfy:Qf one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant 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 restate 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 impact, 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
10
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic, social or other
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 FPEIR 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 n.ot been modified, superseded or withd.nnvn, the City of Chula Vista
("City" or "decisionmakers;r~hereby binds itself and any other r~~P6hsible p~ies, including the
Applicant and its successor$. in interest (hereinafter referred tp.~ "Appl~AAnt"), to implement
~~~~i~:ea:U~i~4~i~~:;~fb"~Y~ga1~#'!~ :~~ii~i~:s..l~tm~till~~~~~i~~ir ;~:na~r; 'C~~
adopts the resol~~~on(s) ap~2fvingle Proje~~.r ..............)
The adopted mit~~l.l~ion m~~uresle expre~fondigq~ of apProval. ct1~r requirements are
referenced in themitigan6htnonitdring progHintttdopfud concurrently willittWse 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]
11
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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. Planninfi!. and Zoning
No impact to compatibility of land uses within Village One or within Village Five is
anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1-6] .
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 ~mpact as a result of the approval ofJh~ GDP/SRP Amendment is
anticipated. [FEIR;}' olume I, p. 4.1-8] .. ....... .
....... ..
....... ...-.," ....
....... n'_,__ ......
....... ....-.. ......
....... ....... .......
....... H_.._. .......
....... ....-. .......
....... ....." .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... .....-. ......
....... .....-. .......
....... ....... .......
No impactJ9CQlJ~i~t@ncy wi~h~@ GDgt~~J~~ticj~~~<[F~H~;[Mg~yme I, p. 4.1-9]
....... .." ...
....... .....-.. ,....... ......... ........, .......... .......
.......- ........ . ..... ...... ...,.... .. . ........
..-.... ,....... .......... .......... .... .., ......... '"' ...
....... ........ .. - - ".", .. ....., ..... .......
........ ......... ,.....- . ..-. ........... ......... .......
....... ......... ....... "-'-.-." . ...... . ". .......
....... ......... ...'.... .'-.'.'..-. .... .... .... '.- .......
......,. ....,.,.. ... ... .... ..... -...... ...... .......
.....,., ..,.,.,... ,...... ...'....-.. ,..... .'-- ...... .......
........ ....."... ....-.- '.- .,.... .... ......,. .......
........ ..,..,....- ......- ......... ..,....... .. ... .......
......., ........... ....... .,. ..- .... ....... ........ ..,....
No impacfw SPA One consistency Wltbgther]ocal and regionaFpl~s is anticipated.
[FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1-10 through 4.1-11]
Landform Alteration! Aesthetics
No impact to lighting/astronomical dark sky policies related to the Palomar and Mt.
Laguna observatories is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.2-6]
The grading and construction will be visible during the buildout of the project from
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, but 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]
12
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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
....... ..........
....... ...........
....... ............
....... ...........
...". ............
....... .............
....... ..............
....... ..............
....... ...............
....... ............".
....... ......
....... .......
..-P-. "......
..........- ........
Implementation of .J.lj~ SPA One portion of the propo~~ project rW*ll result in a direct
impact to J9~i~~wIDch h~Yy~~n t~~!~9ir).4~val~~~W!p.otmiifiwant. Impacts to
these sitt?~-will ndt.p~ signUjbant. These sites{ge: SD1tl2,280; 8-12,466; SDI-13,861;
SDI-13 869, SDI-I2281' SDr~13 859' SDld3867. SDI-lj 870' SDIU2 465' SDI-13 860'
, :-:-:-:-:::-:: , :-:-~:-:-:-::, ::.:-:.:::<< , , ,.:-:.:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:-:-:-:-'<-:-:-:.:-:-:-:' .>>>:-:>, , .:-:-:-:.:-:-:" "
SDI-13,8p~; SDI-14~$71H~$DI-13,8f~H:TFlt)~R, Volqme I, p. 4;192]
Geology and Soils
No active or potentially active faults are known to exist on the site. No impact associated
with ground surface rupture is anticipated. [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 1 and 3, and the Mary
Patrick Estate is less than significant. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-9]
13
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Paleontological Resources
The impact to paleontology as a result of the annexation of Areas 1 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 hou~ing impacts, the annexation of the aboy~ properties within the City
of Chula Vista woul~ not be significant. [FEIR, V olull1~I;p. 4.8-5] .
",",""," ......, ....
....,.;....,.. .............' ............
. ,'," ......, ......
H." ," ....... .......
......,..... ..........,.. ..............
.... ...... .......
:::::::::::". ::::::::::::: :;::::::::::::
With resp~9t~QP9PHlationimp~9~S, th~mm~*~:ti(m of:!9.~~gje~plp~~es into the City
of Chula~ista w6~1~ not ~sSignificafiH [FE1!B Volutp~ I, p. 4.8rP]
Water Resource$and WaterOualit:k
. ........ "",-. ,---.-" ....... ...... ......
....... .......... .-..,-. ....-...... .."."....', ....... .......
........, ...... "," ....,'" ".-... .,',",.. ...... .......
...... ........ ..", "..-.-. . ,", ....... .......
....... .......... -........ ',.-,", ....,....,. ....... .......
....,... ." .. ."" . .-.-.' ",'.. ....... .......
.....,. ..-........ -"'-'" -.... ....... ...... .......
....... ...... .. ...... . ..... ..... ....... .......
..,..... ......... ....... ........ ......... ...... .......
......'......... .................... ...'......-'. ..............' ...................' ............. ..............
....... .........., ....... ........ ........... ....... .......
........ ........... ....... ........ ........". ...... .......
Due to thefilt~til'igaf pollutants duringpt';reolation, iri\addition totb~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]
With the implementation of the SPA One Master Drainage Plan, no hydrology impact on-
site is anticipated. [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 noise impact as a result of increases in traffic levels on roadways outside of SPA One
is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.12-17]
No impact on surrounding communities from other noise sources within SPA One is
anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.12-17]
14
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
No impact as a result of external non-traffic noise on SPA One is anticipated. [FEIR,
Volume I, p. 4.12-18]
No impact to SPA One from internal non-traffic noise sources is anticipated. [FEIR,
Volume I, p. 4.12-23]
Public Services and Utilities
No impact to the regional park requirements is anticipated with the implementation of
SPA One. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-21]
No impact related to the provision of local open space is anticipated with implementation
of SPA One. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-21]
No impact to trails is anticipated with the implementation ofthe proposed project. [FEIR,
Volume I, p. 4.13-21]
No impact to law enforcement services is anticipated. [FgJR, Volume I, p. 4.13-28]
....... ....,.......
....... ............
...... .............
....... .............
....... .............
....... ..............
....... ...............
....... ...........--..
..... ........
....... ........
....... ........
....... ........
....... .."......
No impact to firemMS services is anticipated. [FEIR, :Mplume 1,1$.4.13-32]
..... ...... ......
......- ..-.... ......
....... ....-.. ..... ............... ...... .......
........... ....-.- ....... ,.. -.. . ,- ....... .......
.............. ,,".-, .......... ........ ..................-. ...............,........ ........................
.......... ... .........- ..... ......... ............... ........ ........................ .......................
................. ,-, . ... ... ......... .. ... ..- ........ ...... ............... ........................
......-........... ....... ...... ........... ...............,..,.... ....................... .......................
...-............... ....... ....... ........... .................,...... ....................... .......................
.................... ....... ....... ,........... ......................... ....................... .......................
..,.-...-............ ..-.... ....... ........... .......................... ...,................... ........................
....,............,.-.. ....... ....... ............ ........................... ....................... .......................
No impa~ttb.aniIh~~p.. ontrQ.....l.....f:. ~cnitiesisanticip.~t..ed.l~E.?IR,Vofumrt,p. 4.13-34]
....... ......... - . .... ..... ......
....... ....... ....-..- .-..-..... ....-.. .......
....... ........ -...... . ... ....... .......
..,.,.. ....... ....... ......... .........-.... ...... ...........
...,.-. ....... -.-.... .... .....---..-.-......, ........ ...
...-_. ....... ....~.. .................. ....~.. .......
....... ....... ....... ...-...... ......... . .. ... .......
......" ....... ....... ....................-..-.. ...... .......
....... ....... ...." ...............-....-...... ....... .......
....." ....... ....." .......................-... ...... .......
....,.. ...........,. ....................-...-....- .....-. ......
No impa.ptto civic.f~~ilitie~is anticirmfed.1FJtlR, VolW'ne I, p. 4~~3-36]
....... ... . .. ... . ..".. . .. .......
....... ........ ........ . .... ,"., ....... .......
'.:-:-:-:-:-:-: :-:-:-:-:-:.;.;.;-:.:-_....-; :-:':-:-,':-.' ..:.....:.:-:-:- .;'....:..-:. .:.:-:.:-:-:-:
\~):<\" .,::::???:~~: :t)): <>?:\ ..{?tJ(~?>< }r\~~
No impadtH9.iYicfaeilitieS1:ls a resultuf-' the proposed annexation htWJUtipated. [FEIR,
Volume I, p. 4.13-36]
No impact to library services is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-36]
No impact related to the use of hazardous materials, or the exposure of future occupants
of SPA One is anticipated. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.14-2 through 4.14-4]
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
15
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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-ll; 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.
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 9yerall visual character of Project at:~~tfom unde.veloped land to an
urbanized area is a ~ignificant aesthetic impact. [FEIR,V;plume I, pP~ 4.2-5 through 4.2-
6] ..i: .......................... ................. ........ ............... (..................................... .ii.m.........i..........i................... :...
.;:;:::::;::::>' \:::::::::;}: -::;:;::::{}: ;:;:;:;::-::;: :::;:.
Additioqqf nighttim~ lighmto the Proj~t~~te.~TFEIR;~ olume I;'p. 4.2-6]
Implementation of the Project will impact steep slopes on site. [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 the 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]
16
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Biological Resources
DIRECT IMP ACTS
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: 172 acres of coastal sage scrub; 6.5 ~q~~ of disturbed coastal sage
scrub; 0.6 acre of nj~itime succulent scrub; and 0.6 acry grdisturbed maritime succulent
scrub. [FEIR, Voll:le I, pp. 4.3-12 through 4.3-14, Tlile 4.3-1, :B~gure 4.3-4]
...... .......
.......... ....
....... . ......
............... .......
.......... .... .......
....... . ...... .......
................... .....
.................... .
................. ..
Village Fbie
.,..... .....,............- ...... ....... .......
........ ~ . .,' ..-..... ....... ...... .......
...... . ...... ........ ....... ....... .....-.
...... - .". .. ,....... .... "' ...... .."...
.",--- ....~... ....... . ~..... ....... .......
....... ..,..... ,....... .... ........ ....... ...... .......
.............. ............ ....,',.-.-... ..-........................-.............. ............. ..............
....... ........ ,....-. ........................- ....... .......
....... .... .... ........ -................................. ...... .......
....... ....... ...... . ........... ...... ..... .....-. .......
....... ...... .......- ...... ................ ..... . ...... .......
....... ..,..... ...... .-.....---....... .......... ....... .......
Impleme##ition of .~~ Proj~qt would f~sulrin4ii:~ct sig~ncant im~9ts to approximately
~~0~~~ed~fGf~~~l't~r4~&igJ;eEii~~~1~~ I, p.~.3-15; se~.~lso id., pp. 4.3-13
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 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]
17
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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 IMP ACTS
The Project will res\llt in significant indirect impacts to 6.2 ClHes of coastal sage scrub and
5.6 acres of maritim~ succulent scrub in Village One~St6f Paseo Ranchero because
...-.... .....'......
these comm~?i~ies~f either a~jacent to~r:ery near proposed q~yelopment. (FEIR,
Volume I,p~=4~~tJ~...p. 4.?tbhffiable.4.?dJ
..... -. ..
....... ....-.-- ...... ....... .....~.... ....... .......
.......' ......-.- ....... ......- .. .. ...... .......
....... ...... - ...... ....... ...-... ....... .......
....... ..--..... ....... ....... ........ ..---. .......
........ ._,,__.. ....... ....... _........ "_'d. .......
....-- .....-... ....... ....... ........ ...... .......
....... ......... -.-.... ..-.... ......... ....... .......
....... ......... ....... ........ ...-..... ...... .......
........ ." .....-- ....... ........ ,..-..-.. .-..-.- .......
.......- ....-.-..... ....., ....... .....,.... ...... ...,...
........ ....--.. . -...... ........ ...... ..-. ....... .......
...-.... ..........- ~.. ,... ........ ........... ...... .......
......... ............. ...... ......... ..........-. ....... ........
Al h h '.'11. .......... ....... ..............d... .......... .......1.0.... ............t;;......... If .......... l' ..:<ij;{ . .1 h . th
t oug tepfop6se annexatIOn wOUn9t;uyltse , tesu t In a y.~y$J:9..il c ange In e
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
Implementation of the SPA One Plan would result in a direct impact to one site resource
(SDI-13,872H) 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 result in significant impacts to one important site
(SDI-13,864). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-12]
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 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]
18
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Although annexation of 11 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
development of these parcels which would, in turn, potentially impact any cultural
resources encountered. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-14]
Geologv 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 I, p. 4.5-7]
Expansive soils not detected prior to construction may severely damage structural
foundations. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-7, 8]
Due to the fact th~Hbentonitic clays and locally sheared~iltstones are present on the
project site, there i~ij potential impact related to slope~Wbaity on development.
[FEIR, Volume I,pj4.5-8] .......
........ .......
.......... .........
............. ..
.........."..., .......
................. ......-....
................... ", .
,................. ......
.................... ........,.
..................... ....
...................... ......
......... ...............
Paleontologicalltesourcesf
......, ........ "--,-,, "... .....
....... ......,.. ,---,,-- .......-', ........
Because~~e majorilof s~i One iSlthd~riii~~y the .~~ Diego
significan~~p1pac~~~~ and~ipated. ()$rgIR, Y9l-@me I, p[4.6-5]
......... ............. .",,,, -.-..... - .. ........... .......
. - n___ ...... ....... .......
Agricultural Resources
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]
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]
Water Resources and Water Qualitv
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 I, p. 4.9-7]
19
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14. 1996
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. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.9-9
through 4.9-10]
Transportation. Circulation. and Access
Impact Summary
All freeway impacts remain unmitigated during Phases I, II and III. [FEIR, Volume I,
p. 4.10-28 and Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 6-1 through 6-2]
The majority of roadway impacts are mitigated by upgrading the functional classification
in accordance with the City of Chula. Vista and County of San Diego Circulation
Elements. Several arterial roadway segments remain significantly impacted (LOS E or
F) at the General Plan level during Phases I, II and III as the Southbay transportation
network develops, although implementation of recommended intersection improvements
will reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-28]
....... ..........
With the exceptionQ~one intersection at Heritage Road!~tayMesa Road (which will be
impacted under Yei 2000 conditions only due to the)ijnited cit#YIation network and
r~~~e~~i()1t~~~~I~~s i1nY~i~a~~li~;!l1rs ~~~lt~;l~~r~{~~e;~r~n:~~~
under al!eevelopmw.# pha~s to a lev~lJ~~~ signiti9ant by nj,intaining acceptable
LOS D 9~better.~y Ph~ III Y eag.(201 0 c9tlpitions,~1l intersept~ons will operate at
acceptabl~~~vels9E~rvice~ith recOlptpendegmitigatiop.l> [FEIR, Tht91ume I, p. 4.10-28]
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]
20
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 Leq, 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 Leq
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
Palomar Street, an4x~sidents of the Satterla parcel being~~posed to significant aircraft
noise levels from tIWnearby San Diego Air Sports Ceq~p{)In addi!ion, project-related
traffic from the q~yelopment of all non-Otay Ranq" parcelsw-ould incrementally
contribute!9$igmnp~t cWPH~~~~ve q9i~imp~cts !Ri9~~t!)ep:~i,PY~I~ceptors located
along sJlUnding~d~dwaY$.[FEIR,V()IUme!iP' 4.1fj26] .......
Public Servicesartd Utilities
...",. ........ ....... ........--. ....~.~
......, ........ ....... '.-.- ,"'~'
......., ........ ....... ...... ... ","
....... ......... -...... . ..... .....
....... ........ ....... ......-. ..........
..".... ......... ,...... .'-0" ...
....... ......... ....... ....-... .........
....... ......... ....... ','-'" .. .........
........ "....... ....... .. .-.-. .... ..
........ .......... ....... ...-..,- ',~""~"
.....-.......... ..................... .......'.'...' .............'. --............,:-..
Water (W.tirC6rt~rvati6..., Reclailia~dW.t~t)
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.1, 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 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]
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
21
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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]
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]
....... ............
...... ............
....... .............
....... ............,
....... ..............
....... ..............
. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
...... ..........,..,.
....... ........
...... ........
....... .......
....... ........
...... ........
Although no deve1qpment applications for the non-O~y Ranchpiioperties have been
submittedt9~B~'Y9f Chyl~~~~ta at~$tihJ;,the~~}{~~~c,mqt'.ll,~ng Areas 1 and
fi :~e~~~~e~ :c~I\~~I~l~s~e~~:~l~~fl~~~~ibl I~c~~~~llL~~~ies and services
Parks
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 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]
FirefEmergency Medical Services (EMS)
Implementation of the SPA One plan would result in the need for additional Fire and
EMS services.
22
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-38 through 4.13-39]
Animal Control Services
Implementation of the SPA One Plan would generate the need for 806 square feet of
additional animal control facilities. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-41]
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 develgpment applications for the non-O~yRanch prpperties have been
submitted to the CitYpf Chula Vista at this time, the an#~~ation ofll~ing Areas 1 and
3, and theM~Pfliifk Es1:~]~mtcel wiPitilP~q~ libr~i~G~liti~~jp~y~lopment occurs
in these!~s due~~~he i~~ease in pOpulation) [FEIR~'Y olume I~pp. 4.13-46]
:~:))) \\(f :~):~:~:(
Integra~~ W asteM~nag~g;.ent
...... ....".. -"...- .......
....... ........ ....d. .......
....... ........ .....-. .......
...... ,........ .....-. .......
...... ........ ..-.... .......
........ ......... ....... .......
....... ........, ....__. ,'.d..
....... .......... "-.-,, .......
........ ...."... _d'_'_ ........
........ .......... '..--" .......
........ .......... ....... .......
........ ...........,.,.. ....... ..........
......... ..-..... ..,'. ........ - .....
The devet6pml#it6f SP AtOne wilft~U11:
generation. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-48]
Ilia
sigrifficant
incf~~
III solid waste
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]
Hazards/Risk of Upset
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
23
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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 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 conditi.Qns of approval for the GDP/SRP. [QPr/SRP Findings, pp. 14-18,
citing FPEIR, Volum~ 2, p. 4.9.2-1 through 4.9.2-2]Q
.
. SP A 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 that explicitly sets forth landscaping,
grading and buffering guidelines that will be implemented during Project development
24
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
which will prevent internal land 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.
....... ....n...
The City of Chula ili.sta finds the SPA One Plan compH~s'With this mitigation measure
because the development criteria set forth in the PhaseJ RMP h~y~ been incorporated
~~h~~~Uib~1~e~~.~~~:n0ik~~~tijn ;~t~!l?te~~~i~b;e~ c~~~~n:~
Trails P~~] ........ ...........)> ......... ............
#)* *
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]
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 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 and are required as
a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings.
[FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1-10]
25
City Council of the City of Chuta . May 14, 1996
. 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 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 landform
alterati onl aestheti cs.
....... ..........
The GDP/SRP Finq~gs adopted by the City of Chula \f~Hi6n Octo},er 28, 1993, found
that implementatiotl'pf the GDP/SRP would result in mgnificant ~*yironmental effects
~;~~~,t~~e~..~ifO~.I~f~~~~:I~~~g~ij...~~~~~~1fh~~~f.PFi~~i~;~ ~~~~
~E~~E~tfi~~~i:Jf~~i~~~;i:o~: t~.~~~;Js~
. 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%).
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 set 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.
26
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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)]
. At the SPA level, specific mitigation measures to 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 redu<:;~ grading and visual resource impac:!~Jl.ssociated with the Project
[FEIR, Volume I,.pp. 4.2-9 through 4.2-10]; a com,pHter generated visual analysis
illustrating propose44>pographic and design features wa$.prepared t9~ssist in the analysis
of visual cm9.gtAA~9g imp~,~:~~ciat~g'Witb:!pe S~?\.~rl~:mi~S:~ Volume I, pp.
~2~~~~~-'ilt~~e~iln\~~i;fF~~uI~~~~;~4~1~~~ t~i~eSi, ~!~~~t :~~~ ~!~~
~;~~f~~lij~ie:"~&:1 d~l~u~X~i~!~~~~~:i1;1s:~p~I~~d:~e 1~l:i~~;r:~~r~~o~ig~~
visible featm~$.pftheProject [FEIR, V61umel,pp. 4.2-9 through 4;2+Uk 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
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]
27
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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. 4.2-1 0; 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 l~d to an urbanized area is a signifi~i:!rJ aesthetic impact. [FEIR,
V olume I, pp. 4.2-$~ough 4.2_6]HHH
....... ....... ....
....". ....... ......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
...... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
~~i~~T~~~I~t~~tl.fb;i~lIBfl~~~~~I~(ij:lt::sQt~.~.ih~~~~_r~:)~~~U~:d ~~~
~~€u~iir~!I!~U~;J~~hfl!a;~;~
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.
* * *
Significant Project Impact: Addition of nighttime lights to the Project site. [FEIR,
V olume I, p. 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 mitigate the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance.
28
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 applicant 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 of the Final EIR to minimize off-site light impacts. The lighting
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and the City
Engineer.
* * *
....... ..........
.......... ...........
...... ............
.... . ............
.-...... .............
..---. .............
..... ............
....... ..............
....... ...............
.....- ...............
...... ........
....... ........
...... ,.......
..... ........
-:-:-:-;.",;.. :-:.:-:-:-:-:- ..':':'
....... ....... ......
............. .............. ..............
... ....... .......
....-;...-,. ....-.-.....- ..............
.," ," ...... .......
... ~.. ....... .......
'-' '-.', ...... .......
..... ,"-,-.. .......
..... ...... .......
:i;~~~t:~'jlo~~_~r$:~~tk;;fr~~:it~(:~~1!5~~~
through 4;4-8, Figur~s 4.2~1; 4.2-2] . ... ..... ........ ...... .. .. .......
....... ... . ...... ....... . ....... .......
....... ........ ...... ....... ..'"" ....... ..-....
......-- ........ ....... ....... p. ... ....... .......
....... ......... ...... ....... ....... ....... .......
...... ........ ....... ....... ......" ...... .......
........ ......... -...--. ....... .""., ....... .......
....... ......... .-..... ....... .....". ...... .......
....... ......... ...... ....... ......... ....... .......
........ ......... ~...... ........ ......... ...... .......
........ .......... - ..... ........ "....".- ....... .......
........ .......... ....... ........ --..-..... ...... .......
........ ........... ....... ........ -"-"-','-," ....... .......
........ ..........- ....... ........ .-....-.. ....... ........
...-..... ............. - ..... ......... ....-....... ....... ......
F'. d' Th:~~..........,.,..'t.,."'.,p.. bl.'.'R....'.'hi;;;;.a. .....",'. '.t'" 210S.1'.'. bd" '.;'.'.".'.'.1..\(1) d CEQA
m mg: rci1~uant ti u lCesources0VJ~$eCiOn ..: \ su IVIS10U\lb , an
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 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.
* * *
29
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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)(1), 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 measure 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; see also SPA One Plan,
Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP, Appendix F .11]
. The Findings of Fact for the Program EIR 90-03 impose a requirement that 83%
of steep slopes (land with gradients of 25% or greater) must be preserved on the
entire area of Otay Ranch. Quantifiable limits for the number of acres of steep
slopes that J!111Y be disturbed in each village orplwming area while ensuring
compliance ~th the 83% Ranch-wide preservati~g~tarldard haye been established.
Based on t4~total acres of steep slopes assum~9 to be ~$erved within Otay
Ra1;}RPtbti:mill the <qpg~d Ph~~~l~P (6,??Qq>>ypf t~g$~:J~9!~s), developable
st~~pHslope:Agteage:~W\n not exceed 1 ,?~U acreS'tor the entW~ Otay Ranch.
..., ........ ....... . -.. .,..... .......
:<::::::::> ::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::' ... ...........;.........}:;:::;:{ ::::::::::::: ;:;;::::;:::;:
....... ....... ....... ..-....... ........~. . ...... .......
>>:<-:<-: .:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:.>>>:.:. ....:-:-:-:-:-:.;.:-:-:.:::-:->:-:.:-:->;.>..;.:-- :.:-:-:-:-:-: :.:.:.:.:-:-:.
.......' ....... ,....... ............. ............. ...... .......
....... ....... ...... ............................ ....... .......
I~()rder tOm!sure~t no siIl.gl~enihl~llient in Qtay Ran~lj encroaches upon a
~~sp~~f~6~d!I~~re llft~ ~e~~~j'~~~tlt~~~jl~::~ee~Jt;I~~~~~ %~t :~h
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 AcresNillages. 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.
* * *
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
30
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
rolling hills and rural features of the site, to a neo-traditional urban development. [FEIR,
Volume I, p. 4.2-11; see also Figures 4.2-3 through 4.2-6]
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, 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 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 Measurel~ The mitigation measure describeq;ynder the preceding significant
effect is feasible, reqqired as a condition of Project apprpyal, and i~.wade binding on the
~~:~~c~;p~~e ~1~~/~~~~,-I:nll~n~;}flM;d J~:~ 4t~:
4.9.3 1] :,:""""" ..:,,',',',':,,',',:,':,,',','''''.,.''.,..........
:oi;>* *
Significant Project Impact: 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]
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, 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.
31
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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; see 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 eit~angered plant species would be si~mfieantly iI1}pacted. [GDP/SRP
Findings, p.;~(), citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.424 - 4.9.4f'; see also GDP/SRP
~~1~1J~~~.'~~~~~~jl~i~g~;I~~;~~:f~~~~t~~!'~'~j~1t9ygh 4.9.4-17 and
.
.
Significant impacts to Least Bell's vireo, tricolored blackbird, and the
southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. [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; see 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)]
32
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
.
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;
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, Thome'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; see 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 toJ()rty-nine (49) other sensitive wilq.Ufe species are potentially
significant. [ODP/SRP Findings, p. 66, citing:~IPEIR, V()lume 2, p. 4.9.4-5
through 4.9.4-87; see also GDP/SRP Findings, pp;:!p9-81, citing FPEIR, Volume 2,
SeS~~9P@S?.~.q.\miti~~P9~theasPf~$.!pe.tt~pnaI!9~m~~q~Jl<
.
....... ......... ......... .. -..". "....., ...... .......
........ ................. ....~.. ....... .......
....... ..."... ,........ ,'" "', ...... .......
....... ........ ....... ...... ....... .......
~~f:ga~, ~~rrf~rll~n~~~;~gi~~~'~, s~~1f:;I;~I~t;~3_51[~~~/~~
~~1~3~1~~~~JPj6 ~~i~fg~~~~~~~~~/~ltt:;;c;~~d~)] mitigation
.
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 californica), Burrowing Owl (Speotyto
cunnicularia), California Homed Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), Loggerhead Shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus), and Northern Harrier Hawk (Circus cyaneus), the City of Chula
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 II (Index of SPA Requirements),
pp. II-3 to II-12]
33
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
With respect to the Burrowing Owl, California Homed Lark, and Loggerhead Shrike, the
performance standard set forth in the GDPLSRP 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
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 revisedp~rformance standard for these specie~j~ to include within the Otay
Ranch Open Space ~~serve, occupied breeding and forag~ijghabitat alld sufficient habitat
to maintain and e~ce a viable metapopulation of~ch of th.~~ species. [FEIR,
~~~::g~~f~...~~1~~~e4~i!~~~~;?rii~;~1~fll~~~1 ~~~I~!~if~r~~ffo~i~e~~~a~
MSCP d~i'ibuted ~9~publ~preview in~Fhl~95. ............. ..............
:~h::U\ /:[{~f :~HHH .:)]u:r~>"'" :~:HH):rtr 11HHk
It should~~ not~.:that tij~ RMPp~rformwi~ stand~ds establj~hed for these four
grasslandspec.lt~#and for the other speci~~{:irldbabitats addressed irliji.~t&MP, are ranch-
wide performance standards based on the development areas and II,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 habitats 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 II,375-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 Homed 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 implementation of the Biota Monitoring Program included in Appendix F .11
of the Phase 2 RMP. With respect to the proposed performance standards for the four
grassland species, it is useful to understand some of the life history characteristics of these
34
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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
distributions characteristics of certain species that do not adhere to the more traditional
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, such as 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 hay~ been most widely studied in insect~...~uch as butterflies) tend to
occupy specific site~within the overall range and local P9pJilations tend to "blink out" and
then return, perhapsiA a geographically discontiguous ar~ for reas9P~ that are not widely
understoock./~..~~~ple i~~~'@Finit~~fQt~yRanqhj~tn~qu~.Rb~p%erspot butterfly
~~.1~~:fulft~~f.hj~!ii~1~~}!~:~~i
species sirice$~iiefal of them are Wid~Rt$gmg and do not exhipWthe 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." (Stochastic means by chance). This broad
definition of a metapopulation is the context 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
35
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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,
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 homed lark is a common breeding resident, abundant migrant and
winter visitor (Unitt 1984). On Otay Ranch, homed 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 C:l~part of the approved GDP.
... ............
... . ............
...... .............
....... .............
....... ..............
.. ...-..........
....... ...............
..... ............-..
...,-. .......
. , ........
P""- ......
....... ....",.
Loggerhead$brike is a fairly common resident .JU agriculttiQ11and, desert wash
=p1~'nl~~~~h~t~h~:r-~~~~'~~o~~~~B=~~~~~~~'....~~~~~g o:rr~r~~:
si~ered bti~nes ortqw trees f9f::P~t~~~s andp~rches (If:mtt 1984). On Otay
R~6ch, 10gg~!l1ead $J:lj:ikes areq9mm()Il.~# WolfW)d Poggi ~@yons and the Otay
RiY~l" syst~m;md a.t~presentqpOtayl~sa. Th.~~e areas \Y9Pld be preserved as
partotJUiedtay Ranch GDP. .................. nnnn ...... .... nO
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 City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan meets the revised performance
standard for the Burrowing Owl, California Homed 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 Leq or below. [FEIR,
36
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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, and the standard requiring preservation of 70% of gnatcatcher habitat. [FEIR,
Volume I, pp. 4.3-38 through 4.3-39; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 53] The City ofChula Vista
finds, based on recent studies, that a performance standard based on a noise level of 65
dBA Leq is more realistic. [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 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]
* * *
SPA One Project-Specific Impacts
DIRECT IMP ACTS
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
....... ....... ..... .........
........... ......' ....... ..............,
............. ....... ....... ........ ............-..-..
............... ....... ....... ......... ...................
.-................ ....... ....... ......... ................-..
.................. ....... ....... ........... ................-....
....................................... .............. ..............,'..................... ..................................
..................... ....... ,................. ........... '"'
...................... ....... ...... ............ ...........
.......... -.............. ,................... ..........
Village Qije Easf'fPasep l((ailcheroC
.............. ............... :............... .............-: ............. ..............
........ .......- ....... ....... ....... .......
....... ..-.... ....... '.' ..... .-..-. .......
....... ........ ........ ,. ..... ....... .......
....... ........ ....... ...... ............ ...... .......
.............. ............. :-............. ............-:............................., ............. ..............
::.:.:-:.:.:.:. .:-:.:-:.:-:-: ..:.:.:.:.:.:.' .-..:::::::-:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:-. :.:.:.:.:.:.: :-:.;.:.:-:.::
........ ........ ........ .... ......................, ...... ......
~i~~~~t,liil~rifl:~;~t;~~~a~e~1~IJi~~:=
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)(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 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
General Development Plan and the Phase 1 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:
37
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Preserve Conveyance Plan;
Otay Ranch Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Succulent Scrub Habitat
Replacement Plan; and
Biota Monitoring Program.
These Phase 2 RMP components will mItIgate direct impacts to SPA One
biological resources to a less-than-significant level (with the exception of direct
impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher, 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
located on the Otay Valley parcel and will contain substantial acreage of
upland scrub habitats and populations of California gnatcatchers and cactus
wrens.
Pursl.:1(l11t to policy 3.4 in the Phase 1 RMP,jgtplement the first phase of
the c9~stal sage scrub and maritime succm~rlfscrub re,storation programs
with$P A One, including minimum rest9:@tion of~!.6 acres of coastal
<:~f.~cirub 9~pj~and9:;~a.t:t~wof rp{Wiqm~ s~HI~p~::~crub habitat in
acc6:di~nce Withthe reSfurationr~,ios set(Qrth on p~e 93 of the Phase 2
RMP> ... ............ ........... ...........
....... ....... .-........-......................... ....... ......
....... ....... .... - --.-".... ... -...., .......
....... ....... ........................................ .....- .......
...... -...... .. ......... ..... ....... .......
....-.. ....... ..-.-....... ,...... ...... ......
.... ,...." --........ ....., ....... .......
...... ....... -...----- ......'.. ...... ......
.. ... p.'.. ......... .....-.. ....... .......
....... ...-..-...--.- ~-"-,,. ...... .......
....... -.-.... .-.....- . ,.. ....... ..",..
.. ..., .'...-- ..-..,-. ," ',.-, ...... ........
....... ,.--.., ........- '.'",'" ....... .-....
...... ....... ....-. ..... ...... .........
....... -...... ...,,-- .. . ....... .....
..... ....... -.....-- ......, ...... .......
.Be~.dnning it)} 996, implf1TIentih~. requirmnents of~~ Biota Monitoring
lltogram inCluding iniHal$;l.J:rVeys for California gria.t9~tcher and other
sensitive species within the 10 study plots established as part of the Phase
2RMP.
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.
* * *
38
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Village One West of Paseo Ranchero
Significant Project Impact: 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]
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 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)]
* * *
....... .......
..........- .......
............. .......
...........-.. .......
............... .......
.................. .......
................... . .
....................
..................
Village Jf~ye
....... ....... ....... ...........................-. ....... .......
....... ....... ....... ..~......... ....~.. ...... .......
....... ......-...... ." ....... .... . ..,.,.. .......
....... ....... ,....... ........... ....... ...... .......
....... ....... ...... ,..-..... ....... ....... .......
....... ....... ....... .... .... ....... ...... .......
....... ............. . -.~... ....... ....... .......
....... ....... ....... .... .' ....... .....- .......
...........--- ',-,'-":"-:.' :-............ '.'-:.'-:.:-'.' ....',......... ...........-. ..............
Significati''proje9tlinpac~;< ImpIJp~ntatiop':.pf theltroject wpqld result in direct
significanfilljp;i.ctsfOapproXimately O.7~qtehrfreshwater marsh.:{ll'lUR, 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)(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.
Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified under the first significant direct
impact on vegetation communities on pages 41 and 42 of these Findings 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) ]
* * *
39
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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; see 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 on pages 41 and 42 of these Findings 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)]
* * *
.... ....
.......... .......
............ .......
............... .....
......",........ ."..
.................. ....
.-. ."............ ....
....-".............
... .................. .......
......... ..............
.... ..... ............
... n.. .............
...".... ......-....
......... ..........
.-..-.... ...........
.."P" ...........
."..... ....-.....
........ .....,""
..-..... ....."
....... ........
."... ""....
n ...., .........
....... ........
....... ........
SENSITIVE PLANT
.. "0" .......
... -.. .......
.."'" .......
....... .......
.-..... .....
....... .......
....... ......
....... .......
... .,- .....
....... .......
....... "......
. ..-. .......
.. ... ........
....... .......
Village Qp~We~l9~
Significant Project Impact: The Project may potentially 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 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 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 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 on pages 41 and 42 of these Findings are feasible,
40
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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)(1), and CEQA
Guidelines section J?091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or~H~rations are required in, or
incorporated into, tg~Project which will lessen the sign#iiant effectas identified in the
Final EIR, including {mplementation of the Phase 2 RMfMThese m~ures, however, will
~~td~e~~~~h~sl.~~Eagh~~i;~~~~!)t~j;j-~O:2Ir~~~~~J~.!~~:~II?i.f6~~~cs~~~~f:~
(a)(3), ili,ie are noi~asibl~iitigationm~~~W!~~~at wq*~p mitigati~e impact to below
a level ot~ignificaQ~. AsgescribedJg:thed St~t~ent QrPverridirl.gConsiderations, the
City Coutffl~J has. 4~t~rmin~q.that thispppact j~~~ceptaQJ~ because \91' specific overriding
considerati6n~;< ..... ....... . ................... . .......... .............. ............. ................
Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified under the first significant direct
impact on vegetation communities on pages 41 and 42 of these Findings 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 californica). [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)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which will lessen the significant effect as identified in the
41
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 on pages 41 and 42 of these Findings are feasible,
required as a condition of approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these
Findings. [FEIR, V olume I, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43, 4.3-43 through 4.3-46
(Discussion)]
* * *
INDIRECT IMP ACTS
....... ..........
...... ...........
....... ........,...
....... ............
....... .............
n.'", ............
....... ..............
....... ..............
....... ...............
...,.. ....,..-.......
....... .,.......
......-. ........
0" .... ........
......... ........
Significant effect:~e Project will result in significant~pdirect irppacts to 6.2 acres of
~:~~~:~IBg~:~~~I~e~~61~~~ji.~~:..~~;e~aj~I.~10y~~~i~~~p~:~st ;~::~~
developti~rt. (FEI~f Vol.e I, p. 4.~7?~iPi~;p-14, l#ple 4.3-1)\
Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures identified under the first significant direct
impact on vegetation communities on pages 41 and 42 of these Findings are feasible,
required as a condition of approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these
Findings. [FEIR, V olume 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)(I), changes or alterations are required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which will lessen the significant effect as identified in the
42
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 chang~in the environment, future developm~l}tof Planning Areas 1 and 3,
and the Mary Patrie#: Estate would result in a potentiak#fipact to b.~ological resources.
[FEIR, Volume I, p;-4.3-42] ...........
...... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
......-. ....... ..... .........- ...... .......
..........- ......- ....... ................. ....... .......
............. ....... ........ ........ ................-_. ....................... ........................
.........-.....- ....... ...... ......... ......-. ,_. ...... ............. ,......... .......................
...........-..... ....... ....... ......... .........-...-....... ....................... ........................
..........-....... ....... ....... ........... .....................-. ..............'........ .......................
.................. ....... ....... ,.......... .................-.....-. ......................- ........................
..,................. ....... ....... -........... ........................ ....-.................. .......................
,.................... ....... ....... ........... .......................... ....................... ........................
...................... ............. ............ .....................-.....- ....................... .......................
Finding:JltsuallF~9tubliqf<esources@bde se8~~Qn 2f6$Jrsubdivi~l9h(a)( I), and CEQA
Guidelin~~section~?091 ,~9bdivision.(~)(l)t9nanges gf alteratio~. are required in, or
~~~~d~~tp~A~41..r~~\1~~7~~~, ~Mi~~~~~11~~~e~lt;~~~11~an~:n;e~~=:~~
standardsseV(Qiihtri the GbP/SRP Fiti&itlgs. AdheretICe to this:~dards, 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.
D. CUL TURAL RESOURCES
Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact
Finding: The SP A 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,
43
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 Otay 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 res~i:1fch design approved by the
appropriate J-W-isdiction, and for a sample of site~pes within the overall Project.
Site testing i$ required to adequately assess the~ites for tl1~ir importance under
CEQA.:m4J~al gqj9~hn~s. ...... .......
. 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.
* * *
SPA One Project-Specific Impacts
Significant Project Impact: Implementation of the SPA One Plan would result in a direct
impact to one site resource (SDJ-13,872H) of moderate significance. [FEIR, Volume I,
p. 4.4-12]
44
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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
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-13,872H, 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 Vi~t.<l,.
....... ............
....... ............
....... .............
....... .............
....... ..............
....... ..............
....... ...............
....... ............-..
....... ........
....... ........
....... ........
....... ........
. All brushing.ijnd grading within the SP A-One Prpject sham.be monitored. The
~~ir:~I~f.i t~: I~f!~g b;0~h:~~~fb:~:lidkig~':ir~n.on~~r ~~~
~savations;foad gr~ding, angkfy~~l;emovat~hall be 99prdinated with the
a#~paeologi9~ morii~9r. Anytesourc~~whichie gradedJ.~all be intensively
rrt9~itore~<)~pring ~~ding td~l1sur~.~lt anYiipportant :.~~lltures, isolates, or
dep6si.t$~either recorded and~QU~cte(Fbr excavated. Sh(1)h!.ijny 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 1 in the FEIR at page 4.4-14.
* * *
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 (SDI-13,864). [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-12]
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 impact identified in the Final EIR to
below a level of significance.
45
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 SP A-0ne 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 1 in the FEIR atpfl,ge 4.4-14.
* * *
Significant Project Impact: 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 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]
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 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
46
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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 t, 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 11 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 development of these parcels which would, in turn, potentially
impact any cultural resources encountered. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.4-14]
....... ..........
Finding: Pursuant:~9 Public Resources section 21081{~Ubdivision<(a)(I), and CEQA
Guidelines sectionJ~091, subdivision (a)(l), changes g#alteratio~~are required in, or
~~~~~~;~~_f~~'ir~ ~~~.!~~ lt~~~!~~~n~~~fj(;cmt:~~l?t9nmental effects
. 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 mitigate any impacts to cultural resources that were
identified. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Chula
Vista.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact
Finding: The SP A One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation
measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for impacts associated
with geology and soils. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.5-8 through 4.5-9]
47
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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
priorJ() submittal of tentative maps thatyyUJ provide input relative to
apprQphate slope design alternatives. T:ij~se mitigation measures shall
inchl.~~ benching, adjusting heights and I~lination$qf proposed cut and
fU~i~~les, rgi&ns Wal~~;$lQ~10oteq~~gl;~or~~;~~glJcontrol devices.
-............... ~:;ed'i~~eSh:C}~~~.8~~~lif:~~:ita~e~~e~a\~~1 ::;~~~~~i~~
..............................46fiilti: f~~~~e~~~~~l~I~:~J'it~~s~j~~~ a~~~fl~~~i:~cC~~::~
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.
A qualified geotechnical engineering consultant shall perform an
investigation of the site to evaluate the liquefaction potential upon
submittal of tentative 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.
48
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Landslide impacts shall be mitigated based upon site-specific geotechnical
studies on all tentative 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 satisfj~d by preparation of the geology and~QUs study prepared by Pacific
Soils Engineering, Jpe., in January 1994. [FEIR, p. 4.5jJJFEIR, Volume III, Appendix
G ("Geotechnical R'#~sibility Study, Villages 1 thru 5,"pacific SQil$ Engineering, Inc.
(January IJ;@~4))]{SPAQ~?Jan,{\pp~n.q~~), Q~9J.gg~~ R;,~9gmw~sance Report]
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 tolerant 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 (UBC).
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.,
in January 1994 [FEIR, p. 4.5-1; FEIR, Volume III, Appendix G ("Geotechnical
Feasibility Study, Villages 1 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
49
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
for the SPA One Plan. [pEIR, 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)(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 below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measure~: The following mitigation measuresl3.!~.Jeasible and are required as
conditions of apprdiy~l and are made binding on the 1\pp:Hdmt through these findings.
[FEIR, Volume I, p<~.5-1O] .............. .......
.
pm~;i~il1~~~~rovat~f~~ tenfJi~~:_~sso~lit~d;ithih~lb~~iopment of SPA
qp.e, the appUpant ~all submit~<~i~j~cific g~9technical~alysis prepared by
aUfensed g~techni9l1 consul~f,f()r tlj~\specifiq~ea propg~d for development.
;:~l;~~~lj[C~~1 !iS~~j~:i~I~~;jfN~fK:;i;~ mes~~~!Ii:'~~~co~~~:a~~~
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 not 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)(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 and are required as
conditions of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings.
[FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.5-10]
50
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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: 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 alternatively, 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 stmstural foundations. [FEIR, Volume It.R 4.5-7, 8]
....... ............
....... ............
....... .............
....... .... ........
....... ..............
,...... ..............
....... ...............
....... ...........".
....... ........
....... .......
..,-... .......
....... "'0._'.
....... ..........
Finding: Pursuant tq~ublic Resources Code section 210$'~ subdivi~qh (a)(1), and CEQA
~~~~~~::~'r~~~~.liO::~jl~h~~i~nw1ir~~~.il:;~ff'~~~~~lf~~::~r~~f~~t ~
identifie9~h the FinmEIRJi,he follo'Y4u~m~~gition m~isures w09lp reduce the impact
to belowglevel o~$ignifi(#mce. ................. ... ... .... ....... ......
· 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.
* * *
51
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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)(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 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 analysi~~hall be subject to the approval by th~G.ity Engineer. The analysis
shall includ~~but not be limited to an evaluat~pu3f slope~tability . within the
proposed ar~pf development. The report shall m~lude site.i>ecific geotechnical
~~~~e~~~~J~~cJitR~~a~~:Oh~l~f:li$ib~~~~I~ t~I~'n~:~~~:.ed for
....... ........".'", ".",'
.......','..... ............... .....'.........' ....
.......'...... .............-. C,',',',',',", .....,'....
......, ....... ,....... ....,......'.......,...
.........,.,.. .............. .........,',... ..'.:.............'....,.;......:...
...".. ....... ......, ......,--..,...,....- -.. ,"
...........,..' .......-...... .............. <..<..,;.....,.;........"................
........ ......... ........ ...,..... '" ....
....-.. .-.. . ...... ...,.".".,.....,......
.....,. ...-.... ,""'" ,..... .
....,.. .....-. ...... -....,.".".....
...,.-. ....., ,....... '." .",'
...........-.. ....-.-:-:,..: ..........'... .':'.....,.,.
.-..__. -.... " ....... ,.'.',',"
......---...-' .......:-:... ............. -.,'.",,"
.-,.... .- ",. ,......- ..,....'"...
...'.....-.. -:'-':-".'.-: ....:.:.:-:.;. ,','.','.';'
....... . '.'" .'
....-.. .... .'. .--".-'.- ....,'.
F. PALEONTOLOGICAL RbSOURCES
Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact
Finding: The SP A 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
52
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
pre-grade meeting shall be held amongst the paleontologist and the grading and
excavation contractors.
. 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 weeJs~) inspect original cuts in deposit~With an unknown resource
sensitivity (ll#;, Quaternary alluvium). ............
....... ....... ....
....... ....... ......
....... ....... ......
....... ......, .......
....... ....... ......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .....
....... ....... .......
...... ...... ....
..... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
~*~~~llt~.Rft~~iI;#~~.:~t;;~'vrr;k~t:r=~:
~ei~117~i:~gjl;1~~I~~;~:~~::~~
. 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.
53
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 SP A 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
paleontologist and paleontological monitor prior to the issuance of grading permits for
SP A 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.
..." ...."..
........ ........
p-,'" ...
....'.'.... .....
. ..... -.....
....... ..-....
.", ... ..
....". .......
...... ...,-.
* *.. ..*.......... ....'''''."<
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)(1), 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 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 VistalOtay Mesa area.
54
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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.
A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original
cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic
formations (i.e. San Diego, and Otay 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 on-site on at least a half-time basis
during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of
moderately sensitive geologic formations (i.e., unnamed river terrace
depo~~~s) to inspect cuts for contained fossg~.....
.
....... ...............
....... ............-..
....... ........
....... ........
....... .......
....... ........
In the event that fossils are discovered in modera:t~ly sensit~y~ formations, it may
~~lr~iri~tr~~jffi7!:h~f~~:y~~~ra n:,~I,l:~ltf~d~Il1y;:mppyerselY, if fossils
Ibn fossil~ire dil~vered, t~~~i~6~~~Lgist (~~paleontJj~giCal monitor) shall
~~,~~::~ft~..~~:!i ~;:~v,~j.~;~~r!1~~~~:1~~~(:~~'1a~~0~:I~~e ~~~~
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 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 the applicant's permission) 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
mitigation 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 permit 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 determine the potential for
paleontological resources to be encountered onsite. If the area proposed for
development has been identified as an area potentially containing paleontological
55
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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.
G. AGRICUL TURAL RESOURCES
Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact
.
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
56
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Town Center, and the Rural Estate 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 the areas planned adjacent to existing agricultural uses.
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
SP A One area, including standards that identify specific buffering techniques to ensure
compatibility betw~~I1 future development and permitteq.jpterim agricultural activity.
[FEIR, Volume I, ptf1-,7-12; SPA One Plan, p. 1-69 (Agri,swRfral Criteria); SPA
One Plan, AppendH~f, Phase 2 RMP, Edge Plan, p. 24QJ
....... ....... .....
........... ....... .......
............. ....... ....... ......
................ ......, ,...... ........
................. ....... ....... .......
.................- ....... ....... ...........
................... ....... ....... .......".
.... ..".........-. ....... ....... -...........
..................... ....... ....... .............
...................... ....... ....... ,"." ....
.... .... -.............. ...................
........., .............. ,...................
.... ... ............ ..............
.... .-" ............ ..-..........
..... ". ........... ...........
...... ........... ...-.......
....... ..-....... ....-....
....... .......... ..........
....... ..-...... ..--.....
..... ......... ........
..... .-....... ..--.....
........ ......... .........
.....- ........ ........
.....-. ........ -.......
..... . ........ ........
.... . ........ ........
..... ....... ..-....
........ ........ ....
.... ....... ....
..... ........ -......
...... .-..... .......
...... .-..... ....
.. ....... ...-...
......, ......... .......
..... ..... ......
.... ..-.... -......
....... ....... .......
..... ....... .......
....... ........ ........
...... ... ... -....
.... ....... .....
...... ....... -.....
...... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ....", .......
...... ....... ......
....... ....... .....
....-.. ........ ......
..' .... ......., ......
....... ........ ,.......
....... ....,.., ......
SP A OnJl!tpjec~7~p~ciflc.lippacts
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)(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
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]
* * *
57
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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)(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 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
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 m~4e binding on the Applicant through Findings. [FEIR, Volume
I, p. 4.7-14; GDP!~J}P Findings, pp. 96-99, citing p. Vol1J111e 2, pp. 4.9.8-1
through 4.9.8-3] ....
....... ....... ..... .....-,..
.......... ....... ....... .............
............. ....... ....... ........ ........
...........-... ....... ......- ......... ...-..-............
................. ....... ....... ......... ,.....-....-.........
.-................ ....... -...... ........... .-..........."........
................... ....... ....... ........... ........................
...................' ....... -...... ............ ...........,.............
..................... ....... ....... ........... .............",.......
...................... ....... ....... ............ .-..............".........
.......... '...,.......... ......,............ ....-...... ".........
..."..... .....""..... -................... ......... .........
......... .."........ .........,.... ........ .....
.....".. ............ -............ ........ ........
......,.. .......".. ........".. ....... .......
......... ........... .......".. ......- .......
.......- .......... .,."..... ..."... ..."...
........ .......... .......... ....... .......
....... ......... .".."., ...--.. .......
....... ......... ...."... ....... .......
....... ......... .-..."" ......' .......
.... ..- ......... ......-" .......
...... ........ ."..... .......
....... ......" .,....." .......
H. W A TERRESOUR.CES Ar.JD W A TEROUALITY
....... ...,... ....... .................
....... ....... ....... ...............
....... ....... ....... ............
....... ....... ,...... ...........
....... ....... ....... ... .....
....... ....... ....... .........
...... ....." ....... .........
...... ....." ....... .......
...... ....." ....... ........
...... ........ ....... ........
...... ....... ....... .......
....... ....,.., ....... .......
."... ..",.. ....... ........
Complia;lA~With<glJP Fliii!ings ofi~i!:ct
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.f
. The impacts associated with inundation shall be quantified by hydrologic and
hydraulic studies by a qualified hydrologist for the project applicant at the SPA
58
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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
appropriate mitigation measures developed. Amounts of urban runoffloading 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. EI~~ at the SPA level shall include analy~ts of specific BMPs in the
categories QA reduced pollutant generation, r~q.p'ced pollu~t transport, and
treatment ofjpolluted runoff. Specific BMPs tha.t~hall be <?Qvsidered at the SPA
fJI;lgill~I~~~~~~
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]
* * *
59
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
SPA One 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.
[FEIR, 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
recorded. Th~ fee is a contribution towards mitigating impacts to the unimproved
downstreampprtion of Telegraph Canyon Chann~IiComplianc;e with this measure
shall be verl~d by the Public Works DepartmeR~. .....
...................
..............".....
.......................
.......................,
.........................
...................... -,
.................... ..
...,....... .
*)* *
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.
[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)
60
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
for stormwater discharge. In order to be covered under NPDES Municipal Permit
No. CAOI08758, the proposed developed area will be required to mitigate impacts
to stormwater 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 stormwater pollution prevention plan be prepared and implemented for the
project.
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 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick E~t;:lte is potentially significant.
[FEIR, Volume I, R.~.9-9 through 4.9-10]"
....... . ..
....... ...........
....... ....... ......
....... ....... ......
....... ......- .......
....... ....... .......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
E;~t~~jr~F~i~~fjl;~i~~~;:i~]
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of applicable mitigation measures identified in the
Program EIR 90-01, 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]
I. TRANSPORTATION. CIRCULATION. AND ACCESS
Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact
Finding: The SP A 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
61
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14. 1996
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 for 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 mitig,gion measure through preparation9L.the Transportation Study
(documents Interim;):"ear 2010 and Buildout conditions) Wld the TrCl!,lsportation Phasing
Analysis (contains tb~ recommended set of transportatio'Q.$ystem in.):ptovements for three
phases of .9~Y~10pm~l1t [Pq~~@JJ 995,:6QOO;~pase U4~QQtf09?:f:lP;q)rhase III 2005-
2010]). Im[EIR, Vdlijlne I,pp. 4.10-1 tnrough4il0-2 atid.Figure 4+lP-l; FEIR, Volume
II, App@#4.ix B, T:lnspoIj~t.ion StudY~lhJj~; SP A~pe Plan,~ppendix C, Public
Facilities Einance PJ@, Set:;t~on 3.2 CI'raffic)]? ..... .....
.,..... ,....... ........ .'...,'.... ......... .....- .......
....... ........ ...... '." .... .. .... ....... .......
..'...........' ...............:. .............- .,;.,........ ................ .....-.-..... ............,.
,...... ....... ,....... ....,.... ........, ...... .......
'':':':-:-:-:-: .;.:.;.;.>>:.:.:-:-:.:-:-:-:. .....;......., :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:', ;.;.:.;.:.;-: ;.;.;.;.;.;.;.
'<:::::::::::::-. ..;:::;::::::::::::::: ,::::::::::::: >::::;::}::. .-:::::::::::::::::::: :;::::::::::: ::::::::::::::
. Tliesmudardto be.achievedfd;iUiiesthat the\Project aVGtqteduction 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,
62
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
V olume I, pp. 4.10-29 through 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 significant project-specific impacts are identified for County roadways, network
improvements to ad.d.ress SPA-related traffic contribution~JQ.County roadways will also
be funded by the Applicant's fair share contribution to tij~City's T~IF program. These
funds can be alloc~~~ by the City Council of the CiW-of Chuh(Vista to assist with
~~~~fov;~li~~...~~lf~~I~~ff,(;~~;ld~~~i[:s~~t~~~~.~~~~,~:-~~~~et~~~~~i
46] ....... .... . ..... ...... .......
....... ....... ....... .............,..................., ........ .......
.............. .........,.... ,............. .................... ............, ............ ...:........,.
............... .........,.... .............. ..:<............ ............. .........-.-. ........:.:.'
......, ....... ,....... ., ,'--',' ......., ...... .... .
~~~~~~~'iQ~~.e~f n\t~~~i:;sJlt:4~~i.::~.,~~:"Plies with the
. 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
63
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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, the 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 significant impact at interchanges.
....... ..........
With respect to thi~guideline, the City of Chula Vista fmdsthe SPA One Plan does not
result in any signifiiPt project-related impacts to freewaM~nterchang~ because mitigated
f~~s~~~~~61lft~6~tf;feli~~'~iSg~~~t~~~:~r[~~~iCt1i~~~iGIl~~~~;a~~~ ~t~~~~
pp. 9-23 Utrough 9479] ............. .......... ........ .... .......
D/C ;~f~~~~~H lUii:iH: .:~:)H:)::::>:-"""'" -. - -. )iH:C [~~~f@] ::~~:~~~\~t
\U Ci~9~~tioniiprovem~Qts sh()yll be inllementedprior to anticipated
4eteriorationbf LOS beIow~Stal51ished standards. ......
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 terminate 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 authority 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-term improvements will not be implemented,
64
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 confirmed 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 II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Tables 2.3 and 2.4] Use of these values
differs from the TMP and GDP/SRP Findings. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B,
Transportation Study, p. 3-19] However, the transportation study methodologies
complement the TMP methodology and were confirmed 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 of future Traffic M9pH6ring Prqgram field surveys,
interi~tions experiencing significant d~t~ys will:J@ identified. The
....::.:...::.:.......~~~lbti~~i~tfirh~~~g.~~h~~{I.l~e~liH~....~!_:....:;~~cto o~~~::~~~
impt9yementsfor the PW'Pq~l?9:rreducingintersect~pn delay.
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, the 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. [Id., p. 3-19] The
Transportation Study complements the TMP methodology by assisting with the
65
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 gp the Otay Valley Parcel shall coqtttbUte their. "fair share" to the
capital and Qtmrating costs associated with the traij~it facilitilffl.,serving the Project.
~~!~~~I~~:s.W!~~ ~~j~~~~~~tl~~i~~~[e~i~:.~~!:;~~~ r~~t~~
!~Ei~I~~JiI~liii~~~~~r~i5
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, 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 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. [See 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
66
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 Traditional San Diego
Communities", February, 1993)
The City of Chula Y~sta finds the SPA One Plan compliesw~th this aspect of the above-
referenced mitigati4pmeasure because the TDM mitiga~!9nStrategie~ are included in the
Transportation Stu4Y~ [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, ltinsportati.9P Study, Section 10-
...... .......
....... ....... ..... .......... ......
.......... ....... ....... ............... .......
.. ....... ....... ....... ........ .................. .......................
............ ....... ....... ......... ................... .......................
.....-.....-............. .............. ,........-..,. ,................... ............................................. ..............................................
3, p. 1 0-6):<', ::,.,,' """":':':':". ;,;,;,;,;,;,:,:,:',:,:,:,: :":':"':':':':':':' .:':':':':"':':':"':":"':':':':':"::':'::'" :,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,;,:,:,.,;:::...,.,........ .......
. ";<~j::C:/:~ ;:~~%~:~(\r::::::"""'" ))ty'" . .\~~:ti:t ..
PrePm-~ TraI1~portation .e~~p;g~J~s
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 mitigation measure of the SPA One Plan. [FEIR, Volume II,
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]
67
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Additionally, the Otay Ranch project is designed to be transit- and pedestrian-oriented, as
evidenced by the transit line and transit 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 LR T 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 ensure 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 Developm~pt approach embodied by the Project i~4~signed to increase the local
and regional trip capture through the efficient provisiorrgftransit\Pt?destrian\bicycle.
...Upg#t# Gen~J;~...~J~ns
Regional Freeway 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 still
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
68
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
responsible for freeway improvements to the regional freeway system. Thus, to address
freeway 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 Yista finds the SPA One Plan complies.>>ith this aspect of the above-
referenced mitigatiq# measure because the Transport~ioH:Study~d Transportation
Phasing Analysismialyze and recommend an incr~e in s~ifpent capacity and
~~~~~~,~i~~~1t~~oI0~~:~d~~0~~~"fti~~rtiiil~~!~!,:11"!1g:~~~~~~c~_~~
and Tabl~<9 .6, Trarliortat~9P PhasingAAlil.ly~~~'PP. 3-$,;4-6, 5- q~:~d Table 6.1]
....... ........ -...... ...........
....... "'---, ....... ........ ...
....... ............ ...........
......, ..-...... ........ .... ..
....... .. ,". ....... ..........
...... ........ '" ,- . - .......
....... .............. .......
....... ... '" ........ .........
....... -..,-... ...... .... ...
....... ....-.- ....... .......
....... ........ ....... .......
....... ....... ........ .........
AtiIhial IntetS~ctioriMitigatiort
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
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
69
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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]
· F or 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 Yista finds the SPA One Plan complie~with this mitigation measure
because the TransP9rtation Study and the Transportatj:QP>Analysis include a detailed
analysis of 49 exisdng or future intersections identified (9f the SP A)Qne Plan under Year
E:1if~i~~:tl!~~I~~1~~rfi~!f~
. 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. [See FEIR, Volume
II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p. 9-18, Table 6.1 and Figure 9-1 a; Transportation
Phasing Analysis, p. 6-3, Table 6.1, and Exhibit B]
. No more than 15,000 dwelling units or 4,000,000 million square feet of
commercial may be constructed within the Project until funding and construction
70
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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, 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 Facilities 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" cost contribution is precluded by Government Code section 65913.8.
[See, infra, p. 66-671
Proiect-specific Miti]~ation Measures
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
........ ....... ..... .......... ...... .......
........... ....... ....... ............... ....... .......
............. ....... ~...... ........ .......... ........ ....................... ........................
................ ....... ...... ......... ................... ....................... .......................
................. ....... ~...... ......... ...................... ....................... ........................
.................. ....... ...... ........... ....................... ....................... .......................
................... ....... ....... ........... ........................ ....................... ........................
.................... ....... -...... -........... ......................... ....................... .......................
..................... ....... ~................. ...... ..............-..... ....................... .............-..........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....... . . . ' ., ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The GDRf'$RP Flijij~pgs cWt9pted bym~dCitypf chui~vIsiafo~theFPEIR required
implem~ij~~tion of iiextetW~ye list of pr9J~~k~cific nl:~~~gation Il1!~ures for individual
::;~~~~If:.::I~~~~~I!~~~~:!i~~~~~:~~
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 segment 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 of the initially-recommended program-level mitigation may be necessary.
[See GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 112-116]
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
Vista 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
71
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 th~Jollowing mitigation improvements ar~n~quired at the SPA-level, as
set forth below: ....... ........
....... ...."..
.. ... P"'"
...... ....... ...
..... "H"'" ,.
....... ....... .....
...... ....... ...
.',.... ....... .......
....... ....... ......
.... ...... ......
.. ....... .......
....... ,".... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
,_.d" ....... .......
.--... ...-.. .......
SP Ac~rftn~e I :~pp~t,~ Ro~9!@~ijt~A veU9~m~~~gat~.g~m~trics.
......... ............ ,.......,',..... ......,.. .,...,....... ...... "-"'-'
......... ............ ............ ....,..,. '," ....... ...-..
......... ...-....... ............ "',',' ........,. ...... ........
.......- ............,.,..,.. .... '.. .. . ....... ......
.......- ........... ,......,.., ........ ......... ...... ........
S~~ One, ~I~se II:~perationi~pnw~~~nts tolonitalO~llakes Road.
. 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, as
set forth below:
Extend Eastlake Parkway south to Orange Avenue as 4-lane major during Phase
I.
[FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Table 6.1]
. Upgrade Hunte Parkway between EastLake Trails and Orange Avenue from a 4-
lane major to a 6-lane major.
72
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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.
SP A One, Phase II, Alternative B: East H StreetlOtay 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 Cemral Avenue between Bonita Road ang<harrol Canyon Road from a
2-lane collector to a 4-lane collector. ............
....... ........
..... .........
. ..... ....... ...
.".... ....... ....
....... ....... ......
....... ....... ......
.. .... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... ......
The City of~ijij~~Y'~~ta fiqq~<~~SP AQ~e~l.~coI11iP~~I.>>i$ t,hj~m1p:~!~able mitigation
measure~9ause tn~i{)llo~gfnitigati6fi impi(.ty~ment~:gre requir~q,~t the SPA-level, as
set forthntHow: ........ ...... .. .. .............
~1~7~ill~e a II~~r~~~~kl'enue "een S.twater and Corral
[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 Avenue 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]
73
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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 BonitalOtay Lakes Road.
SPA One, Phase II: East H StreetlOtay 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 do
not occur, the following additional segment mitigation that applies to the SPA One Plan,
would be required:
....... ..........
. Bonita Roa4~~tween Otay Lakes Road and Cen~[~IAvenue f~om 4-lane major to
6-lane major;) ....... ....
...... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... ..... .......... ...... .......
........... ....... ....... ............... ....... .......
............. ....... ....... ........ .................. ....................... ........................
.............. ....... -...... ......... ................... ....................... .......................
................- ....... ....... ......... ...................... ....................... ........................
.................. ....... ....... ,.......... ....................... ....................... .......................
................... ......... ....... ........... ........................... .....................,. ........................
.................... ..... ....... ,........... ............. ............... ....................... .......................
..................... ......... ....... ........... ...... ....... ......... ....................... ........................
............................. ....... ............ .... ............,......,.... ....................... .......................
The City9~Chui~y-l$ta firi4~theSP AGne PI~(;ompH~$With thi$~ppHcable mitigation
:~~0~~1~~~~ thi~olloWlg mitigati9H.i,mJ?l'BY~ments~e require,~~t the SPA-level, as
.....-. ,..........., ...... .. ....
....--.- ......... ...... ~.~. ....... ....... .......
....... ....... ,....... .... ........, ...... ........
......- ........ ...... ...... ... ... ....... ......
.....-.- ......-.. ,....... ......... ......... ...... .......
....... .......... ...... . ..... ....... ....... .......
....... ...... ,....... ...... ........, ...... .......
........ ......... ...... ....... ........ ....... .......
....... .......-. ,....... .......... ,......... ...... ........
....... ......... ...... ... .. ....... ....... ......
........ .......... ,....... ........ ........... ...... ........
........ .......... ...... ........ ...... .. ....... ......
........ ......... ,....... ........... ........... ...... .......
........ ........... ...... '.-.' .'. .......... ....... .......
......., .. ..... -... ,....... . . .. . ........... .. .... .......
SPA.OtltW:Pfulse I: Widen BonitaRQad between Palm Drivean4/Central Avenue
to a 4-lane major.
[FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, Table 6.1]
* * *
SPA One Project-Specific Impacts
The Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Study contains a detailed analysis of
significance to determine whether impacts to the study area network are "significant
project-related impacts." [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, Chapter
9.0, p. 9-12] This analysis relies on a three-tiered screening process to determine
significant project-related impacts. The three criteria are as follows:
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).
74
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
2. Fiver 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 Project
conditions.
The impact must meet all three criteria in order to be considered a significant project-
related impact. If the criteria are not met, the impact is considered to be 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.
Based on the analysis of significance, no significant project-related impacts to Study Area
roadway segments were found. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, p. 9-16] Thus, no
project-specific mitigation is required, and general mitigation to assist with the mitigation
of the General Study Area will take the form as the Applicant's fair contribution to the
appropriate City Dlfprogram for City improvement proj~s~s. At the discretion of the
City Council, thesdllF program contributions can be~OpCated tow~ds General Study
Area impacts to Coqnty roadways, such as those to whicij~e SPA <lie contributes a less-
than-signifj@~tP9t9.9n of~l3J'fjF and.m;~fQr~9~t t9glWm!~ a~lW~!ptable levels of
service uji:ger NoI7.qject c.qnditions.? ................ ............. .............
. Phase I - 1995 to 2000
. Phase II - 2001 to 2005
. Phase III - 2006 to 2010
The end of Phase III corresponds to the cumulative Year 2010 conditions with the
buildout of SPA One. Thus, while the following of discussion of impacts by phase states
that there are significant impacts to the network, the cumulative effect of these impacts
in Year 2010 were found to be less-than-significant with regard to project-related impacts.
As stated above, this analysis is based on three defined criteria to determine if a project-
related impact is significant or less-than-significant.
75
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
It should also be noted that the range of project contribution to total ADT volumes during
the three phases ranges from less than one to approximately 20.3 percent. The amount
of project traffic contributed to City roadways is inconsequential to the determination of
the level of the project impact because the City requires the Applicant to contribute to the
appropriate DIF program. With the exception of one roadway segment, the SPA One
contribution on all County roadways projected to operate at unacceptable LOS E or F is
less than four percent (4%). The one exception is Corral Canyon Road from Central
Avenue to County Vistas Lane, which is expected to carry approximately 20 percent of
SPA One traffic during Phase III. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing
Analysis, Tables 5.3 and 5.4] However, this is considered to be a short-term impact due
to the fact that projected traffic volumes will return to Year 1995 volumes (7,000 vpd)
during Full Southbay Buildout Conditions with additional network connections and the
construction of future SR-125. [FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Study, p.
9-20 and Table 7.2]
* * *
PHASE lIMP ACW0i . .
Significant Project.~wpact: Implementation of the PrQject will q~grade LOS on four
~~~!:1~f%~1~FI~ift~t;.i~r~t~~ :~~~~;~:;~: f~i
Mitigation: 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]
76
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
* * *
Significant Project Impact: The SPA One traffic contribution to the following arterial
roadways at Phase I as reflected by projected LOS is a significant impact: Bonita Road:
Otay Lakes Road to Palm Drive, Palm Drive to Central A venue, and San Miguel Road
to Sweetwater Road; H Street: Hilltop Drive to I-80S, and I-80S to Hidden Vista Drive;
Telegraph Canyon Road: Nacion Avenue to I-80S and I-80S to Crest Drive/Oleander
A venue; and Otay Mesa Road: Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard. [FEIR, Volume
I, p. 4.10-10; see also FEIR, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-2, 3-5
through 3-8, Table 3.2]
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 during Phase I which will lessen the significant
environmental effect identified in the Final ElR but not to below a level of significance.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and CEQA
Guidelines section 1?091, subdivision (a)(3), there are nqtc;;a..sible measures that would
mitigate the impactpelow a level of significance atgp-Mk I. As described in the
Statement of Overri4ipg Considerations, the City Counc~l~as determ~ned that this impact
is accepta9l'r~p~~of sBrs~fiQ9ven;~9~pg...gen~ideI!Ji~~qi~~...... ..>..>::
:-:-:-:-:-:.:.;'" '-:<';':-;':';-:".-:' .:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:-:<." ..;-:-:.;.:-:-: :-:-:-:':-:-:-. .:.:.:-:-:-:. .:-:.:-:.:.:.:
}>}~< \)~{{:~ ::>>>>" ;::::::::::::: ~{:>~:~~ r~{< :::{{:~:
~~Jai~F;!~!~S~I~f~fr~f~?~;~
connections which alleviate the impacts and preclude earlier unnecessary improvements.
[FEIR, Volume II, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 3-5]
Mitigation: The following mitigation measures is feasible, required as a condition of
Project approval, and made binding on the Applicant through these findings. [FElR,
Volume I, pp. 4.10-9 through 4.10-11, 4.10-32; and Appendix B, Transportation Phasing
Analysis, pp. 3-5, 6-1 through 6-6, Table 6.1, Transportation Study, Section 9.5]
. 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.
Another tool that will assist with impact mitigation is the City of Chula Vista's annual
TMP process. That process can assist the City in identifying the timing and need for the
mitigation measures identified in the Transportation Phasing Analysis described above.
* * *
77
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Significant Project Impact: At the completion of Phase I, implementation of the Project
would result in the following significant impacts: the signalized intersections at Bonita
Road/Central Avenue, Telegraph Canyon Road/I-805 Northbound Ramps, and Heritage
Road/Otay Mesa in the City will operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours; the
signalized intersections on Telegraph Canyon Road at Oleander Avenue and Paseo del
Rey will operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour; and five of seven unsignalized
intersections will operate at LOS E or F during the peak hours for one or more turning
movements. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-11; see also FEIR, Appendix B, Transportation
Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-9 through 3-13, Tables 3.3, 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 during Phase I will lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance for all but the Heritage
Road/Otay Mesa Road signalized intersection. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-12; see also
FEIR, Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 3-9, 3-12, 3-14, Table 3-5, 6-1
through 6-6, Table 6.1] Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision
(a)(3), and CEQAQuidelines section 15091, subdivisiol1{c:l)(3), there are no feasible
measures that woulgmitigate the impact below a levelgf:Significance at Phase I. As
described in the Stat~lnent of Overriding Considerations.~~e City C9-Qncil has determined
that this s!mBPt{:gp~wpact~~~8F~ptabJ~Npe~9~@ of ~P~F~PS9v~ITil9gponsiderations.
-::::::::::}::.- "<:::::}:;:;:;:; :::::::::::::::::::>' - :;::::::::::::: ::::}::::::: ::::::::::::; ~{{<:
....... ........... ,......... ....... . "-,' ...... .......
.......- ......~. .....-.. -,-,.. ....... .......
...'.'..... ..:............ ................. .....:-:.:.:-. ............. ..............
Mitigatigp: The f9~~pwinginitigationm~~Rf~is feas~~le, requi14 as a condition of
f-~~;~ 'i~iT:{lr~E.:~1t~o9~~;~~y!~E~i
. 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 IMPACTS
Significant Project Impact: At the completion of Phase II, regardless of which freeway
segment performance alternative is constructed by Caltrans, 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; 1-805 from 1-8 to II Street and from Otay Valley Road to
Palm Avenue; and 1-805 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]
78
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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, including development of a Deficiency Plan, 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 Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this
impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation: 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 M(ffiagement Program. [FEIR, V olum~J,pp. 4.10-9 through 4.10-10,
4.1 0-32; FEt~; Appendix B, Transportation Phas~qgAnalysis,pp. 3-2, 6-1 through
6-6, Table q.M Transportation Study, Section 9.?J
............. ...
......-...........
......."...........
.......................
......... -.. ......
.........................
..........................
.....................
........... .
*)* *
....... ......-.. .......... ......"...' ""','", ......, .....
....... ........ ........- . . ......... ...... .......
.......- ......." . ...... .. . ........ ........
...'....,....- .............,.. '-:.'-:.-.-.:< .....>...,.... ........:.:. .............
......., ....,.., " ",",-. .. .... ..... .......
...-"." ........ ....... ....... ....... ....,..
....-_. ......- "'.'.' . ...... ....... .......
.....,.. ..,..... .,. '," '.','" ..... .......
....... ...,.,. ,.,....'. . ..... ....,.. ..,....
...-... ........ '-.",.-.. . "','" ...... .....,.
...,... ....,.,.... ................... .......,. ........
.,..". ..,.... ..... '.' ........,............,...... ... .,' ... ...
...,... ....,.. '...'.... ...... '.' ...... ". .... ........
......- ....... -.... . .. ......,.......... ..... ......... ......
........ ........ - ".' ........... ..,...........,.., .... .......
...........'... .............. ','-','---'-, ...............:.:-....-:,.-:..........-:,....... ..........:-. ....'........,
....... ..,........-. .,.,....,.. ...................,.. ....... ..,..,.
.,..... ....". ....-.. .,- -,..... ,.. ',,-. ,.... .-.' ....... ...,...
.,..... ....,.. ....... ...-.........,.... .. ..... ....,.. .,.....
....... ....... ....-.. .'.......... .... '-". .........
....... ....... ....-.. .... .".-" ..... ....... ......
....... ....... ""-.-- '.'.... ....... . .... .....
....... ......- ...... ..... ','" ....... ......... .......
.,...... ....... ....... ..... '.' ......... ....... ......
....... ....... ....... ." '," ". .'. .... .......
..,.... ....... .....,. ...., '.' ..... '.. ........ .......
:-:-:-:-:-:.:- .-:-:':':-:':-: ,-:-:-:'.-:-:' :->:-:-:::-:- .-:._-:':-....:-:-..>:-:-. :-:-:-:-:-:.:.
....... ....... ....... ......, .-....-... ..~..~ .,.....
Significai#Projest~wpact;The SPj\.pne. wEc con#,ibution t4Wterial roadways at
Phase II iS~$.ignificant impact, regaHU$$sHfwhich ?iIterial exteti$iQl1 alternative is
constructed. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-13 through 4.10-14; see also FEIR, 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]
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 during Phase II which will lessen the significant
environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance. [See
FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.1 0-14 and Table 4.1 0-2]
Mitigation: 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, and Appendix B, Transportation
Phasing Analysis, p. 4-6, Transportation Study, Section 9.5 and pp. 9-6 through 9-7]
. 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.
79
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
* * *
Significant Project Impact: Under the Alternative A circulation network scenario, which
includes the extension of Palomar Street only to the east, implementation of the Project
at Phase II will result in four intersections operating at unacceptable LOS E or F during
peak hours, including Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon RoadlMedical
Center Drive, East H Street/Hidden Vista and Orange Avenue/Brandywine Avenue.
[FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-15 and Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 4-12,
4-19 through 4-20, Table 4.5]
Under the Alternative B circulation network scenario, which extends Orange Avenue
rather than Palomar Street, three intersections will operate at unacceptable LOS E or F
during the PM peak hour, including Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road, East H StreetlHidden
Vista, and Orange A venue/Brandywine Avenue, and one intersection (East H Street/Otay
Lakes Road) will operate at unacceptable LOS E during both AM and PM peak hours.
[FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-15 and Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 4-17,
4-21 through 4-22, Iable 4.6]
....... ............
....... ............
....... .............
...... .............
.... - ..............
...-..- ..............
....... ...............
..... - ............-..
.. .. ........
....... ........
....... ......
....... ........
.... .........
Finding: Pursuant tgpublic Resources Code section 210$t~ subdivi~9P (a)(I), and CEQA
Guidelines~ctiqn~?091 ,~Wiyjsion(~)H)~Qhang~~9~~t~ra~~9P~4W~ required in, or
incorpora.tqainto;m~ Proj~9f>dillingPhase n~i;ncllldl~gUlmprovements to intersection
geometrig$. and sigq#lizatigij, whichWm!~~* the ~~inificantiivironmental effect
identifieg~n the F~~l EIll-to belowa>levdgf sign~n~ance un9~t either circulation
network~nario~t$ee FI;JR, V olu~~J, pp.4i~p-15 tl1fpugh 4.1 otlp, and Appendix B,
TransportatH:jjj:Phasing Analysis, pp.4Uo/UITdugh 4-18;4-23, Tabl~:4;7, 4.8]
Mitigation: 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 4.1 0-2, and Appendix B,
Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 4-17 through 4-18, Transportation Study, Section 9.5
and pp. 9-6 through 9-7]
. 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 ofthe Transportation Section of the SPA One
Final EIR.
* * *
PHASE III IMPACTS
Significant Project Impact: Under freeway segment performance Alternative A, which
includes construction of a half-diamond interchange at Palomar StreetlI-805,
80
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
implementation of the Project at Phase II 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 1-805 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 1-805 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]
Under freeway segment performance Alternative B, which does not include construction
of a half-diamond interchange at Palomar StreetlI-805, implementation of the Project at
Phase II 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 ofl-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]
....... .........
Finding: Pursuant tPl?ublic Resources Code section 21O~~;subdivisi<?p (a)(1), and CEQA
Guidelines section.~g091, subdivision (a)(1), changes 9t.alteratiop~are required in, or
incorporat~i:d.tQ,!l1~ Proj~91{~nfludipgfQtm~latio1J:9t~mef19~!#.9x~lan, which will
lessen th~~ignifi2antenvi1'9rnnental effect ideijpfied intlje Final :e.Ut, but not to below
~~~~if!I;(~!~fmi~~lf;~fIJL~~~?1~
impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation: 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, and Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis, 5-4,
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]
* * *
Significant Project Impact: The SPA One traffic contribution to arterial roadways at
Phase III is a significant impact, regardless of which arterial extension alternative is
81
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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]
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 during Phase III, including enhanced intersection geometries
and improved signalization, which will lessen the significant environmental effect
identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance.
Mitigation: 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. 4.1 0-18, 4.10-32, Transportation Phasing Analysis, p. 5-13, Transportation
Study, Section 9.5 and pp. 9-6 through 9-7]
. 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.
* * *
Under the Alternative B circulation network scenario, which extends Orange Avenue
rather than Palomar Street, one intersection will operate at unacceptable LOS E or F
during the AM and PM peak hours. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-18 and Appendix B,
Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 5-19, 5-22 through 5-23, Table 5.6]
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 during Phase III, including planned geometric improvements
to intersections and signalization, which will lessen the significant environmental effect
identified in the Final EIR to below a level of significance under either circulation
network scenario. [See FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-18 through 4.10-19 and Appendix B,
Transportation Phasing Analysis, pp. 5-19, 5-24, Tables 5.7 and 5.8]
* * *
82
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14. 1996
TRAFFIC IMP ACT SUMMARY
Significant Project Impact: All freeway impacts remain unmitigated during Phases I, II
and III. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.10-28 and Appendix B, Transportation Phasing Analysis,
pp. 6-1 through 6-2]
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code 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, 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 and are required as
conditions of approY(:11 and are made binding on the App1.!S(:lnt through these Findings.
[FEIR, Volume I, pp; 4.10-17, 4.10-32, Transportation,~fudy, Sect~on 9.5 and pp. 9-6
through 9-7] ...... HH ....
.......................
.............. .
.
i2s~tq:i~;~~~;t:~r~~d:~iT~:':~~~ :~
....... ....... ....... .......
.. ......
....... ,......
....... .......
....... n. .
....... .'..
....... .-""
....... ...,-...
........ .... -'.
........ ...,--,.
........ ........
........ ,..... -..
........ ."...
......... .....,-.
*<<::W:::::::::*::.}>:: ::::::
............"...
Significant Project Impact: The majority of roadway impacts are mitigated by upgrading
the functional classification in accordance with the City of Chula Vista and County of San
Diego Circulation Elements. Several arterial roadway segments remain significantly
impacted (LOS E or F) at the General Plan level during Phases I, II and III as the
Southbay transportation network develops, although implementation of recommended
intersection improvements will reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. [FEIR,
Volume I, p. 4.10-28]
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code 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. 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.
83
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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.
. 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 4.1 0-2, 4.10-3, and 4.10-5 of the Transportation Section of the Final
EIR.
Peak hour intersections impacted by the SPA One project are; East H Street/Otay Lakes
Road and Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road.
* * *
Significant Project Impact: With the exception of one intersection at Heritage Road/Otay
Mesa Road (which will be impacted under Year 2000 conditions only due to the limited
circulation network and return to acceptable LOS by Year 2005 in Phase II),
implementation of ~~9ommended intersection improvemel1J~:will mitigate all impacts to
peak hour intersect~QP performance under all developtp~ntphases to a level less than
significant by mai~ining acceptable LOS D or be<<~r. By f'(1.l~se III Year 2010
conditions~~Hin~~rIRtionswig9perat~!iJ;taC~P!llble J!?Y~!~9f: sery~E~M(~W recommended
mitigationi{FEIR;.[Molum-el,p. 4.1 O~28] .............. ............. ..............
..-.,-. ........ ....... ........'.. ....... .......
....... ...--.- ........ ,",," ...... ........
........ ...-..... ....... - ", ....... ......
......- .....- ....... ....,.~ ...... .......
....... ........ ....",. ......., ....... .......
....... ....... ....". .............,~... ...... .......
...... .......-. ....... -,. ........... . .... ....... .......
...-... .. ".-. .....". ................ ........, ...... .......
....... ...-, ...... .............. ...~..... ....... .......
........ ....... .,..... ......~. ........ ........ ...... .......
....... ......... ....... ....... ..-................ ....... .......
....... ... .... .....," .........-............. .... ...... .......
....... ...... ,...,. ........ ..................... ....... ....,..
Finding: Rursuantt9 Secttgp 15091.(~YTl)of~e Sta~~CEQA Qwpelines, changes or
a1teratiori~we reqqi;' in, Q#incorpol'~~d intq.D Proje9(which wJ~tsubstantially lessen
the signifidllit~riVirofunentMeffect asi~1:ltifiedin the Final EIR, how~yer, not to a level
below significance. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
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.
. 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 Final
EIR.
84
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
J. AIR QUALITY
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]
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. 117-119, 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 ApplicapJshall incorporate into the SPA plans GiHJeasible measures developed
by the Coutj(y of San Diego in the Regional 4i6(Quality Strategy (RAQS) in
response to(lje California Clean Air Act (CCA4Js .......
.
...... ...... .......
".,.,. . .. .....,.. .......
....... ....... .. .. ........ ...~ . .......
g~~'~~I::4l~il~1~{f;~I?Ec~!:~:l~
C09trPt.
.
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.
85
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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]
* * *
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 tgpublic Resources Code section 21 O~~~Subdivisi()n (a)( 1), and CEQA
Guidelines section 1$091, subdivision (a)(1), changes &-talteration$.are required in, or
incorporat~q~ffim{J~!Projep~)YbiSh wiJI~,b$t~yally~~,p;~e ~!gmI9~t environmental
effect asjqentifie<i.ip the Fwa1 EIR/however;not to.~ level be,J.9'w significance. In
=~~~1!~~t s;~~lfal~y~r.~se~i~~qdl~~~~ir.:~~~~t~~~~~~ al.r~~~~l~m~~~fs:t~:~
that Suchlmpacts<Wlt~ rem~ip signifis~t becl,l~. short-'j~rm NOX:i1d PMI0 emissions
will exceedth~qUarterly tlid&shold forsiitlificahee. [FEIR, p. 4.114:$,\W.~d 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 see 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.
86
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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.
. Electricity during building construction shall be obtained from power poles instead
of temporary generators.
* * *
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 tQfublic Resources Code section 210~~~subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA
Guidelines section}p091, subdivision (a)(I), changes 9talteratioo$are required in, or
~['lIl1e:ftlfl~fe~~~~
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; see 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.
87
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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).
Dedicated bike lanes to encourage use of bicycles.
Bicycle storage facilities at employment and retail centers.
...".. ..........
Sho~et and locker facilities at offices to!peourage bicycle use.
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 information on ride sharing and/or mass transit opportunities,
recycling, energy conservation programs, etc.
88
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Transportation-related Management Actions
Land for transit support facilities such as bus stops, park-and-ride lots,
etc. shall be provided. A determination 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 traffic 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.
....... ..........
Compl~ance with APCD Indirect Source.€ionttol Pro~ram, if adopted.
....... ....... ......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
...... ...... .......
...... ....... .......
....... ...... ......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... ......
....... ....... .......
....... ....., .......
...........)...M~j9~empI9YtF~~l1all .P~9Tvi~f~pesh;tf:i~~9l]m~~i"~~t incentives.
* **.
::::::::::::::: ;:;:;:;:;:;:;: :::::::;:>:;- ..;.::::::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:::::::::;::::::::::::::: :::;:;:;:;:;: :::::;:::::::;
~:'[:~[[~::~:::, ;i]:!:: [::::!:: :j~~~~ ~:( ~ 1:j\ ': ~~~~[[:[~: [rl[::::::::::::::':':':':':"';' - -:. ;~1~j~1:j:]]jj. . !:l:[:[: i:~:~ ~~]jjj]11\:[l:
....... ........ ......,' .,..... ......,. ...... .......
....... ........ ...,.. ....... ..... .. ....... .......
......., ........ ,..,.... ...,.-, ......., ....., .......
....,.. ,........ ...... .,..... .......... ......, .......
.. ..... ........ ....,.. ,..,.,. '. .... ...... .......
.............. .................. .....,.,..'.., ....,......'.. -.'......-..... ............' ..............
....... ......". ....... ....... ........ ....... .......
........ ......... ....... ........ ......... ...... .......
........ ..........."... ......" ..........- ....... .......
........ .......,., ....... .-...... --.. ...... ...... .......
........ ........... ....... ....... ....... ... ...,... .......
........ ........... ....... ........ ........... ...... .......
SlgnificantPtQj~Ftmpact:Althoughfiiept()p6sed annexation wouldlmtf 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)(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. 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, Volume I, p. 4.11-15]
89
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. Any future development plans within the 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 With GDP Findings Of Fact
Finding: Except for the performance standard for noise impacts to California
Gnatcatcher habitat, the SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation
measures/performance 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
that implementatioflgf the GDP/SRP would result in a significant environmental noise
effect that is releva9P~o the SPA One Plan. [GDP/SRPf!jrldings, p.}20, citing FPEIR,
Volume 2, p. 4.9.1$S~ through 4.9.13-3] As regards thi~]inpact, ttmPDP/SRP Findings
found the<w~Ugi:twpn~easw;~~~wruncw~~~l.gw tqp~f~Mibl~:~itm~quired that they
be implem~rlted by~~ Apppqant as cdrlditionsprapproV.lPfor the G-IP/SRP. [GDP/SRP
Findings;pp. 121-l.~f, citmg FPEIR,<}{pl.~~, pp. 4:~I.13-4 th1;9ygh 4.9.13-5]
....... .-...... ...... .............................,. ....... ......
....... ....... ........ ............... ....... ...... .......
....... ...... ...... . "... ....... ....... .......
....... ....... ,....... ......... ......, ...... .......
............... ...:...;....< ,............. ......-...-....... ............. ............. .........,.,.
:::::::::::::; ;;::::::::::::: });::::: .::::::::::::::> :;:;:;:::;:::::::;;;:;::::: :;:;:::::;:::;
· A.~t~t~spesjn9 acouJtkal study-Wtall ~~prepared~y a qualin~p acoustician at the
SPA1(W~lt........-.-.-.
. Residential development 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 performance
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
receptors from noise sources, noise-sensitive land uses shall be placed outside of
90
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 berms shall be used to mitigate noise
from ground transportation sources when setbacks are not feasible and the
placement and dimensions of such barriers shall be determined by the results of
the site-specific acoustical study.
· An interior acoustical analysis shall be required for all residential buildings
located 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 extentJ~asible, as part of the required mitig~JJon measures for the SPA-
related impacts set fqfth below. [FEIR, Volume I, pp.~;)J2t29 throqgh 4.12-31; FEIR,
Volume II, Appendj*.C, Noise Analysis] In addition, a.~.poted abqy~, an amendment to
the 60 CNp:U~%iBor 119~~~~rfo~1lCe......~~nda:rq~gpresw,~pq~!.:?pevelopment is
propose4~spartqiJhe S~t\}One Platt Imp~~ts assQpjated wititPte amendment are
analyzeq~n the FEm.f rSeeFEIR, Vqly,w,t;hIW 2-31]r.
....... ........ ,...... .............................. ....... .......
.....-. .... ", ........ .-..........-- ....". ...... .......
....... "'-." ...... ...--...... ....... ....... .......
....... .... ", ,....... ,'-..'-," . ........ ...... .......
....... ........ ...... . -.-" ...... ....... .......
....-.- .... . ,....... .-....-...... ....... ...... .......
.............. .............. .............. ........:..- ,.....:.:-....: ............. ..............
:::::<::::::: <:::::::::::: :::::::::::::: .::::::-:::::::' .:::::-:::=:::- ::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::
. Irtlp~c;ts t9l1@ast~en's Vi~().. and/~lifomi~Gnatcatcir habitat shall be
mitigm~t6itChievea level of6QOrn\)Leq 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 Leq for noise impacts to habitat
for California Gnatcatcher 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, Appendix E, 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)(1), changes or alterations are required
in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant
91
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
All grading and construction equipment shall be equipped and maintained
with~ffective muffler systems, subject J9...Jhe approval of the City
Engi!m~r. Muffler systems shall confom)t~ffie Envir()nmental Protection
Agegqy's Noise Control Program (Part ~Q.4 of Titlt}4Q, Code of Federal
R~&~~~riOns )J................>..... .....?..... .........i... H\!.....\\
Co~WUctio'~quipmenh~ooH i~~ locat~~ as far~),vay' from existing
resid~ntial ~~~s as prag~~6al. ..
....... ........
..... . .......
n... ........
....... ........
........ ......
....... .-......
........ ....._H
.......' .........
'.d'" ..........
........ ...........
....-... ...........
. .-.... .........
.........<....
.................
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 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 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. 4.12-18, 4.12-29 through 4.12-31]
. Noise barriers shall be provided where residential unmitigated noise levels will
exceed 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn. 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
92
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
noise attenuation (i.e., plexiglass). Landscaping shall be utilized on or adjacent
to the wall as determined 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 CNEL/Ldn within residences and 50 dBA CNEL/Ldn 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 CNEL/Ldn.
* * *
....... ..........
....~.. ...........
'"' .... ............
........-..: .........................
..............>U
Significan~p:toje~t~li:ipact;.1-):'liJ.ffic nq~~ftom.~nte~~I~qway~.ypnpact SPA One
land usej;[FEIR,~~lume~,pp. 4.12~1~.~~lf 4. 12;mm and Tabo~~~ 4.12-13 and 4.12-
14] ............... ...............u>U ..............
Finding:!fursuanY~Q Pub~~9 Resoui.q~~ Co9#~ectiongJ081, sullivision (a)(1), and
CEQA Guidelmessection 15091, subdivij;ioh(a)(I), changes or alfebJ;upns 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. 4.12-30 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. 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.
93
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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 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 Leq, 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 Leq 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)(I), and
CEQA Guidelines ~~ftion 15091, subdivision (a)(1), chal1g~~ or alterations are required
in, or incorporate4.lnto, the Project which will sulWtiriHally le~sen the. significant
environmental effeptas identified in the Final EIR,ppwever, AI to a level below
significanS~'~!~H~t to I$WH~'esoH~$,{f9.4~ seqqgp;!Q81;:~~~yi,sion (a)(3), and
CEQA qqidetines~lition 1,5;091, subdiVision(~)(3), thit~ are no ~sible measures that
:~~~t~~ iI{~lf~~;~i.~1;ifEf;t~~?l~~li;~~~
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]
* * *
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 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
94
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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)(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 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. 4.12-30]
. 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 4~Velopment shall not be allowed unle~~..Jhe site specific noise study
shows that ~ exterior noise level can be mitig~~#dto 65 GNEL or below and
that the inte99r noise level can be mitigated to ~? CNEL 9~below.
....... ....... ..... ..........
.......... ....... ....... ..............
............. ....... ....... ........ ..................
. .. ....... - ....... ,...... ......... ...................
.........-.. -.. ....... ....... ......... .....................
................-. .. .... ....... .......... .......................
.................-. ....... ....... ........... ........................
.................. ....... '...... ............ .........................
..................... ....... ................... ..........................
................. ... ....... ....... ...........- ...........................
.......... -.............- ................... ........... ...........
.................. ............,....-....... .................................. ............,.... ................
......... .. ......... ............. ........ ......
........, ........... ............ ....... .......
........ ....-...... ........... ....... .......
.<<\?' \}<>> (ttt/" ::::::::::::::' '~r\~{
L. PUBLICSERVICESANDUTILITIES/<
... ..........
............-. .............. _............' ...-.-...........................
....... ....... ....... .........
....... ....... ....... ..........
....... ....... ....... ....
....... ....... ....... ........
....... ....... ....... ....
.............. .............. -............. ................
....... ........ -...... ........
....... ....... ....... .......
..... - ........ ....... .......
... ....... ....... ........
Compliaif~tWit~g.f!.P FtfJlings Off:9Et
WATER (WATER CONSERVATION, RECLAIMED WATER)
Finding: The SPA One Plan complies with the applicable mitigation
measures/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings. [FEIR, Volume I,
p.4.13-7]
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 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
95
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Project shall be reviewed for conformance to this plan and current OWD
standards, if the Project 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 Master Plan. The Water Master Plan shall
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 shall include a reclaimed water
distribution system designed to meet appropriate engineering standards.
The plan shall address, in detail, storage~ng conveyance, phasing, and
finaq9wg. The construction of dual pip~pg~ystem w~ter supply shall be
requw~d for all development where the,~e of rec~~ed water will not
jepP~r4ize ppmg~~water~ppl~~~, ...... .......
The Water Master Plan will provide:
Design criteria and assumptions, In accordance with the appropriate
agency and regulatory authorities.
Information on how the Project will satisfy MWD' s Water Use Efficiency
Guidelines.
Location and size of facilities for on-site and off-site 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 Master Plan is accepted/approved by the
appropriate jurisdiction( s).
. Written verification from the water district that water will be provided concurrent
with need shall be required prior to tentative map approval.
96
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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" (Montgomery 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 fmds:
(1) the Applicant has obtained a written verification from OWD that water will be
provided concurrent with need at the time tentative maps are approved for the SPA One
plan, as required by the City'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 water system facilities; (4) the OWD Master 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 water conservation plan that analyzes water usage requirements for
SPA One, and a plan of proposed measures for water conservation; and (7) SPA One is
already within the 1?9:undaries of the OWD and annexatiolJj~ not necessary. [FEIR, p.
4 .13-7] [SPA One ~~~n, Appendix C, Public Facilitiesgiitihcing PIan, Appendix C.l,
SubArea Master Plip) ....... ...
....... ...... .......
...... ....... .......
....... ....... ..... .......... ...... .......
........... ....... ....... ............... ....... .......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .
............... ....... ....... ......... ................... ....................... .......................
................. ........ .......... ....................................... .......................... ..............,.........
.................. .. ,-,. .... .... ..... ... .......... ... .... ...... .......... ........................
................... ....... ...,... .....,.,.., ...,-.,.........-.".... ...................,... ........................
..............,..... ....... -.,.,., -....'.'..... ........-.............."...'.. ....................... .......................
..................... ....... ,......, ....,...... ............-.......-....'...,... ......................... ........................
...................... ....... ....,....,........... ...... ......... ..... . .......... .......... .......................
.......... ..............- .,.......'..,.. ... .' ......... .......... ....................... ........................
......... .............. -.,... ...,',....... .....,.. .....'...'.. ....................... ........................
......... .......-.... .......'.. '.'" .....,... . '.'. ...... .......
......... ............ """.."'.' "'.',' ...,-..... .......- .......
........' ........... ..." ..... ..,.... ..'-' ...... .......
..,..... ........... ..".,.....' ". .'.... '. '.".'. ...... .......
........ .......... ........, ,.. . . '-.' ...... .......
........ .......... -..".-, ....,.. '-.'.'" ....... .......
........ ......... ...,...... .....,... ..,... ...... .......
,...... .......... .".. .,.. . -.... ......... ....... .......
....... ........ ......... ...... '. ..... ...... .......
........ ......... -,.~...., ...'...~. ....... .......
...,... ........ ., ",,- '.. ....... ........
....,.. ........ .....,..-.. ........ ...... ......
Pursuant~ Propos~t~pn C;~ passed 9YtP~.yp~rs in IP Diego :~9unty in November
1988, th~UCity is ;~quireg.to self-g~I1ify itsqonsisteijqy with ~ Regional Growth
~~:J~:J0~r:rl~~~~It;e;t~~!t~~tsu~; t~e:l~ty ~:tJ'~~:vfs~?;~~~~
Management Program and Implementing Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista fmds 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
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 to 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)(1), changes or alterations are required
97
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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,
recommende.4potable water facilities (on-site and off-:::~ite) and facility phasing for
water serviq~~ The project shall comply with~eptan's rel:ommendations for
recommend~greclaimed water facilities includingij1e pumpipi:station, operational
stoq,.gj;:M~piiliniss~Wl...:mt#ns,.dRt~!~iIl!fYt~9~~i~g::.w:~~r main layout
IE:J~~j:n:.::i~~:.~il::!E~~:1~:E:
......
Six or ten MG 711 Pressure Zone storage 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.
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 1 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; see also SPA
98
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Appendix C.l, Sub Area Master
Plan, p. 5-4, Table 5-4]
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21OS1, 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 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-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 d~iIs the improvements required ingfcter to pf,pyide adequate water
~~1#ff~~~i1..~~~.~~fa~~~..t~esr~t~~~~I.:~~:iiIII~~~~~ir~~~n~~
~lt~~tlpo~1'I~j~~ f:~~t~b~:&i~i:lf~~~~~sar::~n~~~~ ~~~
~~d~;;~jiRf;~gedm:~~~;..t'i~~f~t~~~..t:c1~~i~::~n~~1:r~~~:~
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;
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 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 1 and 5.
* * *
99
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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)(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 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, p. 97 (City
of Chula Vista compliance with Regional Growth Management Strategy)]
....... ..........
· Implementat~gh of the Otay Ranch Facility Implementati<?p Plan for Water,
mitigation rii~sures and performance standards 'proposed ifJ.:!J;>rogramEIR 90-01
an4~9QP'%iw Prq~;J;IR 9QiQIJ1jp4ing~:9~r!~~, ~:!::~)second-tier that
:f:Oj~~1C~~n::~~' nnpam to less! significam levels
-.:.:.:.:.:-:-:.:.:-:-:-;.:.;.;.;.:.:' ,"..
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]
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 that 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]
100
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. Prior to approval of any SPA Plan within Otay Ranch, it shall be determined
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 conformance 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 performance standards have
been complied with for the SPA One Plan by preparation of the "Overview of Sewer
Service for Specific Planning Area 1 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 information 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 prov~sion of sewer facilities for SP A OIl~...<;onsistent with the growth
management ordina~e of the City. [SPA One Plan,~ppendix G, Public Facilities
Financing Plan, Appendix C. 3, Sewerage Master Plan]. The Cit)1pf Chula Vista also
finds the sgt\.()~p.!an compH~~With~~qqiIemen~~~lfpriq~!9~PYSP A, the sewer
district which shall serve tnaesp A beidentifiedf For SiR! One, thisewer district is the
City of gfiula ViStl.H ...............< ............. ..............
*H* *
SPA One Project-Specific Impacts
Significant 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 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]
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 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, pp. 4.13-17 through 4.13-18]
101
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. The proposed project 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: Pursuarit~o Public Resources Code sectio~~1(j81, subgivision (a)(1), and
CEQA Guidelines ~ption 15091, subdivision (a)(1), cQggges or al.~ations are required
in, or incom9fa~~nt{), thffr!9j~~t, iIW~\l<UngS9mpl~.~th girmUfable mitigation
measures~nd peif()Phance:~taridards in/the Glr/SRPF~ndings a~.:~ummarized above,
which w'jnmitigate;~Qe potential signit:i~J),t~mY4"onmeijt~1 effect i4.~ntified in the Final
EIR to tiJbw a lev~IOf sigmficance,> ............. ..............
Mitigatio~M~SUf~~: ThJr{)llOWin~l1itigafi~~measls are fea~ill~fare 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 1 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.
* * *
102
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
SCHOOLS
Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact
Finding: The SPA One plan complies with the applicable mitigation measures and
performance standards for schools set 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 October 28, 1993, found
that implementation of the GDP/SRP would result 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 applicamshall prepare a School Facilities~aster Plan:. The Master Plan
shall demoQ$.ij:ate that a maximum capacity ofp$O elemeptl1ry students, 1,500
mi44.l~:$PbqQt stud~Rt~<~ 2,~QQbigA:~~hoQl$m9~At.s wjUpy:~~hieved at each
n~wschooIPrbpose.apiconjuriCH()n wltljOtay.l{lPdl; in.a.ictance with school
<ij~ict staI@,rds,.@pd identifytA~g~ral logitions oflhools through the
~l1eral Dey~lopm~At Plan. ... ............ ... ... ... . . .......
.......,..'... ................ ....,......... .............. ............... ............. ..............
......., ........ ........ ........ ......... ...... .......
....... .......... ...... ...... ........ ....... .......
....... ... .... ....... ...-... ..... "', ...... .......
........ ......... ....... .......... .... ....... .......
""." ......... ,....... ....... . ......, ....,. .......
....... ......... ....,. ....... ......... ....... .......
...-........... ..............-.... .............. ................ .................. ............. ..............
........ .......... ........ ......., ............ ...... .......
........ ........... ....., .....,., ..~. ....- . ....... .......
........ ........... ........ ........ .............. ...... .......
· The applicanMshall) provide docUm~ntaH6n confirming sch6Ql.$ite 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
103
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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,
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 to 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 Schoolpistrict' existing school facilities and 9..!m~city may occur earlier than
was anticipated in t9~ GDP stage. [FEIR, Volume I, ps":'4i13-20]
....... ....... ....
....... ....... .....
.,-,", ....... ......
....... ....... ......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
...... ...... .......
. ..... ....... .......
....... ...... ,......
....... ....... .......
......, ...... .......
F inding :.Jm.lt$p,~nt~o Pupl~9.~soul"~~.C94~ sect~9:9g!Q~ 1 ;:::~~~Yfflion (a)( 1), and
CEQA QmdelineS~~gtion)$p91, subdivisionl~)(l), cljpges or al~ations are required
in, or inqqworated JJito, th~:t>roject, in91H9ipgFRmpliaq9~ with theipplicable mitigation
~ft~:~f~~d~~~lr~~c~~t~~~~r~Xfi~~t~~'~~:~I~~~~~:c~it~=~~:~:~~i
EIR to bel6w~leviHof sigmficance.....",.,.,.,............ ........... .............. ............. .
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 City of Chula Vista Regulations, the
SPA One applicant shall fully mitigate 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 approximately 504 high school students are generated
from SPA One. This schedule is subject to modification by the City of Chula
Vista and the District.
104
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. As a condition of SPA One approval, and prior to tentative map approval, the
Applicant and the District shall have entered into an agreement regarding the
financing of middle and high school facilities. This agreement shall include:
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 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.
.
Consistent~ith the requirements of the Otay;Banch GDP, Chula Vista
Elementary~hool District Policy and City of C~ijla<Vista R~gulations, the SPA
One applica,pt shall fully mitigate SPA One uupact on eJ!}wentary schools by
~iW~i:e....'ffi~~~i~~$ary ...J9nQ\l~..... elem~~mrY.scpqq~~tpgents generated
Ir;;l/J:t;;r:;~~1~11'~te~~~eti:~~lS~:1~e~~
.
The agreement 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.
* * *
105
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Significant Project Impact: 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]
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 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]
* * *
..."., ..........
Significant Projectltpact: Although no developmel!t"pplicatio~ for the non-Otay
Ranch properties h~ye been submitted to the City orthula V!~@ at this time, the
annexatioq9~Bl~mVijg Ar~4~d 3(~th~MaryEitr~~ ~~~ip~el may require
~~~~~~;~~~~i~'_~ties iilserviceSifdevelqpment 09iurs withip~ese areas. [FEIR,
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. 4.13-22, 4.13-23]
. Implementation of the Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan for Schools, 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 schools would reduce any
potential impacts to less than significant levels for the annexation component.
* * *
106
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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. [FEIR, 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 $h~ll be provided in compliance with.policiesgutlined in the RMP
for Ot~~R~Ah. ............ .......................i ..............
..:::::::::::~:::~:>~:f}\::::.. :t:~~:t: <:::::::::: ::;:;:::::::::::::::::: "::::::/):(:::::::::~::{:::~~:~:~::::::" ::)>>>\>:tttt::: {(:::t:):::}:f::::::::{::::
Jr:~Yi~f~~;~:~:3 :~~n7~;:v~S:~la~
T~~etQjeJfiust Jivide 15~Cii$3f~8giOnallrk and IbMPace 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 authority.
.
The reconstruction of the State Department of Recreation's California Riding and
Hiking Trail shall be implemented along with the attendant roadway
improvements.
107
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
The City of Chula Vista finds the mitigation measures and performance 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 Patrick Estate parcel will require
additional parkland if development occurs within these areas. [FEIR, Volume I, pp.
4.13-29 through 4.P:-30 and Table 4.13-11]
...... ............
....... ............
....... .............
..... .............
....... ..............
.....~ ..............
... - " ..-............
..... ..........."..
...... .........
...... -.......
........ -.......
......... ........
".-.', .........
Finding: Pursuariti~o Public Resources Code sectiortg1081, s4P(.tivision (a)(1), and
CEQA Gu~4lfli~~~9tion li?92J;sub<:l!Yi$itiq({l)(1)<glj~g~ ORi!Jt.~f,~"9ns are required
in, or inc&fi'6ratedjp~o, th~Ri6ject, including:qgmplia~ with the,i@Pplicable mitigation
measure$<~nd perfqupance~tandards iq~~f[~l>/SRPVJndings 3!:.:~ummarized above,
will miti~ate the pot~~tial ~jgnificant~:t1Vir6~9tal eff~ identifi~in the Final EIR to
below a l~y~l of~igwficari9~. ....... . ..... . ............ ..............
........-- ......... - .......
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. 4.13-30, 4.13-31]
. The potential impact on parks and recreation from the annexation component of
the proposed project will be reduced to below a level less than significant with
the implementation of the Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan for Parks,
Recreation and Open Space, and policies and standards contained in the
GDP/SRP.
* * *
108
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
LAW ENFORCEMENT
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 law enforcement. [FEIR,
Volume I, pp. 4.13-33 through 4.13-34]
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 population would result in the need for additional staff 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 Enfqrcement Services Master Plan shall~prepared \Vhich identified the
types of fac~J,pes and equipment to be provided,ij~te locatiqn'~nd criteria, design
~e;.q::~~1'i~:1~Wnf~r~~~~~~ij~~e~~ar'k~~~tl6~~::::~d~~~~~~~
.
............... .....'......... ....-:..,....-.. .-'<<<..... ....->..:-.. ...:..........
....... ......... .--- "," .. .. . . . .....
:::::::::::::: ":::::::;:::::::::;:::::::::: ....-:-:-:-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::' ::::;:::::::: ::::::::::::::
............... .............. ..........-.- .-.....................:-....:-.........-:-:.-:... ............. ..............
.............., .............. ..-........... ........-:........................................ ............. ..............
............ ......... ............ ...... ....................................... ........ ........
Tn~ MasterJ.llan sqa,l1 ensure:(fiafthe project m~#ts the fol~Qwing standards:
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 Vista finds the mitigation measures and performance standards set
forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for law enforcement 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 maintain 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)]
109
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
The City of Chula Vista also finds law enforcement financing methods are defmed in the
SPA One PFFP and that development of site design techniques and guidelines to deter
crime are contained in the Village Design Plan. [SPA One Plan, Part 1, Ch. 9 (Law
Enforcement); see also SPA One Plan, Appendix B, Village Design Plan, Appendix C,
Public Facilities Financing Plan] The City of Chula Vista also fmds that performance
of the above-referenced mitigation measures and performance standards is assured
through required Applicant participation 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 OCcu[~jyithin these areas. [FEIR,
Volume I, p. 4.13-:?~] ............
....... ...........
...,.,..... ....... ......
",. . . ...---.......
..,..... ....... .......
.. ," ....... .......
..-....-. ....-- .......
", - ....-.. .......
........ ....... .......
....... ....". .......
.. - ," ...... .......
....-.... ....... .......
.. '", ...... ......
~~gi1g~I:~~~~~~0~~~9~:~~d~r~~~I)(~~;~2~~~~~~;:~I'~i~~ a~:)~~~~i~~~
~f?~i:~JE!i~~;i~i:!:~~$;~i~~Et~~~:
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 mitigation measures contained in the
Program EIR 90-01 would reduce any potential impacts as a result of the
annexation component to less than significant levels.
* * *
110
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
FIRE/EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)
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 fire and EMS services.
[FEIR, Volume I, 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 population would result in the need for additional staff and
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 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. 4.13-37 through 4.13-38]
....... ..........
. Preparationgf- a Fire Master Plan, which shall~~~ure that tlJ,e project meets the
minimum st.@pdards specified in the Program Ell 90-01 F~l1ings of Fact.
. 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 with 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]
* * *
111
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
SPA One Project-Specific Impacts
Significant Project Impact: Implementation of the SPA One plan would result in the need
for additional Fire and EMS services.
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 the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final EIR.
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. 4.13-39; SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Finance
Plan, p. 3.4-5, Table 21]
. Payment of Public Facilities Fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits
are issued will reduce impacts to a level less than significant.
"..... ...............
..,.. ".....
,.... ,......
,d.... .....",
....... P......
....... ....,.._,
....... ..........
... ....... ..,
......- ....... ......
....-.. ....... .....
....... ......, ......
....... .......
'd'_ ...... .......
,.... ....... .......
'd._ ...... .......
....... ....... ......
... ...... ......
..... ...".. .......
...... ".". .......
.... ....... .......
.,..... ...... .......
....... ....... ......
....... ....... ......-.-...... ...... ......
...-...... ....... ....... ....-..--~.~.. ....... .......
........-.... ....... ....... ........ ,...............-".,.. ....................... ........................
,...-........... ....... -...... ......... ... -.- .' ',',., ....................... .......................
.............,... ....... ....... ......... ............. -.....'. ....................... ........................
.................. ....... -....,.. -.......... ............. ". ... ... ....................... ,......................
.....-.-.........., ....... ....,- -.....,.... .........- .... ............. ....................... ........................
.................... ....... ....... ............ ..... ....... '-.' ........ ..,.................... .......................
..................... ....... ....,.. ........... ......... ........... .....,... ....................... ........................
...................... ....... .-..,.. ............ ........-.......,' ".,.' ....................... .......................
.......... ,.............. ....,.,..........., ....-. ..... ..,.....,... ....................... ........................
=R:f!1~~iHI~l:r~11~~If~I~~~:!p;~~LFi::
additional. {ire ang<pMS s~j:vices if~t.:velopm~pt occQrs within :I~se areas. [FEIR,
Volume I;ppi4H:P38 through 4.13~59]>n ..n. .n nn
* * *
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 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. 4.13-39]
. 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 potential impacts as a
result of the annexation component to less than significant levels.
* * *
112
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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 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, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-9; see also FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-41]
. The Project Avplicant shall participate in program~JRequitably share the funding
of animal cgntrol facilities and designate anim!:tchhtrol fasilities sufficient to
provide adeqyate square footage of shelter space~r Otay Rftllch dwelling unit to
the~~i$f~~t~qJ1 of tht;;tPPtopri~Jt;jU~~9tioq; ........
* * *
SPA One Project-Specific Impacts
Significant Project Impact: Implementation of the SPA One Plan would generate the
need for 806 square feet of additional animal control facilities. [FEIR, Volume I, p.
4.13-41]
113
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 mitigate the potential significant environmental effect 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. 4.13-42]
. Compliance with any future exaction fees established by the City of Chula Vista
for animal control will reduce any potential impacts to a level less than
significant.
* * *
....... ..........
Significant Project!Wpact: Although no developmeq~~plication~ for the non-Otay
Ranch properties h.~ye been submitted to the City of:t:hula Vt~i at this time, the
annexatioq9kP~~qt'J.}pg At;~~J~nd 3{~~~.Maryg~~~R~ ~~#::pM;cel will require
additional$4uarefQpJ;age diimmal control facUities if ~velopmeijtbccurs within these
areas. [:fj~R, Voiqme I, m. 4.13-41tPr99ig~~.13-42] ::
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. 4.13-42]
. 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.
* * *
114
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
LmRARY 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 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 result 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
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. 131-132, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 4.9.14-5; see also
FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-46]
....... ..........
. The Applicl.t shall prepare and submit for)tHeapprop~iate jurisdiction(s)
approval pdPt to the first SPA Plan, a Library Master Plainin accordance with
the~91n~r4~ of tl!%..~ppJicab~~<jijti$1.~~tion;.~)~i~!iiM@.ster Plan shall
agqress sitelgcatioi.t.$iie, andnmding.mechani.~w.s. . .......
....... ........... ......,. ........ .......... ....'..,. ......
......., ..... . ....... . ...... ..,...., ..... .......
....... ,........ ....,... .. ..... .- ... ...... .......
....... .. ...... ..... ........ ,......... ....... .......
........ ........... ......... ...... ........ ........ .......
....... .. .... ..... ....... .. ..... .... .......
....... ......... '...... ....... ......... ....... .......
....... ......... ....... ........ .......-- ...... .......
........ ........., ...... ...,.... .......... ....... ......
........ .......... ....... ....... .......... ...... ......
........ ........... .."... .......- ........... .."... ......,
The City df€hul~Vista firtds the SPAQ1lepiMlcomplles with th&nutigation measures
and performance standards set forth in the 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 1, 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 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 impact
library facilities if development occurs in these areas due to the increase in population.
[FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-46]
115
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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. 4.13-46]
. 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 with implementation of mitigation adopted for Program EIR 90-01.
* * *
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
Complianc;~With.(J/lJP Fiy4ing~Of f.,!CJ>
.................. ........................ ,..................-........ ................ ................ ............. ..............
......... ........... ............ ....... ....... ....... .......
.......- ........... ........... ........ ....... ...... .......
........ .......... .......... . .-.... ......~. ...... .......
........ ................... ....... ..~.... ....... .......
::::::::::::/ \:::::::;:::::: .)::::::}::: :-:<.:.:-:-:. :::::::::::\ :::::::}~: :=::::::::::::
Finding:<The SP~nOneRJan complt~~}y~~~be appJi9able midgjtion measures and
:;:;Ifu~ s~~lsv ~~I~Of.h p~~il~~-4~1~: I~~~~s f~t integrated waste
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
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. 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 Phm, p. 21] The City
of Chula Vista also finds the SPA One Plan complies with the mitigation measures and
116
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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: 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 which will mitigate the significant environmental
effect as identifiedigthe Final EIR to below a level of s~gnificance.
....... ............
......, ............
....... .............
....... .............
....... ..............
....... ..............
.'..... ...............
....... ...........-...
....... ........
.... ........
....... ........
....... ........
....... .........
Mitigation Measur~~; The following mitigation measu.~s are fea~~le, are required as
[~~~~~oYS~If:~1:~lr4. ~~1~17ffiadeR~p;djngBP th~!\:RP~i.9~nt.~mtgpgpthese Findings.
.
....... ........ ,....... ........ ....... ........
....... ...... - ,......., . -.. .. ....,. . -.."
........ ........ ....... ......... ....... .....-.
....... ....... ,....... ..... ...... ........
....... ........ ....... .-..... ......, ......
....... ....... ....... ...........-..... ..".. ......
....... .............. ......................- ....... .......
....... ....... c...... ................. ..... ...... ... ...
....... ....... ....... ......................... ....... .......
..,-.... ....... ,....... -..................-....... ...... .......
....... ........ ...... ................. ,,-..,-.., ....... ......,
....... ...... ........ ...............-...... -...... ...... .-.....
....... ....... ....., .........-........ ..... . ....... .......
~1j~~~~~~:!er;~{~:~.s~:~~~~~tP~~i~I~:~~;J;re~;~~~ilt~~~~e~~~~~~:~
matefi.31$.h~c6veryH.facility ,aCQ#lpbsting facility, and Hlil..hpusehold waste
collection facility.
.
The SPA One plan shall comply with the County of San Diego and City of Chula
Vista programs and regulations concerning long-term solid waste capacity.
* * *
Significant Project Impact: Although no development applications for the non-Otay
Ranch properties have been submitted to the City of Chula Vista at this time, the
annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate parcel facilitate
development in the area which will result in impacts to solid waste facilities due to the
increase in population. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.13-49]
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and
CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required
in, or incorporated into, the Project, including compliance with the applicable mitigation
measures and performance standards in the GDP/SRP Findings as summarized above,
117
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
will mitigate the potential significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR to
below a level of significance.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible, are required as
conditions of approval, and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings.
[FEIR, Volume I, p. 4.13-49]
. Impacts related to solid waste disposal as a result of the annexation of Planning
Areas 1 and 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate will be mitigated to below a level of
significance with implementation of mitigation proposed in Program EIR 90-01
and the payment of Development Impact Fees.
* * *
M. HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Compliance With Gl!P Findings Of Fact
....... ............
....... ............
.".... .............
....... .............
....... ..............
"..... ..............
....... .....".".....
....... ...........--..
....... ........
....... ........
....... .......
....... ........
....... ."......
Finding: The$P A One Plan complies wit~C the applicable mitigation
measures/~tfo~. stap9~Fq~ set.f:9rtb4R. the:PJ:,lfet~~:f:t~i9~pgs for impacts
associate4with h~~ds/risl{9rupset.[FEIR,;yolume~~ pp. 4.14f~ through 4.14-4]
. Soil and ground-water testing 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 identify areas of
contamination in excess of federal and state standards. Should areas of excess
contamination be identified, remediation shall occur prior to residential
development.
. The Applicant shall notify prospective buyers and the California Department of
Health Services (DHS), as required, regarding the Applicant's intention to
develop the area adjacent to the Otay Landfill and the Appropriate Technologies
II hazardous waste facilities.
118
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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 taken 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 existing 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 containerizing hazardous waste and site appropriate
options and procedures relative to the handling and transportation of these wastes.
The City of Chula y!sta finds the SPA One Plan compli~~Jyith this mitigation measure
because the land u~~ associated with the Project will B~Wirivolve llse and transport of
hazardous material~a,nd, to the extent transportation otpazardou$waterials associated
with use of~99llswast~g~{er s~ippatt4t Ota;YJ~ijgfi~l, M1c~~k~m;port operations
must conm~f with~~~e anqf.meral permit reqq~tements,[FEIR, '{plume I, pp. 4.14-4]
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: 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 the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final EIR. The following mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to below a level of significance.
119
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
The City of Chula Vista finds that the Final EIR suggests that the following mitigation
measure would reduce the impact to 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 determine 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 consists of the County and cities within the County. With annexation of the SPA
One project area to the City of Chula Vista, SPA One project area would be incorporated
into Chula Vista's existing emergency services and mutual aid agreements. In addition,
the SPA One project area is currently located in the County of San Diego and is
therefore included !P..the Unified San Diego County Emer.g~J1cy Services Organization.
[SPA One Plan, P@I, p. 1-149] ...................
. .................
..................... ....... ................... ......................... ....................... ........................
............................. ................... ......................~~... ....................... ........................
..........- ............... .................... ............ ....... .... ....................... ........................
......... ..........-... ................... ......... ". ..... ....................... ........................
)<) .Xl.)))
....... ........ ......., ....~~, ...... .......
....... ......... -....... ,. . ....... .......
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A.
....-.. .....-. ,....... ...'..-........-..............
...-... ....... ...... '-", .................. ....
....... ........ ,....... ..... ......... ......
.............. ......-...... ,............. ................ .............
....... ....... ...... ......... ........
.......' ....... ,....... ......,.. ,.....
....... ....... ...... ........ .......
....... ....... ........ ........ ........
....... ,....... ...... ........ -. ...
....... ....... ,....... .....,. .......
....... ........ ...... ....... ........
.... -.. .. ..... ,....... .. -..... .. ....
LAND l.i.$E. PLANNING;~ND 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 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 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.
120
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
The City 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 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 I, p. 6-4]
Finding: PursuantW Public Resources Code section 21Q~1, subdivision (a)(l), and
CEQA Guidelines i9tion 15091, subdivision (a)(1), c~~ges or alterations are required
in, or incorporated iutb, the Project which will lessen the,$gnificant~nvironmental effect
as identifi,~in.,ili, Fina~m~k 1}l~<ciju.n~lfltiveilp!9~ i~:::Mi.~ip~ted to remain
significaqt;PursU~pt to PijpJ1c. Resources Cog~sectiotj~1081, sqi1ivision (a)(3), and
:f;~~JJ:~I~~:i~~~:!lg~~!F:~11t~~rfJF :r::~~
acceptable~e6t speCific overriding.considerationsJ ........
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/performance standards set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative
impacts associated with landform 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 landform alteration/aesthetics associated with change in
character of Otay Ranch from rural to urban development, overall landform alteration,
121
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 landform 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
landform alteration/aesthetic impacts are incorporated into the SPA One Plan or are
required to be implemented by the Applicant as a binding condition of approval for the
Project. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-4; see also Section X(B), infra, pp. 26-31]
. Compliance with the San Diego County Code Se~~j9ns 59.101-115 (the County
Dark Sky OIinance). ..............
.... .......
......... ....... .......
.... . ...... .......
....... ....... .......
.~..... ...... .......
. ..... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
~J~iE1~'Ii~~~~i{~ttE:~.r~fE:
....... ........
....... .......
....... ........
....... ,.......
........ ........
....... ........
........ .........
........ .........
........ ........
........ ...........
........ ...........
......... ............
.::)jj(::::::::*::::::::':::: :::::::::::...
.................
SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts
Significant Cumulative Effect: Implementation of the SPA One Plan, in conjunction with
buildout of the cumulative projects, would result in significant cumulative landform
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 determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations .
122
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 landform 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 to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and
CEQA Guidelines s.~ftion 15091, subdivision (a)(1), chal!g~s. or alterations are required
in, or incorporate4~pto, the Project which will redug,the signififant environmental
effect as identified~pthe Final EIR to below a level of$,gnifican~~]
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
123
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 together onsite and with adjacent offsite areas to create 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 both 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 potentially provide links to key resource areas on both
local and regional levels. Habitat restoration in areas that connect two or more
otherwise isolated key resource areas will allow migration between subpopulations
resulting in more viable populations.
"..... ............
....... ............
....... .............
....... .............
....... ..............
....... ..............
....... ...............
....... ...........--..
....... ........
....... ........
.-..... ,.......
....... ......
....... .........
. Restorationpf habitat in highly biodiverse area$can play}ijp important role in
eff~~y~ty...#l.9reasi~g.~popul,e~pns~.of s~m~i'J.y~~pef.~~~~D~turbed portions
~1~11~~iIEl~t;~f~1:~;~
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
(tlCESAtI) (Fish & G. Code, ~ 2050 et seq.) and the Federal Endangered Species
Act (tlFESAtI) (16 V.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. rSee FEIR, Volume 1,4.3-42 through 4.3-46; SPA
One Plan, Appendix F, Phase 2 RMP]
* * *
SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts
Significant Cumulative Effect: Key biological resources including Diegan coastal sage
scrub and maritime succulent scrub habitat, California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus
124
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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)(1), 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 set 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 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 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 th~ Applicant through these Findings 'H.JPEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-5;
GDP/SRP Finding$;.i;p. 145-146; see also Section X(C)(I~dI6gical infra, pp.
32-43] HHHH
D.
......- ....... .......
....... .--.... .......
.............. .............. ..............
....... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
...... ....... ......
....... ....... .......
....... ........ .......
....... ....... .......
....... ........ .......
....... ....... .......
Compliahf~Wit~::!.t!P FtylJlngs
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, pp. 6-3, 6-5]
.......................
......................
............. .........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........... ...........
...........-...........
.....-.................
.......................
....... ..............
....... ....... .....
..........- ........ .......
............. ...... ,....... ........
................ ....-.. ...... .........
...,. ............ ....... c...............
.................. ....... ...... ,....~.....
................... ......... c................
.................... ...- . ...... ............
............................ c.........~.........
...................... ....... .......... . ....
......... ............... ...................
.......... .............. .................
....... ............ ..............
......... ............ ............
........, ........... c...........
........ ........... ..........
.......' .......... .........
........ .......... ..........
........ ......... c..........
....... ......... ......
....... ......... .........
........ ......... -........
...... ........ ........
....... ........ -.......
CULTURAL RESOURCES}
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
125
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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;QDP/SRP Findings, pp. 146-147; se~..also Section X(D)(Cultural
Resources), infra, ~J:ij 43_47]HHH
* .*...;.;.;.*............
........ .......... ...... ........ ........., ....-..
........ .......... ........ ....... .......... ...
........ ........... . ..... ........ ........... ....
........ ........... ....... ........ ........... .....
SignificariFcUbluHdh1e Eff&h: UndetUitcum1.1.lativebuildout 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)(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 mitigation of SPA One
project-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 Considerations, 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;
126
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 146-147; see also Section X(D)(Cultural Resources), infra, pp.
43-47]
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 FPEIR,
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,,~.pplicant as conditions of approval fgLJhe GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP
Findings, p. 147, q~~w.g FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-31] ........................
...... ...........
....... ....... ......
....... ....... ......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
. cumqJatiy~.inpac~J~!~~d t9~i~i$mj9 gro~~rn4ciqg~~U:be avoided by
d~~~ghing ....anq.. co~qvcting proposed Pf9jects it'laccordari;~ with the Uniform
I~F:~!~i~~:r~I'~~~I~~=~I~fl~~:~=
..........
. 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), infra, pp. 47-52]
* * *
SPA One Project-Related 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]
127
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 to below a level of significance. 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 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. 47-52]
F . PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Compliance With (i1)P Findings Of Fact
.............. .......
. ",". ....... .......
........ ....... ..... .......... ...... .......
.......... ........ ....... ............... ....... .......
............................ ............. ,............. ................. ........................,.........> .............................................. ...............................................
................. ....... ....... ......... ..................... ....................... ........................
................. ............. ........... ...............~....... ....................... .......................
................... ....... ....... ........... ................ ....... .......,............... ........................
....... ..........., ....... ....... ............ ....................~.... .....,..,.,............ .......................
..................... ........ ....... ........... .......................... ......"..,............ ........................
...................,.. .. .... ....... ............ ...................... ~... ...,..,.,.............. .......................
.......... ., ............ ................... ........... .......... ....................... ........................
~~~s~;~~0~~~:~lrr ~talt~~h~~~ri;~~:~I~ Gt_k~e ~i:I~:bi~r c:~:~~~~
impacts qppaleontg~qgical;~sources':IFE1R,:i"olumel; pp. 6-3~:::~~5 through 6-6]
. 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.
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. 52-56]
* * *
128
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts
Significant Cumulative Effect: 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 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 reduce the significant environmental
effect as identified 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 Section X(F)(Paleonotogical Resources), infra, pp. 52-56]
G.
AGRICUL TURAUtmSOURCES
ComplianqrWit/J'ifjP Fityli!lg~Of q~<!t:)
........ . ..... ... ....... .......
........................
.......................
........................
.......................
........................
.......................
.,......................
.......................
........................
. ....................
............ ............. ........ .........
........... ............ ........ ..... .
........... ........... .," .... .......
.......... .......... ....... ........
.......... .......... ........ ......~.
......... ......... .. .... .... .
...... -......... ........ .......
.... ......... . ..... .......
........ ......... -........ ,-...... ....... .......
Finding: ( Thei~r Al.(lhe Plan...G9mn!i~s wim the applicable mitigation
:;~~;set~~~~:;I~1 ~~l~~~~. se[~B~d;~r~e ~~ll~~ Fi~~~fgs for cumulative
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 agricultural resources. [GDP/SRP Findings, p. 148, citing
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), infra, pp. 56-58]
* * *
129
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
SPA One Project-Related 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 cultivated, 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 impairment 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 permanent loss and impairment of
agricultural land would result in a significant and unavoidable impact from development
of the surrounding projects. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 6-6]
Finding: PursuantJp Public Resources Code section 21Q.~1, subdivision (a)(l), and
CEQA Guidelines Iption 15091, subdivision (a)(1), c~ges or alterations are required
in, or incorporateq~nto, the Project which will su~@.ntially l.~en the significant
f:::~o~~I~:f~lhr~elrtfrth :('~iri~~'t~::R!=~~~iJ:~=~
is anticip~!ed to re~in sigmficant. PMf:~~~t~gPublicl-esources:::M{)de section 21081,
~:;~S'~le:'o::~i~t~~t~~~J::~=~
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 mitigation measures set forth in these Findings in
Section IX(G), are feasible, required as conditions of approval, and are made binding on
the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-6; GDP/SRP Findings,
p. 148; see also Section X(G)(Agricultural Resources), infra, pp. 56-58]
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 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
130
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
environmental 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 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. 6-40]
. Additional surface water modeling shall be required upon preparation of a ftnal
design plan at the SPA level. The standards identifted 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 speciftc locations important to the structural
design of bridges, etc.; and
Total volume of surface water discharge during a design storm.
....... ..........
The City of Chula 'M~$ta finds the SPA One Plan compUIUwith this mitigation measure
because additional :~*rface water modelling was prepifed at ~ SPA-level, which
~E&i~IIfJ=i~ttif~r~~~
....". ........
....... .......
....... ........
....... ........
........ ........
....... ........
........ .........
........ ..........
....... -.........
........ ...........
........ .........
*::<~if::::::*:::(}.::::::::::::
....-...-..-.....
SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts
Signiftcant Cumulative Effect: Signiftcant potential cumulative impacts to water
resources and water quality would result 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 signiftcant environmental
effect identifted in the Final EIR to below a level of signiftcance.
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 1, p. 6-6; GDP/SRP
Findings, p. 149; see also Section X(H)(Water Resources and Water Quality), infra, pp.
58-61]
131
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 result 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)Yithin the jurisdiction of the City of.Gbula Vista shall be required
to meet or~*ceed the traffic standards set foqijHby the Gity of Chula Vista
Municipal Qile section 19.09.040(1). ....... ....
..::;:::::{~~:~:;:;;:::::::::::::::_, fr~::iij :;:::::::::::: ..;.:::<:/U> .,::::::::::);\;>><>>::::::. :::::::::::::::~rrr:;:::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::\rffh:::::::::::::::.
~~I~~~~t~rilf~~l~~f~n~~er::;~:~~=~~~~s~~Jf~f~~;~If-(~~:~~:~l~::e:~d
The Ci~~f.GhUI~lita fils the S~I~~~!~ll compj~is with J~imitigation measure
because theSR~Orie Plarilfueets orex(;"dSthe traffiC::standardsf~ql,ljred by the City
of Chula Vista Municipal Code and because the Applicant, as a condition of Project
approval, is required to contribute a proportionate share towards construction of regional
facilities. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 4.10-29 through 4.10-33; see also Section
X(I) (Transportation, Circulation, and Access), infra, pp. 61-84]
.
* * *
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
132
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 determined that 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 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 1, p. 6-6;
GDP/SRP Findings, p. 150; see also Section X(I)(Transportation, Circulation, and
Access), infra, pp. 61-84]
J. AIR QUALITY
Compliance With GpP Findings Of Fact
....... ............
....... ............
....... .............
....... .............
....... ..............
....... ..............
....... ...............
....... ...............
....... .........
....... .......
....... ,.......
...........:. ......-....... .,'
Finding: The~PA One Plan complies wit.ij the alilicable mitigation
:;:~;:~~~Q=I s~:r~V~~~J~~~~!I~, ~~~e~g;.l~d~:bf~~~a~~~
6-2] .... .... ........ ............. ............ .
......'....... .........-.... .............. ....................:-.........,......................., ........:...... ...............
....... ....... ........ ............ ......., ..... ......
....... ....... ...... .... ...~. ...... ....... .......
.......,...... .............. .............. ................. ............., '..........-.. ..............
........ ........ ........ .........,. ....... ,....-- .......
....... -...... ....... ....,... ....... ......... .......
....... .... ". ........ ........ ......., ....... .......
........ ........ ...... ...... ....... ... . .......
...... ...... .....-. ........ ....... ...... .......
....... ........ ...... ... .... ....... ....... .......
.. ..... .. ..... ,....... ....... ....... ..... - .......
The GDPl,$.JP> FiwJ.ipgs adppted by tij~~ity qf~hula V'~~ta on Octtiler 28, 1993, found
that implem~p:tiidOfi of (the GDPtS~w8Uld result in sigiUu?int 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
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 within the Otay parcel to contribute their fair share to LRT.
. Project -specific and regional measures as discussed in Section VII of the FPEIR
are required.
The City of Chula Vista finds the SPA One Plan complies with this mitigation measure
because the SPA One Plan complies with and implements the mitigation measures set
forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for air quality impacts. rSee Section X(J)(Air Quality),
133
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
infra, pp. 85-90; 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, 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 woulg}nitigate the impact below a level ot~jgnificance. As described in
the Statement of O,triding Considerations, the City QAuncil has d,etermined that this
impact is acceptabl~~ecause of specific overriding co~!erations;::::.
.................... ....... . ..... ............ .................. ..... ....................... .......................
..................... ....... .................... .............................. ....................... ........................
.....................................................,. ,...:-.......,........................ ................:...... ................:..... ..,........................................... ...............................................
Mitigatiq~Measufi\; TIWpreceding:mitigatmn. measqfesH for Hcguiative impacts on
transporyMlon, circl~tion;'!hd access~A~~:~~~is thepytigation ,ffi,asures set forth in
~~/~'~it~~ft~tjE~iI~~(li~E;rJ~.;;~~
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]
134
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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 fmds 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. rSee Section X(K)(Noise), infra,
pp. 90-95; FEIR, Volume II, Appendix C (Noise Analysis)]
. Future acoustical studies shall be required for Least Bell's Vireo habitat and
California Gnatcatcher habitat exposed to noise levels of 60 DBA Leq or greater
for all projects within the jurisdiction of the agency.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The City of Chula~Hsta finds, after more detailed a!lysls at th~. SPA-level, that a
performance stand~r~ of 65 DBA Leq for noise impacts..:~9 habitatpf' Least Bell's Vireo
i~~fl~fiafif~i~~~
implemented in the Phase 2 RMP Biota Monitoring 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. 90-95]
* * *
SPA One Project-Related 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)(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
135
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
(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 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 1, p. 6-8; GDP/SRP Findings, p. 151; see also
Section X(K)(Noise), infra, pp. 90-95]
L. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Water
Compliance With GDP Findings Of Fact
....... .........
Finding: The.~PA One Plan complies wit,lji?m.e applicable mitigation
measures/performaq~ standards set forth in the GDP/S~.Findingslr cumulative public
service anq~p.Ut~t~HPpac~~~~92iate4~~th~"f:rr. :[J.m~kY O~~~.bEPP. 6-3, 6-8]
The GD~0SRP Fi~Wgs f9Wnd that iIpP~~m,plion of~e GDP{I~ would result in
~:~:~!ifilit~I~~~EE~~:;~5:E::!i~!
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.
. Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project-specific improvements and
to construct, or contribute 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.
95-100; SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Appendix C.1,
136
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Sub Area Master Plan, Appendix C.2, Water Conservation Plan;see also Section X(L),
infra, p. 97 (City of Chula Vista compliance with Regional Growth Management
Strategy) ]
* * *
SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts
Significant Cumulative Effect: The additional 37 million gallons per day (mgd) of water
required to serve the proposed and approved projects 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
water. Irrespective of ongoing development, water supply in Southern California, as a
whole, fluctuates with precipitation and climatic conditions (e.g., drought). Cumulative
impacts to water supply associated with ongoing development on a regional scale are
anticipated. [FEIR,yolume I, p. 6-8]
....... ............
...... ............
..... .............
....... .............
....... ..............
....... ..............
....... ...............
....... ............-..
....... .........
....... ........
...... ,.......
....... ........
....... ..........
Finding: Pursuant,~o Public Resources Code sectiongl081, s4division (a)(I), and
CEQA GuJ4~li~~..tion!i?9Q;!~sub4!yj~iQI'I.(~)(I)~:9.fig~ o;:!:<<~rf:"pns are required
in, or in99.ii>orateq~~to, .iProjectFwhich WiU reduGi:: the signW~ant environmental
effect i~n(ified in. Fin~nEIR to b~lqW~!~y~1 of silPficance.!:::::::
.............. ........,...,. :-............ ................................................ .............. ..............
....... ....... ...... ........... ....... ....... .......
:';';';':-:-:'. ;.;.;.:.;.;.:- ::-:-:-:-:.:-: .':-:-:.:-.-:-:-:.. ::.:::.:.:-:::: -:.:-;.:-:.:. .:.:.;.;.:.:.;
:::::::::::::: .::::;:::;::::: :::::::::::::: .::::::::::::::-. .:::-:::::::-::::::::::::::: :::::::::::;::
~~:~~:~~~...l~~811~~s wllf- aI~~e~'igaU~~I~~~u.:~r~~~~I...~I~~~in~:t~
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 Section X(L)(Public Services: Water Availability), infra, pp. 95-100]
* * *
Wastewater and Sewer Service
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 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
137
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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
determine 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 construct Project -specifIc improvements and
to construct, or contribute toward the cost of constructing, any regional facilities
required by the study for wastewater conveyance, treatment, 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 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, an.4.because the SPA One Plan itself cOIJ..1p.Ues with and implements the
mitigation measur~$et forth in the GDP/SRP Find_ifor cu~ulative impacts on
wastewater and sew~r service. rSee Section X(L), inftq~pp. 100f:~p'2; SPA One Plan,
Appendix ..q;.:pugU9facili~~f:"mancipgP.l~t~. pp~B4~!:B"8' ~j~rMaster Plan]
......... ........ .............. ........ ..... ....... .......
. ......*
.."'" .......... ,....... .................,.......
.....',........ .......;... ,.............. .......................:.....:.:...:......:.....
....... '"' 0" ...... ................ .......
..,.... ........ ........ ...-. ............. .......
...-... .~ -,." ...... ...........................
.-,--," .. ...... ,....... ......-.............-.........
....... ....~... ...... ...........................
..."" ". '.. ,....... ............. ......
...-... . ..... ...... .......... .......
.-..... ....... ,....... ......... ........
..-.... ..... ...... ......... ....
...... - .. .-... c...... ......... .......
....... ....... ...... ........ .......
....... ......-. ,....... ........ .......
....... ....... ...... ........ .......
....... ....... ,.....-. ....... .....-.-...
....-.. .....~.. ...... ....... ...
....... .... ". ,....... ......-. .......
........ ........ ...... ....... .......
....... ....,....... ,....... ........ ........
.....-. .... ...... ....- . .... ..
........ ........ ........ ....... ........
.-..... ,......... ...... ....... ........
....... ....,-... ,....... ....... .......
......... .... .... ...... ........ ........
...... ....... ....... ... .... ........
....... ......... -...... ....... ........
........ ......... ....... ........ .........
........ .....'...... -...... ........ .........
...... .... .... ....... ....... -.........
........ ........... ....... ........ ...........
........ ........... ....... ........ ...........
S.f A OneJiroj~c#R:elatedeumulativeli#/PficijY
Significant Cumulative Effect: Implementation of the SPA One Plan under the
cumulative development scenario would result in an estimated cumulative flow of 35.6
mgd and, as a consequence, would require additional wastewater transmission and
treatment facilities to handle cumulative flows. [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 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. 100-102]
. . .
138
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Police, Fire, EMS
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 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. Srndies and financing plans to identifyd~p~~ific impacts, to determine
the signific~e of the effect, and to identify imeasnres th~t would reduce or
eliminate th~~ffect on police protection, fire prQJ~ction, art.9.tmergency services
~.~~i~~0-I'~~;Jifift~~~~t:jl~~I~~~~~.p~~q~tl~~~: a;~;~:e~f ::~
approved pf9.j~cts.:) ............. ............ ..............
· ~~11: ~it~':.~~,,~: ::~c~r::,il::~=;~i:~
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,
fire, and EMS services. rSee Section X(L}, infra, pp. 109-112; SPA One Plan, Part, 1,
Section VI (Public Facilities), Sections 9 (Law Enforcement), 10 (Fire Protection and
Emergency Medical Services); see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities
Finance Plan, Sections 3.3 (Police), 3.4 (Fire/EMS)]
* * *
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
139
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
population growth would significantly 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 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. 154; see also Section X(L)(Public Services: Police, Fire and EMS Services),
infra, pp. 109-112]
* * *
Schools
Complian~~Wfl!}lil!!P FiWI/!1NfOf lj'Jf~k
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . .
................-......
.......................
.......................
.......................
. . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......................
.......................
.......................
..... ................
............ ............. ........ ........
........... ............ ....... .......
........... ,.......... ....... .......
.......... .......... ........ ........
.......... .......... ....... .......
......... ,........ ....... .......
......... ......... ....... .......
. ..... ......... ....... .......
..... ......... .......
~~:;~:~~~trZ~ai~f ~talk~s ;:;(t~Hr1R~1 G~I~~e F~lrt~sabi~r c:~~~~~~
impacts o9~~ho?~~jJFElli:>Volume>~~p. ~:g),. ....... .......
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 to be feasible and required that they be
implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP/SRP. [GDP/SRP
Findings, p. 155, citing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-49]
. Each Applicant 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 to identify measures that would
reduce or eliminate the effect on schools.
. 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
140
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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. rSee 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-Related 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 section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), changes or alterations are required
in, or incorporatedjpto, the Project which will reduceH!b~ significant environmental
effect identified in 'm~ Final EIR to below a level of sigijin6ance.
'" '" '"
Library
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
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
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]
141
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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 effect, and to identify 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 construct, or contribute 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.
rSee Section X(L), infra, pp. 115-116; [SPA One Plan, Part, 1, Section VI (Public
Facilities), SectionsJ3 (Library); see also SPA One Plan, Appendix C, Public Facilities
Financing Plan, Se~~bn 3.6 (Libraries) ............
* ..*:.:::::::.::>:::>>:.
)}p:::v::.:!.> )p:::::::::::::::::>:
.::~:~::<{ ::}}~:) \:}>/ :~{t/
.~:~:~:>} )~:r~;::: ::)}~:::: ...::.:::::::::::)::::::::::::;:::<:;:::::::::
SP A On~froject-iJ~lated:g/ymulati~"liip~~i$U
Significarii~_I[iif.e Eft~6t: cumrilltiv~p6~rilation:l~owth worild~ult in the need
for an additional 134,031 square feet of library space and 804,189 books and would have
a cumulative impact on area libraries. Potentially significant short-term impacts on local
library facilities would occur until sufficient space and books are available to
accommodate the increased demand. Although, as explained below, implementation of
mitigation measures would mitigate the SPA One's contribution to cumulative library
impacts, other projects 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 not available concurrent with need. [FEIR, Volume
I, p. 6-9]
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 mitigate the Project's contribution to
cumulative 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
Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
142
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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, p. 6-9; GDP/SRP Findings, pp. 155-156;
see also Section X(L)(Public Services: Library), infra, pp. 115-116]
* * *
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
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 parks, recreation and open space. [FEIR, Volume I, pp. 6-9 through 6-10]
The GDP/SRP Findings found that implementation of tl1~GDP/SRP would result in
significant cumulat'-y~ impacts on parks, recreation;mtd::open space. [GDP/SRP
Findings, p. 156, qi~ing FPEIR, Volume 2, p. 6-51].?\s regar4~:these impacts, the
~~~~,~tr~;i~~~~!;Jf;:'E!I!~~?s~fJi~~~ :
.
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)]
* * *
143
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts
Significant Cumulative Effect: 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)(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 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 Sec!ign X(L)(Public Services: Parks, and Open Space), infra,
pp. 107-108] .......
....... ....... .....
.......... ....... .......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................ ..-..... ....... .........
................. ........ ....... .........
.................. . -... '...... ...........
................... ....... ....... ...........
.................... ....... ....... ............
..................... ....... ...................
...................... ....... ....... ............
.......... ................ ,..................
.........- ..... ........ .................
......... ............. ..............
......... ........... .............
......... .......,.... ..............
........ ...... ..... .........
....... .... ... .. c.'.'.....
........ .......... .........
........ .......... ..........
....... ... ..... ........
....... ......... c........
........ ......... ........
....... ........ c.......
....... ........ .......
..,..... . ....... ,........
....... ........ .......
.."... ....... ........
........ ........ ........
...".. ....... .......
....... ........ ...."..
....... ....... ...-...
....... ....... .......
.., .-.. ....... ........
.....-- ....... ......
...-,-.- ........ ,.......
....... ...... ......
........ ....... ,.......
......- ....... ......
Integrat'(IlWaste A!qnageiilint
....... ... ...
....... ........ .......
........ .... .... ,.......
....... ......... ......
....... ... ..... ,......
........ .......... ......
....... .......... ,.......
....... .. ..... ......
....... ......... .......
........ .......... .......
........ .......... .......
........ ........... .......
..... ... ... ........ ,.......
......... ........c.... ......
Complianli.WJthGlJP FiitiJings
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 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. 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.
144
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14. 1996
. Each Applicant shall be required to construct Project-specific improvements and
contribute towards the cost of constructing, any regional facilities required by the
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 set forth in the GDP/SRP Findings for cumulative impacts on
integrated waste management. rSee Section X(L), infra, pp. 116-118; SPA One Plan,
Appendix E, Regional Facility Report]
* * *
SPA One Project-Related Cumulative Impacts
Significant CumulaJiye Effect: Buildout of the south9.9.l.lnty region will result in
significant increase~Y.t the generation of solid waste. ~pdfill capa9ity will have to be
increased commensHite with the amount of growth in. region. ::::l:fEIR, Volume I, p.
6-10] ..... .:i:::<::::::
........ . ,........ , . ....... .......
........ .. ....... ......... ...... ...,.... ....... .......
........ ......... ,......... ....... .. ..... ...... .......
....... ,......... ......... ....... ....... ....... .......
....... ......... .......... ....... .. .... ...... .......
............... .............:.. ................. .............< ............. ..............
....... ...~.~. .............. ....... ....-..
Finding:Pursuan~!p Pu~nc Resours~~:J8Pd~ection.~1081, su.t@ivision (a)(I), and
~~1;iEi:~:i:~~I:i~;~:I!:1~~I~~~ti~!n;n::=:~
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 conditions of approval, and are made binding on
the Applicant through these Findings. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-10; GDP/SRP Findings,
pp. 153; see also Section X(L)(Public Services: Integrated Waste Management), infra,
pp. 116-118]
M. HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
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 associated with the potential risk of adverse health effects
145
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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
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. rSee Section X(M), infra, pp. 118-120]
* * *
....... ....... ..... ..........
........... ....... ....... ...............
............. ....... ....... ........ ...................
................ ....... ....... ......... ............ ......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................. ....... -...... ........... ...............~.......
................... ....... ....... ........... ................ .......
.................... ....... ...... ............ .........................
.........-........... ....... ....... ........... ............................
...................... ....... ....... ............ ............. ...... .......
SP A On~fiJojea}i(~i4tedrltliruiativt:?ifizpaai.:
....................... .
.......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....................
.................
;.;.;.;.;.;.:.: :-:-:-;.;.;.:. :;.;.;-;-;:;.: ..;.;.;.;.:-;.:-;-:.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.;-:. .:-;-:.:-;.;. .;-:.:-;.:-:-:
~ft~~~al~b~~r~~al~ ;1f.I~ra::dlr:;~:~~il~r~:llt~r~~n~~ilne~~e~~:~~~~~~
will increasewithOOfuuladve buildout;::)!UfEtlt;)V olutn.i:l, p. 6-10))
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 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]
146
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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
impacts 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
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 Y sidro and Proctor Valley parcels shall allow for
mineral extraction before conflicting development occurs, if feasible.
....... ..........
The City of ChulaY'lsta finds this mitigation measureipesnot apply to the SPA One
Plan because it adi:ltksses potential phased developed HUi the Saij/fr sidro and Proctor
Valley par~l$nU$h~$P A Qp!;R~~n dq~P&t~nGlude9yY~lgpp1C;;At':m:~j.er of these two
parcels. /( ........................ ........................... ................ ................ .............:<
....... .. .. .......
:::::::::::::;" ::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::;:" ...........::;:::::::::: :;::::::::::: :::;:::;::::::
:::::::::::~::: :)}}: }r~:~:~:: .,:::::{:::::::::~:::::~:~:~:}::~{:;:}::~:. >::>:=: ~{{{:
· Qqtppatibleln.d us~~shall beQ~velope(;l.)n areas where miIi#tal extraction would
lik,~~y.occqr;, .............. .............. ............... .............
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]
lie lie lie
SPA One Project-Related 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 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
147
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 measure for cumulative impacts on
aggregate 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]
XII.
FEASffiILITY 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 OualityGrowth v. City of Mount Shasta (12~&) 198 Cal.App.3d 433 [243
Cal. Rptr. 727]; see also Iip. Resources Code, ~ 21002. Beca,~i~ifis ajuggment call whether
:~e~~~~i:~~~~;~~~f~~~~~~~ior these findings cqp~rast a~~:!~;::are all of the
..
........ ......... ......... ....... ....... .......
....... ........ ........ ....... ...... .......
....... ........ ,......., ......., ....... .......
In general, in p~paring alladop~~pg finding~~l~~~gency Pied not n~~ssarily address the
feasibility of lith mitig~nbn Ij,lgasures ~ljd>>erivilf.unentany superiqr alternatives when
contemplating th~~pproYlil.I.gf a pfpject with~ignific~t~mpact~~' Where tlj.~significant impacts
can be mitigatedt&~nacceptable(insignificant)n!vef solely/by the a~iQh of mitigation
measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, 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 Improvement Association v. Regents of the University
of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association
v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal. Rptr. 842] see also Kings County Farm
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]
148
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Landform Alteration! Aesthetics
The change in the overall visual character 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 landforms 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]
The Project would result in significant visual impacts visible to a large number of people
as a result of the change in the Project site from existing rolling hills and rural features
to a neo-traditional 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, futur~4.evelopment of Planning Areas 1 and~.,.Jmd the Mary Patrick Estate
would result in a PQ~~ntial impact to landform alteratiowiesthetics. ..... [FEIR, Volume 1,
p. 4.2-22] .... .. .........
...... ......
........... . .....
............. .......
................ .......
................. .....
.................. ......
................... ..
.....................
................ .
Biological ResouNes
...................
.....................
..................-....
........................
.........................
.. .... .......-.........
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
...................
....... ....... ........ .~...................
....... ....... ........ ... ....................
............... ............... .............- ...................................................
....... ...... ....... ...... ...... ............
........ ....... ....... ......"................
Direct Iii},pacts: Sel~tive tii4nt Speci~$.f<<
....... .. ..... ...... .......
....... ......... ...... . ....- ....... ....... .......
....... .. .... ,....... "--". ........ ...... .......
....... ...... .. ...... ...... ........ ....... .......
....... ......... ........ ....... ........ ...... .......
........ .....-..- ...... ....... ........ ....... .......
....... ....... . ....... ....... ... ..... ...... .......
....... ......... ....... ......- ........ ....... .......
........ ......... ,...... .. ...... ......... . -.... .......
........ ... ...... ...... ........ .........- ....... .......
........ . ......... C'" ... ........ ..... ..... ....... .......
........ ........... ...... ........ ........... ......- .......
........ ........... ....... ........ ............ ...... .......
The projd9t W;Quld result mdirect sigmficanfunpactslo the Otayf:@pJant (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 direct significant impacts to one pair of
coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica). [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 4.3-17
through 4.3-18, Figure 4.3-5]
149
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 1, 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 1 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]
Agricultural Resources
........ ............
...... .....-......
....... .............
...... ............
...... ..............
....... ..............
.. .... ...............
....... -..............
......... ....--..
... . ........
.. .... ........
.. ... ......-.
....... ......-...
Although the propd$iI annexation would not, by itself, isult in a Puysical change in the
:~~~~~r~~$a:,!j ~~_~'~.~;~11~:~jWi;~~C~I~a~;~~~1It~~~. d[~~fK~;;~
4.7-12 tmpugh 4. 7j~~] .............. ............. ............ .............
The majority of roadway impacts are mitigated by upgrading the functional classification
in accordance with the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego Circulation
Elements. Several arterial roadway segments remain significantly impacted (LOS E or
F) at the General Plan level during Phases I, II and III as the Southbay transportation
network develops, although implementation of recommended intersection improvements
will reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 4.10-28]
With the exception of one intersection at Heritage Road/Otay Mesa Road (which will be
impacted under Year 2000 conditions only due to the limited circulation network and
return to acceptable LOS by Year 2005 in Phase II), implementation of recommended
intersection improvements will mitigate all impacts to peak hour intersection performance
under all development phases to a level less than significant by maintaining acceptable
LOS D or better. By Phase III Year 2010 conditions, all intersections will operate at
acceptable levels of service with recommended mitigation. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 4.10-
28]
150
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Air Oualitv
Short-term 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 1, pp. 4. 11-10 through 4.11-11]
Noise
Construction of SPA One would create a long-term significant noise impact on and
around the site, including existing California Gnatcatcher habitat. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp.
4.12-6 through 4.1S;7]} ...
Although the SP APne Plan will attain the perfomlIDlce stan. set forth in the
GDP/SRP.p~P,Qjog~Iqr pre.~Q:'~n~:m ofMt~t~~9I:1ers ~~9P;th!:m9h~]!ppropriate noise
impact smiUficanc~Jpresh9~~6f 65 dBA Leq,~reas cdi'll;aining cQ@;$tal sage scrub that
supportm~ coastalyalifotma Gnatca~sh~rwgHbe subjlted to ufiffic generated noise
levels ftiJ$ East Of~h.ge A,y~nue anq~ase()~hero.Jhese nog;~ levels will exceed
the 60 dB~J.eq si.~ance;l~vel esta~~l~hed iR~ije Findtl'igs of Fact~~opted for Program
EIR 90-0f:[EmRVVolun1€f 1, pp. 4;1~+Z6aridVolume1, p. 4.:JJ4:$1
Cumulative - Land Use. Planning and Zoning
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 - Landform Alteration! Aesthetics
Implementation of the SPA One Plan, in conjunction with buildout of the cumulative
projects, would result in significant cumulative landform alteration!aesthetic impacts
because approximately 35,488 acres of open space would be converted to development.
[FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-4]
151
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Cumulative - Biolo~ical Resources
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 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 1, p. 6-5]
Cumulative - Agricultural Resources
Cumulative buildout would lead to the loss or impairment of suitable agricultural land.
[FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-6]
Cumulative - Transportati~~~ Circulation and Access
....... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
~~:o~~.rGi~'~t~m:.~~ ;ol:9,~;u'lllYll~~!!le impacts to the
Cumulative - Altpuality /
............. ........'.'..,.. .............. .....-:-:..-:. ..............- .............. ..............
..............- ,..........:..... .............. ........... ................ ..,.......... ..............
....... ...-. ", ........ ....... ........ ...... .......
............... ..........-:....,. -............- .............., -...............- ............. .....,........
............... ..,.............. -...........> ..........-:... .......:....,..>: ............. ..........-...
.-:.......:-...., ..............-:.... -....,........ .............- ...........:-.->,. ............. ............'.
The prop6S~dPt:oJ~dtwilltlult in at6ntnbutidh to aiiquality imP$:t$bn a cumulative
basis. [FEIR, Volume 1, p. 6-7]
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]
152
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Cumulative - Aggregate Resources/N amral 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
fmdings 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 to 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 objectives of the Project." However, the Guidelines also
require an EIR to examine alternatives "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 folloWJpg definition of the term "feasib!~~as it applies to the findings
requirement: '''Feasible' ~ans capable of being accomplish~in a sucqWlsful manner within
a reasonable pe~~pQPfJU$e, 1fJQpg@nto~~Um~con~m>>~i;Pvjr~PUil, social, and
technological fagi9rs. "pP~; ReSQyrces Code; ~ 21091.1. Tlle CEQA:~pidelines provide a
broader definitiQQof "feasi.AUity"mat also en~mp~$~~ "legat?factors. ::.{$EQA Guidelines, ~
15364 ("The la9~of legaLppwersqf an agemByto'l.l.s~~n impo~ipg an alt~lative or mitigation
measure may be~~great<~l.imitat"9h as any~s()nol11if~r:nvirowpental, sq9~I, or technological
factor. "). .. .. . ..
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term 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 alternatives and states, in pertinent part, that,
". . . 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 effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved
or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following
findings:
(a)(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for higWy trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures
or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. "
153
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
The concept of "feasibility," therefore, 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. City of San Die~!O (1992) 133 Ca1.App.3rd 401,414-417.
In City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1992) 133 Ca1.App.3d 401,415-417, the Court of
Appeal found that the City of San Diego had ". . . considered and reasonably rejected . . .
[certain] project alternatives. . . as infeasible in view of the social and economic realities in the
region." Id. at 417. The court determined that San Diego had attempted to accommodate the
feasibility factors based upon its growth management plan which included the proposed
development project. Accordingly, the court concluded:
"Assuming this 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 stated at each stage of the approval process. In this
sense, 'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that
desirability is baseci on a reasonable balancing of thg.relevant economic,
environmental, sod~#; and technological factors. We ~~~oraingly c~mclude that
San Diego did not ~puse its discretion under CEQA in~~jecting y~tious project
alternative~a$inf~a$ible. "(} .<<<
..."..... ............
.......,' .........
..... P' ............
......... ............
........- ..........
. ....... ..........
. ...... .........
........ ..........
........ ..-.....
..... ........
...... ........
.. .. ......
....... .....-.
......- ........
ag. (emp~sis add~).)
....... ....... ....... ............................ ....... .......
....... ....... ,..... -. ... -.... -... .... ... ...... .....
....... ....... ...... .......... ....... ....... .......
....... ....,-, ....-.. ......... ....... ....... .......
...,.. ....... ....... ......... ...... ....... .......
....... ....... .-.-... ......... ....... ....... ......
....... ....... ...--.. ........ ....... ....... .......
....... ........., ,....... ......-.. ........., ...... .......
....... ... .. ...... ".- '--.- ...... ....... .....,.
.,..... ....... ,....... '--". ... ...... .,..... .......
........ ........ ...... ......... ......., ....... ....,..
...... ........ ......... _..- . . ......, ...... .......
These Findings tgptrast ~~ompAre the altemfltives.wl)ere appr9priate irt.9fder to demonstrate
that the selection ardnffinatly-appf6ved Project{whllesUll resulting in sigriinC3nt environmental
impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal and other benefits. In rejecting all of
the alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the finally-approved Project objectives and
weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the 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 atay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan,
including the atay Ranch Phase I Resource Management Plan, the atay Ranch
Facility Implementation Plan, the atay Ranch Village Phasing Plan and the atay
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.
154
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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 between villages to balance activities, services and
facilities.
. Accentuate the relationship of the land plan with its natural setting and the
physical character of the region.
. Create a unique atay Ranch image and identity which differentiates atay Ranch
from other communities.
. Wisely use and manage limited physical resources.
... .," ............
. Establish a~~md use and facility plan whi9~assures yillage viability in
consideratidpof existing and anticipated econonpt; conditiQU$.
...-. .........-..... .........-.......-......... ....... .......
... ... ", ....... ..... ........ .....,.. ...... .......
::::::::::::;:: ;:;:;:;:;::::: ::::;:;:::::: {::::::;:;::>.,. }:;::::::=:- ::::::}:;; :::;;:::::}
. Di~21lra~f1~~ dup~~ation of~~yice~~I~o or Ipre locall~yemment agencies.
....
. Annexation of Planning Areas 1, 3, and the Mary Patrick Estate to encourage the
efficient 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
below, the City has properly considered and reasonably rejected Project alternatives as
"infeasible" pursuant to CEQA.
Numerous onsite and offsite land use and policy alternatives have been previously analyzed in
atay 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 locations for the proposed atay Ranch project. This alternatives
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 of Influence EIR
155
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
94-03. Because this is a Second-Tier document, the Program EIR 90-01 and Sphere of Influence
EIR 94-03 alternatives analysis are incorporated by reference. The alternatives considered in
previous environmental documentation 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 alternatives 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 Alternative;
5. Existing General Plans;
6. Low Density Alternative;
7. Environmeri~J Alternative;
8. No Project IJternative.
....... ...... .......
...... ....... .......
....... ....... ..... .......... ...... .......
........... ....... ....... ..........-.., .-..... .......
....... ,..... ......, ....... ........ ..............-.... -.........., ........... ........................
..............., ....... ....... ......... ................-. .-..................... .......................
................. ....... ....... ......... .....................- ....................... ........................
...-.-............ ....... ....... ........... .................-.-.... .......-............... .......................
........'..."..... ....... ,....... -.......... .............- ......-.... ...............-.-..... ........................
.................... ....... ...... ............ ....................... ....................... .....................
....-................ ....... ,....... ........... ..................--....-.. ......-................ ................
...................... ....... ...... ............ ..........................-.... ....................... ...........
City of Chula v;iSii sph~1 of Il)Uu~lice Update st.p~y Eif(94:03H .
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 Otay
Valley.
A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
In addressing the No Project Alternative, the City followed the direction of the CEQA
Guidelines that:
156
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
"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 formal 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 Impacts
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, landform
alteration/aesthetics, biolggical resources, cultural resour~~~.~ agricultural resources,
transportation, circulation:id access, and noise-related imp~rlmpleIllentation of the No
Project Alterative would al~9avoid the Project-related cumulatiy~impacts i,p!he following areas:
land use planning~nd.Z9A~ij.g, la1l4f9ffl:1. alterM~9n..;mq aes~d9~~pio~ggy~.::9Hnural resources,
agriculture, tra~$.P6hatiori~Bircul~ti()h and access, a~quality ;.~oise, lib,f~ries, and aggregate
resources. ............... ............... ..................:...:...............:......................... ..........................
2./ Ot~Imp~ttS Assoc~t~d w~t~~he No~oiect A!~native
Because the No Project Alternative is the "no development" alternative, it would not result in
any other potentially significant environmental impacts that are distinct from the significant
impacts identified for the proposed Project. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 5-3 through 5-7]
3. Comparison of No Project Impacts with Project 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 Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project.
4. Proiect Obiectives
Because no development would occur under the No Project Alternative, it would not achieve the
following Project objectives:
. 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.
157
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
. 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 ~Land Use Plan contemplates dev~IQpment of $,758 total dwelling
~~tsv~I~~g~w;:~~~f:~.rd~l~a~d;b~~~o~dttr~P~!~t ~j4~~ti;~;~=~~y~{~~~~:~:~~~
~~~:d~~:J!~~~ft~1i'il~J~i~~{I~~~EE~~
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.
1. Proiect-Related Impacts
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 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 A 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 character of the Project site from undeveloped land to an
158
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
urbanized area would result and required grading would alter significant or sensitive landforms.
With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative A Land Use Plan is not environmentally
preferable to the proposed Project
c. Biological Resources
Implementation of this alternative would result in similar biological impacts as the proposed
Project because the 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 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 A Land Use Pl~p is not environmentally preferabletgtPe proposed Project.
e..Agricultural Resources
... ,'- ...... .......
.. . . . .. ....... .......
....... ...---. ..... ,,- .-.... ...... .......
........... ........ ....... .......--.' ,'-. ....... .......
..-.......... ...... ........ ......., ........-.. -.- '" ....................... ........................
..-............, ....... ...... ........, .......~ .-.-.-......... ....................... .......................
................. ....... ......., ......... ....... .-.-. -. .., ....................... ........................
.................. ....... ...... ........... .... .........--..-......... ....................... .......................
................... .....-. ........ -.......... .-........ - .......... ....................... ........................
.................... ....... ...... ............ .......... .-.. ......... ....................... .......................
..................... ....... ........ ........... ..........-.-..-........... ....................... ........................
................ ...... ....... ...... . ........... ................. .......... .................-..... .......................
.......... ............... ................... ........... .......... ....................... ........................
Implementationpflliis att~iativeW9U1dpotentially r~~ylt intli~onverslqnofagricultural uses
and important f~pnlandsp;anne~~d lands ar~9~y~t9Ped in ..'tfie future! Compared to the
E~=:~~~t~~tl~~~~EJ~~~tr.:li=i~~!:~~~~
proposed Project.
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 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 result, short-term and long-term air quality 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.
159
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 environmentally 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 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 A Land Use Plan is not
environmentally preferableJ9 the proposed Project.
........ """ .......
..-, .....:....... ..-,. .......... .,'.'...'.... ..............
.. -....... ',..... ....... .........-.....- ....... .......
....:::::.:::.'....:-:...:::::..... :::::::::;.::: :::::::::::::: ..'::::::::::::::::: ....:::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::..-. ::::::::::::::::::::::::>:::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
........,.......--..-......-....:...... :.....:....... ...............'..................... ................................................. .............................................. ...............................................
...........-.......... ........ ........ ......-.... ........................... ....................... ....................,...
.-........... ,.......... '.'"." ...... ............ .......'................. ... ........,..".,........ .......................
.....,..- .. ........ ,................-.. ..-... .... ..-......... ..............,........ ........................
~f~i~~~i;~'Ei.fJi!~jl~;~~
Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
........ ............
......... .........'....
...... ............,
.... ." ...........".
......... ..............
......'. .......~......
......... ......
j . Cumulative - Landform AlteratlUnl AestheUts
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 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 environmentally preferable to
the proposed Project.
I. Cumulative - Cultural Resources
Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative cultural resource impacts because,
under the cumulative buildout 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]
160
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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 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 impact, the SPA One Alternative 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~outhbay Buildout Conditions are antic::i.p.~ted to result in unavoidable
impacts to the regional cirpij.lation system. Compared to the pf9P6sed Project, impacts under
the alternative would be similar because the development footP(~t is gen~illy the same as the
~~~1:~:~~I~~tp~~~6f~llc:':~lt~t~~:~fgr~~~~one!:M~b.miVt;~.~P9Use Plan is not
...... ......., ......
....... ,....... ......
. ..... ......, .......
....... ,....... ......
. d.. ....... ...................
....... ....... .....................
....... ....... .....................
...... ........ ........................
...,....'.... .............. ....................................................
...........> ,............. ....................................................,.
o.Cum.plative - ~rQuaI!ty
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 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 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 additional 134,031 square feet of library space
161
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 A Land Use Plan is not environmentally 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 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 not environmentally preferable to
the proposed Project.
2. Other Impacts 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)lre distinct from the significant impa(;l~identified for the proposed
Project. [FEIR, Volume r;pp. 5-7 through 5-12, Table 5.1]>
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 Project.
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 project objectives as effectively as
the proposed Project. For this reason, the City rejects the SPA One Alternative A Land Use
Plan as infeasible.
162
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
C. SPA ONE ALTERNATIVE B-1 LAND USE PLAN
Under the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan, a total 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
primary access locations for Village One are located at Paseo Ranchero and La Media Road.
The three primary access points for Village Five are located at Telegraph Canyon Road, La
Media Road, and East Orange Avenue.
1. Proiect-Related Impacts
a. Land Use, Planning, and Zoning
Implementation of the SPA One Alternative 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 !qthe proposed Project. With respectJ9 this impact, the SPA One
Alternative B-1 Land UselJan is not environmentally preferag~~krthe proposed Project.
.............. .............
....... .......
....... ......
....... ....,..
........ ..-,..
........-:... .....,.......
.......><.. .,.........,.
.....,..... .............
....... .,.....
...................b....... ) Landform<Alterati6rilAesthetics)......................
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 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 B-1 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
163
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
e. Agricultural Resources
Implementation of this alternative would potentially result in the conversion of agricultural uses
and important farmlands 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 environmentally preferable
to the proposed Project.
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 to the proposed Project.
g. Air Quality
....... .........
Implementation of this altel~tive would result in the same leve~qrdevelop~ent as the proposed
Project. As a result, shQrtf,term and long-term air quality ijijpacts wojlp be similar to the
~~~Pe~~~:~e~~1~:~lt~\~!il~~~:oas1~~11 Ol1!~J,~y~tiy~;ltli~nd Use Plan is
....... ........ ....... -.....'.... ... ',",'. ..-... ........
........ ........- ....... ...... ...... ....... ......
....... ........ ....... . ....,. .....", .....- ........
............... ...........-.. '............. ............ ............... .......,-.... .............
....... ...."... ....... ....... .......... ....... .......
.::.>:::::::::. ::::::::;::::::::: :::::::::::::: ;;;:;:::::;;;:. }::::::::::::::: :::::::::::;: ::::::::::::::
....... .........- ....... ....... ........... ....... .......
........ .......... ....... -.-...... ........... ...... .......
.,..-.., ..,......-. ,...... .... .. ...... .... ......, .......
Implementation ofthi$tUtethitiveW6uld resuttihme~Mfie leve16f developmbn.tas 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 B-1 Land Use Plan is
not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
..... - ........
........ ........
....... ...-...
....... .......
...... ......
....... -.......
....... .......
..... -......
....... ....,..
.... . ......
..... .......
....... ......
....... ......
h.<Noisif
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-1 Land Use Plan is
not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
164
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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 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 Op~Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan is Il9tenvironmentally preferable
to the proposed Project. ............. .......................
....... .......
....... .......
..... .......
.... ......
....... .......
....... .....
....... .......
...",. .....
....... .......
....... ......
.......... .........-...
.d_'. _,_..
....... d'"
....... ,"-..-,
... - ..... .......... ....
..._. ....... .............., "_n
. ... ,- c.............. -......... -....... ........... ... .........
... ..... ...... ......... ................... .......................
...... .........;. .............. ,................... ..............,.,.....,...,-...;.;...-...-.-. ....-.....-.-,...............................
.... ...... C...... ........... ....... -.....-.. ... ... ............ ...........
..... ....... ...... ,........... ............-......C..... ......-.-..............
.................-.- ,.................................... ................................_....:-............. ...............--.-...........................
I.CunimaHve - CUhurafResourC6(...
........................
.......................
........................
..........-............
........................
.......................
........................
.................. ..
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 impact, the SPA One Alternative B-1 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
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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 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 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, VolumeJ, p. 6-8] Compared to the propos~4Project, impacts under the
alternative would be simila;pecause a comparable increase in tr,~C:volumewould occur. With
respect to this impact, th4:.$P A One Alternative B-1 Land l:i$~ Plan is.ij.ot environmentally
preferable to the Pf9pQ~qltoject+< ............. .............
............ ,............ ........ ........ ....... .......
........... ,............ ....... ......... ...... .......
........... .......... ........ "...... ....... .......
.\t)):~: :::<>>>" ::::;:;:;:;:;:' tt~::~~~. ,)~>> tt>::
q . CumUlative - Public~ices arm.. UtilitieS~tibraries
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 B-1 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable
to the proposed Project.
2. Other Impacts Associated with the SF A One Alternative B-1
The SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan would not result in any other potentially significant
environmental impacts distinct from the SPA One Plan. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 5-12 through
5-16, Table 5-1]
166
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
3. Comparison of SPA One Alternative B-1 with Project Impacts
Compared to the proposed Project, the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan would result
in similar impacts on land use, landform alteration/aesthetic, biological, 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-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 result in impacts similar to the proposed
Project, the City finds it is not environmentally superior.
4. Project Objectives
The SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan generally meets all the Project objectives. Under
this alternative, however, since fewer housing units are contemplated, the SPA One Alternative
B-1 Land Use Plan wouldIl9t achieve the housing Project objectives as well as the SPA One
Plan. In addition, becaus#te alternative includes a gate-guarQ~dcommUIy.ty in the northeast
comer of Village One, pupUc access to the .8 acre public parl:tould be;;:QP.paired. Thus, the
City finds this al!~rna(iY~-4ges n~<m~~ thet!9jit\t9pject,jy~~',~~ff"pyi~y?,s the proposed
Project. .........<?Ii ........ ........ ...... .....
51< Conclusion?
....... ,".n. .. ....... .....
......' . ...... ....... ......... ....... .......
..........-... ....... ..... ... .. ...... .......
....... .....~. ...... ....... ......... ....... .......
.......' .----.. ....... ....... ........... ...... .......
....... ,........ ....... ....-.. Po ....... .......
....... .......... ,....... ....... ... ..... ...... .......
........ ...._._ ...... ..._H. ........ ....... .......
....... ......... ,....... ........ ......... ...... .......
....... ....--..- ...... ...... ........- ....... .......
........ ...... -. ....... ........ ...... , ...... .......
........ .......... -...... ........ .....,....'.. ....... .......
...,.... .......... ~...... ... .... -.. .. ,. ...... .......
........ ........... ...... ........ .......-... ....... .......
........ ........... ....,... ........ ..........,... ...... .......
The City rejects the SRA one Alternative B~l:I..AtldUse Plan because it isdibltnvironmentally
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 alternative refines the SPA One Alternative B-1 Land Use Plan. A principle difference
between this 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 addition, principle access points to Village One would
be located 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.
167
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
1. Project-Related Impacts
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 to the lower slopes along the 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 character of the Project site from undeveloped land to an
urbanized area would result and required grading would alter significant or sensitive landforms.
Under this alternative, ho\\,~yer, impacts associated with gradingW9)Jld be less because grading
is reduced by approximateJyc4. 7 million cubic yards. In this r~~pe6t, the SJ:> A One Alternative
B-2 Land Use Plan is envi~9pmentally preferable to the propoi~ Projecti
....... ..... .........
..... ....... ..............
...... ....... ........ ................
.... ...... ........ ........."........
. ....... ....... ........ ..--................
... ....... ....... ........... ..-........ . - -..
.. ....... ....... ........... .......... ............
.... ....... ,,,.... ............ .......................
.... ....... ....... ........... ........................
..... ....... ....... ............ ....................
c. .<.BioIQgtt~f..Resources
.......................
....-..................
......................
.......................
.......................
... .................
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 B-2 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 farmlands 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-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable
to the proposed Project.
168
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
f. Transportation, Circulation, and Access
Under this alternative, impacts on transportation, circulation and access would be significant.
Compared to the proposed Project, these impacts 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 Project.
g. Air Quality
This alternative would result in short-term and long-term air quality impacts that 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
....... ..c........
Implementation of this altetP~tive would result in the same levelqfdeveloPlllent as the proposed
Project. As a consequenq~~ short-term and long-term noise UJpacts w<mJ~ be similar to the
~~~~~:~:~e~~l~~f~~il~\~ttii~~::J';()~1 OIW:~~tnwtiYf:!lt&~~nd Use Plan is
i.
IcJIlative - lj~tlU~~,~lannJ~ and zlhg
... -.- . -.. ,..' .... .......
<::::::::::;< -::;:::::::;::::: :::::::::;:::: :::::::::::::: :=:::::::::::.; :::::::::;::: :::::;:::::::;
............... .:................ -..,......;... ..........;... ..;..,.......... ............. ..............
';':-;';';':-.", ,'.-:':-:-:-:-:-::: .';';'>;'.';' ':':-:-:-::.-:'. ,':;":;:::-:'.-:'. :-:-:-:.;.;.; :.;.;-:.:-:-:.
........ ............ ....... ...... ..,........ ...... .......
.............. ................;.. :............. ................ .................. ............. ..............
Implementation oftlu.$ilternativewnuld resillt lU cumUlative blnd use imp.~: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 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 B-2 Land
Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
169
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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 B-2 Land Use Plan is not environmentally preferable
to the proposed Project.
l. Cumulative - Cultural Resources
Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative cultural resource impacts because,
under the cumulative buildout 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 g~J1erally the same as the proposed I.>.rgject. With respect to this
impact, the SPA One Alte~tive B-2 Land Use Plan is not egJf6funentall,y preferable to the
proposed Project. .... ..............<<<...U..<
m.Cuml~tifve - Agflculiliril ResoUrces
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 B-2 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 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
170
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
this impact, the SPA One Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan is not 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 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 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 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 gfdevelopment and resulting populatignjs similar. With respect to
this impact, the SPA One~Jternative B-2 Land Use Plan is n9tenvironm~ptally preferable to
the proposed Project. ....... ....... ....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. ...... ....... ........... ......................... ....................... ........................
.... ..-.... ....... -........... ........................... ....................... ..................-....
r .CumlaHve - Aggregat~'esou~~~jNatur@..fiesources
2. Other Impacts Associated with the SPA One Alternative B-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. Comoarison of SPA One Alternative B-2 with Project Impacts
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/aesthetics and biology. Since the alternative
171
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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. Project Objectives
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 the housing Project objectives as well as the SPA One
Plan. Thus, the City finds this alternative does not meet the Project objectives as effectively as
the proposed Project.
5. Conclusion
The City rejects the SPA Qge Alternative B-2 Land Use Plan be~f!yse it is not environmentally
superior to the proposed Plject and because it fails to meet p~qj#6fObjectiyes as effectively as
the proposed Project. Fortijis reason, the City rejects the SPi\pne Altetiij!tive B-2 Land Use
Plan as infeasible..<> ....... ...... .......
.....-................ ....... ,-,.',- ............ ........................... .......................
.......... ,.............. ................... ........... ........... ...............-.....-.
......... .............. .................... ......... ......-... ......................
.....-_.. ............ .............. ........ ........ ......
......... ............ .,........... ........ ....-... .......
......... ........... ............ ....... ....... ......
.......- ........... ........... ......., ....... .......
.......- .......... .......... ........ ........ .......
........ .......... ......... ....... ....... .......
........ ......... ......... ....... ....... ...-..
....... ......... ......... ....... ....... ..,....
............... .....-.-.......... ,................. ....... -.............. .............
....... ........ ........ ....... ......
....... ........ ......... .......- .......
......" ........ ........ ....... ...."
....,,- ........ ......" ....... ....".
....". ....... ."----- ....... ......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....... ....... ....... ....... ......
....... ........ ........ ......- .......
.....-. ....... ....... .................. ....-.
....... ....... ........ ...................... ......
....". ....... ....... ....................... ......
....... ....... --...." ........................- ......
........ ....... ....... .......................... .......
....... ....... ....... ........................... .......
....... ....... ....... ........................... ......
....... .....,.. ,...... .........-.............-,...- ....-..
E. SpA ONE Art TERNA TIVE .C LAND USE PBAN
.....-. "'''. ....... ........ .. " ....-. .......
........ .-........... ....... ..... ..- ....... .......
....... ,......... ....... ....... ........., ...... ....,..
....... ......, ,...... ....... ...... ......, .......
........ ........... ....... '--'.'-.' .......... ...... .......
....... - ........ ....... ...... . ..... ....... .......
....... .... ....... . ..... ...... ...... .......
........ .."..... ....... ....... ...".... ....... .......
....... .........". ....... ......... ......... ...... .......
....... .. . ... ....... ..... ........ ....... .......
":-:-:-:-:':-:'. ...........:-:-:..:-:-:- .:-:-:-:-:-:-: ..:-.:-:-:....:-:.. .':':':':':':.':-:':' -:.:-:-:-:.:- .:-:-:.:-:-:-:
........ ... ... ....... ... . .......... ....... .......
The priniary obje8tiv~orth1~ altertiitive is td.~ueedi.tect impitts to theblpIQgically 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 alternative, Paseo Ranchero would be realigned at its
connection point with East Orange Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet west of La Media Road.
This alternative also proposes neighborhood parks that are approximately 5 acres in size, with
pedestrian parks approximately 1 acre in size, joint 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 feet near the EastLake edge.
Finally, the reconfigured roadway system proposed under this alternative would render the
trolley's primary route infeasible.
1. Proiect-Related Impacts
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,
172
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 landform 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 southwest 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 m$imilar to the proposed alignment q~raseo RaA9hero under the SPA
One Plan. The pr~ncip~tq~nffereW;~HPcger tl;l~~~l~~tive~:tM~~he:!9*=~m portion of the
alignment is shif(~d slighQY~ast.l'he benefifOf thismignmeu~is that it.w;ould avoid impacts
to all the contig*=pus sage~9:rub t~r a pair of8q~~~~~aliforW~ gnatcat.rs. Areas directly
impacted wouldpe reduc~Q as fQllows (appr{}xiIllat~ly 7.8 a9Tes): dirept impacts would be
reduced by apprq~WtateIY$~3 acti of coas~t sage$?wb, 1. k~cres of 4iiurbed coastal sage
scrub, 0.9 acre df'matitfirie succulent scrub,andO.S.acre dfannual, nduBnative grassland.
Alternate alignment C-l would also avoid impacts to pairs of cactus wrens and at least one Bell's
sage sparrow. In this respect, the SPA One Alternative 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 most of the direct 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
173
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 farmlands 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
h. Noise
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same level of development as the proposed
Project. As a result, short-term and long-term 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 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
174
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
proposed Project. With respect to this impact, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan 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 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 C Land
Use Plan is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
k. Cumulative - Biological Resources
Under this alternative, cumulative 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~pecies. In this respect, the SPA On~Alternative C Land Use Plan
is environmentally prefera&!~ 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 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 development footprint is generally the same as the
175
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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 C Land Use Plan is not 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 1, p. 6-8] Compared to the proposed Project, impacts under the
alternative would be similarJ:>ecause a comparable increase in traffi~\yolume would occur. With
respect to this impact, th~$P A One Alternative C Land q$~np.llm is 11.0t environmentally
preferable to the proposed~foject. ..........
....... ....... .......
....... ..... ........., ...... .......
....... ....... ............... ....... .......
...... ....... ........ .................. ....................... ........................
. ....... -...... ......... ................... ....................... .......................
.. ....... ....... ......... ...................... .......-............... ...-....................
.. ....... ....... ........... ....................... .....-................. .......................
...... .............. ...............-...................., .........'....................................... .............................................. ...............................................
.... ....... ....... ........... .......................... ....................... ........................
q .cuntUJ~H;e - pUblic .SJttices><idd<Utilitie~~..Libraries
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 alignment proposed under this
176
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
alternative, cumulative impacts to loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbirds and grasshopper
sparrows. [FEIR, Volume 1, pp. 5-20 through 5-25, Table 5-1]
3. Comparison of SPA One Alternative C Impacts with Project Impacts
Compared to the proposed Project, the SPA One Alternative C Land Use Plan would result in
similar impacts on landform alteration/aesthetics, cultural resources, agricultural, transportation,
circulation and access, air quality, noise, and hazards/risk of upset impacts. This Alternative
will also result in similar cumulative impacts on land use, landform 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 significant cumulative biological impacts from alternate
alignment C-1 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 finds the SPA
One Alternative C Land Use Plan is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
4. Project Obiectives
........ ............
..... " ............
...-" .............
....... .............
....... ..............
......~ ...............
........ ...............
....~. ...........',..
..... .........
....... ........
....... ,.......
.... ." ........
.....- ......-..
The SPA One Alternative@ Land Use Plan generally meets~ll the projit objectives. This
~~j::e;: i;i:~ )1':;~~~I~w:Ji~1~~m~c~~~i~'I8~i~~OSPd~~~~~~~~~ <ge~:rir~~~~
which addressesqje need f9r~ffor4.,ble housing~tM~9Hgh affq;gable hou~ipg goals will be met
;::e~~i~;~t~:~Y.~.3~h:~4ri~~~O'i~~s~;t ul~e...~~lra~~~:n1~t~e~0~~11~:~:r~:s~:';:~t~
on residential areas~t:ltffietelocatea trolley afld#ausepotential1ysignificaritCijp;mlative impacts
to loggerhead shrike and foraging areas for the tricolored blackbirds and a grasshopper sparrow.
These impacts are in conflict 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,
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.
177
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 Impacts
a. Land Use, Planning, and Zoning
....". ..........
Implementation of the Exi~tthg GDP Alternative would resultmslgnificant land use, planning
and zoning impacts. Compired to the proposed Project, land'Q$e companlility impacts under
the alternative wqHl9b~wgfse be~~I,p~~portiq~&f~.J.?roj~~~i~~Woqgi!:}'f(~stern boundary
that would notp~develqp~ as Imrf.of the SPA ~ Plan would be ::~veloped under the
alternative. Inm~s respec~~~he ~~~ting GD~.~~~~ve is n~ enviromij~Jltally preferable to
the proposed Pt~~:~t. ....Ui{X/)@}
... .....(........bW> H.....Landform AlteratiUn/Aesthetics(i
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 Existing 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
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. With respect to biological impacts, the Existing GDP Alternative
is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
178
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 addition, 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 respect, the Existing GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the
proposed Project.
e. Agricultural Resources
Implementation of this alternative would result in significant impacts on agricultural resources.
Compared to the pwposed 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 impleme.med. In this respect, the Existing GDP Alternative is not
environmentally preferabl~~9 the proposed Project. .......................
.~. ..-.... ...
.., . " . -..... ......
......-...... ...........-.- .............
d._. ....... .......
..... ...... ......
....... ....... .......
......... ....-. ......
.... .. ....... .......
.... .," ...... .......
............. ............. ..............
....... ....... .......
f~Tr'~I~~~iO~j~jtt.9~]~~on,.,~:~~e~)::
Under this alterllive, implts oqfansportatiR9~~~ation fBd access~~}Uld be significant.
=~~~~~'~1'~~l~:r;rai!1:f~r~:~I,~=:sE~
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 not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
h. Noise
Implementation of the alternative would result in significant noise impacts. Compared to the
proposed Project, impacts 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
unacceptable noise levels. In this respect, the Existing GDP Alternative is not environmentally
preferable to the proposed Project.
179
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 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 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!l:nder the alternative would be simU~r because the development
footprint is generally the sale. With respect to this impact, the JfiiSiing Gl?P Alternative is not
environmentally preferabl~~p the proposed Project.
......, .......
...... ..... .......... ......
...... ....... ............... .......
....... ....... ........ .................. .......................
::::::. :~:~::::{:: :::::::::::::: -::;:}>>>::: "::::}:/::=:=:::=:=:=:::=:=:=:=:=:=:=:::::::" {:::::):::::{:::::::~:::~:::~:::~::::
k.cumlatfve - gi()logiciil"esour~I..
........................
.......................
........................
.......................
........................
......................
...................
....... ........ ....... ....~.. ....... .......
<<\/ \>>> :~~~~~>>~. . ....;.:-:.::::::::::::::::::::;}fr:~:: t~)~> ~~ttt
Implementation$ithis alteBtive W&uld resul(irigiirii~j~live bi~i~gical resDce impacts because
key biological ~~9urces~ngludiqgDiegang9~stal'g~ scruW~nd mari~i1e succulent scrub
habitat, CaliforniagpatblUcher and coastal<:acWSWien areanticipated:\=W/pe 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 Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed
Project.
l. Cumulative - Cultural Resources
Implementation of this alternative would result in cumulative cultural resource impacts because,
under the cumulative buildout 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 the same as the proposed Project. With respect to this
impact, the Existing GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
180
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 impact, the Existing GDP Alternative 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 Existing GDP Alternative is not
environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
o.Cumulative - Air Quality
..,',..... ....... ..,
"" ,'~' ....... ....
'. " , . ....... ......
",. . .. .............
',??" ......, .......
~. ... ....... .......
. ."- ...... .......
..... ....... .......
....... ...... .......
....... ....... .......
...... ...... .......
.~..... ....... .......
.. ........... .......
Under this altern(Jttyt!:c~un9iative~jrJ:l4~litYWIPac.mWouI4~~~~t:pe~~~m~implementation
would contribut~ij)regi6ijMair qy~1ity impacts on aP9mulatiy~ basis. lEEIR, Volume 1, p.
6-7] Comparedct9 the propq~ed Pf9Ject, impa9:~Hn9e;Pte altefPative WO*~9 be similar because
the footprint oqn~ development i$generally{besameA$ the p~9posed PrcJj~~t. With respect to
this impact, the~~isting~t>P ~~rnative l~pot eHY~rOnmeri;t!lIy prefei~le 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 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 Existing GDP Alternative 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 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 Existing GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed
Project.
181
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 Existing GDP Alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed
Project.
2. Other Impacts Associated with the Existinl: General Development Plan
Alternative
The Existing GDP Alternative will result in other potentially 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. Comparison of Existin~ General DeveloPlllent Plan Alternative with
Proi~t Impacts ............
....... ....... ....
....... ....... ......
Compared to the P~9pQ~~q~~ojecb.~c:;:existip,gy~gt\lteIl!J~~lW9U!q::IL!y~n similar if not
~::::;~r::~~n~d,~~b~~~~~~i_~ ~~~~,~~~; q~~::~~qf~j~~i~"~e~iS ltu~~~iv:g;~:ll::~~
=r%~::i~~~aiplJ~:~~ 1.6':,:irat~~1i:~~s'I?~.gic~~ra~ltur~
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 the 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 has 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
182
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
areas would be associated with this alternative. Although urban runoff would increase, measures
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 facility impacts to less than significant levels.
Because the proposed Proj~~t will have fewer impacts than the l3:~~~ting General Development
Plan Alternative, the Boafgfinds the proposed Project is the:~#vifonmen~lly superior to the
Existing General Developrtipt Plan Alternative because the prgp(Jsed Proj~t would reduce the
significant and utyJ.Y9iQ;IDl~!mpac~~g~H~d bymet)'r9j~ct.U ..............
4f>
............ ..............
............ ,............
........... ............
,.......... ,..........
.......... ..........
.......... ..........
....... ,........
......... '.......
....... .........
......... .........
. ...... ........
........ ,.......
Proiett Obj~ives
· 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 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.
183
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 project objectives as effectively as does
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.
1. Project-Related Impacts
Environmental impacts associated with this alternative would be identical to the proposed
Project. Although an.nexat~9n of the inverted "L" is not propos~g<p'nder this alternative, non-
inclusive of this parcel int(j'~he City of Chula Vista would nott!sun in a significant reduction,
or avoidance of any impaqti.identified with the proposed Proj~t. ....
...-.......... .......
...... ... ....... .......
... ....... ....... - ....-.... ...... .......
....., ....-.. . ......- '-',' -',--','- ....... .......
...... ....... ,....... .......', -....... ','--' -,-,'" ....................... ........................
:;:;:;:;:::;:;:\. ::::;:;:;:;::: :::::::::::;:; .::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;: ":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::" ;:;=:=:=:};}:;:;:;:::;}:;=;::;:=:::=:= ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;}=:=:}::=:=;=:=::::;::}
2// Oth~rlmp~~~Associ~~d.Witljihe Anl,iaiion~~;native A
3. Comparison of Annexation Alternative A with Project Impacts
Compared to the proposed Project, the Annexation Alternative A would be identical with the
exception of annexation of Planning Area 3.
4. Project Objectives
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.
184
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 rejects the Annexation
Alternative B as infeasible.
H. ANNEXATION ALTERNATIVE B
This alternative assumes development of SPA One as proposed in the project description. SPA
One Alternative B assumes the annexation of all of the 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 annexation alternative.
1. Project-Related Impacts
This alternative would pot~lltially reduce some impacts associat~4..~ith the demand on public
services and utilities withil).]ie City of Chula Vista but would p!icea greate.r demand on public
services and utilities in tij~County. The development potermal of PI~ng Area 3 would
remain the samem~itl:!:~[.MPuntyp.r&~~y laP4Use9~~igni~iq~{U:Pv,~~J.~~)~pacts would be
similar to the prppOsed ptpj~ct. ........................... ................ ................ ............. ..............
2W?
....... ........ . ... . .... .......
....... ......., ....... ...... .......
........ ,....... ....... .-..... .......
...." ....... ."-.-.. ...... .......
........ ........ ....... ....... .......
....... ....... .................. ...... ......
....... ,....... -.................... ....... .......
....... ....... ........-....-........-.. ........ ......
....... ,...... ........ - ......-....... ...... .......
....... ....... ................ ......... ...... .......
....... ,...... ..............................- ....... .......
....... ......- .....-...-.-...--... ... .-. "'--.'. .......
....... ....... .................. .................. ........ .......
Other Impacts AssociQtetfwiththe An~exation Alternative B
:::::;::::::::::" ..):::::::::::::;::::::::::::::: :;;;:::::::;:;:; --:::::;;::;:::}:; ;:;:::;:;:::; ::;:;:;:::::::
......... ........... ....... ......-. ........ .. ....... .......
The Annexation A:ltemittveB wiltnot resulflnap:yOfuer potentially sigmt1b~t environmental
impacts that are distinct from the significant impacts identified for the proposed Project. [FEIR,
pp. 5-29 through 5-32, Table 5-1]
3. Comparison of Annexation Alternative B with Proiect Impacts
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 Obiectives
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.
185
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
S. 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.
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
Estate parcels.
1. Proiect-Related Impacts
This alternative would potentially reduce some impacts associated with the demand on public
services and utilities withil!!pe City of Chula Vista but would pla,9~)1 greater demand on public
services and utilities in th~~ounty. The development potent~~~6f:Plannill,g in Area 3 would
remain the same in either~punty of City land use designatiqi~. Overa;U~ impacts would be
similar to the propq~edErgj~ct. ......
2w.i
... ..... . ". .. . ...... .......
.....................-: ...................-:..,. .......".-...- ...........-. ............. .....,........
".:;::::::::::::::::- <:::;:;::;';.:::-:- ::::;::::::;:.- <::::::::::::: :::::::::;:;: :::;:::;:::;::
......... ..."" .... . .. .... ....... .......
......... ......... ....... ...'..... ...... .......
...... .. ......... .. '.' . ....... .......
......... .......... .... ... ...... .......
..... ",' ....., -, ...... ....... .......
Other Impacts Associated.withlhe Annexation Alternative C
....... .-..-.. .---.. ......."........,............. ...,-. .......
......-....... .......'...... .'......,.,.. ...'.'.'.....'....,.........- .'.............. .......,...,. ..............
....... ....... ....... .....",.. ......, ....." .......
....... ....... ....... ........, ....... ...." .......
....." ....... "..... ........, ....... ....... .......
......., ....... ....... ......... ....... ...." .......
...". ......, ......- .........,....... ....... .......
....... .......,.. ,....... ....'..... ....... ...... .......
....... ..... ...... ... ........ ....... .......
.,..... ........ ....... ......-. . ..... ...,'. .......
The Annexationt\l!ernatJy~t: wil~pot resultih anyslh potJ4~ally sigrijficant environmental
impacts that are disfiilCtffomthe significant iffipaclSident:ified for the prop6~gproject. [FEIR,
pp. 5-32 through 5-33, Table 5-1]
3. Comparison of Annexation Alternative C with Project Impacts
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 Vista but would place a greater demand on public services and
utilities in the County. These impacts would be similar to the proposed Project.
4. Proiect 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.
186
5. Conclusion
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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.
187
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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)]
188
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 (Direct Significant Effects and Mitigation
Measures) :
· Land Use (Project -specific and Cumulative)
. Landform Alteration! Aesthetics (Project -specific and Cumulative)
· Biology (Cumulative)
· Cultural Resources (Cumulative)
· Agricultural Resources (Cumulative)
· Mineral Resources (Cumulative)
· Transportation (Project Specific and Cumulative)
. Air Quality (Project-specific and Cumulative)
· Noise (Project-specificuClnd Cumulative)
~~~i~~~~~j~~~~ .:::~:)i~~~~///r ... .
The City has adopted all fl~ible mitigation measures with resp~t to the~~Unpacts. Although
~~~;:ni~;~~~~:~~~~'la~~~:DiY~~~~~d0l~...~ur:.ia~~....~r~ ~~~...j~Wficant impacts,
~=;!~~~i~i~i p5~E~iI~!I;::~h~~ ~;::
As a result, to approve the Project the City must adopt a "statement of overriding
considerations" pursuant 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. Chickering (1976) 18 Ca1.3d 190, 206 [132
Cal. 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 finds that the Project would have the following substantial social, environmental and
economic benefits:
189
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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 forms and wildlife corridors. In addition, a system
of paths and trails will connect the urban villages and their parks, forming 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:
.
....... ............
....... ...........
....." ............
.-....... ............
...... .............
P' ... ............
....... ..............
....... ..............
....... ...............
....... ...............
....... .........
....... ........
....... ,.......
...~.~ ........
....... ......._,
Funct~?~a~~plan-wide multi-species/habitat ar@.fultural r~~purces management
prqg~::!ilmt<:::".. :':':"':"'"
.
.
....... . ... ... ...... .......
....... .............. "-,'" ....... ......, .......
......., ........ ....... .....- ........ ...... .......
....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ....... .......
....... ........ ....... ....... ........ ...... .......
......., ......... ....... ....... ,........ ....... .......
....... ......... ....... ....,.. ........ ...... .......
....... ......... ....... ....... ......... ....... .......
........ ......... ....... ........ ......... ...... .......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........ .......... ....... ........ .......... ...... .......
PI~fi~{Qt~OOtdinated, controil~dpUblibhse andbnjoymentUfthe 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.
190
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
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:
· 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 Planning and Development
· Developmed~'patterns Which Minimize the Adv~~Impactspf Development on
Air Quality#p,d Congestion ...........
........ .............. ..... .......... ............. ..............
"'-::::::::::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;::';'. :::;:::::::::; ;:;:::;::::::: ..'::;:;:::::::;:;:: ....;:::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::;:::;::.... :::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:::::::;:::::::;:;:;:; :;:::::::::;:::;:;:;:::;:::;:::::::::;:::::::;:
,.;:::::::::::::::;::::::::::;::;::::::.:.,:::;::::::::;: ::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .'::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::;:::::;:;::::'. :::::::::::::::;=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: =::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.......... ......... .... c.................. ...................... ....... ........... ..... ..... ............... ....
T~:Projec~lea cqO$ndy exceeds Fe4~tal and.$taieH ail: HqYllity standards for a
~~ber ofwnissiql factors?!W:;~HQig ozo9:~ and car~qn monoxide. A
sijhstantialtijajoritypf these#P.ilssi6~.~re att11putable to.:wotor vehicles. In
~:~rJrtt._~~u~il~; ~~~~\L.~~I~~~li~~~~n~~i:~I~~u~e ~:~~~~~
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
terminals. Jobs, homes, schools, parks and commercial centers are close by and
linked by pedestrian and bicycle routes.
The San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) 1991 "South Bay Rail
Transit Extension Study, " (Exhibit C) which examined the feasibility of providing
191
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
additional rail transit to the South County area by connecting the existing trolley
system to Otay Mesa, concluded that the alternative trolley alignment, through
Otay Ranch, resulted in the largest increase in regional new trips of the
alternatives studied. (South Bay Rail Transit Extension Study, SANDAG,
February 5, 1991, Exhibit C.)
· Social Benefits of Transit and Pedestrian-Oriented Development Pattern
In addition to the improvement to air quality and congestion resulting from a
reduced need for automobile trips, the Project's unique land plan will result in
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.
Comprehensive Regional Planninl:!
....... ..........
The Project provides the PlWortunity to comprehensively plan~evelopmep.t which meets the
region's needs for housing~jpbs, infrastructure and environmeqm:l preserv:@ljon. These benefits
are made possible:pytl!~gr9ject'g~~i~d sS9:P~F~Jhe ~~tm~~)it q!!::~t:~~st been initially
planned for dev~J9Pfuenfupg~r a ~~ngle owneN>The cmperal Dpyelopment~lan for Otay Ranch
includes a provil~~bn for rigionalpprpose fas~lj~~~~ publi9.:~ervices &t are typically not
undertaken for smliller dey~lj)pmemprojects;J'lieregiQhal plampng proc~$ undertaken for the
Project involvedI9w~-raqg~interfjtisdictidJmlcoo~4~ation, i.iuring niiiimum achievement
of policies and regul",tidnsdt both the City dfHZ\b:-Ula\Hsta and/San Diega:QQ.W1ty.
The benefits offered by the regional planning process utilized for the Project include the
following:
. Comprehensive consideration of the Project's cumulative effects
· Consistency in the approach to resolving regional issues such as transportation,
air quality, habitat preservation, infrastructure and public services planning.
. Long-range coordination. of local and regional public facilities.
The 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 County and are currently housed in County-owned facilities, where available, but are
more commonly located in leased or rented space. Designation of land for regional purposes will
facilitate the provision of these services and provide better locational opportunities for users of
these uses than is currently available with new development.
192
City Council of the City of Chula . May 14, 1996
Regional Housing 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
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 typ~s and costs are anticipated. The cla,~~i,fication of a sizable portion
of the Otay Ranch housing product type as attached will assi$,.iH>providi9g more affordable
housing, since it is recognil~d that the key contributing elemil of the qg$.t of housing is the
~~~h o~~~~ty ~~r:llp~~il~~:s.i~~q~~illPrqm9t! s99~B7~sm~omic diversity,
Fiscal Benefit
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .. ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The fiscal impad~ilAlySi~:tbndudttd for th~QtayR~h hastbnc1uded <~nat 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-term 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 correcting 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 II, 1993.)
For the foregoing reasons, the City finds that the Project's adverse, unavoidable environmental
impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits.
6041767.025
193
-
My name is Christine Malone, I have been a Chula Vista resident for 20 years; I am married and have two
(2) preschool aged children.
The children and I were weekly shoppers at the original Chula Vista Farmers Market on Third Ave. We
now go to the Coronado Market where pony rides are offered.
I am here to request your support to reestablish Children's Activities at the Thursday Chula Vista Farmers
Market.
I have with me a petition of thirty-six (36) area residents who agree we would benefit having the return of
pony rides and astrojump.
According to the article printed in the March 27 issue of the Star News, Judy Welty stated about Chula
Vista's Market, " For now they will not have animal rides for children because of the more limited area." . I
explored the market area and found two(2) possible sites, one being the Norman Center Park, and the other the alley
running parallel to Third Avenue between Center Street and Madrona.
If the issue oflocation was resolved, I realize Safety would be the next deciding factor. Safety is an
important issue with the signed petitioners and myself. That is why we mention our support for the return of the
original market pony rides and astrojump, The My Little Pony Rides. They operated at our market for one and a half
years with no incidents or suites. They have been equally successful at the Coronado Tuesday market for the past
year working under the Unified Port District. They have been in business for seven (7) years throughout San Diego
County with record of no incidents or suites. Their ponies are trained not to kick. I have personally observed their
safe operation for the past two years and feel confident to recommend them. The community seemed happy with
their service as well.
Next week, I am scheduled to speak on this issue to the Downtown Business Association and would greatly
appreciate your support.
Please,help the children once again be involved in the weekly community market and allow adults like
myself to return to our own community for shopping. The pony rides are a special treat we enjoy giving our children,
and if done safely, should be able to return to Chula Vista to further enhance the Market.
I thank you for your time.
J)i.d ~Y1r .-/
VI n
j:;:;!t = = = s= > ~
-~ ~ I I I I
\00 ~ ~ ~ ~
O'\:::i
~
n
~
n
o
~
~
n
t=
~
~
=
~
~
>
;
~
UI
I
N
co
I
\C
C'I
~ ~ ~~~ ~
~ ~ ..... t.!I!J t.!I!J
nt""'ttl n ~ nnn ~ ~
t""'ttl >t""'ttl N>> ~~. .....
ij~ N=~ IC~~ IC ICICIC IC IC
~aCll CII Cll CII CIICIICII ~ p- ~ UI UI
Cll ::!. ~2:~ 6 Cll "1 6 >66 6 6
='< ~=-< IN NIN ... ...
~~~~~~~6:~
::I. N '0.... N I>> ~ 0 =
Q 0' a a = !:to 00 os =
=-=:..!<:==o tD
::t ~Cll .... Cll a. ..... ..... ~ =-
; "C ~ e;.~ 0 g- ;> n
--- .0 ft Cll e;. = =
~~~~ ~~g ~
~ R 0 ~ n ~. g- 5
= I>> !=' !;! N _. Cll ...
Cll = 0 S' 0' '0 = ~
Q.\O(J'Q =~.....
e;. ~ 0 Cll n S' -;a
Clld..... 8.n,o
en CllErN
S' '0 ~'
~ ft=
;;:r "1tD
Cll
g" "g n
"1 Cll
g.R~
~ _.~.
~ =
"C
o e;.o "1
= Cll
Cll _. "g
po; q
~ 0
~~
~a
'O"C
::I. d
o N
"1 0
S' e.
~~.
Cll en
~ =
!:to ~
o Cll
= en
.~
~g.~
Cll "1 Cll
~ ..... =
!:to ~ g-
o d Cll
F' N a
o _.
s' ;
(J'Q ~
~ ~
Q.~
g~6:~~~nQ~~n~
&:1':08 _ t""'~;E::a:g~~;>
Cll ............ ... en tIl ~ ~ · . ;> IC
g-g,~,a~::a;>~(=);> ~6
e;. ;> = .....q::l ~ Z z w
~Cll = = ~-en"C~t:l::;:i~.
~fg~og~~~~~8
R ~. g- e: ~ n ..... Q 0 z ~ t3
>6' Cll r;. ~ ~ ~ t""' "T1 ~ tJj t:::l
~a O"CVlen~..,CQ
o S' ~ R ~ ~ ~ g o.o!::? ~
i5.n- nfiit""'=;j::;:i ;>
~!~~ ~~~~s~tq;g
fig eno~t:lts~z
-<d"T1~ts~g~
f~~~~~@~~
. "C_g t:ln~~
~~g~8IO~~
d~~~f ~~
;>"Ct:lo~ .. ~
~~~~~~~~d
~n~~~E~::;:i
d~NO-OSt11
~ g. ~ ~ - 0 ~ ~ ~~ 8 ~
~~g---~~~~~z~
1>>0 ;> 0 ttl enn
S'~ ~~~m -< s~
= Cll = tI1 ~"C"CtI1>
. ~:. N ::d n ::a t-'
e. en 0 0 tI1 N ;> n
~R ~~tI1~~gg
~ ~ O-<~~?-ZtI1
Q.-< m mO ~d
~
=
~
~g-:g ~6:s g-Q.g~s g-Q.g
g ~a ,08 g n8-g d g n8'g
Cll ~. ~ ;;. e: .:::;.' 8. ~ ~ e: .:::;.' 8. ~
o Na5;;:r='<:en Cll='<:en
o ~ R Cll n f!l. e;. e;. (J'Q n f!l. e;.
Rft"Cne;.ggCllClle;.ggCll
. -"1 _. Cll = "C Cll = "C
'J; '< ~ ~ "C O. ;> - "C !:;io' O. ;> -
,o~onn-g~ ,::..-g~
N 0 e. g N 0 o' e. Sl El 0 o' e.
o 0 = = 0 ~ = = = ~. "1 = =
= \0 (J'Q 0 = ~ I>> (J'Q Cll _. e: I>> (J'Q
Cll _. Cll ~ = . '0 ~ =
~~ -. 5Q. ~5Q.
Q. ~ R 6: ~R 6:
g-S' 08 Cllo8
..... .....
Sl~~Qg-~Sl~g-~~~~g-~
R N ON ~ ~ !:to R ~ "C !:to R ~. ~ "C !:to
00 o. --0' 0--0
= e.. = s.. ~ = >6' s.. ~ =
Cll=r:lCllo 0 ~ ~o ~
~ (J'Q _. 5. =. ~ = .
~ e;. g 8. a. s ~ . n S ~ .
N&'l~"C8. Clln8. ~Clln8.
0' Cll ?); - VI = 0 VI '" = 0 VI
R'O.r:.lg.~6 e:~6 S'e:~6
"1 = ..... = ..... 0 = .....
~ R !:to =. 0 (J'Q en' 0 "1 (J'Q en' 0
Q. Eii g (J'Q;> e;. f!l. ;> & e;. ~. ;>
So..... '0 Cll g:g. ~ Cll =:g
(1)0 ~ "C "1 e;. "1
;>e;. ~ n ~ Cll ~
Cll Cll Cll "C Cll
.0
a~ ~f~f~~~~ ~
>S ~~a ~g.~oo~g.
..g=nWtD==s,tD=
... f) 1'0.'1 .... N 0 = 0
a c. ll':" ~' a g ~ - Go =- ~
- S to = ~ ..." = tD a "
S' _ = tD tt = :I. Go is: tD :I.
; ~e; ~~~ 2.tD = a2.
~~ =-CII....UI~= SUI
> n So g 6 n 5: n 6
NN~tD Q S" ~~ =-S"
~' ~' _ ~ IC > = .. ~ >
~ g gtO~ -= ~ n'S. =-
~ 1'0.'1; :: :s.~.g
= 8' <IJ = tD -
=- tD- ~
. = tD
"d
J'il
o
q"'~iS:
tD~==
a~>=-.
tD a =
-s,tD=
=-_=0
tD =-=-~
~tDa"
to is: g ~.
N=-c.
~' = - UI
= l=l. = 6
~ ... n
-==--
e.~~
n 'S. =-
= tD =
=-"-=
tD _
-
=
/~-.:1-4/
~ >
~en
~~
~=::
l:iCI >
!~
~~
l:iCI
>
en
~
~
~
g
"tl
00
a~
Ol:iCl
z
VI
n
0
Z
VI
~
,0
~
z
n
~
VI
~
n
0
i~
~
~
0
z
8~
~~"tl
g~i
2:6
~
en
n
1">~
....nn
~~o
~o~
O'Iz
n
t=
n;>I>>;>!:;io';>tI1n~tI1~i::tI1
o Q. = Q. ,::.. Q. = Cll". l:d Gi ~
~. -s ~ -s ~ fr= ~. a. ;. 3l ;> ;> \0
Q. Cll ,..., o~en~n UI
Clll>>'g I>> ~'Q.~ e;.~ 0..,---6
~.~a.~~ S g Cll > ~~~.'":'
~ ~ ~ <i' =. Pi.:!! ;> 51 ~ ~ 8
Cll "C!:t.:!! _[tD zoOz
aag~ aen~~~~en
g, ~ s:~. ~ g ~ t-' til ~ g
~ g.g, ~~ ~B~~
~ 8. ~ g~' ~ ~ ~ 0
~. ~ $4 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
Q. f;~~~~
nen..,1il~
o Cll z 0
~~Qt:l~o
~~~~Z::;:i
en~ ;>~t11
Cll en en 0
g.g 8 ~ ~
F' ~ ~8-<
S' t""'~~
~gn
O::a::I:
~~~
~h
n~~
~51"C.
=;j~~
~~~
;> 0
[ [ ~ ~ g. Q
"C"Cg;>~g
d.og-'O 0 ~
~~g]~s'
=. Cll !it ~ Cll =
<!Q ;> ~. ~ c;;'
~ n 8 S' ~
~~"CF fj
i3 = en~
CllCll "C
~ ;>
ne;.nen
CllCllO.g
a. n 8 'g
~~'8.~
= en
(J'Q n f!l. e;.
~OOCll
;;:rg="C
~ o'S ~
S' ;; o. e.
e.Cll==
tI1~~(J'Q
?3g,Q.
o ;>
= Q.
-a
~~g-~
. g,:g s.
= ~ =
8' ~. ~
n (J'Q 3.
Clln8.
~~6
~ e.S'
~
e;. _. ;>
CllO'O
"T1=~
_. 0
[ ;J
Q&t~~~Q[~f~
=- ==.. ~ -
<IJ tD ~ -=.... > .... ~ ...
... ~ " ~ -~. a... =
=-..~=~==-===
~ g i3 :I. ~ ~ t a e. ~
~ - ~ = .... ... = tD en 3
:t.= =II'Q ~= =-= tD
= .... =- ~ ... e: = - 8 tD.
~os=-!ajie.==-
;i > !:l:l ...... _ t::'4 9- UI
3 =-n-8 = =.g =:.6
.=-= ....~ tD_
=--= = ~....~" =
S. -::l. ~ ~ - n
~ ~ _. l4. tD!:l:l tD
= . n- ::l.
~ S -= -.
Q ~
::l.
n
~
n
o
~
2:
n
t=
'"d
~
=
~
n
~
>
~
~
UI
I
N
00
I
\Q
Q\
~~
IV:::"
;aR
O\-..j
P..
g
~
(1)
::I
Q.
'g
S>
~I
~ (1)
-",
[g
f[
ni' ~
'" '"i
p..
~
(1)
8-
"I:l
(1)
S>
~~
..... 0
o (1)
la '"
~I
~Q.
!ii'~
(1) '"i
S(1)O~O"'So~
~ g :::; e- ~. (1) :::;
e.El=ge:=::ICile:
~ S' ~ 9 t;; (1) Si !ii' t;;
g.J:t::l'(1) (1) SoO::l (1)
F' S' ~ Q. > (1) ~ sa >
.... So ~ '" ;So (1) ~
~~~~ggo~~
(1) "I:l ni' eo ~ = ni'
~. Cil ~. '" t:: (1) ~ '"
19:r.l:=~p..S g-
::I' < ::I (1) ~
OQ 8.. sa ~
g- (1)
~
?'
>
~.
[
......
S.
~
:t.
o
::I
~
'"
0'
'"i
"1::1
~
~~
o ::\.
.....(1)
~~
S:~
~~
~~
~ ;:;,'.g ~(jSoQ.~ c.~
=;' ~ 'g :::; g (1) ~ Q. 1;;, :::;
s-",E:: o.cg-~E::
:t.tf8..~. q"l:l ~~ ~
~ Q. S' > ~ ~ ~ ~ >
~Sg~ ~a"l:l"l:l~
~ ~ ~ .... !ii'O P1 ~
'" Q. So .... ::I OQ 0' ;:I. ....
s' e: ~ ~ So g a. g, ~
2[g.g'~ (1)0'e.~~
'" ~ '"i~(1)::I
o' (1) .... '"i r.l .....
::I Ci ::I <
. (1)
ag'o .... ~ ~. ~ !ii' ~ go g' ~
'd QJ El .... ...... .... Q. "I:l 0 ....
~ El tn ~ :=;:r:=(1) '"i s.;"I:l e;
o e1. E!l. g ::I ::I Sir fa..g (1) ~ t;;
..... ::I ~ 0 sa S. "I:l ::l. '" 0 (1)
[Pl.Q.::I O'r.l ~!a la ~.....>
cr::l cro~ ~ g (1) ~ S'" SoOQ
.... (1) .... ::I Q. cr Q. . (1) (1)
S Q. a ~ ..... 0 0 ~ (jOQ '1:l ::I
r+ 0 '2 cr 0 <: S tn .... ~ 0 Q.
~!i ~ ~ gg ~~g'.E::~
~. ~. [ ~ ~ g. ~ g !ii' ~ ~
fi ~. > ~ E::.~ j;;. .....
s . "'."<: g.o
~g'[g~g~S1~
~.~ ~~ ~s ~cr S:S
uI3Rp.Q.p.~~Q.
.... ni' '::!'l So ..... ::I' 0 So
::1"'0(1)0(1).....(1)
...... '"i "I:l 0\ '"i "I1 "1::1
g-SSoaVl[~a
0'El ~o ~g:~~
~ ~. ~ ;I ~ ~ W S
~gooo ~ ~ Q.tI1
S [~g FJ' ~ ~
Ocr'" (1)
::I' .... iii So
~::I (1)
Q.
~~
~ :t.
:;00
(1) ::I
i ~.
(1) Q.
::I VI
frb
g. S
F' >
"I:l
"I:l
~
1
o
IV
mE::
~g.
o
W::I
i ~.
(1) Q.
fr6
:t. .....
o 0
F' >
"I:l
"I:l
'"i
~
(1)
~ft"~~
Q.(1)r.l(1)
e: m. < 8-
g. ~ (1) So
[~9(1)
....~ ~ 8
a..g f~ "1::1
OQ .....
la::l. 0
.... ~ lU
00' "'"
F' _OQ c
g ~ ~
la.....SO
o' 0 (1)
::I
mE::
~g.
o
W::I
o 0
~ ~.
(1) Q.
::I VI
frb
:t. .....
o 0
F' >
:g
~
o ~ ~
~ t"::....
::3 .-
.....-
~O'g
~!~.
[i
(1) ......
Q.::I
~ ~
;::"::\.
So (1)
!i'Q.
~
l"l
~
~
{I.l
eo
~ ~
(j
I
l""
n
"'d
(j
==
Ie
UI
o
Ie
"'d
(j
==
Ie
UI
o
Ie
0>"'d~"1::I
S"I:l (j (j
"< ~ == E::
~~~~~
g.~~~.~
~~~~~
~~dS
(1) ~ ~ tI1
a::l :;0
"'Q" >
SElo~
SoB "'0
(1)....>Z
{I.l ><:
~~
@tii
oZ
~~
~~
tI10
tiitI1
5~
o....~~ "1::1~
::I EI (1) ~
(1)"I:l..c
"1::1 0' S. ~
~~["1::1~
. ~ "I:l t"' "1::1
~ ::l. ~ t"'
....0 ~
o '"i
::I .....
o 0
.....
~
m
"1::1
>
[~'a~~~~Q.g
~ ::I. :i. 0' ::I ::I n ~ 'g
a' 8.. go ~ Pl. s:q' ~. ::\.
.~ -::I (j'" So
~ ~ (1) g g- So g g' (1)
::3~~O'"i(1)::I>"1::I
~~.g~.s ~~a.[
> ..... g. ,..; s. :;0 0 e.
. O::lS"Cil~~::I::I
Q. OQ!:! O~OQ
(1) ~ (1);;:l -::I
<:'"i"'So=Q.
~Sog"'" ::I'g.>
.g(1).....~o::lQ.
'"i 0 .g
;c .....
~~~~~~
~ :t. 0 0 "1::1 :t.
:;00 ::1'=-0
(1)::IoQ:~::I
o 0 ...... o' 0
O~'-'::I .~
~ g. ;c s ~ g.
(1)Q. (1)(jQ.
::IlIl ::10'-1
frb e:~b
:t...... .S! .....
o 0 u,", ",' 0
::I > So [!l. ~
"I:l (1) 0 "I:l
"I:l ~::I "I:l
'"i '"i
~ ~
(1) "< (1)
~s-a::
~ Q
l"l ~::.
=- Q
1:1
c;':l~l"l
t:::ll:l~
"'dQ".,
. a ::I.
~ ~
1:1 Q"
!:U1
so
........
=-Q
~ >
O"Cl
_"Cl
~ d
'< <:
~
/ 7'.~-::.~ -.~~
_..,.".__."_w...___.
W
o
o
~~.
~ :t.
an
~ (1)
~~~
~--
(1) IS
. OQ ~
~ e:. m
= ::I -
'" 0 0
~ =;' ~
!!l.So"1::l
ll) (1) '"i
~ ~'.g
e;~~
::I
"I:l ~ 0
g.o~
O'~~
~ ;:t '"
:t 2.'g
o' ::I c:l
. OQ (1)
~.
a~w
~~o
m'f~'
::I (1)
OQ So
fi lU (1)
~ tn Z
~ (1)
- -
(1) '"
OQ 0
e:.~
::I ~
o 0
=;' ~
?'
tI1 (j
"I:l = ....
~ ;s. > q
o '"i 8 "I1....
(1) 0 (1) = !::l
- ~ ::I ::I j;;.
'" s eo Q. :t.
e.S~~.~
g-gF~~
m:;ON(1) 0
Ogo"'=
=;S::l~OQ
So g' (1) Cl ::I'
~ ~ (j o' So
~~~g(1)
Q s.~ [~
9 (1) "tl::l
(1)-~iii~
'"iNQ"I:I","
g''g Q
o.c:lg
~o 9. .
~ ::I
"1::1
o So o'"i
::I (1)
8.. ~. 'g
'''I:l~
~ 0
~~
(1)
~V1
-
~
~
"I:l 0 "I:l Cl "I1
... So '"i 0- ....
.g~R~~
a. ~ g. [ Q.
~::I~"I1e:.
. ~ (1) 5 ....
'" ,.., S
(1) -"I:l
"< e' ~
~::I' "1::1 g
OQ 0 .....
0'0
O~::I"""
::I' '"i :t. g-
e:.
(jO
~ ~
e sa
~C~
8. 'g
'" ::\.
~ :sl
~ ~.
(1) ::I
::IOQ
fr
:t.
o
P
~. ~ ~ f 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ::I e (1) m ~. = (1) ~ 0
~ ::I' e: r.l ~ ~ ~ [.0' ~
~OQ ~'" Q.;:r~~ "1::1~ (1)
(j ~'"i::l-""'::I
g.o ~ ~ (1) SoQ.~ o.Q.
::I ~ Q,(1) l!l(1) tI1>qSo
... e. ~ ~ Q "I:l ~. 8 ",. (1)
.8"'::I:t'!"1e!'"i(1)(1)(j
~ fa. Q" 0 ;;:l 0 0 ::I.::s ....
E;' 0 jg::l ~ g. ~ Sl'll q
8..;;'''I:l'8 ~ e.~ (1) (1) e Q
~= ~ .....=::10=
..........::\.. SOE.;"g.... =
e:~8.. (1)5. ~~a.
'" cr ~.::I
'< ;;:l 0
~
>
a.
o
=
>-1
~
(1)
p
~
>
a.
o
::I
>-1
~
P
~
~~~
trJ==~
~ >
~~
trJtrJ
~
>
~
trJ
~
~
III
~
"'I:l
00
a~
O~
:z
III
n
~
III
trJ
,0
~
n
~
III
~
n
0
i~
~~
>
~
....
0
:z
a~
~i"'l:l
~~i
o III
:Zi
~
n
u.>S
Inn
~::Jo
~o~
Q\:z
n
Fl
~~~fW~~li!j!f.i[iff~~~~~~~~2
~ > I ~ W ~ N a :rl .....g 'Tl 0 _ _. ::s <: Ie. 0 > ~ (')_ ~ ~ ~
rn S. el Cl) = Q- ~ t:.; ~ Cl) = (J'Q 0 Ul 't' 0 rn 2
[~[ ~g~~~~i~l~i.~~~~s~~~~~~o~
-::a~ ~"Cg:'g e; :::!a.!:t.Jg g.~~ ~ Cl) ~~oSfi1z~tr1~(,)
~ ~ ~S~~Q[~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~[ ~ ~~fl~~~~ ~~~i~~~~@~~~~
~ ; f. n!l i~; ~;F ~1;~~~.~M
g' ~ Jg ~ a 0 ~ p o' ~ ~ ~ ~ (') 0 ~ ~
Cl)' [ ~::r:6l(')~~~o
tr10zPt""'~>'Tl
Wcg@~~>Fz~
O:::Oz<:tilZt""'t:j"C
~;ioG;rn;'Cl~~
~ ~~~~~@~
.~~~. ZZO
rn ~ .>-i 6l ~ 0 ~
~~~~.~~o
~oz~~~~~
tr1rnNot""'~><:
tr16lZ>
~~rno~ ~
~~~~g8g
G; 0 (') rn fa. I rn
~~tr1~~ 9
::r:> tr1~ 0
~.z ~.~ ~
z
o
Vl n
j::)&t
~ff
O\~
~
t""'t:l:l
= ~
~ ~
==~
~
f')
~
~
""
e:.
!>> ~
n
~
n
o
~
2:
n
t=
~
i
t"'l
n
f;3
>
~
~
fA
I
N
co
I
\C)
c:l'I
~~
e:'E.
.... _.
o
S'Cl)
... a
"''0
[~
-~
'0 ;i!
~ ......
:>;"0
'" 0
."*-
~=E:O'=E:
o 0"Si! 0
Rap-a
-Q-0Q-
'0="'<19
~ sa a. <:'
~ !l)0
Cl) e:='O
E e.~ a.
Iii ~. ~ e.
~ =-. 0
. ...
o
e:
....
~~E
'-<~s
~8.[
o ....
=-g.o
0=' _.
~ a..[
. <: 0
~ =
o 0
....a
So So
o 0
~ ~ E e. ~
~ Ja 8. s. 0
~5==g.
e:~ss~
....0
o (') g, g, '0
::2. _. VI N ~
ctqo\{:~
~. ~ "*- ~ '"
. s;'O ~ [
O~Q-_
'" ~Cl)'"
[0 0
... 0
o 0
-e: :a-
.... 0
Cl)
.g ~~6:
'g 0 e...g
=-=....
a. rn !:t. So
="COo
(J'Q>=(')
g. 0 ~ _.
o="Oq
Elod(')
8"C,0
o _,.;z. =
= !l) = =
fjj=(J'Qo
. ~ So :=.:
Q-O
j
cn~
~g.
~o
o =
i ~.
o Q-
~6
g. 0'
? >
'0
'0
...
~
o
8~:g Qg-~
sOd~>!:t.
o ~ ;s. e. a g
~ ~ ; ~'l ~.
~~o W"C8.
s::; tI)......""
'0 oGJ6
g ~ g: ~. 0'
t:::. b) 0 (J'Q >
ciQ ~ = '0
=- '0
rn d
"C <:
> 0
"d
~
w
'O~Cl)e.>-l
~ ~ 8. e. ~ ~
~ ~ = S. "C !:t.
e:~s~~Ci
.... 0 0 8 '" =
o (')....oc:to
::2. _. VI .... j;l' !:t.
ctqON:;lO
::2 ';:RVI =
Cl)''':: 0 ;:R '0 0
. ~] 0 ~ 3
'" :>;,,[~ 0'
=~Cl)0Q-
!!!.. 0 ... VI
-e: ~6
r* ~. 0
<:
C1l
J~-d-.L/3
1:::1
I
t""
i ~
....~
~t:rJ
t:rJ~
t:rJ=::
~ ~
i~
t:rJt:rJ
~
~
~
~
~
....
CIl
CIl
~
~
00
a~
o~
2:
CIl
n
~
t:rJ
,0
~
2:
n
t:rJ
CIl
~
n
0
~~
~~
~
~
....
0
2:
8~
~~~
~~i
i
~
.
n
UI~S
Inn
~~o
~o~
="z
n
F1
.)
"l:l
n
~
Ie
Ul
b
jooO
V\ 0
j::)!ir
Nt:r
;:0 a
O\-...J
~
n
~
n
o
~
n
t=
~
~
t=
~
n
~
>
~
~
U.
I
N
co
I
\C
'"
i
C1l
.j>.
~
~
~
e-
o
...
f
~
~
a
"'tl
t""'-
o' ~
= I
8'9
I>>(j"'tl
== 0 ...
......el.g
== .... CD
r-t""':1
o' ~ '<
= 1:1- 0
W'"rj~
'0 5 a
a 1:1- ~
~.g 1:1-
~ 'g ~
a~
~
~
~
en
~ e.
NO
. ...
~
en
~
o
~
en
o
O'El
.... (')
== 0
....
if
Cil~
>=
la
= ::g
o ~
==
.... I
~
~ [~
~ ~ $:I)
~
~
6'
en
e.
1:1-0
. ...
~
1:1-
(j
~
~.
t:t.
o
en
l~l~~g8.g-~:g
q = q ;:::.. Oll fa. '0 Oll = _
o = :0 en CI.l == a ~ ....
a. g ~. 6" S. ~ ;S. en ~. ~
q g.~ as-... ftg,g.g'
C~. 0 I:1-cr~$:I) zen_
- 0 cr CD... o:s::....
~'O==CDt::':~E1~:;:;~
..... ::I. t:t. $:I) ~ El. _ 0
elC39'e:~ ~a.~o':
"'tlft:;oas- sg~
~ e: (j 0 en' (') 8..
po.a:(j =0
(38 g,~~ ~ ft~i.8~~
~ ~ W ~ ~ 1:1-.w el ~ S. s- =.
'~enl:1-~ft$:l)I:1-g''''oe.
~ el e. LoS!" .w:g g, 8"' 8.. g g,
R ~ ol"~ 8 a ~ d g- 5 ::a
g, e. ~ g- 5 l 'g g- 1;;' ~ ?
~ g 0 ~ a: g, s. (j ~ ~ el
1:1-5'2 >::ps-~ 0.... a $:I)
ct:t.s' 0 0 CilS~ 1:1-:g
s-ci 0 = ~~qo a
oca >1:1- ci
1:1-
::g~~o
!;l o:g &
g. ~ ::1 0
Oll 0 ...... ~
()==~......
o go 0 ==
8 t:t. ~ r-
e g e: o'
en' ~ t:t. =
en 0....
.... ['J
o 1:1- 0
== ~ 0
. ,. '0
~ a
g- 1
CI.l<~Oo.CI.l7'
"'tle.~=="'S';:::"
>=~ftd~g.
o g =;' :. g. ~ g
== ,....,t-.. a 0 0
~ s- .... 0 == (') (')
o g ~ 0' ~ a.
(') '"rj t:T = 0
ggJJ~gl:1-
<(')~Ogo-...J
~ [s g-t:t.~
==Ollo 00
R8..afr==>
~,.....,.....:::;:~"O
~ 0 0 ~ ;::.. ~
1:1- s- g..g s- ~
8"'0 ~ 0
...
::g~rrQ~
!;l0'O~==
g. ~ a ft g
Ollos-~ci
g~oS's
~ t:t. ~ r- g.
o e: .... 0
.==t:t.g==
fa. ~ ~. '"rj ~
gl:1-e,g::l
. 0 '0 o'
~ a 1:1-
g- 1 ~
I
~~ ci ~
g.~ e:~
t::':~e.1:1-
== ....
Oll~el81
E1 .... $:I) 0
El. OR (') g
.... -
!"'<en'O
,.Neng.
-...J....-
00....
o (')
.gd '<~ el ~ ~ go ~. ~ 6 ~
s- .... '0 ~ s- 'E!. 0 'C
o <!S ... .... == ...
~.~ ~g ~ g.g-~ a~
O-OM~OOll 0.......
... 1:1- ~ ...... Sf ::I. ~ 0' == Sf
o 0 ~ ,. $:I) 0 .....
~~8"'0::a' 1:1-g'.8C1.l
o 0 ... (j ~ (').... ~ "'tl
== en $:I) ......... 0 == 0;;. >
& s- 'g q ~ ~ 8 S' 0
:::; ~. ::I. I>> e: ~!::l Oll =
.... ... 0 == (') '" ~ ,.
t:t. 1:1- 1:1- t:T '0 ;:r "'tl
~ o(j t:t:t::':o_
. ..... 0 0 ~ ~
~ ~ en R ~.
S-
s.:c:.~~
o c. ~ 0
g a 0 t:t.
0'1 ~ ~
I:1-q 0 el
el 0 fr ::l.
s- a. t:t. 8..
oqgy.
"'tlen. N
Ot:T~....
7'0.....0
;:::"S:'E Cl.
.... 0
g'C3~
....
o CI.l
~
(a'< el ft>>-:l
en II en '0 0
g l::j s- .... '0 ==
eno<!SaS'
$:I) 'J:I S <: t:t.
<:' s.. 0 ft 0 ci
~ft~s.g-g
~ t:ll 8"' 0 ::a t:t.
O=="'(j 0
== &1l $:I) .... > ==
&S-'Rq~(')
:::; ~. ::I. ~ !r el
.... ... 0 1:1- .. ::l.
t:t. 1:1- t:r 8..
&1l 0 (j h
. ..... 0 ....
t:lls 6
ciq 0'
Rg-~
~ ~ g.
~. 0 ==
== g, (')
~~ a.
>ft8..
O~O\
~ 0 6
. ...
~ 0'
9'.'0
g a
'Oe:
= cr
cr ....
-....
o'
iOd~(')tI1
_'0 en 0 0 t>>-
o' 'g s.: ::: S en
<:: ~ 0 .... ~ p
~'~~~g.~
....0 - == 0
; s > i fa.:g
o~:g====o
;~.[~R~
ooS....S-en
~;....~~g-
.::! 0 0
. ==
,...;
g,(jtI1ci~
o"el~:::;
<: <: F 0;;. -
.a 0' ~ ~ S'
$:I) :;:P 0 .... '0
~[e;RA
(')qs.oS"
o ... en ~
51 W ~
2g0
g.!'"'"'
o
==
~f
~g.
o ==
"'tlci
~e:
$:I) e.
~ el
~
en
en
....
o
t""'tJ:l
= ~
~~
~ =~
>
(')
(')
o
en
en
....
o
tI1
$:I)
P,
~
o
"'tl
~
~
.,
~:
==
Oll
g,
(')
~
....
8"'
...
~
,
l~
t:t. ~ g, el CI.l
~ 'g. S- fa. S'
...'o~ ~
g,~'P.o~
8 a.l:; 1:1-g,
.g ~;'8 a
-s~==(')
~.fijs-$:I)a
o ~ 0 fl t:::
F'o(jo::::
~ q']. 0
I>> ~. 5 i
.... R
~'R g-~
::i a .... '<
.... S. ~en ....
o fij =
ia 1:1- '0
S = (') ~
R ::I. 0 ....
'O~g,?
CD ~ cr 0
::I. ;:r ~ ~
8.0 =::1:1-
. e: 0
==..w
Oll '-'
~. ~ 8 J ~
~eg,~~
iaO(j5'O
~.::!ERel
o\O..o~
'0 I I>> ..... (')
CDN<:S-d
::I. !::l 1;;' 0 e:
8."'s-,o....
. ~I~~.g
~~==
s-s-
o 0
8.~ ~~W~!.g,l! 9 ~~
gen~....ot:t.oS-~~gt:t.
en .1 ~ 0 1:1- 0 I>> .... ~ 0
0==. == = ==
. ~ ro(') al:1-'go(')
'0 $:I) III ==el ~~====el
8. ~ -: go ::l. e g. 8 go ::l.
o en 0 t:t. 8.. O"!::l t:t. 8..
~ en ... 0 0\ ......... '" 0 0\
:I. ~ 'g F' 6 '< = 'E!. == 6
~ 1:1- g ?( 0' ~. g- g. 8. 0'
"a ~ t:t. e: 0 a g' == '0 Cl
.... ~ e. ('). 0 0 no 0 a 0
(') ~ $:I) == ia ~. ......... =
'c:i ~ ft '< s e S- ~. '<
0" 0 ~ CI.l R El. 0 ft CI.l~
en ;:rS' ==
o l:l! Oll
~ ~.l r *. ~ ~ {ll ~ i r I. ~ ! i ! r
g[~ ~~&1lft~&CI.l~O~~~==~
'0 ci 0 'S $:I) $:I) e, 0 S' 0 ~.... (j 'P. 0
g.s-s >ft==fl~~l:l!s('),<[ ~s
~oo ~==I:1-&1l=.O~OO~$:I)g,(')o
(') ~ t:t. ~ t:t. gene: ::I. ~ g'"H N <: S- ~ g.
~ ~~ ~~. ~el1~ ~ &s ~.~ .....~
~. ~ 3 0" 'g S' 8. ~ ';'> 9 3.' ~ I~ ~ '8 3.
==~a ~~~&1la~fr8.. ~~==a
CI.l.... =-e:Sen'<t:t~ ., ~
~ 0 "f fa. 0 t:t: 1>>' I>> 8"' o' 6 S- S- 6
". N ==~0====...F' 00
.... Oll;:r==.enl:1-....o 0
o 0 .
-
~~~
~~
~~~
l:l:l >
i~
~~
l:l:l
>
~
~
>
~
rI2
~
"l:l
00
a~
~l:l:l
rI2
n
0
~
rI2
~
to
~
~
n
~
rI2
~
n
0
i~
~~
>
~
8~
ai"l:l
O~i
~~
~
n
lA>~
Inn
~~o
~o~
Q\~
n
~
/ /~ -i2.=.~~
?'
VlC'l
j::)!it
Nt:r
......n
\D~
O\-..j
Co
g
(")
~
(")
o
~
~
(")
t=
'"d
i
s::
(")
~
;
en
Ul
I
N
00
I
\C
0'1
'"d
cfcl
n
VI
't:l qI\ ~ 't:l 't:l ~
~ ~ ~
- - ~ ~ ~ r-
!"""' ~
~ ~~ ~ ~
tc ~ ~ C'l ~
po;-
~tc t""'tc ~ ~~ ~ ~
[~ a~ ~ a ~ 8a Ul Ul
o ::!. a ~ a ~
!""" ='< ?' NO !"""' ca ~ !"'l~ ~o v.>
. .... . ....
~ W W
~ ct. Ul Ul
0 0
::I. 't:l ~ ~
~ CD
0 f 0 0
.... ~f I
"'d ~ en
0 "'d
..... i
~ >
Q 0 e: ~~
tr1 't:l (")0
= C'l S o ~
= Ul 0 (")
e: g. o 0 ~ =
"'d 0 ~a
ct. ~ [ = ~::;
0 t=: e: ..... "'d
= Ul g. ~ ~ -
R" R ..... ct. C'l ~
0\ Ul = 0
0 Q.. Ul ~ = ~ I 0 I
~ ~ ~.....> 'g~e:~s.S~=E ~a~ Q..-"r1~ ~
o S.'t:l o ~ B
= ~ CD ct.'t:l ~:g~B~~~P CD=o ~Q.. 0 =
~ ~at=: [e:> ~::j> ~
a a a. ..... ~. - "r1 ct.'t:l
=-~~ . ~~S-'t:l~ . 0 't:l po. 0 g.:g
= - aot=:
So' CD.... s-6rUl 8" ~.
~~~ CD ~ CD Ul~' Q.......C'l
~ ~CDCDCD l:;' (") ~
~6a o l:ta~' Ul a- [0-
::I. CD <' 't:l en <:
0g'Q.. [~~'t:l~~~ Q..g' ~ [
= ~ 't:l ~ a ~ - g't=: ~~ .....
~~CD t=:CD . 6r~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ca CD _ CD
~ - fI' ~ Ul 0 Ul Ul
po. 0 - = g- = [
Q.. CD
S-=E ~S-~ o ~ =E ~~i~ ~ftg-~[E; -atr1 ~~.8 Q~g~
CD ..... S 0 ::I. ~=. 0 =Q.. a [=~
- . ~ ~ CD(")O-O CD~[~enaCD
en - ~ 0 a '~A
~a R:g 0 8 .... Q.. ~g-CDUl ~ ~.~. ~ ~ A = . "'d (")
Ul .... .... CD Q.. ~c:rc:lS- ~ g- e:~ ~ >Q..o
- ~.g ~ = CD ..... ~ (")~ a~. Ul' CD !:!) ~ 0 ~ ~
~Cl' ~~$ ~ ~etCD S Ul 0 0 o ct. a(")~R='<~
CD .... Q.. ::I. S' Q.. Q.. ct. rg g- s l] g g, e. .0g"O~g'~
''d ~ f,'; 90 ~~ ~ 8 ~ e. A_g,C'lgct 't:l~ o S - C'l
~l f: ~. ~ t""' ~ e. - a~ g- g- ~ ~~ (i 0 F'q g.~ >~ CD
o ~ . CD 0 0 enUl='t:l't:l
. ~ S' . ....."0 g, ~ ..... [~[~~~
ft ~Q.. e:~ ~ S :g~ ~S-~ ~
~g,a. CD ~ Ul CD g: 8.
6 a ~.... .
~ ..... . CD.:r
!1l .... Q..
(")> .....~ C'l tr1 7tl "0> aQQ6: "r1(")~ 't:l~Cl'>
OQ.. ~Q..~s ~~ [~~ .g = .... 't:l
= Q.. ere. ~Sl=Q.. CD en't:l
e:a a't:l a g: s~ -ga:e:a e: ~ "'d a
<: = ..... 't:l~ Ul ~ ~~ ~ a(")>ci
g. = CD c:r a Ul aCD CD ct. =
S t=: .=- .... 0 't:l~~ ~~~g-
= e: ~s ~g- 1:~Sla
~ ct. CDC'lOS- . R B
~rn '8 ~CDg,g .... ~ CD
.....g j~ S-'t:l -~ g 0 (")
~g ~ i~' CD [ ..... ~ >- ~ ..... g.R~~
S 't:l 0 Q..c,
~s- o ~ >..... 't:l ~.'t:l en ~ CD
~ erCD = R :g = aOa"'d -0 ~ :g E~
o CD CD ~ .... ~ .....
~en Ul . '8 ~~ -~ Ul <: >
.....'t:l . ~ p;!.. 0 i en~=C'l
. "'d g CD ~ ..... ~ Ul ~ a
> [ =-~ Q..o ~~ Q.. = ~ ~ &' ca' ~
. ~ g- CD
~ . 8 . g- ~
EnCl' ..... CD
.... ....
~ -
~ en~ ~ct~ ~tl"'d~Q..if~ a~~ ~ ~
~g. ~.g g. aa~ .~ 0
~ <a CD s- CD 0 ct. ~ ct. > >
if~ 000 ct t:no~o g: ~ g a. a.
ct. = ~ = ~_~"""O =
0 [~ ~. 'gos ;~CD~ = CD ~ 0 0
= ~ ~. . = = =
~ ~'8g.gag. . ~a f ~
CD Q.. . R a ~ a Ul g ct. 8. i
g.6 Ul 0\ '< Ul 00\ o VI
= ~6 glll~8'~F'6 F' ,!...
ct. _ o _ ~Rt""'s-"r1- tJ-
o 0 ~o o ~ S'~o CD 0
F' > a~ ~~ CD~ tJ [~
Q.. Ul ~ ..... CD =
~ CD _ . S-OUl CD CD.5j
<[:j CD g e: CD _. .5j
III ct ..... = S
~ "0 ~ CD ct' en en
CD =- . a~ ~
~s-~~
0"0=
a~aS
~ > ~ ~.
. 0 ~ 0
= Q.. 53
CDe:o
(") = ct.
o ~ 0
= s- =
e:CD~
ct. C'l
o 0 .
= = 8.
~e:VI
...., g. 6
= -
_ 0
0
/ ~=_.g=-:L~d
.' ~.~"...~~_..._.~' -
hI
tt:la::
~ >
~~
tt:ltt:l
~
>
~
~
....
tI)
tI)
~
"l:l
00
a~
o~
~
n
0
~
tt:l
I:J
~
2:
n
tt:l
tI)
~
n
0
i~
~~
>
""l
....
~
>8~
~;i
~
~>g
Inn
~~o
~o~
CP\2:
n
Fl
VlO
i:)!il"
IV~
~a
0'\-..1
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
t=
Io'Cl
~
t=
t""4
n
~
~
~
U.
I
N
00
I
\C
01
;;?
()Q
C1l
0'\
"0 "0
~ ~
W w
!J' -
~
~
~
'"
e-
o
'"1
~
~
~
e1
!'"+>~~
~ ~ ~
..... ::0;" ~
~W &" ~ ~
a[Q.8~~o
....-"<. ~~--..
~
9
~
a
~
~
"%j
.....
~
"'C
8
g.
o
=
~
=
~
~
w
p
"'C
o
go
'"
Ei.
~
"'C
~
~
a
i
~
=
~
~ g ~. ~ i 1. ~ ~
e. l:t '" ..... 0 g. >
6l a. S' Ei. ~g' if a.:g
,QfIj--1:\) ~...._
s . l:S. = 0 ~ n'
..... "'C e: ..... ~ I:\)
o 6' el = = '"1' =
~ O~ a"';
F ~"'8I1Or~
~ .. 0. ~
~ 0.",
- [~6'
&". Q.
:;g......::c......
.8 a. a.
~.~ ~. ~
8, !:t. Q. !:t.
o 0 0 0
= =
o 0
9- 9-
~ ~
a. a.
o 0
= =
e:~e:~
'" I:\) '" I:\)
!:t. (1 !:t. 0
S 1:". S !:t.
o 0 0 0
. = . =
~ ~
= =
6 6
'"1 '"1
~ ~
o 0
o 0
'" '"
~ ~
~ ~
E~
~. ~
8, !:t.
o 0
=
o
9-
~
>
a.
o
=
e:~
'" I:\)
!:t. (1
S 1:".
o 0
. =
~
=
6
'"1
g
o
'"
~
~......6l......
.8 a. a.
~. ~ ~. ~
~g.p.g.
= =
o 0
9- 9-
~ ~
~ >
!:t. a.
o 0
= =
e:~e:~
'" I:\) '" I:\)
!:t. (1 !:t. (1
S 1:". S 1:".
o 0 0 0
. = . =
~ ~
= =
6 6
'"1 '"1
~ ~
'" '"
~ ~
~
;g ;g
N N
~ ?"
6l
l!9.
o
[
i
.....
~
~
e:
Jg
~
~
~ ~
~
~
~
e1 e1
00"0
..... ....
~
g-
O"
-
o
[
'"
JJ'
~
i'
a
~
"'C !:t.
8 g
I!
~~
e: !:t.
= 0
O'Q =
~~~i.o~~~8,g'w
~ a';a's '"1 a.g-g s-O'Q
o S 0 (jj 0 i:h ~ !:t.O'Q CJ')
~ Q. ~ S" ~ ~ ~ lS e.
o[o~ n ~~g.
~ g:os.[~'~.8 R [
S .....0. I:\) g <:: ~.....
~ '" ~ I:\) = 0;.. ... 0 0
Ei'lll:o Q.Q.~.... Ci
Ag:8n&"Sg.:
Q S a.. 0 0 ,.
s~g:s ~
O'Q~
8
"'C
E
s.
~
!
.ggO
~. 8 ~
o ~. t:.
6la<-<
~ 0 =
~~~
o 0 e:
a. ='
t:ri O'Q
o 0
p. .....
~g-~6g-~~g'~
g'oQ.~'"1=oe:=
= t:l 0 =.fA g~. =' g
~"'C 0'8 8,0O'Q g
.8 0 g' [ 6l ..... [g !:t.
~ =' Q. ::/l ..... = '"i 0
1;' g. g. S g; g. a R =
8, a 0 Q. ..... 0 ,Q '" ~
. 5 ~ S ~ "'C ~. ~ I:\)
!:t.1:\) 0 ~2'0.... ~
OO=~!;:S~..-:
= !:t. 0' ;::r 0 0 g- !:t.
0;S"'0......= 0
e.~t~ C3~fit [
~"''<~~
~ 'a &" I !ii'
e:~
'" I:\)
!:t. (1
S 1:".
o 0
. =
~
=
6
'"1
~
o
o
~
/~-.;{-.L/~
.. ....o.___'"__~."~,_~__~---~_..,~.
;g
N
VI
~
Q'
i
l::Jo;
n t:;.
I:\) a =
. '" 1:1
~
>trl>~
'" "0 Q.
~ g.~ tlI
sf1~~
o =. 0 _.
a =' ET ~
~ O'Q 0 Jo;
~g.6lg.
g.olS=
05"_>
~ go a.~
o. ~ g ~
a . a
. tlI
o =
~. ..
o
=
go8D.
~=~
~ 8 ~
0"''<
.....fit~
g.~~
o t-:- 0
"Od:=:
'"t =' I:\)
.2. O'Q g:
Rt""t-~
. 0 ~
[
1:1
.
!N
"C d
1tQ.
1-4~
!N
~
~
~
'"
e-
o
....
~~~~
Ei 0 ~ 1:1
A' ::g ~ ;J'
el 0 ..
6l s g.~'
oe.8.o..
~.Q~~
o~'<~
6l ~-
a
e:; 5'
13. 0 1:1
~ =- fa
-;:a~
n>
'-'
~
~
~~a~
~ ~ ~,Q
. 0 S.
_. = :;!
= !:t. ~
~ e- ~
i[i
I:\) 0 0
= 0 -
Q.~.g
S'o
~ a.
o e-
5" :;g > tl ~ g. n CJ')
Q. ~ Q. fa.'''O 0 0 .a
o g..g ::1.8 oe'g
~ a. ;; A ;S.~' e. ::1
'0 ;::r!XI= '"
= 0 0 O'Q n fa. g.
g n ~c:fO 0
!:t. ~..... g- = = "'C
0"O~ = >-
= '"1 ,... ~ CJ') Q. (1 ~
o \ ~ ..... "'C - !:T
~ ~o g g > 0 0=' .
-o-j = = '" '"1 =
~O'Q o' oe:~O'Q
sg.=::.; ~eQ.
o 0 "'C S >
a nRQ.
. 0
'a
~~~~
"'C ~ tc !:t.
.... (1) 0
o. . lS =
~ 0 ~ g
~ 0 3.
o' = 8.
=trlv.
>so
~O"o
o t=:
0", >
s =. "0
0="0
aO'Q8
~er<
'"100
~
>
~~g-~
"'C - ::g g.
na.~ =
tl g S' g
~::8 O'Q [
AaQO\
6l :So a 0
oe. Jg ~. 0
I:\) g...... >
!:t. 0 g "0
o CJ') "0
6l "'C a
. > ~
~
n
~
I,Q
Ul
b
1-4
=
i ~
~~~
=c >
i~
~~
=c
>
~
~
~
>
~
~
"l:l
00
a~
~=c
ell
n
0
z
ell
~
.0
~
Z
n
~
ell
~
n
0
~~
~~
>
~
0
z
~
n$J
r;~1=
~ "l:l
~~i
~
~
~>~
Inn
~~o
~o~
O'Iz
n
t=
~
=
~
,..~.._~-_.~-_.~<--'--
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~- I
Meeting Date May 14, 1996
ITEM TITLE:
A-1
Resolution 18261 approving the Property Tax
Transfer Agreement wi th the County of San
Diego for the Otay Ranch
Reso~ution,~Jt1r establishing the otay Ranch
Reserve Fund Program
A-2
SUBMITTED BY:
Deputy City M;?,pwer ;?homson
City Manager ;II .ft"\ fiG (4/sths vote:
Yes_ No-1L)
REVIEWED BY:
At its April 16, 1996 meeting, the City Council considered the
proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement with the County of San
Diego for the otay Ranch, and continued the item to the April 30
Council meeting to obtain additional information from staff
regarding: comparisons with other property tax agreements; the
Fiscal Impact of New Development (FtND) Model and its methodology;
commercial property in otay Ranch; and the proposed Developer
Reserve Fund and the provisions of the General Development Plan
related to the Reserve Fund. At the April 30 meeting, the Council
continued the proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement until the
related Landfill Agreement could be further refined and brought
back to the City Council. The staff reports submitted to the
Council for the April 16 and April 30 Council meetings are attached
for Council's information.
The Landfill Agreement is discussed in a separate companion item on
the Council's May 14 agenda.
This report also addresses the developer-funded otay Ranch Reserve
Fund Program, and recommends establishment of the Reserve Fund
Program with staff to schedule a subsequent public hearing
establishing the fee for the Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the Property Tax Transfer
Agreement with the County for otay Ranch.
2. Adopt the resolution establishing the otay Ranch Reserve
Fund Program.
3. Direct staff to schedule a public hearing to establish
the fee for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund.
I~ FJ-I-I
Item
Keeting Date May 14, 1996
Page 2
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On september 12, 1995 the Council
appointed Mayor Horton and Councilmember Moot as an ad hoc Council
Subcommittee regarding the property tax agreement with the County
for Otay Ranch. This ad hoc Council Subcommittee recommends
approval of the proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement is described in detail
in the attached staff reports submitted to the Council for the
April 16 and April 30, 1996 Council meetings. The only changes
that have been made to the proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement
since those previous reports have related to the contingencies of
the Property Tax Agreement covered in section 5 of the Agreement.
The proposed Property Tax Agreement is still contingent on LAFCO's
approval of the addition of the panhandle area (excluding the
County Landfill), or at least a minimum of Village III and Planning
Area 18-B, to the City's Sphere of Influence by August 5, 1996.
The Property Tax Agreement is also still contingent on the approval
of a separate Landfill Agreement by both the city and the County,
and that Agreement is discussed in a separate agenda statement.
Instead of also being contingent upon the detachment of the Otay
Landfill from the City, the revised Property Tax Agreement applies
only to annexations or reorganizations occurring concurrent with,
or subsequent to, the detachment of the Otay Landfill from the
city. This minor change is required to ensure that there is a
valid Property Tax Agreement in effect so that LAFCO can process
the annexation. The result is still that no Otay Ranch annexation
can occur prior to the detachment of the Otay Landfill from the
City.
The only other change in the proposed Property Tax Agreement since
the April staff reports is to provide a "walk away" period that
allows either the City or the County to rescind its approval of
both the Property Tax Agreement and the Landfill Agreement at any
time prior to the date for which LAFCO has scheduled the
commencement of a hearing on the first Otay Ranch annexation. To
exercise this "walk away" provision, however, both the Property Tax
Agreement and the Landfill Agreement must be rescinded at the same
time.
As discussed in the April 16, 1996 staff report on the Property Tax
Transfer Agreement, the first annual Otay Ranch fiscal impact
analysis will be jointly undertaken by city and County staff in FY
1998-99 for fiscal year 1997-98 to determine whether any transfer
1~19 - \-:t
Item
Meeting Date May 14, 1996
Page 3
payments should be made from the County to the City for any city
deficits resulting from the Otay Ranch project during fiscal year
1997-98. It is anticipated that an alternative, less expensive
procedure than that represented by the FIND Model may be used until
some minimum number (such as 500 to 1,000) of dwelling units are
occupied in the Otay Ranch area. The Property Tax Agreement also
provides that the contract officers for the City and the County
may, by mutual consent, modify the FIND Model or replace it on an
interim or ongoing basis with another fiscal model or simpler
methodology. The Agreement also specifies that the County Board of
Supervisors and Chula vista City Council may, at any time, agree to
discontinue the annual fiscal analysis described in the Agreement
upon mutually agreeable terms.
otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program
As discussed in the attached April 30, 1996 staff report, the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) approved by the Chula vista
city Council and the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993,
included the following policy on page 264 of the GDP: "All City
local services provided to the incorporated portions of Otay Ranch,
including direct and indirect costs, and including capital and
operating costs, shall be covered by project revenues and project
exactions. Shortfalls shall be covered through a specially
designated fund established by the developer and through an
agreement between the city of Chula vista and the County of San
Diego. Capital costs for regional facilities shall also be covered
by proj ect revenues..."
The Otay Ranch GDP also includes an Implementation Measure on page
265 that states: "A reserve fund program shall be established
concurrent with the approval of the first SPA, to correct any
annual operating deficiencies incurred by the applicable
jurisdiction. The reserve fund program shall finance the cost of
an annual review and updated fiscal impact analysis, and be the
basis for any transfer of monies from the reserve fund..."
As described in detail in the attached April 16, 1996 Council
agenda statement regarding the proposed Property Tax Agreement,
that Agreement calls for the city and County to jointly undertake
an annual fiscal impact analysis of the project area for twenty
years commencing with FY 1997-98 and for the County to utilize a
portion of its annual fiscal surplus to offset any residual
operating deficits incurred by the City through FY 2016-17, subject
to specified constraints.
J1fJ .)-3
Item
Meetinq Date May 14, 1996
Page 4
The Developer Reserve Fund required by-the otay Ranch GDP therefore
has three potential purposes:
1. To provide funds to conduct the annual fiscal impact
studies of the otay Ranch required by the GDP.
2. To cover any potential city operating deficits that may
not be covered by the County through transfer payments
during the first twenty years if the limitations in the
Property Tax Agreement prevent the City from being fully
covered by the County's transfer payments.
3. To cover any potential City operating deficits that might
occur after the County's 20-year transfer payment
obligation period ends in FY 2016-17.
staff believes that the first item above, providing funding to
conduct the annual fiscal analysis, should clearly be a requirement
of the Developer Reserve Fund. The Property Tax Agreement requires
the City to pay for the County's staff costs of participating in
the annual fiscal analysis unless the City arranges for another
source, such as the Developer Reserve Fund, to pay for the County's
staff costs. The County's staff costs are limited to $30,000 the
first year, $15,000 the second year, and $10,000 for years 3
through 20, with these maximums subject to an annual CPI
adjustment.
Attachment 1 provides an estimate of the cost of conducting the
annual otay Ranch fiscal analysis, jointly with the County for the
first 20 years and without the County's participation for years 21
through 35. These estimates include an estimate of contractor
costs for running the FIND Model. The cost estimate is the highest
for the first year, decreasing in the second year and also in the
third year and then remaining flat until year 21, when the County's
invol vement ends and the annual cost _ is further reduced. As
indicated in Attachment 1, the total estimated cost of conducting
the fiscal analysis over 35 years is $626,000 in current year
dollars. These costs would increase over time depending on
inflation rates.
Because the FIND Model projections indicate that the city's
deficits result from residential development, not commercial or
industrial, it is recommended that the fees for the otay Ranch
Reserve Fund be tied to residential units. The GDP indicates a
total of 18,367 dwelling units (both single family and multi-
family) on the portions of otay Ranch covered by the proposed
)~ 1# - 1- 'I
Item
Meeting Date May 14, 1996
Page 5
Property Tax Agreement (the western parcel, "inverted L", and
ranchhouse area).
Dividing the $626,000 total estimated cost of conducting the annual
fiscal analysis by the 18,367 dwelling units would result in an
initial fee of $34.08 per dwelling unit. As discussed above and
illustrated in Attachment 1, however, the annual cost of conducting
the fiscal analysis is projected to be significantly higher in the
first two years than thereafter. Staff therefore proposes that a
higher fee of $124.00 per dwelling unit be charged for the first
1,500 dwelling units and $26.09 per dwelling unit be charged for
the remaining 16,867 dwelling units as shown on Attachment 1.
These fees could either be collected at the tentative map stage or
at the building permit stage, and will need to be increased over
time to take into account the increases in the cost of processing.
At this point, staff believes that it is likely that the Property
Tax Agreement with the County will cover any operating deficits
from the otay Ranch that the City might incur through FY 2016-17,
so staff is not recommending that the initial fee for the Reserve
Fund include a component to cover potential City deficits.
Instead, staff is recommending that the initial fee for the Reserve
Fund be established to cover the annual fiscal impact studies
discussed above.
Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution establishing the
otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program and direct staff to prepare the
necessary documents to be considered at a subsequent public hearing
to adopt the initial fee for the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program.
While not reflected in the initial fee, the Reserve Fund Program
will allow for the possibility, if necessary at some future point,
to include a component of the fee for the Reserve Fund to cover any
potential city def ici ts that may not be covered by the County
through transfer payments through the first twenty years or to
cover any potential City def ici ts that might occur after the
County's 20-year transfer payment obligation ends. The proposed
resolution establishes the otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program as
described above.
FISCAL IMPACT: Based on the most recent Ralph Anderson FIND Model
analysis (1995) and the provisions of the proposed Property Tax
Transfer Agreement, the City is projected to receive a surplus of
approximately $18.4 million (in current year dollars) from
development in the parts of the otay Ranch covered by this
Agreement over a 30-year period. This is-$37.6 million more than
the potential $19.2 million deficit that would be projected if the
'~FJ- 1- ~
Item
Meeting Date May 14, 1996
Page 6
1984 Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement applied to the Otay
Ranch rather than the proposed Property Tax Agreement. The city's
actual impact will depend on a myriad of factors involving the
actual land use mix and phasing of the development as well as City
(and County) cost and revenue patterns.
The Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program wilL provide funds for the
annual fiscal impact studies needed .to implement the proposed
Property Tax Agreement and potentially. will serve as an "insurance"
fund should City deficits in the buildout years exceed the levels
the County is obligated to offset by the proposed Agreement or
should such potential city deficits occur after the County's 20-
year transfer payment obligation ends.
Attachments:
Calculation of Initial fee for Reserve Fundi
April 16, 1996 Council Agenda statement on ~rope Tax
Agreement
April 30, 1996 Supplemental Report on propert~~ greement
~O
M:\HOME\ADMIN\JT\PROPTAX.A13
,., 19 - J- "
ATTACHMENT 1
CALCULATION OF INITIAL FEE FOR OTAY RANCH RESERVE FUND
YEAR CITY COUNTY CONTRACT YEARS TOTAL
COST COST COST COST
1 (FY 97-98) $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 1 $ 80,000
2 15,000 15,000 10,000 1 40,000
3-20 10,000 10,000 2,000 18 396,000
21 10,000 0 2,000 1 12,000
22-35 6,000 0 1,000 14 98,000
I TOTAL
35 I $626,0001
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SPREADING THE COST: (B is Recommended)
A. Cost If Spread Equally Over 18,367 Dwelling units (DU)
$626,000 / 18,367 = $34.08 Per DU
B. Cost If 1st Five Year's Cost Spread Over 1st 1,500 DU's
(Recommended Approach)
$186,000 is Cost For 1st 5 Years
440,000 is Cost For Years 6-35
$186,000 / 1,500 = $124.00 Per DU For 1st 1,500 DU's
$440,000 / 16,867 = $26.09 Per DU For Remaining 16,867 DU's
J~~-I- 7
RESOLUTION NO. 18261
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE PROPERTY TAX
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO FOR THE OTAY RANCH
WHEREAS, the proposed Property Tax Transfer Agreement
between the City of Chula vista and the County of San Diego sets
forth the financial terms and conditions to be applied to those
portions of the Otay Ranch which are included in the city's current
Sphere of Influence (as amended in February 1996) as well as the
portions of Otay Ranch that are anticipated to be added to the
City's Sphere of Influence at an upcoming LAFCO meeting; and
WHEREAS, the geographic areas covered by this agreement
are: (1) the western (Otay Valley) parcel which includes all Otay
Ranch parcels west of the Lower Otay Lakes Reservoir, (2) the
"Inverted L" parcel north of the Upper Otay Lakes Reservoir, and
(3) the Mary Birch Patrick ranchhouse area south of the Upper Otay
Lakes Reservoir as detailed in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the ci ty and County entered into a Master
Property Tax Transfer Agreement in 1984 which covers smaller, more
routine annexations and under the terms of that agreement, the City
receives 41% of the pooled property tax (i.e. the combined property
tax revenue received by the County and special districts) and the
County retains 59%; and
WHEREAS, the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement does
not, however, apply to annexations which have an assessed value of
$35 million or more on the current equalized tax rolls, and the
General Development Plan/Subregional plan for the Otay Ranch
specifies that a separate property tax agreement will be negotiated
by the City and County for annexations within the Otay Ranch; and
WHEREAS, as such, the proposed Property Tax Transfer
Agreement was negotiated to cover the aforementioned areas of Otay
Ranch; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the proposed Property
Tax Agreement, staff estimates that over a 30-year period the City
may receive about $37.6 million more than we would receive under
the terms of the 1984 Master Property Tax Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Property Tax Agreement is also
contingent on LAFCO amending the City's Sphere of Influence and on
the approval of a separate Landfill Agreement by both the city and
the County; and
1
J511~
WHEREAS, both the Landfill Agreement and the Property Tax
Agreement, as well as the Sphere of Influence issue regarding the
panhandle area, are scheduled to be considered by the Board of
Supervisors on May 15, 1996.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby approve the Property Tax Agreement
between the city of Chula vista and the County of San Diego for
Otay Ranch, on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista.
~
0>>
Presented by
James R. Thomson, Deputy
City Manager
City
C:\rs\proptax.or
2
J5:/J - r
~4/25/1995 12:55
594-3373
COUNTY SD DPLU
PAGE ~2
::ff~_:;/1
Revised 5/8/96
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
AND. .CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REGARDING TEAMS. OF OTAY RANCH _ElATION TO CHULA VISTA'
INCLUDING PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT
This Agreement dlted this day of , J996. by and between
the County of San Diego, I polttical subdivision of the Stlte of California.
and the City of thula Vista. a IUnicipll corporation of the State of
California provides as follows:
RECITALS
A. Revenue and Taxlt10n Code Section '9 requires the negotiation of any
exchange of property tax rlvlnues occasioned by jurisdictional changes between
the agencies affected. Under such circu.stances the Bolrd of Supervisors is
authorized to negotiate such property tax revenue exchanges on behalf of the
County and of affected special dtstricts.
B. The otay Ranch project has been jointly planned by the City of Chula
Vista and the County of San 011'0. The City and County Jointly developed a
fiscal impact .odel known as the wFiscal I~act of New Development (FIND).
Model.
C. Both the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego have mutually
determined that all of the area within the Ot~ Ranch shall be excluded from
coverage under the Master Property Tax Transfer Agre...nt [County. Nov. 20.
1984 (17); City of Chula Vista, Nov. 27. 1984 (111852)].
D. The Board of Supervisors has negotiated with Chul. Vista and on
behalf of special districts to dete~tne an equitable exchange of property tax
revenues applicable to the -westlrn parcel,- the 8inverted L- and the -Mary
Patrick Birch Estate Ranch House- of Otay Ranch (Exhibit A attached hereto).
E. County and City have n,otilted and entered In agreement entitled
.Agreement Between the County of an Diego and the City of Chul. Vista
regarding Otay Ranch Annexation and Operation of Otay Landfill (.Otay Landfill
Agreement..) The Otay Landfill Agre...nt is on file with the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors as DOCUMent No.
NOW THEREFORE, COUNTY AND CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. DEFINITIONS. Th, following tenn shill hive the following
meanings for purposes of this Agreement.
-Affected Territory. includes all lands within ths boundaries of Exhibit A,
attached hereto, that has been annexed to the City by the close of any given
Subject Fiscal Year, $a1d y.ars defined below.
"City" shall mean the City of ChQla Vista.
DCity Operating Deficit" shall ..an City revenues .inus City expenditures
within the Affected Territory IS. determined ~ FIND, with any Developer
Contribution to the City counted as a revenue. In assessing City and County
J /S8-'(.)
~4/25/1996 12:56
694-3373
COUNTY SD DPLU
PAGE ~3
-2-
expenditures for the Affected Territory, service costs shall not exceed the
respective Citywide or Countywide average cost as based on the service level
provided to residents throughout the City or County.
.Contract Off1cers~ shall ..an one -.ploy.. of the County designated in
wrIting by the County Chief Adltn1strativ. Officer, and one .-ployee of the
City designated in writing by the City Manag.r, authorized to make certain
specified dec1s1ons pursuant to this AgreeMent.
.County. shall mean the County of San Diego.
.County Gross Surplus. shall ..an County revenues .inus County expenditures
within the Affected Territory, as det.,.'ned by FIND, for a specified Subject
Fiscal Vear. County Gross Surplu$ shall be calculated prior to and exclusive
of any Transfer Payments.
"Developer Contr1buttons. shall ..an any ~nts made by property owners or
developers to off Sit the fiscal ,.,act on the City fro. development within the
Affected Territory. It does not include (a) p.,..nts to offset the costs of
rendering direct services, (b) PlYIents ..de to cover a residual City
Operating Deficit not offset bY Transfer PlYllnts froa the County because of
constraints relating to caps on annual and CUlUlativ, transfer l8Ounts, as
detailed in Section 2, paragraph C, (c) PlYI8nts .-de to offset City costs
which are not part of FIND, such as sewer fees, devIl.,..nt t.,act fees or
park acquisition and dev,'opl8nt f..s, and (d) p~nts aade to obtain
tangible or nontang1ble City assets.
"Developer Payments. shall .an any pl.)'II8nts IIIcIe by property owners or
developers to offset City and County costs of i.pl...nttng this Agreement.
"FIND" shall .an the Mod,l -Fiscal l.,act of New DevIlopMnt. -'tich is
described in the Service/Revenue' Plan adopted by the County Board of
Supervisors on October 28, 1993 and by the City Council of Chula Vista on
October Z8, 1993. The Model uses actual Citywide and Countywide expenditure,
revenue and development data to establish the "191nal costs and revenues
related to residential, COlaerc1al and industrial land uses within each
jurisdiction. These Citywide and CQuntywide factors are in turn applied to
the spec1fic level and .1x of dev.lo,..nt occurring In the Affected Territory
on a year-by.year basis, thereb, providing a representation of City and County
fiscal impacts for any given SUbject Fiscal Year. The Model is dynamic in
that thl marginal cost and revenUe factors are u~ttd annually. By .utual
agreement of City and County Contract Officers, FIND- can be replaced with a
different fiscal model to be used for the SIM purpose.
-Maximum Cumulative Transfer P~nts. 11 a It.itation on tot.l Transfer
Payments to be paid durtng the Hfe of this AgreeMnt. It 1s the $.... of
Transfer Payments from Vear One plus those in .11 subsequent years.
-Maximum Transfer P~nts. are. ltMttattons on the .-ount of Transfer p.,.ents
to be paid for any Subject Fiscal Year pursuant to this Agreement.
~ ,~9 -II
~4/25/1995 12:55
594-3373
COUNTY SD DPLU
PAGE el4
-3-
IINet Combined Surplus. shall mean the su.. of the surpl us of the City and
County derived from within the Affected Territory, as determined by FIND. It
shall include the sum of the following: ~C1ty revenues minus City
expenditures" and .County revenues minus County expenditures."
"Running the Model" means input1ng the data for the Subject Fhcal Year into a
computer, obtaining written results, and within 30 days, agreement by the
Contract Officers that the results are accurate. If results are not deemed to
be accurate due to program or data entry errors ;n FIND, the Model shall be
rerun and another 30 days shall be authorized for evaluating the accuracy of
the results.
"Subject Fiscal Year 'I is I specific fiscal year for which a FIND analysis. or
a mutually agreeable alternative fiscal analysis, is performed under the terms
of this Agreement. Unless otherwise determined by the Contract Officers, the
fiscal year shall run from July 1 of one calendar year through June 30 of the
following calendar year. Each subject fiscal year shall become known in
sequence as .Year 1, I' and numbered sequentially through Year ZOo
NTransfer Payments. shall mean the payments made by the County to the City
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
"Year One of this Agreement- shall be fiscal year 1997-1998, which shall be
the first Subject Fiscal Year.
Section 2. PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AND TRANSFER PAYMENTS.
A.
This Agreement covers the geographic area known a$ the .western parcel,.
the -inverted L" and the -Mary Patrick Birch Estate Ranch Housel' of otay
Ranch with the exclusion of the County landfill and exclusion of the
inholdings that are not I part of Otay Ranch. Exhibit A filed with the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors as Document No. 764988 and with the
City Clerk as Document No. C096-038 1s the boundary of the covered area.
An informational unofficial copy of Exhibit A is attached hereto. This
Agreement is not applicable to other portions of the Otay Ranch. Other
portions of Otay Ranch may not be annexed to the City without an
additional negotiated agreement.
The split of all property tax revenue (inCluding base and annual tax
increment [-ATID]) shall be as follows: 50s of the pooled revenue of the
County and detaching special districts shall be allocated to the County
of San D1ego) and 5~ shall be allocated to the City of Chula Vista.
The County shall make Transfer Payments to the City on the following
basis:
B.
C.
(I) For SUbject Fiscal Years 1 through 20, the County shall make
Transfer Payments to the City to fully cover the C1ty's Operating
Deficits as determined by FIND, subject to the constraints detailed
in Section 2 Paragraph C subparagraph (4).
:I,
\,...)
I~ fl - IR...
e4/25/1995 12:55
594-3373
COUNTY SD DPLU
PAGE e5
-4-
(2)
For Subject Fiscal Vears 1 through ZO. In addition to the Transfer
Payments in subparagraph (1) abov.. the County shall ..ke additional
Transfer Payments to the City if needed to assure that the City
receives a guaranteed .tn1MU1 of 31 of the Net Co~ined Surplus for
each Subject Fiscal V.ar. subject to the constraints detailed In
Section 2, paragraph C. subparagraph (4). If the City surplus
comprises ~ or lOre of the Net COMbined Surplus in a gtven SUbject
Fiscal Vear, no Transfer PaYll8rtt shall be ..de for that Subject
Fisca 1 Vear.
(3) For any SUbject F1lcal Vear for whtch a Transfer Pl,Ylllnt is required
pursuant to lubpara,rtphs C(l} or C(2) lbovet seventy-five percent
(75~) of the tat.l rUtsfer p~t shall consist of general funds.
fhe rllla1nlng tWlnty-five percent (251) of the Transf,r PaYMnt Iaa.Y
be reMitted in any c0lb1nltton of general fund or gas tax funds, at
the County's discretion. If gas tax funds are reMitted. the
transferred funds shall be unrestricted as to use except for the
normal constraints which apply to other gas tax funds received by
the City.
(4) Subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3) above Ire subject to the following
restrictions:
(a) No Transf.r p~nts shall be required for ftscal years other
than Subject Fiscll Vears 1 through 20.
(b) Annual MlXt.u. Transfer P~nts for Subject Fiscal Years 1.3
of this Agr....nt shall not .xceed $400.000; for Subject Fiscal
Years 4-' shall not exceed $1,000,000, for Subject Fiscal Years
7-8 shall not IXceed $1,300.000; for Subject Fiscal Years 9-11
shall not Ixc..d $1,500,000; and for Subject Fiscal Years 12-20
shall not .xceed $lt7oo,ooo.
(c) MaxilllUll C...lat1ve Transf.r P~nts shall not exceed
$16,600tOOO.
(d) The County will not IIIk. any Transf.r Pl,YII8nt of any lIIOunt in
e~cess of '" of the County Gross Surplus for any Subject
Fiscal Vear.
(e) For any give $1ab~ct Filcal V..r, the caps on County Transfer
Payments specifled'1n subparagraphs ea) through (d) above miY
prohibit the CoU.t, froM fully offsetting a City Operating
Deficit or froII fvlly provtd1111 for the .1n1_ 3S City share
of the Net COIbtn~ Surplus. If this occurs, there shall be no
carryover of the County obligation to offset this residual
deficit nor to provide for the unlet Irtn1.um share of the
surplus in subse~Uent yelrs. S1.tlarly, 1f the City achieves a
surplus in .ny tfv.en Subject F1sc.l V..r, there shall be no
carryover of that. surplUS lIOunt IS an offset against County
obligations to offset City Operating Def1cits occurring in
w
'~R ""~
~4/25/1996 12:56
694-3373
COUNTY 5D DPLU
PAGE ~6
.5.
future years' nor as an offset to provfde for the .1ni.um City
share of the "et COIbtned Surplus in those future years.
(5) The MaximUM Transfe" P""ntl and Maxi... CUlUlat1ve Transfer
P.,ments in subsection (4) abov. as well al the cap on County costs
in Section 3.8 below shill be adjusted annually during the tena of
this Agre..nt, with the first adJustllent to be made in February
1997. The adjustlent will be based on the percentage change in the
Consumer Price Index for All urban Cons...rs for the San Diego Area.
as published in February by the U.S. Departllent of Labor. Bureau of
labor Statistics. for the preceding calendar year. If the u.s.
Department of Labor celses to publish this CPI index or changes its
publication cycle, the City and County Contract Officers will ~et
and confer in good fafth to det....1ne an equivalent replacement CPI
index or aodify the t1.1ng of the annual adjustment to achieve an
equivalent annual adjust..nt.
Section 3. TRANSFER PAYMENTS. The Count, Ind City agree that the Transfer
P~ents described in Sectton 2 above shall be in accordance with all of the
following provisions and conditions:
A. For Subject Fiscal V...... 1 through 20. the FIND Kodel shall be run
to determ1 ne the ..unt of any Transfer P~nts. The FIND ~de 1
will be run during the fiscal year follOWing the Subject Fiscal
Year, so that actual Citywide an4 Countywide revenues and
expenditures can be used for the Subject F1sca' Year.
Unless chlnged by IUtua1 consent of the Contrlct Officers, the
underlying methodology and assumptions used in the FIND Model
described in the Serv1C1/Revenue Pl.n. dated January 21. 1993, and
adopted by the County BOard of $upery1sors and City Council on
October 28. 1993, shall be used in Running the Model. with the
exceptions or specific stipulations detailed below:
(1) The FIND Mod., shall include the budget categories .County
Rents and L..,.s. and .County Capltal Department- as variable
costs, IS pet' the County-preferred _thodolov described on
pages 75 thrtUgh 78 of the -Otay Ranch Serv ice/Revenue Pl an II
dated January 21. 1993.
(2) Wherever verifiable data for significant revenue sources is
readily availabl. for thI Affected Territory. that data shall
be substituted for the FINO Nodel estiutes. It is anticipated
that:
(I) Revenue generated by sales tax within the Affected
Territory shall be based 011 actual figures for the Subject
FiscIl Y.ar provided by the City Finance Department and
based on dat. obtained fro. the City's sales tax
consultant.
r:
,,-_...,)
,~R ,,/~
~4/25/1995 12:55
594-3373
COUNTY SD DPLU
PAGE ~7
-6-
(b) Revenue ,e.,....ted by property tax wi tM n the Affected
Territory shall be based on figures provided by the County
Auditor.
(c) Revenue lenirated by the property transfer tax within the
Affected Territory shall be based on figures provided by
the County Treasurer.
For IIOre .tnor revenue source. or when verifiable data is not
readily a"ailable for the Affected Terrttory, revenuedat. used
to establish the ..rg1nll revenue factors Ipplied to the
Affected Tarrttar,y shall be based upon actual Citywide and
Countywide revenue dltl for the Subject Fiscal Year.
(3) Expenditure data used to establish the Citywide and Countywide
marginal cost factors applied to the Affected Territory shall
be based upon IctuIl Citywide and Countywtde expenditure data
for the Subject Fiscal V,ar.
(4) Population estt.-tes rel.tlng to the Affected Terr1tory shall
be based on the nu.ber of occupied dwelling units as of
December 31 0' tbi SubJect fiscal Ve.rt to be provided by the
City Pl.nning Departient.
(S) Other develoPllftt tnputs relattng to the Affected Territory
(e.g., cGllercial Icrea,.) shall be blsed on actual development
certified for occupancy IS of DeceMber 31 of the Subject Fiscal
Vear, to be provided by the City Building and Housing
Depart_nt.
(6) If Quality data 1s not available frQl the sources specified in
subparagraphs (2), (3). (4) and (5) abov., the Contract
Officers ..y agree to d.rive the data frOM another source.
(7) The FIND Model shall be ~lfted each year to incorporate
changes in local, Stite or federal revenue l11ocat10ns or
changes in City or County tax rates for the Subject Fisca'
Years in which such changes become effective.
(8) The fIND Model shall be .udifted to correct for errors in City
or County inputs a. soon as practical after such errors are
identified.
(g) Upon mutual cons ant of the Contract Mfl cers or the1 r
designees t other .1oor adjusw.nts to the FIND Model !laY be
made as required.
(10) Upon mutual CDDsant of the Contract Officers, the fIND Model
lIay be replaced Oft an interi. or ongoing bash with another
fhcal lIIOdel or Itlipler _thodology.
to
I ~ t9 - I~
~4/25/1995 12:55
594-3373
COUNTY 5D DPLU
PAGE ~8
.7~
(11) The County Board of Supervisors and Chula Vista Cfty Council
~, at any tt.., agre. to discontinue the annual ftscal
analysts described in this Section upon IUtually agreeable
tenas.
B. The County's annual .taff COlts to ~1tort review. construct. and
in all ways participat. 1n all runs of the FIND Model shall be paid
by an outside party. If the County's costs are not paid In full by
Developer P~ts, tbt Cfty of Chula Vista -.y pay these costs from
City funds. The County shan not uke any Transfer PayJl8nt for any
Subject Fiscll Y.ar for which the County's staff costs Ire not paid
by an annual dlte ta be .utually agreed upon after the first year of
this analysts. The County agrees that it w111 not request
reimburseMent for staff costs exceeding $10,000 per year. except
that in the first year the Model is run the cap shall be $30,000 and
in the second year the Model ts run the Clp shall be $15.000. These
maximum .-ounts of staff cost rtilburs...nt will increase annually
in accordance wtth the provistons 1n $ection 2.C (5) above and BaY
also be adjusted by IUlu.l eon sent of the Contract Officers. The
maximum pl~nts tD the County for its staff costs for a particular
Subject Fiscal Year.., also be tncreased 1n accordance with the
provisions of the following paragraph.
For any Subject Ftscal Vear, 1f the C1ty 1s re1~ursed by Developer
P~nts for the costs af i.,le~nt1ng this AgreeMent in In amount
exceeding the above stated caps. the County shall be eligible for a
similar re1mburSeMent -.ount 1f justified bl their expenditure of
time and materials. In determining whether the City is reimbursed
by Developer P.,..nts for the costs of 1~1...nttng this Agreement
in an amount exceeding the above stated caps~ the following types of
reimbursements sh.ll be excluded: eosts for contracting with a
third party to run the FIND Mode', or an agreed upon alternative
model. including contractor charges associated with data entrl.
programMing changes, printing reports, or developing a new or
revised model.
All C1ty or County requests for retlbursable expenses related to
this Agreement shall be lede in writing to the City Contract Officer
and shall specify the staff person involved, the work done, the
hours spent, the hourly charge rate and the associated overhead cost
using the jurisdiction's appl1clble full cost recovery rate. The
City, County, and dlveleper have the rtght to audit all City and
County records of tt.. spent an rei8bursabl. activities.
It is assUled that the cost of Running the Model shill be paid by
Developer P~nts. The County will not be responsible for any costs
of Running the Model whethe~ or not developer p.,..nts are actua11y
collected for that purpose.
c. The County agrees to ..ke the Transfer PI~t within 90 days after
the Model is run. The spec1fic annull timing of Running the Model
7
I ~rt-"
~4/25/1996 12:56
694-3373
COUNTY SD DPLU
PAGE ~9
.8.
shall be detena1ned after the first ye.r the Model is run, with the
understanding that the Model will be run and revenues transferred in
each fiscal y,ar for the preceding Subject Ftscal Year.
Section 4. "ISCELlANEOU5.
A. Resolution of Disagree.ents Regarding FIND Application. In the
event of a dislgreeMent between the parties regarding the data to be
processed in the . agreed upon FIND Model. or the appropriate
application of such FIND Model to such data, the parties agree to
attempt, in good faith-, to resolve such dhagreea.nt in accordance
with the provls1ons Sit forth below:
(1)
(2)
Meet and Confer. The parties shall state their respective
positions on the .d1sagr....nt 1n writing and exchange such
statements. Thereafter, at ti"5 and locations mutually
agreeable to the parties, the parties shall meet and confer to
attempt to resolve their dtsag.aement. If the parties are not
able to resolve their d1sagre8l8ftt by the data fall1ng 30
calendar days after their first ..eting on the subject, unless
the partie. otherwise agrae, the matter shall be sublitted for
non-binding -.dtattan in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth below.
Mediation.
(a>
ADpoint.entlDualificationl.of Mediator. In the event that
the parties are un~e to rwsolve thetr d1sagreeaent by
meeting and conferring IIOng tbBmselves as provided above,
the parties shall ...t to select a &ediator who will
atte.,t to resolve the disagreement. Unless otherwise
agreed by the part1es, the _btor shall have at least
ten years cu.bined experience 1n financtal analysis and
contract interpretation. In the event that the parties
are unable to agree on I 1Id1ator by the date falling 10
calendar d.,s after the expiration of the ...t and confer
per1od, the parttes shall petition the presiding Judge of
the Superior Court of tbe County of San 01ego to appoint a
_diator who" possesses the lbove-clescr1bed qualifications.
If the Presiding Judge 1$ unable or unwilling to appoint a
mediator, the parties will ...t and conf.r in good faith
to identify an alternate thtrd party to appoint a
I18dtator.
Condu~t at MiMliation. TII. -.cItaUon shall occur at times
and loclt10ftJ agreed upon by the parties. The parties
shall su~it to the .-diltor their respective statements
on the di...".-ent and Iftl Iftd .11 other relevant
documents or ,vidence supporting the1r position that each
MY choose to provtde. Meither party, nor the _iator,
shall haye any discovery powers in the proceeding. The
(b)
S:/
() J~19 - J7
~4/25/1996 12:56
694-3373
COUNTY SD DPLU
PAGE 1 ~
.9-
..diator aha" ..et with the parties and attempt to
resolve thei~ disagre8l8nt by facilitating discussions
between thel. The 1ed1ator shall not take a positton on
the dispute unleu requested to do so by both parttes. In
the Ivent thit -.citation process does not resolve the
dtsagr"IIIMnt by the date 'a111", 15 days .fter the
appointMnt 0.' the _diator. unless extended by the ....tull
.grelllnt of the parties, the -.dtation process shall
ter.1nate. All dtscussfons at the ..dtatton shall be kept
confidential and shall not be discoverable in any
subsequent ,roceed1ngs. Each party shall bear their own
costs in t~...d1atton and the parties shall share equally
in any and 111 costs charged by the ~iltor. Any costs
to be born. by the County under this Section shall not be
subject to the provisions of Section 38 hereof.
Non-biDdina ..lure of PrDalss. Although the parties are
requtred to -participate in the above-described dispute
resolution process in load 'aith. neither party shall be
obligated to agree to any particular proposed resolution
to the disagreement .t tssue. whether proposed by the
other party or the .edt.tDr. Ind .ach party reserves the
right, in its sol. discr.tton~ to reject any or all
resolutions tt.at are pro~led during the process. In the
event that. "501ut1on of the dtsagre.-ent at issue is
not reached, .ach party reserves the right to pursue any
and .11 re.ldies available It 1.. or in equ1ty with
respect thereto.
ADplicabtl1~. This provtsion described in Sectton 4A(Z)
of thlSAgra.mt shall Ipply only to di sagreeMnts over
the subject. _tter specifically set forth 1n Section 4A.
In the event of a dtsagreel8nt over SOle other subject
matter t the part 1es shall not be ob 11 gated to engage 1 n
this process, and the parties reserve the right to pursue
any and .11 remedies ayaflable It law or tn equ1ty with
respect thereto.
B. Jur1sdictton an4 Venue.
(c)
(d)
The parties agr.. that .th1s contract shall be governed by the laws
of the State of Caltfornia, Ind in the event that littgation is
tnst1tuted by eith.r party, it shall be instituted in the State of
California. and 1n the court of appropriate jurisdiction tn San
Diego County.
c. Ent 1 re Aa,...."t.
This AgrQement represtwls the Intir. agre8l8ftt of the parttes as to
the subject matt.r h.rein addressed.
(,-7 '~fl-I%
~4/25/1996 12:56
694-3373
COUNTY SD DPLU
PAGE 11
-10-
D. Severability.
If any non-lIIt.r1l1 provision of this Agr...nt is for any reason
deemed to be invalid and unenforceabl., the invalidity or
unenforceabtlity of ~h provision shall not .ffect any of the
remaining provisions of this Agre..nt that sMll be enforced as if
such invalid or unenf.rceabl. provision has not be contained herein.
E. Notice.
Any notice requ11"8d or p,rmftted to be provtded under this Agre8lllE!nt
shall be provtded by t1rst class ..1" postag8 prepaid, to the
following pers~s:
City: City Man...r, with coptes to City Attorney and Contract
Officer fo.. this Agr.....t. Cfty of Chula Vista. 276
Fourth Avenu., Chula Vista, California 91910
Chfef Ad111nbtrattve Officer, with copies to County
Counsel and. Contract Officer for this Agreement, County
AdMintstratt:on Center, ltoo Pacific Highway, San Diego.
Californta 12101
or such other address either party provides or requires for the
providing of nottce.
County:
F. Equal Part1ciDatiQft in Draftina.
This Agree..nt shall be interpreted tnd construed reasonably and
neither for nor against either party, regardless of the degree to
which either party participated 1n its drafting.
Section 5. LANDFILL AND CONTINGENCV OF THIS AGREEMENT.
A. The Otay landfill shall be excluded frms coverage from any property
tax agreement previouslY adopted by the County Board of Supervisors
and by the City Council of Chula Vtsta. This includes the -Master
Property Tax Trl"sfer Agr....nt. adopted by the County on
Nov.ber 20, lta4 (17) and by the C1ty on November 27, 1984
('11852). The landftll cannot be annexed to the City unless and
until a subsequent property tax agre8lBnt is adopted covering this
property.
B. This Agreement 1s conttAgent upon adoption by both the City and
County of the cGllPantem agr...nt -Agre.-nt Between the County of
San Diego and the City of Chula Vista Regarding OtlY Ranch
Annexation and OperattQn of OtIY Laadfil1.- This Agreelent is also
contingent upon LAFCo approval. by August 5. 1996, of an amended
sphere of influence for thu1. Vista that incudes all territory shown
as -areas subject to 1116 0tIy Ranch Property Tax Agreement" on
)0
J1f1- J'
-11-
Exhibit At or at least a .in1mu1 of Village III and Planning Area
18-B. If the compan1on agr....nt is not mutually adopted, or if the
City's $phere 1s not amended to tnclude__ _1ntmuM of Village III and
Planning Area 18-B, this Agreement shall be null and void.
c. The provisions of thi$ Agreement shall apply only to annexations or .....
reorganizations occurring concurrent with, or subsequent to,
detachment of the otay Landfill from the City.
D. Either the County or City u,y rescind its approval of this Agreement
at any time prior to the date for wh1~h the Local Agency formation
Commission has scheduled the comI8nc...nt of a hearing on the first
annexation to Nhtch this Agr88llftt rel.tes, provided that the Otay
landfill Ag.......nt is rescinded at the sue time. Thereafter, no
amendment, modification, reciston or t.~'nat1on of this Agreement
or any provision thereof shall be valid or binding unless it be .1n
writing and approved by both the County's Board of Supervisors and
Chula Vista's City Council.
E. Sect ion 2 of thi s Agreell8nt 1 s cont 1 ngent upon the County's
continued ability to operate the ot., Landfill as defined in the
companion agTeelient .Agre8ll8nt Batwe.n the County of San Dtego and
the City Df Chula Vista Regarding Otay R.nch Annexation and
Operation of Ot., landfill.- If tbe Ral8dies for a Major Breach in
the latter .gr.....nt an to be 1.,osed. those rnedies shall be
implemented and shall supersede thl provisions of Sections 2 and 3
of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE SET THEIR HAND ON THE DATE AND
TIME FIRST ABOVE INDICATED.
County of San D1 ego by
City of (hula Vista by
.....
,
.~
~
i
I
:-
~
~
BOARD02\OTAY.AGR;tf
~;.;:;:!,...v .,:. \: 'r-~~ ~DYlIDR
~;'~'f~;I;~'~':.' "CJft /I _ J
.:< JV~VV\..l1L.~
. ,'.,401 ~-r-7~
1 \
J,fJ-1J()
Zlil 39~d
n!da as A.lNnm
ELEE-1;I69
ZZ:Llil 9661/6lil/~lil
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE OT A Y RANCH
RESERVE FUND PROGRAM
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 on July 27, 1994
by the Otay Ranch L.P., and;
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), covering 22,900 acres
of land, requires a Reserve Fund Program to be established concurrent with the approval of the
first SPA, to correct any annual operating deficiencies incurred by the City of Chula Vista
("Project"), and;
WHEREAS, a Property Tax Transfer Agreement as been entered into with the City of
San Diego, by Resolution No. , wherein the County has agreed to cover, subject
to a number of contingencies, the potential City operating deficits from the Otay Ranch Project
that the City might incur through FY 2016-17; and
WHEREAS, the Reserve Fund Program shall finance the cost of an annual review and
an updated fiscal impact analysis, as performed by the Fiscal Impact of New Development
(FIND) Model as described in the Property Tax Transfer Agreement for Otay Ranch. The FIND
Model produces a representation of City and County fiscal impacts for any given year and
throughout the Otay Ranch project's buildout period; and
WHEREAS, the GDP requires a Reserve Fund Program to be established concurrent with
the approval of the first SPA, to correct any annual operating deficiencies incurred by the City,
and;
WHEREAS, the GDP requires the applicant to be financially responsibility for any
operating deficiencies, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
1. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED OT A Y RANCH RESERVE FUND PROGRAM IS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE OT A Y RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch Reserve Fund Program advances the goal of the Otay Ranch
GDP that, "new development pay its own way".
1~11--:l- ,
Resolution No.
Page 2
B. THE PROPOSED RESERVE FUND PROGRAM WILL PROMOTE THE
ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The Reserve Fund Program advances the goals, objectives and policies of the
Otay Ranch GDP and the City of Chula Vista by assuring the efficient and timely
provision of public services and facilities to developable areas of the Otay Ranch
concurrent with need by identifying a funding source that will correct any annual
operating deficiencies incurred by the applicable jurisdiction.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF RESERVE FUND
The City Council hereby establishes a Reserve Fund Program, in accordance with the
GDP, said Program shall consist of the following:
a) The Developer and/or Applicant shall pay a fee, adopted by ordinance by the City
Council, to pay for the financing of the cost of an annual review and an updated fiscal impact
analysis, as performed by the Fiscal Impact of New Development (FIND) Model. The FIND
Model produces a representation of City and County fiscal impacts for any given year and
throughout the Otay Ranch project's buildout period.
b) The Property Tax Transfer Agreement, entered into with the County, by Resolution
No. , wherein the County has agreed to cover, subject to a number of
contingencies, the potential City operating deficits from the Otay Ranch Project that the City
might incur through FY 2016-17.
III. AMENDMENTS TO RESERVE FUND
The City Council may amend the Reserve Fund Program, from time to time, to include
additional fees to cover any potential City deficits that may not be covered by the Reserve Fund
Program, as adopted herein.
IV. NONCOMPLIANCE
Failure to comply with the terms of the Reserve Fund Program shall be considered a
violation of the GDP at which time the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all
approvals granted for the Otay Ranch Project, including issuance of building permits.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~~
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney
Gerald Jamriska, Special Planning
Projects Manager
t~ B-'-~
CITY COUNCI~ AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. K'R
Meeting Date ~
ITEM TITLE Resolution /8 2"~ - Approving Agreement Between
the County of San Diego and the City of Chula vista
Regarding Jurisdiction Over and operation of the
Otay Landfill .
SUBMITTED BY city Manage~ 4/5 vote: Yes No-X-
As a component of the pending actions on the proposed Sphere of
Influence for Otay Ranch and subsequent property tax agreement and
annexation of the western parcel, the. County wishes to ensure that
the City will not interfere with the ongoing operation or expansion
of the Otay Landfill. They do not wish the current litigation and
potential early closing of San Marcos Landfill to be repeated in
the South Bay as a result of actions of the City. This agreement
addresses that protection.
This item was continued from the Council meetings of April 16, 1996
and April 30, 1996 so as to allow for additional negotiation with
County staff. The County Board of supervisors will consider this
item on May 15, 1996 as well.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution agreeing to the terms and conditions of the
landfill agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N.A.
DISCUSSION:
On February 16, 1996, the county provided a draft agreement to the
ci ty . The city and County staff have been meeting as frequently as
possible to reach closure on the document so as to keep on schedule
with the June 3, and likely July 1, 1996 continued LAFCO Sphere of
Influence hearing for the Otay Ranch. The annexation of the
western parcel of the Otay Ranch would be considered also on July
1. The Property Tax Agreement is discussed in a separate agenda
statement on the May 14, 1996 Agenda.
As a condition of the proposed negotiated Otay Ranch Property Tax
Agreement, a "landfill" agreement must be agreed to between the
City and the County. The County believes that once the Property
Tax Sharing Agreement is approved, they have lost all of their
leverage. A second condition is that the County must support the
"panhandle" for inclusion in the City's Sphere of Influence or at
a minimum village 3 and Planning Area 18B.
A. Principal Business Deal concept
The County desires the following basic protection for the Otay
Landfill: protection from the use of the City's governmental
authority to interfere with their use as a landfill, protection
6.8-1
against "host", toll or any other fees, access to the landfill on
existing streets and adequate maintenance thereon, protection
against weight restrictions and protection against land use changes
adjacent to the landfill which might negatively affect its
operation or result in its closure.
A major assurance offered by the City to the County in order to
protect the landfill use is the detachment of the City side of the
landfill. The landfill is currently located partly in the County
and partly in the city. The detachment would place the entire
landfill in the county's jurisdiction and under their governmental
control. The detachment is being processed concurrently with the
annexation. Two other major assurances offered by the City are the
processing of a General Plan amendment within a 1000' buffer area
within Otay Ranch Village 2 (currently designated Residential on
both the City and county General Plans) and to establish "Nuisance
Easements" to be granted by the property owners over the buffer
areas of Village 2, Village 3 and Planning Area 18B of the Otay
Ranch. A further assurance is an agreement by the City not to
impose access, weight restrictions, tolls or host fees on the
landfill and for the City to give its consent to the operation of
the landfill and a finding of General Plan consistency with the
landfill.
In exchange for the City protecting the Otay Landfill use, the
County will provide the City with the following: County support of
the City's Sphere of Influence Amendment for the Ranch, approval of
the proposed Property Tax Agreement (which is a better split than
the county-wide Master Property Tax Sharing Agreement formula),
non-opposi tion to annexation of the Sphere, and payment by the
County over time of $327,000 toward the County share of the Otay
Valley Road Assessment District.
Should the City breach the agreement, the County wants very severe
penalties (so-called "Poison pills") as follows: (a) revision of
the Property Tax Exchange Agreement. for the Ranch back to the
ratios contained in the Master Property Tax Sharing Agreement and
a refund of all previously collected property tax in accordance
thereto, (b) refunding, with interest, previous funds transferred
to the City, and (c) requiring the City to pay for the closure
costs of Otay Landfill. On April 30, 1996, the Board of
Supervisors dropped the part of Poison pill "C", which would have
also obligated the city to pay for the relocation of the landfill
in the event it had to be closed.
The landfill closure risk would occur only in three very unlikely
circumstances and with prior notice and opportunity to cure. The
first circumstance would be if the city detaches the landfill
(which is going to occur with the first Otay Ranch Annexation) and
then for some reason reannexed the landfill, or the State
Legislature somehow acted so that the landfill territory was placed
back into the city limits without the City's prior objection and
the City then took some regulatory action over the landfill or
withdrew its General Plan conformity, which resulted in its
2
ISJ3 - ~
closure. The second scenario would be that Chula Vista either
failed to act on a General Plan Amendment for the buffer area in
village 2 within two years or somehow approved a General Plan
Designation which the County deemed inconsistent with the Landfill
and litigation occurred which resulted in a Court ordering the
closure of the landfill due to that inaction or incompatibility.
The third circumstance would be that the ci ty enacted weight
restrictions or changed the road classification without County
approval on Otay Valley Road and Maxwell Road or while the landfill
is in the City the city withdrew its General Plan consistency
finding and as a result the County had to close the landfill.
These events are controllable by the City and would seem to be
remote possibilities. In addition to the notice, opportunity to
cure and hearing by the Board of supervisors, there would be an
opportunity for judicial review based upon independent judgment by
a court.
B. provisions of the Agreement
1. The County staff is willing to recommend the support of the
amendment of Chula vista's Sphere of Influence before LAFCO.
They wish to have the current County portion of the landfill
property remain as a Special Study Area and thus an exception
to the balance of the Sphere as recommended by LAFCO staff.
2. The County agrees not tp oppose annexations wi thin the adopted
Sphere of Influence.
3. The County shall agree to pay $327,000 to the City as its
share of the Otay Valley Road Assessment District. The amount
is to be paid in equal annual installments over a 5 year
period beginning June 30, 1997 or 90 days after the road
completion, whichever occurs later, without interest. (The
Phase I road widening project has now been completed and Phase
II is nearing completion.) subsequent installments are due
June 30 each year.
4. The city shall acknowledge that the landfill use (and its
planned expansion) is consistent with the Chula vista General
Plan. The city retains the ability to review and comment on
any future environmental or other documents associated with
any future expansion plans by the County.
5. The city agrees to amend its General Plan to non-residential
habitation uses within a 1000' buffer area of the boundaries
of the landfill (within the newly annexed area, essentially
Village 2 of the Otay Ranch). The balance of the buffer area
is currently designated industrial, open space, or is already
developed. The GPA must be accomplished wi thin two years
unless tolled by a third party lawsuit.
6. The property owners of land within the buffer area of villages
2 and 3 and Planning Area laB of the Otay Ranch shall grant
nuisance easements to the County over their property
acknowledging any landfill impacts such as noise, odor or
3
l'SB-~
vibration, and other potential nuisance items. City staff is
exploring this possibility with the affected property owners
in otay Ranch. The easements. must be granted before the first
annexation of any property within otay Ranch.
7. Chula vista shall agree to maintain the access to the
landfill, namely otay Valley Road from 1-805 to otay Rio Road
and Maxwell Road from otay Valley Road to the landfill
property, in the same condi tion as the rest of the road
system. Further, the City agrees not to restrict access by a
toll, weight restriction or any other fee or charge. Should
a host fee, toll or other fee or charge be imposed, the
amounts collected all revert to the County.
8. The City shall agree that it will not interfere with burn ash
being transported over City streets to the landfill.
9.
Existing land uses which
incorporated portion. of the
execution of this agreement
affected by this agreement.
are in existence within the
buffer area as of the date of
shall be grand fathered and not
10. Chula vista agrees to adopt General Plan amendments for any
properties within the buffer area only for uses which are
compatible with the landfill. A consultation process and
written response from the County during the GPA processing is
also defined.
11. There are notice requirements the County must provide to the
City in the event of an alleged breach and the City must be
given an opportunity to cure. Events beyond the City's
control, such as acts of God, natural disasters, etc., are
excluded.
12. The hazardous waste facility tax for Aptec, which is
calculated at 10% of their gross receipts, would be lost due
to detachment of the landfill. Should the County institute a
tax or user fee and the facility remain in operation as a for
profit venture, the City and County would split the revenue
50/50.
13. The County shall have the right, with 120 days notice and
consultation with the City, to cease use of the landfill and
convert the property to other uses. The uses would have to be
consistent with those for a closed landfill.
14. All provisions of this Agreement will terminate on closure of
the otay Landfill Property or in 50 years, whichever occurs
sooner, except the reuse provision above. The life of the
landfill could be another 30 years with expansion into new
areas, new liners and increase of the height of the fill
areas.
15. The remedies of major breach include three very significant
penalties.
4
.ISE-~
a) Reallocation of Property Tax - In the event of a breach,
the property tax allocation shall be changed so that the
base revenue and annual tax increment shall be allocated
59 percent to the County and 41 percent to Chula vista
per the Master Property Tax Agreement and be retroactive.
(This compares to a 50-50 split under the proposed to be
adopted Property Tax Agreement for the Ranch.) Repayment
shall be made within 180 days.
b) Refund and Termination of Prior Year's Transfer Payments
- In the event of a breach, the total amount of funds
transferred to the City pursuant to the Property Tax
Exchange Agreement shall be repaid to the County. The
repayment shall be made within 180 days and shall include
interest computed from the date of each transfer payment.
There will also be no further transfer payment made by
the County under the Property Tax Agreement in the event
of a breach.
c) City Responsibility for the Closure Costs for closing
otay Landfill - In the event the landfill has to be
closed due to a failure to perform its duties by the
City, as further delineated below, all of the County's
costs associated with such closure shall be paid by Chula
Vista, less the amount in the County's closure fund,
which is currently $5.9 million. This includes various
design, monitoring, inspection, environmental and legal
costs associated with closure.
16. The City is subject to Poison pills A and B related to the
return of property tax and transfer payments for otay Ranch if
it does any of the following:
1) Fails to process GPA for the buffer area of Village 2 to
a non-residential land use within 2 years unless tolled
by litigation.
2) Fails to deliver the nuisance easements prior to any otay
Ranch annexation action and fails to withdraw the
annexation application until the easements are granted.
3) withdraws or amends its General Plan consistency and its
consent to the operation of the landfill.
4) Reannexes or annexes the landfill property once it has
been detached.
5) Amends its general plan on the landfill property or
attempts to regulate the landfill prior to detachment.
6) Approves subsequent General Plan Amendments within the
buffer area which the County Board of supervisors has
deemed incompatible.
7) Imposes a weight restriction, beyond that allowed by
state law for the current road classification or modifies
the road classifications without County approval, on otay
Valley Road or Maxwell Road, which affects the landfill.
17. The city is subject to Poison pill C related to closure and
landfill relocation costs if the City fails to perform on
5
J~E -.s
those items identified in the agreement as subject to Special
Remedies and, in addition, the result is that the County has
to close the landfill; or, in the case of incompatible land
uses within the buffer area as a result of a City GPA, or
failure to approve a non-residential GPA in the Village 2
buffer, there is a court-ordered closure of the landfill.
18. Landfill closure costs (estimated at $30 million) are reduced
by the amount in the County's closure fund existing at the
time. Currently the fund contains $5.9 million, with amounts
added annually.
19. If Chula vista adopts a General Plan Amendment permitting uses
within the buffer area which the County has advised is
compatible with the landfill, then the City and the County
will share equally in the defense of any litigation. The city
shall not be liable for any damages but will share equally
with the County in payment of any award of attorneys' fees.
20. The determination of breach for Poison pills A and B must be
reasonable and based upon substantial evidence reviewable by
a Court. The determination for breach of Poison pill C must
be reasonable and based upon independent judgment evidence
reviewable by a Court.
21. The city and the County have the right to terminate this
agreement anytime prior to the date for which LAFCO has
scheduled the commencement of a hearing on the first
annexation to which the Property Tax Exchange Agreement
relates, provided the Exchange Agreement is rescinded at the
same time.
c. Discussion
Attachment A is a chart outlining 19 issues and the respective city
staff and County staff positions. Agreement has been reached on
all of these issues and is reflected in the agreement language.
At an early point in the negotiations, the draft business points
outlined County and City duties and stated if the City did anything
on a wide variety of fronts to jeopardize the landfill operation,
then the City was subject to all penalties including closure/post
closure and relocation costs for the Otay Landfill. The approach
of City staff, then, has been twofold. First, we have tried to
find ways to completely mitigate the County's concern and fears so
that no penalty is required whatsoever. Second, barring
elimination of Poison pill C, we have tried to make it as remote
and unlikely as possible and entirely under the city's control as
to the circumstance which would be a basis for needing to close the
landfill and then having the County act reasonably, provide us with
notice, opportunity to cure, a hearing and judicial review.
An example of mitigating the County's concerns is when the County
wanted to subject us to penalties for trying to exercise land use
control over the landfill, our mitigation response was to detach
6
J5B-~
the landfill. In response to penalties for instituting tolls or
host fees, the City has suggested that we agree in those cases to
turn any money collected directly to the County. The above then
became non-issues.
A further example of City-County agreement is on the establishment
of a "buffer" zone around the landfill where the city would agree
not to amend its General Plan to allow residential habitation uses.
Conversely, the city will process a General Plan Amendment for
areas within the buffer area not yet developed, which are presently
shown as residential use, i.e., areas within Village 2 of Otay
Ranch. The buffer zone is described as an area 1,000 feet from the
exterior boundary of the landfill property, although at the
northeast corner of the landfill, it is 1000' from the landfill
footprint with the result that it impacts less land on Villages 2
and 3. The actual definition of uses compatible within the buffer
area is still being worked on by County staff and will be provided
to the City within 30 days of execution of this agreement. Should
the City breach these provisions, then the future property tax
allocation would change from a 50/50 split to a 59/41 split in the
County's favor and be retroactive. Also, prior year transfer
paYments made by the County to the city would need to be refunded.
As stated previously, any allegation of breach would require
adequate notice to the City and an ability on the City's part to
cure before any penalties take effect.
Under the terms of the agreement, the most onerous penalty, that of
closing the landfill would only occur in the event the City takes
some action which impairs the operation of the landfill, causing
its closure per the breach language of the agreement, or there is
a Court-ordered closure due to litigation and a finding of
incompatible land uses within the buffer (when the County had
previously advised the City that they felt a City GPA was
incompatible with the landfill).
Conclusion
The City realizes a significant benefit from the agreement as far
as realizing our proposed Sphere of Influence for Otay Ranch
annexation of the Ranch (western parcel) a more favorable tax
sharing agreement than the Master Property Tax Agreement,
eliminating an obstacle to annexation, and a financial contribution
by the County toward the Otay Valley Road Assessment District
Project. Of course, the overriding benefit is the City being able
to control a major parcel of land which affects it and being able
to dictate its destiny as part of the City.
The County realizes a significant property tax benefit, although
less than the Master Property Tax Sharing Agreement, control over
the entire landfill property as a result of detachment, protection
against tolls and fees, guaranteed landfill access, and General
Plan protection and the creation of a 1,000 foot buffer around the
landfill.
Many of the breach penalties have been significantly mitigated or
7
1t).B-7
reduced but they have not been eliminated. For the most part, the
penalties involve reversionary provisions concerning property tax
revenue and transfers as a result of annexation of otay Ranch. The
prospect of having responsibility for closing otay Landfill is a
major issue. As written, it would require the City to take a
conscious action which is a breach of the agreement and for which
the Special Remedies section of the agreement applies, and then for
the County to decide that that action forces them to close the
landf i 11.
City staff has negotiated long and hard to clearly define and limit
those circumstances as well as limit the time frame during which
they apply. As an example, a number of penalties disappear once
the landfill is detached, assuming it is never again annexed. At
this point the closure risk scenario seems to be a remote one and
should it occur the notice, cure, hearing and jUdicial review
opportunities would be in effect.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimating the overall fiscal impact of the agreement is difficult
to do because of the complexi ty of the FIND Model, the many
variables, and the unknown as to what point in time the agreement
might be breached. A breach that resulted in the property tax
exchange reverting to the 1984 master property tax agreement's
terms rather than the terms of the otay Ranch property tax
agreement would be projected to cost the city up to $37.6 million
(in current year dollars) over the next 30 years plus interest and
an ongoing loss of about $1.1 million per year thereafter.
The costs to close otay Landfill could be $30 million offset by the
monies the County has in its closure fund at the time. Currently,
the County has $5.9 million in this fund and is required by law to
add to that amount annually.
~!(:nm'A~
,
8
~-lf
Issue
1. Completion of
detachment as a
condition of
annexation
ATTACHMENT A
LANDFILL AGREEMENT ISSUES
County position
Agree
2. Completion of Agree
General Plan
redesignation of
the buffer area of
Village 2 within 2
years. Period may
be tolled by third
party litigation
3. City subject Agree
to Poison pill C
if landfill
detached and
reannexed and
required to be
closed, if
incompatible land
uses within the
buffer as a result
of city GPA action
or inaction result
in a court-ordered
closure of the
landfill, or if
weight
restrictions or
other special
Remedy provisions
of the agreement
are not met and
result in the
landfill being
forced to close.
4. Aptec business Agree
license upon
detachment
l5:B-r
Agree
Agree
..
Agree
5/14/96
City position
If Aptec remains open and
if it is run by a for
profit entity and if the
County institutes a
business license tax, then
the city and County shall
split the tax 50/50.
County position
Agree. County
warrants no plans
to expand the
landfill on the
City side of
landfill beyond
that currently
permitted.
Landfill uses are
to be those
authorized by the
permits issued by
state and Federal
agencies for a
Class III
landfill.
6. Nuisance Agree
easement by
property owners in
1000' buffer area
of Villages 2 and
3 and Planning
Area 18B before
land use
entitlements or a
development
agreement for
those areas.
Issue
5. Covenants on
landfill operation
7. Process for Agree
determining breach
with Poison pill
8. Standard for Agree
review by Court of
breach
determination
9. Indemnity for Agree
detachment
litigation only
10. County to Agree
support sphere and
not oppose
annexation
11. Tolls, host
fees
Agree
J!B-/b
City position
Agree
Agree
County decision is subject
to judicial review after
notice and reasonable
opportunity to cure and a
hearing.
Substantial evidence in
case of Poison pills A and
B and independent judgment
test in case of Poison
pill C.
County agrees to indemnify
City against litigation
challenging solely the
adequacy of environmental
review of the detachment
proposal.
Agree
Agree to pass $ on to
County.
Issue County position City position
12. Landfill, Agree Agree
access streets,
weight
restrictions
13. Burn ash Agree Agree
hauling non-
interference
14. Landfill Agree Agree
closure costs
formula
15. Rights to Agree Agree
review and comment
on expansion
proposals and
environmental
review therewith
16. Post Closure Agree Agree
Uses
17. Completion of Agree Agree
Otay Valley Road
18. contribution Agree Agree
by County to
assessment
district costs
19. Landfill Agree Agree
Agreement is
contingent on SOl
approval
GK:mab
jimlandfl
J~-II
MAY-09-1996 14:49
P.02
fJ/hrchrneflf ~
5/9/96 (2:30pm)
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY' OF SAN DIEGO
AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REGARDING
JURISDICTION OVER AND OPSRATION OF OTAY LANDFILL
This agreement is entered into as of the ___ day of
1996, by and between the County of San Diego, a political
subdivision of the State of California {hereinafter "County"},
and the City of Chula vista, a municipal corporation of the State
of California (hereinafter "Chula Vista"), with reference to the
following:
RBCITALS
A. The County and Chula Vista have jointly planned and
approved the development of that project known as "otay Ranch" on
properties which lie generally easterly of Chula Vista's current
easterly territorial boundary. In connection therewith, Chula
Vista. desires to amend its Sphere of Influence (1ISO!"). This
will require approval by the Local Agency Formation commission of
the County of San Diego ("LAFCO"). Chula Vista also desires to
annex territory within the SOl.
B. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99, the
County and Chula vista have negotiated and, contemporaneously
with this Agreement, are entering into an agreement entitled,
"Agreement Between County of San Diego and City of chula Vista
Regarding Property Ta~ Transfer For Annexation(s) Of otay Ranch
Property To Chula vista II (hereinafter, the II Property Tax Exchange
Agreement"). The Property Tax Exchange Agreement is on file with
the County's Clerk of the Board of Supervisors as Document No.
C. The County owns and operates a solid waste landfill
facility, composed of both (1) a portion which consists of
approximately 265 acres lying within the territorial limits of
chula vista (the "0tay Sanitary Landfill"), and (2) the Otay
Annex Sanitary Landfill, which is adjacent and consists of
approximately 251 acres lying in the unincorporated territory of
the county. The landfill facility is described in the ItOtay
Landfill Project Descriptionll which is attached as lIExhibit A"
hereto, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Landfill.1! The
property owned by the County, on which the Landfill is operated,
is more particularly described on DExhibit BlI hereto, and is
hereinafter referred to as the .ILandfill Property".
D. The County and Chula Vista each recognize the benefits
to the citizens of Chula Vista and of the county which will
result trom the continued operation of the Landfill by the
county, and they both desire to ensure and facilitate such
continued operation notwithstanding any expansion of the SOl or
approvals of annexations of nearby lands to Chula Vista. To that
J~-B-J'"
MAY-09-1996 14:50
P.03
2
end, the parties desire to detach from Chula Vista that portion
of the Landfill Property which is currently within Chula vista's
territorial limits.
E. Under California Law, the County is generally not
subject to regulation by Chula Vista in operation of County
facilities on land which the County owns within the territorial
boundaries of Chula Vista; however, in the event that any portion
of the Landfill remains or becomes included within Chula Vista's
territorial limits, Public Resources Code section 49400 requires
the county to obtain the consent of Chula Vista's City Council
for the acquisition and operation of the Landfill, and Public
Resources Code Section 50000.5 prohibits the establishment or
operation of a solid waste facility unless the city or county in
which the site is located makes a finding that the establishment
or expansion is consistent with the general plan of the city or
county.
WHEREFORE, the County and Chula vista represent and agree as
followS:
AGREEMENT
~. Count v Position Regarding Sphere of Influence and
Annexation. The County supports the amendment of Chula Vista's
SOl to include that territory shown on "Exhibit C" hereto, so
long as the Landfill Property remains designated as a "Special
Study Area." The County will formally communicate its position
of support to IJU'CO. The County further will not oppose
annexation of any land within the SOI territory shown on "Exhibit
eft to Chula vista, provided that the first such annexation is
part of a reorganization which includes the detachment referred
to in Section 2 below. These duties of the County shall in no
way affect the discretion or voting of any members of LAFCO which
are also members of County's Board of Supervisors.
2. Detachment of Otav Sanitary Landfill From chula Vista.
chula vista has filed an application with LAFCO for the
detachment of the Otay Sanitary ~andfill property from Chula
vista, so that all of the Landfill Property will be located in
the unincorporated area of the County. Chula Vista shall
diligently and in good faith pursue said detachment proposal with
the first application it files with LAPCO to annex any part of
the Otay Ranch property to Chula Vista. The County agrees to
fully cooperate in good faith with Chula vista to enable
completion of said detachment, and to defend and indemnify Chula
Vista for any litigation which may be commenced to challenge said
detachment solely on the grounds of allegedly inadequate
environmental review.
3. ~onsent For Ooeration of Landfill. The following
provisions of this section 3 are applicable only during such time
J5B-/3
MAY-09-1996 14:50
P.04
3
that any part of the Landfill Property remains included within
Chula Vista's corporate boundaries, and shall again become
applicable at any time that all or any part of the Landfill
Property, shall in the future be annexed to Chula Vista without
the prior written approval of the county's Board of Supervisors:
(a) Chula Vista hereby grants its consent to the operation
of the Landfill, pursuant to public Resources Code Section
49400. Said consent includes the existing as well as the
ultimate use, development and expansion of the Landfill as
shown and described in "Exhibit A" hereto.
(b) Chula vista further finds that the establishment and
operation of tbe Landfill, including the ultimate use,
development and expansion of the Landfill as shown in
"Exhibit An hereto, are consistent with the chula vista
general plan.
(c) Chula vista agrees that, except with the prior written
approval of the County's Board of Supervisors, said consent
and said finding of consistency shall remain in effect
throughout the term of this Agreement. If either is
withdrawn, rescinded, revised or amended with regard to the
Otay Sanitary Landfill prior to the date the detachment
referred to in Section 2 becomes effective, Chula Vista
shall be liable to County for any loss or damages resulting
therefrom. If either is withdrawn, rescinded, revised, or
amended with regard to any of the Landfill Property after
any of the Landfill Property has been annexed to Chula vista
following the date of this Agreement, the Special Remedies
provided at Section 14 shall apply.
(d) Chula vista further agrees and represents that, having
given said consent and finding of consistency, no
Conditional Use Permit or other permit or approval is or
will be required from Chula Vista for the continued
operation of the Landfill as shown on "Exhibit A."
4. Imoosition of Fees Upon, or Annexation or Requlation of
Landfill Property.
(a) In the event that Chula Vista adopts any toll, dhost
fee" or other fee or charge upon the establishment or
operation of the Landfill, it shall immediately and no less
than monthly, transmit to county all amounts collected
thereby.
(b) The special Remedies provided at Section 14 of this
Agreement shall apply if any portion of the Landfill
Property is annexed to Chula Vista after the date of this
Agreement without the prior ~ritten approval of the county's
Board of Supervisors. The Special Remedies provided at
/1g-ly.
MAY-09-1996 14:51
P.05
4
Section 14 shall not, however, apply in the instance of an
annexation of any portion of the Landfill Property resulting
from state legislation if the Chula Vista city Council has
expressed formal written opposition to the legislation. The
Special Remedies provided at Section 14 of this Agreement
shall also apply if, at any time when any portion of the
Landfill Property is within Chula vista's jurisdiction,
Chula vista amends or repeals its general plan in such a way
that the establishment or expansion of the Landfill becomes
inconsistent with the general plan, or adopts or imposes any
zoning, land use or other regulation or requirement (other
than one covered by paragraph (a) of this Section) upon, and
which adversely affects, the operation of the Landfill.
5. Landfill Access Streets.
(a) Chula Vista agrees to maintain in good condition
throughout the term of this Agreement the following streets
which serve as access to the Landfill:
otay Valley Road, from I-80S to otay Rio Road; and
Maxwell Road, from Otay Valley Road to the Landfill
For purposes of this paragraph (a), "good condition" shall
mean reasonable driving condition substantially equal to
other roads within chula vista of a similar age and
construction, but not less than an operable condition so as
to facilitate such access by trash hauling vehicles. said
streets may be closed temporarily for required maintenance
or repair work, provided that, unless otherwise approved by
County's Director of Public Works in advance and in writing,
such closure shall not occur more than once in any six month
period and shall not be for more than seven days at a time.
(b) Chula Vista further agrees that, if it should ever
impose upon said streets weight or other restrictions more
severe than are stated in Chapter 5 of Division 15 of the
Vehicle Code, or if it should change the classifications of
said streets as shown in its general plan circulation
element on the date of this Agreement, then the Special
Remedies provided for in Section ~4 of this Agreement shall
apply, unless such restrictions or change in classification
is approved in advance by County's Board of Superv-isors.
(e) chula vista further agrees that if it should ever adopt
or impose any tolls or other fees or charges for the use of
said streets upon trash trucks or other vehicles using said
streets for access to the Landfill, it will immediately pay
to County, no less frequently than monthly, all amounts
collected thereby.
~-15
MAY-09-1996 14:52
P.06
5
6. L~dfill Buffer Area.
(a) Chula Vista shall commence, diligently and in good
faith pursue, and complete within 730 days after the date
this Agreement is entered into, proceedings to revise its
general plan, zoning and other applicable land use
regulations so that no residential land uses are permitted
within that area identified as "Village 2" on the Dotay
Landfill Buffer Area" as shown on "Exhibit D" hereto, and
all uses permitted are compatihle with the use and operation
of the Landfill. Chula Vista's failure to do so shall
constitute a breach of this Agreement for which the Special
Remedies specified at section 14 shall apply, e~cept that
the remedy of payment of closure costs (Section 14(c)) shall
only apply if a court of competent jurisdiction orders the
closure of the Landfill based upon such incompatibility.
Prior to holding any hearings on such general plan
amendment, Chula Vista shall consult with County and County
agrees that it's Board of supervisors will respond within 60
days, advising chula vista whether the proposed general plan
amendment is compatible with the Landfill. The County
agrees to fully cooperate in good faith with Chula vista to
enable completion of said general plan amendment. This 730
days shall be extended to compensate, day-for-day, for the
amount of time during which a court of competent
jurisdiction, in a suit brought by a party other than Chula
Vista, has issued an order or judgment prohibiting chula
Vista from proceeding with said proceedings. In the event
Chula Vista adopts such a general plan amendment, which 1s
subsequently invalidated by court order, Chula Vista shall
immediately recommence general plan amendment proceedings
within said area, completing them and applying compatible
land use designations within two years of the date of the
court order.
(b) During the term of this Agreement, if a general plan
amendment is filed applicable to any of the area shown as
"otay Landfill Buffer Area" on Exhibit "D" hereto, Chula
Vista shall consult with the County prior to holding any
hearings on such general plan amendment. The County agrees
that its Board of Supervisors will respond within 60 days,
advising Chula Vista whether the proposed general plan
amendment is compatible with the Landfill.
(c) In the event that Chula Vista adopts into its general
plan applicable to any of the area shown as ootay Landfill
Buffer Area" on "Exhibit D" hereto, provisions which the
County's Board of Supervisors has advised are incompatible
with the Landfill, shall constitute a breach of this
Agreement for which the remedies specified at Section 14
shall apply, except that the remedy of payment of closure
costs (Section 14(c)) shall only apply if a court of
)5B-I~
MAY-09-1996 14=52
P.07
6
competent jurisdiction orders the closure of the Landfill
based upon such incompatibility. However, a general plan
amendment which allows only the continuation of developed
land uses which are in existence within the incorporated
portion of said buffer area on the date of this Agreement
shall not oonstitute a breach of this Agreement.
(d) If Chula Vista adopts a general plan amendment
applicable to any of the area shown as the UOtay Landfill
Buffer Area" on Exhibit D attached hereto that permits uses
which the County has advised are compatible with the
Landfill, the County and Chula vista shall share equally in
the defense of any litigation which is brought challenging
County's operation of the Landfill as being inconsistent
with such general plan amendment. This obligation to share
in the defense shall not obligate Chula Vista to pay any
damages awarded as a result of such litigation; however, the
County and Chula Vista shall share equally in payment of any
award of attorneys' fees.
(e) Within 30 days after the date this Agreement is
approved by both parties, the county will advise Chula Vista
in writing as to which of Chula vista's existing nonw
residential general plan land use designations permit uses
which are, in County's opinion, compatible with the
Landfill.
(f). As a condition precedent to annexation only and not as
a commitment to perform, landowners in Villages 2 and 3 and
Planning Area lBB of the otay Ranch General De~elopment Plan
are eJq>ected to grant to County "Landfill Nuisance
Easements" substantially in the form attached as "Exhibit E"l
hereto, covering all land which is both within said villages
and ~lanning Area and also within the area shown as ROtay
Landfill Buffer Area, on "EXhibit D" hereto. All of said
easements shall be signed, notarized and delivered to County
prior to the time of LAFCO approval of any annexation of
property within Otay Ranch to Chula Vista. In the eyent
that said easements ha~e not been so granted to the County
by said time, Chula vista agrees to withdraw any application
for annexation which is pending and agrees not to complete
or take any further action in furtherance of such
annexation. Failure by Chula vista to comply with the
provisions of this paragraph shall constitute a breach of
this Agreement for which the Special Remedies specified at
Section l4 shall apply.
7. Transportation of Burn Ash Material. Chula Vista ag~ee6
not to interfere in any way with the use of its street system for
transportation of any burn ash material being delivered to the
Landfill from any site, without limitation as to amount or point
of origin, provided that applicable state and federal laws are
J?j -17
MAY-09-1996 14:53
P.OO
7
complied with.
8. Conversion of Landfill To Other Use(s). In the event
that the County determines to cease use of the Landfill and
convert the use of the Landfill Property to other uses, the
County shall first consult with Chula Vista regarding the new
uses. Consultation shall be accomplished as follows: the County
shall deliver written notice of its intention to convert the use
of the Landfill Property to other uses to Chula Vista's City
Manager at least 120 days prior to taking any action which
commits the county to any particular new use. Chula vista's City
Council shall provide its written recommendations to the County,
if any, within said 120 days. The County shall in good faith
take Chula Vista's recommendations into consideration in its
deliberations, and the use{s) to which the Landfill Property is
converted shall be compatible with a closed landfill.
9. Retained Rights To Review and Comment. Each party
retains its rights as provided by any applicable law to review
and comment upon a project proposed by the other. Such review
and comment by Chula Vista of any of County's proposed uses,
alterations or expansions of the Landfill shall not be considered
a breach of this Agreement provided that it does not in effect
rescind, modify or contradict the consent and finding given by
section 3 above.
10. Otay Valley Road wideninq. Chula Vista shall cause the
completion of the Otay Valley Road Widening project, as described
in more detail in "Exhibit F" hereto. upon completion of this
project, the County shall pay Chula Vista a share of the project
costs, as follows: The County's share shall be $327,000.00.
This amount shall be paid in equal annual installments of
$65,400.00 per year, for five years, tbe first installment being
due on or before either June 30, 1997 or 90 days after completion
of the project, whichever is later, and subsequent installments
being due on June 30 each year. Said payment shall be the sole
contribution from the County for this project, and Chula vista
shall not impose any other assessment, charge or fee upon the
County or its agencies in relation to this project.
11. Hazardous Waste Facilitv Taxes and User Fees. In the
event that, following detachment from Chula vista of the Otay
sanitary Landfill, a hazardous waste processing or transfer
facility operates on a portion of that property, being operated
by a for-profit business, and the County imposes a tax or user
fee pursuant to Health and Safety code Section 25173.5 upon such
operation, the County shall pay Chula Vista 50 per cent of all
taxes or user fees in fact collected from that business.
12. Countv's Present Landfill Plans. The county represents
to Chula vista that it currently plans to use the Landfill
property only for the development, use and operation of the
I!B-j<i
MAY-09-1996 14:54
P.09
8
Landfill as shown on plans and permits which have been approved,
or for which expansion applications have been filed prior to the
date of this Agreement.
13. Property Tax Transfer A~reement. This Agreement is
contingent upon and shall only become effective if the County and
Chula Vista also contemporaneously approve the Property Tax
Transfer Agreement.
14. special Remedies For Certain Breaches. The continued
operation of the Landfill without limitation, restriction or
interference is of the essence in the making and performance of
this agreement. The county and Chula Vista agree that, in the
event of a breach of a provision of this Agreement which
expressly provides that Special Remedies pursuant to this Section
shall apply, the County will incur damage, the amount of which is
extremely impractical and difficult to determine, and lieu of
such actual damages, the following special Remedies shall apply:
(a) The allocation of property tax pursuant to Section 2.B
of the Property Tax Exchange Agreement shall be changed so
that the base revenue and the annual tax increment,
including revenue for both the County and any special
districts from which property is detached, shall be
allocated 59 per cent to the County and 41 per cent to Chula
vista. This change shall be effected by the County's
Auditor upon receipt of a resolution adopted pursuant to
paragraph (b) of Section 15. Chula Vista shall pay to the
County, within 180 days of written demand therefor
accompanied by a certified copy of said resolution, an
amount which equals the difference between the property tax
received by Chula Vista pursuant to the property Tax
Transfer Agreement for all years subsequent to the date of
this Agreement and the amount which Chula Vista would have
received if the allocation of property tax had been changed
to 5~ per cent to the County and 41 per cent to Chula Vista
upon the commencement of operation of the Property Tax
Exchange Agreement, together with interest at the thirty-day
London Interbanking Offered Rate (LIBOR) in effect on the
date of the resolution adoped pursuant to paragraph (b) of
section ~5. Said interest rate shall be applied to the
difference in property tax amounts described above during
the period from the commencement of operation of the
Property Tax Transfer Agreement to the date of the County's
demand.
(b) The total amount of funds which have been transferred
to Chula Vista pursuant to section 2.C of the Property Ta~
Transfer Agreement, together with interest computed at the
thirty-day London Interbanking Offered Rate (LIBOR) in
effect on the date of each transfer payment, sha~~ be repaid
to the County. Such repayment shall be made within 180 days
~ .-J'7
MAY-09-1996 14:54
P.10
~
of receipt by Chula Vista of a resolution adopted pursuant
to paragraph (b) of Section ~5 of this Agreement. Transfer
payments required by Section 2.C of the Property Tax
Transfer Agreement for all years following the date of the
breach shall not be made and shall be retained by the
County.
(e) In the event that the County determines that the action
by Chula Vista which constitutes a breach of this Agreement
for which this Agreement specifies that this Special Remedy
is applicable, has the effect of making continued operation
of the Landfill infeasible or impracticable, it may
determine that it is necessary to close the Landfill. In
that event, Chula vista shall pay all of the County's costs
associated with such closure, including, but not limited to,
the following:
design and construction of a final cover system,
design and construction of drainage structures,
design and implementation of a landscaping plan,
monitoring and management of groundwater, landfill
gas, and leachate,
inspection and maintenance activities, and
consulting, environmental, legal, and
administrative costs associated with closure.
The amount of closure costs payable shall be reduced by any
amounts which are contained in the closure fund which the
County maintains for the Landfill as of the date of the
breach which causes the closure.
15. Procedures For Enforcinq Breach. Except in cases where
closure of the Landfill has been ordered by a court, prior to
effectuating any of the Special Remedies for breach of this
Agreement specified at Section 14, the county shall complete the
following procedures:
(a) The County shall first provide Chula Vista with written
notice that a breach has occurred, specifying the facts
constituting the breach, and shall provide a reasonable
amount of time (to be specified in the notice) for Chula
Vista to cure the breach. Said notice shall clearly
reference this Agreement, state that the alleged violation
could cause the Special Remedies for breach herein provided
and repeat said Special Remedies in the notice. said notice
shall be provided to both the City Manager and the city
Attorney of chula Vista.
(b) County's Board of Supervisors shall consider the matter
at a proceeding at which Chula Vista is provided notice and
a reasonable opportunity to be heard. If the Board
reasonably determines that a breach of this Agreement has
I'5f3 _. 20
MAY-09-1996 14:55
P.ll
10
occurred to which these Special Remedies apply, it shall
adopt a resolution in which the Board: determines that a
breach of this Agreement has occurred for which this
Agreement specifies that these Special Remedies are
applicable; states the factual circumstances supporting that
determination; directs the Auditor to make the change
referred to in paragraph (a) of section 14 for all
subsequent fiscal years; and, pursuant to paragraph (1:>) of
section 14, demands repayment of prior transfer payments and
directs that future transfer payments not be made.
16. Judicial Review. Chula Vista shall have the right to
seek judicial review of the County's determination that a breach
of this Agreement has occurred, except where closure of the
Landfill has been ordered by a court. In any such action, the
parties agree that the standard of judicial review shall be the
"substantial evidence" standard, whereby the county's
determination shall be upheld if it is supported by substantial
evidence in the record before the county. In any action in which
the County's determination that a breach of this Agreement
requires closure of the Landfill is reviewed by a court, except
where closure of the Landfill has been ordered by a court, the
pa~ties agree that the County's determination shall be reviewed
by the court exercising its independent judgment.
1? Force Majeure. No violation or br@ach of this
Agreement shall be deemed to have occurred if caused by an event
or act that is beyond the control of Chula Vista, such as an Act
of God, natural disaster (including, but not limited to, a flood,
fire, dam inundation, earthquake, landslide or subsidence), riot,
rebellion, or civil strife.
18. Entire Aareement. This Agreement and the property Tax
Exchange Agreement set forth the entire agreement between the
County and Chula Vista contemplated by them regarding this
matter, and supersede any and all prior or contemporaneous
agreements, understandings or representations. In particular,
any existing Conditional Use Permit{s} issued by Chula vista,
including No. PCC-72-1, are deemed terminated and unnecessary for
the continued operation of the Landfill, based upon the consent
and findings granted by Chula Vista in this Agreement and the
detaChment of all Landfill Property from Chula vista's territory
required by this Agreement.
19. fartial Invaliditv. If any material covenant, term,
condition or provision of this Agreement is held invalid, void or
unenforceable by final order or judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder of this agreement shall nevertheless
remain valid and enforceable.
20. Recision, Modification and Termination. Either the
County or Chula vista may rescind its approval of this Agreement
%8-AI
MAY-09-1996 14:56
P.12
~~
at any time prior to the date for which LAFCO has scheduled the
commencement of a hearing on the first annexation to which the
Property Tax Exchange Agreement relates, provided that the
Property Tax Exchange Agreement is rescinded at the same time.
Thereafter, no amendment, modification, recision or termination
of this Agreement or any provision thereof shall be valid or
binding unless it be in writing and approved by both the County's
Board of Supervisors and Chula Vista's City Council. This
Agreement shall terminate upon closure of the Landfill (except
that the parties shall thereafter comply with Section S> or after
fifty years, or upon the date that the Property Tax Bxchange
Agreement terminates pursuant to its terms. whichever is earlier.
COUNTy OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By
By
TOTAL P.12
J5B-e9Jt
Q
Z
W
C)
W
..J
.:!.
en'"
>E
,!!::i
:1 ~
.c:t::
00
I
1
1
1
1
.
.
~.....
.
.
.
.
1_-...
1
1
1
1..-,
IJ
1 "
-
1
1
J
\
-,J
\
\, *" :
J
(J.
'0
C
CG.
as
fCG
CDt)
>...
-...
0:::(1)
o.c
...U
...c
UCG)(
CD 0::: CG...
"E>J-C
:1 CG ~CD
en"'t:S
. 0 CD CD
CG CD CLCD
CD en 0 ...
.(~~~
o
+II
--
.c
--
..c:
><
W
.
.
.......
o
...
...
U...)(
.!. CD CG...
,g......C
:1 en ~CD
en CGt: E
en:E CD CD
CG. CLCD
CD CO 0 ...
... en ... C)
c:(~Q.c:(
I
)'513 - ~
-
-
l;::
'0
C
CG
..J
~
...
C
:1
o
o
z~
.
~
~~l:ll ~j il ~
~I 5~1 ~
~
.
en
:I
:E
N
~
o
I
. I
1--
.~
: I
",I
RESOLUTION NO.J t fJI. ~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA REGARDING JURISDICTION OVER AND
OPERATION OF OTAY LANDFILL
WHEREAS, as a component of the pending actions on the
proposed Sphere of Influence for Otay Ranch and subsequent property
tax agreement and annexation of the western parcel, the County
wishes to ensure that the City will not interfere with the ongoing
operation or expansion of the Otay Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the County does not wish the current litigation
and potential early closing of San Marcos Landfill to be repeated
in the South Bay as a result of the actions of the City and this
agreement addresses that protection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement between the
County of San Diego and the City of Chula vista regarding Otay
Ranch Sphere of Influence and Operation of Otay Landfill.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said
Agreement for and on behalf of the City o:f Chula vista.
John D. Goss, City Manager
~p~oved as to form by
~,;.,.,,~ J.r~lfc I"k.
I 10 J & It", fi,;,.J V<< $11':-
~ .$-
ruce M.
Attorney
Presented by
C:\rs\landfill.agr
IS8-Ji{
IS- S
5/14/96 (5:30pm)
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REGARDING
JURISDICTION OVER AND OPERATION OF OTAY LANDFILL
This agreement is entered into as of the ___ day of
1996, by and between the County of San Diego, a political
subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter "County"),
and the City of Chula Vista, a municipal corporation of the State
of California (hereinafter "Chula Vista"), with reference to the
following: .
RECITALS
A. The County and Chula Vista have jointly planned and
approved the development of that project known as "Otay Ranch" on
properties which lie generally easterly of Chula vista's current
easterly territorial boundary. In connection therewith, Chula
vista desires to amend its Sphere of Influence ("SOl"). This
will require approval by the Local Agency Formation commission of
the County of San Diego ("LAFCO"). Chula vista also desires to
annex territory within the SOl.
B. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 99, the
County and Chula vista have negotiated and, contemporaneously
with this Agreement, are entering into an agreement entitled,
"Agreement Between County of San Diego and City of Chula vista
Regarding rropcrty Tax Tranafcr For Anncxation(o)Terms Of Otay
Ranch rropcrtyAnnexations To Chula vista Includinq Prooertv Tax
Transfer Aqreement" (hereinafter, the "Property Tax
ExohangcTransfer Agreement"). The Property Tax ExchangcTransfer
Agreement is on file with the County's Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors as Document No.
C. The County owns and operates a solid waste landfill
facility, composed of both (1) a portion which consists of
approximately 265 acres lying within the territorial limits of
Chula vista (the "Otay Sanitary Landfill"h and (2) the Otay
Annex Sanitary Landfill, which is adjacent and consists of
approximately 251 acres lying in the unincorporated territory of
the County. The landfill facility is described and shown in the
"otay Landfill Project Description" which is attached as "Exhibit
A" hereto, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Landfill." The
property owned by the County, on which the Landfill is operated,
is more particularly dcooriecdshown on "Exhibit B" hereto, and is
hereinafter referred,to as the "Landfill Property".
D. ~he County and Chula vista each recognize the benefits
to the citizens of Chula vista and of the County which will
result from the continued operation of the Landfill by the
County, and they both desire to en~ure and facilitate such
continued operation notwithstanding any expansion of the SOl or
154-~S-
2
approvals of annexations of nearby lands to Chula vista. To that
e~d, the parties desire to detach from Chula vista that portion
of the Landfill Property which is currently within Chula vista's
territorial limits.
E. Under California Law, the County is generally not
subject to regulation by Chula vista in operation of County
facilities on land which the County owns within the territorial
boundaries of Chula Vista; however, in the event that any portion
of the Landfill remains or becomes included within Chula Vista's
territorial limits, Public Resources Code Section 49400 requires
the County to obtain the consen~ of Chula Vista's City Council
for the acquisition and operation of the Landfill, and Public
Resources Code Section 50000.5 prohibits the establishment or
operation of a solid waste facility unless the city or county in
which the site is located makes a finding that the establishment
or expansion is consistent with the general plan of the city or
county.
WHEREFORE, the County and Chula vista represent and agree as
follows:
AGREEMENT
1. county position Reqardinq Sphere of Influence and
Annexation. The County supports the amendment of Chula vista's
SOl to include that territory shown as "SDhere of Influence Area"
on "Exhibit C" hereto, so long as the Landfill Property remains
designated as a "special Study Area." The County will formally
communicate its position of support to LAFCO. The County further
will not oppose annexation of any land within the SOl territory
shown as "Annexation Area" on "Exhibit C" to Chula Vista,
provided that the first. such annexation is part of a
reorganization which includes the detachment referred to in
section 2 below. These duties of the County shall in no way
affect the discretion or voting of any members of LAFCO which are
also members of county's Board of supervisors.
2. Detachment of Otav Sanitarv Landfill From Chula Vista.
Chula vista has filed an application with LAFCO for the
detachment of the Otay Sanitary Landfill property from Chula
vista, so that all of the Landfill Property will be located in
the unincorporated area of the County. Chula vista shall
diligently and in good faith pursue said detachment proposal with
the first application it files with LAFCO to annex any part of
the Otay Ranch property to Chula Vista; The County agrees to
fully cooperate in good faith with Chula vista to enable
completion of said detachment, and to defend and indemnify Chula
vista for any litigation which may be commenced to challenge said
detachment solely on the grounds of allegedly inadequate
environmental review.
/5-d -do"
3
3. Consent For Operation of Landfill. The following
provisions of this section 3 are applicable only during such time
that any part of the Landfill Property remains included within
Chula vista's corporate boundaries, and shall again become
applicable at any time that all.or any part of the Landfill
Property, shall in the future be annexed to Chula vista without
the prior written approval of the County's Board of supervisors:
(a) Chula vista hereby grants its consent to the operation
of the Landfill, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
49400. Said consent includes the existing as well as the
ultimate use, development and expansion of the Landfill as
shown and described in "Exhibit A" hereto.
(b) Chula vista further finds that the establishment and
operation of the Landfill, including the ultimate use,
development and expansion of the Landfill as shown in
"Exhibit A" hereto, are consistent with the Chula vista
general plan.
(c) Chula vista agrees that, except with the prior written
approval of the County's Board of Supervisors, said consent
and said finding of consistency shall remain in effect
throughout the term of this Agreement. If either is
withdrawn, rescinded, revised or amended with regard to the
Otay Sanitary Landfill prior to the date the detachment
referred to in section 2 becomes effective, Chula vista
shall be liable to County for any loss or damages resulting
therefrom. If either is withdrawn, rescinded, revised, or
amended with regard to any of the Landfill Property after
any of the Landfill Property has been annexed to Chula Vista
following the date of this Agreement, the Special Remedies
provided at section 14 shall apply.
(d) Chula vista further agrees and represents that, having
given said consent and finding of consistency, no
Conditional Use Permit or other permit or approval is or
will be required from Chula vista for the continued
operation of the Landfill as shown on "Exhibit A."
4. Imposition of Fees Upon. or Annexation or Requlation of
Landfill Propertv.
(a) In the event that Chula vista adopts any toll, "host
fee" or other fee or charge upon the establishment or
operation of the Landfill, it shall immediately and no less
than monthly, transmit to County all amounts collected
thereby.
(b) The Special Remedies provided at section 14 of this
Agreement shall apply if any portion of the Landfill
Property is annexed to Chula vista after the date of this
1.5& -e7.1-
/
4
Agreement without the prior written approval of the County's
Board of Supervisors. The Special Remedies provided at
section 14 shall not, however, apply in the instance of an
annexation of any portion of the Landfill Property resulting
from state legislation if the Chula vista City Council has
expressed formal written opposition to the legislation. The
Special Remedies provided at section 14 of this Agreement
shall also apply if, at any time when any portion of the
Landfill Property is within Chula vista's jurisdiction,
Chula vista amends or repeals its general plan in such a way
that the establishment or expansion of the Landfill becomes
inconsistent with the general plan, or adopts or imposes any
zoning, land use or other regulation or requirement (other
than one covered by paragraph (a) of this section) upon, and
which adversely affects, the operation of the Landfill.
5. Landfill Access Streets.
(a) Chula vista agrees to maintain in good condition
throughout the term of this Agreement the following streets
which serve as access to the Landfill:
otay Valley Road, from I-80S to otay Rio Road; and
Maxwell Road, from otay Valley Road to the Landfill
For purposes of this paragraph (a), "good condition" shall
mean reasonable driving condition substantially equal to
other roads within Chula vista of a similar age and
construction, but not less than an operable condition so as
to facilitate such access by trash hauling vehicles. Said
streets may be closed temporarily for required maintenance
or repair work, provided that, unless otherwise approved by
County's Director of Public Works in advance and in writing,
such closure shall not occur more than once in any six month
period and shall not be for more than seven days at a time.
(b) Chula vista further agrees that, if it should ever
impose upon said streets weight or other restrictions-more
severe than are stated in Chapter 5 of Division 15 of the
Vehicle Code, or if it should change the classifications of
said streets as shown in its general plan circulation
element on the date of this Agreement, then the special
Remedies provided for in section 14 of this Agreement shall
apply, unless such restrictions or change in classification
is approved in advance by County's Board of supervisors.
(c) Chula vista further agrees that if it should ever adopt
or impose any tolls or other fees or charges for the use of
said streets upon trash trucks or other vehicles using said
streets for access to the Landfill, it will immediately pay
to county, no less frequently than monthly, all amounts
/58-,;)1
5
collected thereby.
6. Landfill Buffer Area.
(a) Chula Vista ~hall commence, diligently and in good
faith pursue, and complete within 730 days after the date
this Agreement is enterei into, proceedings to revise its
general plan, zoning and other applicable land use .
regulations so that no residential land uses are permitted
within that area identified as "Village 2" ein the Otay
Ranch General Develooment P~n (adopted by Chula vista on
October 15. 1993) and also within the BOtay Landfill Buffer
AreaJ1. as described in "Exhibit B" and shown on "Exhibit 0"
hereto, shown on "Exhibit 0" hereto, and all uses permitted
are compatible with the use and operation of the Landfill.
Chula vista's failure to do so shall constitute a breach of
this Agreement for which the Special Remedies specified at
section 14 shall apply, except that the remedy of payment
of closure costs (Section 14(c)) shall only apply if a court
of competent jurisdiction orders the closure of the Landfill
based upon such incompatibility. Prior to holding any
hearings on such general plan amendment, Chula Vista shall
consult with County bY written communication to County's
Chief Administrative Officer and County agrees that it's
Board of Supervisors will respond within 60 days, advising
Chula vista whether the proposed general plan amendment is
compatible with the Landfill. The County agrees to fully
cooperate in good faith with Chula Vista to enable
completion of said general plan amendment. This 730 days
shall be extended to compensate, day-for-day, for the amount
of time during which a court of competent jurisdiction, in a
suit brought by a ~arty other than Chula Vista, has issued
an order or judgment prohibiting Chu~a vista from proceeding
with said proceedings. In the event Chula Vista adopts such
a general plan amendment, .which is subsequently invalidated
by court order, Chula vista shall immediately recommence
general plan amendment proceedings within said area,
completing them and applying compatible land use
designations within two years of the date of the court
order.
(b) During the term of this Agreement, if a general plan
amendment is filed applicable to any of the area shown as
"Otay Landfill Buffer Area" on Exhibit "0" hereto, Chula
vista shall consult with the County by written communication
to County's Chief Administrative Offi~er prior to holding
any hearings on such general plan amendment. The County
agrees that its Board of Supervisors will respond within 60
days, advising Chula Vista whether the proposed general plan
amendment is compatible with the Landfill.
(c) In the event that Chula vista adopts into its general
IS 8 -~f
6
plan applicable to any of the area shown as "Otay Landfill
Buffer Area" on "Exhibit 0" hereto, provisions which the
County's Board of Supervisors has advised are incompatible
with the Landfill, shall constitute a breach of this
Agreement for which the remedies specified at section 14
shall apply, except that the remedy of paYment of closure
costs (Section 14(c)) shall only apply if a court of
competent jurisdiction orders the closure of the Landfill
based upon such incompatibility. However, a general plan
amendment which allows only the continuation of developed
land uses which are in existence with~n the incorporated
portion of said buffer area on the date of this Agreement
shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement.
(d) If Chula vista adopts a general plan amendment
applicable to any of the area shown 'as the "otay Landfill
Buffer Area" on Exhibit 0 attached hereto that permits uses
which the county's Board of supervisors has advised are
compatible with the Landfill, the County and Chula Vista
shall share equally in the defense of any litigation which
is brought challenging county's operation of the Landfill as
being inconsistent with such general plan amendment. This
obligation to share in the defense shall not obligate Chula
vista to pay any damages awarded as a result of such
litigation; however, the County and Chula Vista shall share
equally in paYment of any award of attorneys' fees.
(e) within 30 days after the date this Agreement is
approved by both parties, the County's Board of Supervisors
will advise Chula Vista in writing as to which of Chula
vista's existing non-residential general plan land use
designations permit uses which are, in County's opinion, .
compatible with the Landfill.
(f). As a condition precedent to annexation only and not as
a commitment to perform, landowners in Villages 2 and 3 and
Planning Area 18B of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
are expected to grant to County "Landfill Nuisance
Easements" substantially in the form attached-as "Exhibit E"
hereto, covering all land which is both within said villages
and Planning Area and also within the area shown as "Otay
Landfill Buffer AreaT~ on "Exhibit 0" hereto. All of said
easements shall be signed, notarized and delivered to County
prior to the time of LAFCO approval of any annexation of
property within Otay Ranch to Chula vista. In the event
that said easements have not been so granted to the County
by said time, Chula vista agrees to withdraw any application
for annexation which is pending and agrees not to complete
or take any further action in furtherance of such
annexation. Failure by Chula vista to comply with the
provisions of this paragraph shall constitute a breach of
this Agreement for which the Special Remedies specified at
/58-30
7
section 14 shall apply.
7. Transportation of Burn Ash Material. Chula vista agrees
not to interfere in any way with the use of its street system for
transportation of any burn ash material being delivered to the
Landfill from any site, without limitation as to amount or point
of origin, provided that applicable state and federal laws are
complied with.
8. Conversion of Landfill To Other Use(s). In the event
that the County determines to cease use of the Landfill and
convert the use of the Landfill Property to other uses, the
County shall first consult with Chula vista regarding the new
uses. Consultation shall be accomplished as follows: the County
shall deliver written notice of its intention to convert the use
of the Landfill Property to other uses to Chula vista's City
Manager at least 120 days prior to taking any action which
commits the county to any particular new use. Chula Vista's city
Council shall provide its written recommendations to the County,
if any, within said 120 days. The ~ounty shall in good faith
take Chula vista's recommendations into consideration in its
deliberations, and the use{s) to which the Landfill Property is
converted shall be compatible with a closed landfill.
9. Retained Riqhts To Review and Comment. Each party
retains its rights as provided by any applicable law to review
and comment upon a project proposed by the other. Such review
and comment by Chula Vista of any of County's proposed uses,
alterations or expansions of the Landfill shall not be considered
a breach of this Agreement provided that it does not in effect
rescind, modify or contradict the consent and finding given by
section 3 above.
10. Otav Valley Road Wideninq. Chula vista shall cause the
completion of the Otay Valley Road Widening Project, as described
in more detail in "Exhibit F" hereto. Upon completion of this
project, the County shall pay Chula vista a share of the project
costs, as follows: The County's share shall be $327,000.00.
This amount shall be paid in equal annual installments of
$65,400.00 per year, for five years, the first installment being
due on or before either June 30, 1997 or 90 days after completion
of the project, whichever is later, and. subsequent installments
being due on June 30 each year. Said paYment shall be the sole
contribution from the County f~r this project, and Chula vista
shall not impose any other assessment, charge or fee upon the
County or its agencies in relation to this project.
11. Hazardous Waste Facilitv Taxes and User Fees. In the
event that, following detachment from Chula Vista of the Otay
Sanitary Landfill, a hazardous waste processing or transfer
facility operates on a portion of that property, being operated
by a for-profit business, and the'County imposes a tax or user
/5 J3 -3/
8
fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25173.5 upon such
operation, the County shall pay Chula vista 50 per cent of all
taxes or user fees in fact collected from that business.
12. Countv's Present Landfill Plans. The County represents
to Chula vista that it currently plans to u~e the Landfill
Property only for the development, use and operation of the
Landfill as shown on plans and permits which have been approved,
or for which expansion applications have been filed prior to the
date of this Agreement.
13. ProDertv Tax Transfer Aareement. This Agreement is
contingent upon and shall only become effective if the County and
Chula vista also contemporaneously approve the Property Tax
Transfer Agreement.
14. Special Remedies For Certain Breaches. The continued
operation of the Landfill without limitation, restriction or
interference is of the essence in the making and performance of
this agreement. The County and Chula vista agree that, in the
event of a breach of a provision of this Agreement which
expressly provides that Special Remedies pursuant to this section
shall apply, the county will incur damage, the amount of which is
extremely impractical and difficult to determine, and lieu of
such actual damages, the following SpeciaL Remedies shall apply:
(a) The allocation of property tax pursuant to section 2.B
of the Property Tax ExohangcTransfer Agreement shall be
changed so that the base revenue and the annual tax
increment, including revenue for both the County and any
special districts from which property is detached, shall be
allocated 59 per cent to the County and 41 per cent to Chula
vista. This change shall be effected by the County's
Auditor upon receipt of a resolution adopted pursuant to
paragraph (b) of section 15. Chula vista shall pay to the
County, within 180 days of written demand therefor
accompanied by a certified copy of said resolution, an
amount which equals the difference between the property tax
received by Chula vista pursuant to the Property Tax
Transfer Agreement for all years subsequent to the date of
this Agreement and the amount which Chula vista would have
received if the allocation of property tax had been changed
to 59 per cent to the county and 41 per cent to Chula vista
upon the commencement of operation of the Property Tax
ExohangcTransfer Agreement, together with interest at the
thirty-day London Interbanking Offered Rate (LIBOR) in
effect on the date of adoDtion of the_resolution adoped
pureuantreferred to in paragraph (b) of section 15. Said
interest rate shall be applied ~o the differenoe in property
~ax amoun~G aeeoribed above durin~ ~he period from ~hc
oommenoemen~ of opera~ion of ~he Property Tax Tranofer
Agreement to the date of the Ceun~Y'G demand. as follows:
/.5/J-3~
9
For each fiscal year (JulY 1 throuqh June 30) durinq any
oortion of which this Aqreement has been in effect. the
total amount of difference in orooerty tax (as'described
above) shall be comouted as of June 30 of that fiscal year.
and interest at said rate on said total amount shall be
deemed earned and beqin to accrue as of the January 1 of
each such fiscal Year. and shall continue to accrue until
the date oavment is made to County oursuant to this
paraqraoh. .
(b) The total amount of funds which have been transferred
to Chula vista pursuant to section 2.C of the Property Tax
Transfer Agreement, together with interest computed at the
thirty-day London Interbanking Offered Rate (LIBOR) in
effect on the date of adoption of the resolution referred to
in oaragraoh (b) of section 15. Said interest shall be
deemed earned and begin to accrue as of the date of oavment
bY County of each transfer payment, and shall continue to
accrue until the date of reoavment by Chula Vista Be repaid
to the County. Such repayment shall be made within 180 days
of receipt by Chula vista of a resolution adopted pursuant
to paragraph (b) of section 15 of this Agreement. Transfer
payments required by section 2.C of the Property Tax
Transfer Agreement for all years following the date of the
breach shall not be made and shall be retained by the
County.
(c) In the even~ that the County determines that the action
by Chula vista which constitutes a breach of this Agreement
for which this Agreement specifies that this Special Remedy
is applicable, has the effect of making continued operation
of the Landfill infeasible or impractjcable, it may
determine that i~ is necessary to close the Landfill. In
that event, Chula vista shall pay all of the County's costs
associated with such closure, including, but not limited to,
the following:
design and construction of a final cover system,
design and construction of drainage structures,
design and implementation of a landscaping plan,
monitoring and management of groundwater, landfill
gas, and leachate,
inspection and maintenance activities, and
consulting, environmental, legal, and
administrative costs associated with closure.
The amount of closure costs payable shall be reduced by any
amounts which are contained in the closure fund which the
County maintains for the Landfill as of the date of the
breach which causes the closure.
15. Procedures For Enforcinq Breach. Except in cases where
/58-33
10
closure of the Landfill has been ordered by a court, prior to
effectuating any of the Special Remedies for breach of this
Agreement specified at section 14, the County shall complete the
following procedures:
(a) The County shall first provide Chula vista with written
notice that a breach has occurred, specifying the facts
constituting the breach, and shall provide a reasonable
amount of time (to be specified in the notice) for Chula
Vista to cure the breach. Said notice shall clearly
reference this Agreement", state that the alleged violation
could cause the Special Remedies for breach herein provided
and repeat said special Remedies in the notice. Said notice
shall be provided to both the City Manager and the City
Attorney of Chula Vista. "
(b) County's Board of Supervisors shall consider the matter
at a proceeding at which Chula vista is provided notice and
a reasonable opportunity to be heard. If the Board
reasonably determines that a breach of this Agreement has
occurred to which these Special Remedies apply, it shall
adopt a resolution in which the Board: determines that a
breach of this Agreement has occurred for which this
Agreement specifies that these Special Remedies are
applicable; states the factual circumstances supporting that
determination; directs the Auditor to make the change
referred to in paragraph (a) of section 14 for all
subsequent fiscal years; and, pursuant to paragraph (b) of
section 14, demands repayment of prior transfer payments and
directs that future transfer payments not be made.
16. Judicial Review. Chula vista shall have the right to
seek judicial review of the County's determination that a breach
of this Agreement has occurred, except where closure of the
Landfill has been ordered by a court. In any such action, the
parties agree that the standard of judicial review shall be the
"substantial evidence" standard, whereby the county's
determination shall be upheld if it is supported by substantial
evidence in the record before the County. In any action in which
the County's determination that a breach of this Agreement
requires closure of the Landfill is reviewed by a court, except
where closure of the Landfill has been ordered by a court, the
parties agree that the County's determination shall be reviewed
by the court exercising its independent judgment.
17. Force Majeure. No violation or breach of this
Agreement shall be deemed to have occurred if caused by an event
or act that is beyond the control of Chula Vista, such as an Act
of God, natural disaster (including, but not limited to, a flood,
fire, dam inundation, earthquake, landslide or subsidence), riot,
rebellion, or civil strife.
IS ~ - ..3"1
11
18. Entire Aareement. This Agreement and the Property Tax
Exohan~cTransfer Agreement set forth the entire agreement between
the County and Chula vista contemplated by them regarding this
matter, and supersede any and all prior or contemporaneous
agreements, understandings or representations. In particular,
any existing Conditional Use Permit(s) issued by Chula Vista,
including No. PCC-72-1, are deemed terminated and unnecessary for
the continued operation of the Landfill, based upon the consent
and findings granted by Chula vista in this Agreement and the
detachment of all Landfill Property from Chula Vista's territory
required by this Agreement.
19. Partial Invalidity. If any material covenant, term,
condition or provision of this Agreement is held invalid, void or
unenforceable by final order o~ judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder of this agreement shall nevertheless
remain valid and enforceable.
20. Addresses. Unless otherwise herein indicated. any
~tten communication required to be aiven by this Aareement
shall be delivered personallY or bY first class mail. addressed
as follows:
To the County:
To the city:
Chief Administrative Officer
County of San Oieao
1600 Pacific Hiahway
San Oieao. CA 92101-3472
city Manaaer
city of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista. CA 91910
21. Assianment of Riahts. Chula vista acknowledaes that
County may determine to transfer ownership. operation. or
maintenance of the Landfill to a Solid Waste Authority or other
successor aaency. and County may in connection therewith assian
to such successor aaency any or all of its riahts. but not its
obliaations. under this Aareement.
2GA. Recision. Modification and Termination. Either the
County or Chula vista may rescind its approval of this Agreement
at any time prior to the date for which LAFCO has scheduled the
commencement of a hearing on the first annexation to which the
Property Tax Exchan~cTransfer Agreement relates, provided that
the Property Tax Exohan~cTransfer Agreement is rescinded at the
same time. Thereafter, no amendment, modification, recision or
termination of this Agreement or any provision thereof shall be
valid or binding unless it be in writing and approved by both the
County's Board of supervisors and Chula vista's City Council.
This Agreement shall terminate upon closure of the Landfill
(except that the parties shall thereafter comply with section 8)
or after fifty years, or upon the date that the Property Tax
Exohan~cTransier Agreement terminates pursuant to its terms,
whichever is earlier.
/513-35
12
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
By
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By
/58-.3/'
EXHIBITS TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REGARDING
JURISDICTION OVER AND OPERATION OF OTAY LANDFILL
B
Otay Landfill Project Description
Otay Landfill and Buffer (Drawing) NOT SCANNED
A
C
Sphere of Influence/Annexation Areas
D
Otay Landfill Buffer Description
E
General Form of Landfill Nuisance Easement
F
Otay Valley Road Widening Project Description
..--
/5~ - 37
EXHIBIT A (Page 1)
OTAY ~DFILL DESCRIPTION
The landfill commonly known as Otay Landfill consists of two
separately permitted landfills, the original Otay Sanitary Landfill
and the Otay Annex Landfill. The otay Landfill is located about 6
miles downstream from the Lower Otay Reservoir and 3 miles east
from the San Diego Bay, about one third of a mile north of the
intersection of Otay Valley and Maxwell Roads.
On-site existing facilities that are located within the Otay
Landfill property include an access road, fee booth/entrance
facility, methane recovery/power generation plant,
recycling/buyback center, temporary hazardous waste storage area,
and the Applied Technologies II, Inc. ("Apptech") facility. The
methane plant and the Apptech facility have their own permits
issued by the applicable local, state, and federal agencies.
Future facilities and improvements contemplated for the landfill
property include a landfill gas flare station, an upgraded landfill
entrance facility, an upgraded temporary hazardous waste storage
area, and a recycling center. -
The Otay Landfill is a permitted Class III facility as defined
by Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations. It includes a
Class I area which stopped accepting hazardous waste in 1980.
Landfill disposal operations at the Otay Landfill began in 1963 and
continued up until 1980. Currently, waste disposal is limited to
the adjacent Otay Annex Landfill. Otay Landfill is regulated by
the California Integrated Waste Management Board, Regional Water
Quality Control Board, County Department of Health Services, Air
Pollution Control District, the city of Chula vista's CUP (PCC-72-
1) issued in January 1972, and other state and federal regulations.
The landfill, although not accepting waste at this time, must be
maintained and monitored regulariy to ensure compliance with the
rules and regulations required by the above agencies.
The Otay Landfill is currently permitted for 650 Tons Per Day
and a maximum elevation of 460 feet, or a total capacity of 6.4
million cubic yards. It accepts approximately 1200 tons per day.
To date, about 4.6 million cubic yards of this capacity have been
expended leaving up to 1.8 million cubic yards for future disposal.
On areas of the Landfill outside the area occupied by the Apptech
facility, all of the special waste is currently required to be non-
infectious, non-hazardous, solid or semi-solid waste acceptable at
a Class III landfill. When the remaining capacity is fully
utilized, the Otay Landfill will be closed in accordance with state
and federal regulations. Following closure, the landfill will have
to be maintained for a minimum of 30 years, as required by state
and federal regulations. The postclosure use that is currently
planned for the site is non-irrigated open space.
/5B-31
m V'l
"
::r
IJ >< (1)
~
r:' (1)
L:.. ::T 0
t-J -+.
-. ......
~., tT ~
-+.
.....
\'~I -. c:
.... (1)
~
n
- (1)
L..:. " "-
0 ~
r. ~
~
I (1)
I: x
Q)
t' c-t-
.....
0
__I ~
I . ~
. . . .... ~
. I (1)
I .
I I . Q)
Vl
o
-
N
!II:
g:
en
i li~l~ ~z
I~
I
/58-3'1
~
-
I
rl
L_.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
........
.
.
I
I
I
I r-
I m
C)
m
~~ ~5'CJ) Sfli!! nn z
ftl = "C ..< ::;:::T c
.::1 .c::T ftlftl ,<c
enftl ftlftl ... r-i>>
>C ::1" 3.!'t 3~
. nftl en.
- ftlO
0- .... ::1 ::;:en
::1 Q. en-
.
~'."---"-'"'"'-'-~'"~'-"'='~'~--"'~---
EXHIBIT 0
OT A Y lANDFILL BUFFER DESCRIPTION
(Affects Portions of Assessor.s Parcel Nos.
644-011-02; 664-020.01; 644-030$,07; 644-060-07.08;
644-181-01,02,10,11,15,16,18,19,20-23, 27- 30
644-182-01,02,03,06-12, 14-17; 644-230-11 thru 19,23-26)
Pareel No. 96-0078-A
(5/10/96)
(WAR:PET:dlg)
All those portions of Sections 17 and 18, Township 18 South, Range 1 West, San BefTUlrdino Base and
Meridian in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, together with those
portions of Lots 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 of OT A Y RANCH acc:ording to Map thereof No. 862 filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of said Courltv, together with those portion of OT A Y INDUSTRiAl
PARK, according to Map thereof No. 8147, filed in said County Recorder's Office, together with those
portions of CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 81-6, according to Map thereof No. 10974 on file in said County
Recorder's Office, all described as follows: .
BEGINNING at the South Quarter corner of said Section 18, Township 18 South, Range 1 West, San
Bernardino Base and Meridian as shown on Miscellaneous Survey No. 768 on file in the Office of the
County Engineer of said COunty; thence along the North-South Centerline of sll'id Section 18, North
00026'53'" East, 2,707.75 feet to the beginning of a tangent 1,000.00 foot radius curve, concave
Southeasterly; thence Northerly along the arc of said curve, through a centred angle of 90040'33", a
distance of 1.582.59 feet; thence tengent to said curve South 88052'34" East, 1,573.53 feet to the
beginning of a non-tangent. 1.000.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, a radial line to said
curve, at said point, bears North 70053'23" West; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve,
through 8 central angle of 55040'36", a distance of 971.74 feet; thence tangent to said curve North
74047'13'" East, 1,752.92 feet to the beginning of II tangent, 2.655.72 foot radius curve, concave
Southwesterly; thence Easterly and Southerly along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of
10205,'45", a distance of 4,767.79 feet; thence tangentto said curve South 02021 '02" East, 846.12
feet to the beginning of a tangent 1,000.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly; thence
Southerly along the arc of said curve, through a central angle 01 62023'59", a distance of 1,089.08
feet; thence tangent to said curve South 60002'67" West, 3,064.041eet to the beginning of a tangent
1,000.00 foot redlus curve, concave Northerly; thence Westerly along the arc of saId curve, through
a central angle of 31015"27", a distance of 545.55 feet; thence tangent to said curve North
8 8 Cl41' 36" West, 3,719.85 feet to the beginning of a tangent 1,000.00 foot radius curve, concave
Northeasterly; thence Northwester!y along the arc of said curve. through 8 central angle of
89008'29"'. IS distance of 1.555.81 feet; thence tengent to said curve North 00026'53" East, 11.05
fnet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Southeast Quarter of said Section 18 and Lots 3 and 4 end the
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 17 all in TownShip 18 South, Range 1
West AND those portions of said Lots 39, 40, 41,42, and 43 described in deed to the County of San
Diego recorded November 29, 1916 at File/Page No. 76-397242 in said County Recorde;'s Office.
BEARINGS and distances in the above description ere in terms of the California Coordinate System,
Zone VI. All distances must be multiplied by 0.99997634 to obtein ground distances.
i
Rev. "M..y 10. 1996
50300392
/S$-IIIJ
1_lrl_~'f_
, "'-
EXHIBIT E
General Form of
Landfill Nuisance Easement
v and
Covenants Running with the Land
Assessor's Parcel Project:
No.: W.O.No.:
Parcel No.:
Log No.:
Fund:
I. Grantor
[Developer's Name as Vested Title] ("Grantor"),
II. Consideration
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION
III. Granting Clause
does hereby GRANT to the
IV. Grantee
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a political subdivision of the State of
California, ("Grantee") as owners of the property adjacent
thereto described as follows:
V. Dominent Tenement
[Describe entire Landfill Property]
VI. Successors
and their successors in interest to the Dominent Tenement
hereinafter described
.
VII. Easement
an easement ("Nuisance Easement") over all that real property
in the County of San Diego, State of California, described as
follows:
[Legal Description of the 1,000 most proximal feet of
village Two and Village Three]
VIII. Purpose
for the use and benefit of the Grantee, and their successor's
in interest, and invited guests thereon, in the conduct of
solid waste landfilling operations on Dominant Tenement, for
the free and unobstructed passage on, onto, in, through, and
across the surface and airspace above the surface of the
/58-4/
\ '
hereinafter described property ("serviant Tenement") of the
following things ("Nuisance Items"):
dust; noise; vibrations; any and all chemicals or
particles suspended (permanently or temporarily) in the
air and wind including but' not limited to methane gas;
odors; fumes; fuel particles; seagulls and other
scavenger birds and the excrement droppings therefrom;
and the free and unobstructed passage below the surface
of lechate and other pollutants; and for each, every and
all effects as may be caused by or result from, the
operation of a landfill which is now in existence or
which may be developed in the future,
Together with the continuing right to cause or allow in all of
such Servient Tenement such Nuisance Items,
IX. Acknowledgment of Rights
it being understood and agreed that Grantee, or its successors
in interest, intends to develop, maintain and expand the land-
fill on the adjacent Dominant Tenement in such a manner that
said landfill and the easement granted herein will be used at
all times
X. waiver or Rights and Causes of Action
and Grantor, for Grantor and the successors in interest and
assigns of Grantor, does hereby fully waive and release any
right or cause or action which they or any of them now have or
may have in the future against Grantee, its successors and
assigns, on account of or arising out of such Nuisance Items
heretofore and hereafter caused by the operation of a
landfill;
XI. Covenant Not to Sue, Running with the Land
Grantor, for Grantor and the successors in interest and
assigns of Grantor, covenants and agrees, with the
understanding and intent that such shall run with the land,
and which shall run with the land, that neither they nor any
of them will commence or maintain a suit,' action, writ,
arbitration, or other legal or equitable proceeding against
the Grantee or its successor or assigns wherein the relief
sought is the cessation or limitation on the use,of Grantor's
Dominant Tenement as a landfill.
XII. Covenant To Pay Attorney Fees and Costs; Running With the
Land
Grantor, for Grantor and the successors in interest and
assigns of Grantor, covenants and agrees, with the
understanding and intent that such shall run with the land,
and which shall run with the land, that in the event that they
154-Jj~
violate the Covenant Not to Sue, they shall be pay to Grantee
such attorneys fees and costs as may be determined to be
reasonable the a Court of competent jurisdiction.
easemntl.wp
/5/3-~J--
EXHIBIT F
Otay Valley Road Widening Project Description
Otay Valley Road Phases I, II & III
Phase I
Widen Otay Valley Road to a 6-lane Prime Arterial street within a 128 ft. Right-of-way between
the intersections with I -805 and Nirvana Ave. (Approximately 5700 ft.) The project to include:
16-ft wide landscaped median or traversable median, 4-12 ft. Travel lanes and two 6-ft.
Emergency parking/bike lanes. Improvements to include grading, pavement, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, drainage facilities, water mains, street lights, and dry utilities.
Phase II
Widen Otay Valley Rd to a 5 lane facility beginning at Nirvana Ave. and continuing east
approximately 5,000 ft. Project to include 3 12-ft. lanes in the west direction 2-12ft. lanes in
the east direction, a raised median and emergency parking/bike lane on both sides.
Phase III
Widen the north/south portion of Otay Valley Rd. to allow for three lanes. One lane in each
direction plus the ability to have an additional lane for traffic in one direction that can be
switched. This project also includes the widening of an 80 ft. long bridge 52-ft. wide.
Cost
Phase I and II -
Phase III
$11.9 million
$0.9 million
JPL[m:\home\engineer\admin\landfil.jpl]
IS&-4/f
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item J~ {J
Meeting Date Mav 14. 1996
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION I 1 ~ 6i AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE
BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-97; THE
ENTERING INTO AN AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE
OF POWERS AGREEMENT; THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A
1996-97 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE THEREFORE
AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES CASH
FLOW FINANCING PROGRAM
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
INCLUDE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 PROPOSED BUDGET
APPROPRIATIONS OF $242,860 FOR TAX AND REVENUE
ANTICIPATION NOTE PROJECTED INTEREST AND ISSUANCE
COSTS AND ESTIMATED INTEREST REVENUES OF $235,000
FROM INVESTMENT OF THE NOTE PROCEEDS
SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Finance
;v
REVIEWED BY:
City Manage~
(4/5ths Vote: Yes _No~)
SUMMARY:
It is being recommended that the City join the California Statewide Communities
Development Authority (CSCDA) in order to take advantage of the opportunity to
borrow money on a short-term basis at the lowest cost. Such a borrowing is
recommended as an alternative to borrowing from other City Funds in order to cover
the temporary cash shortfalls that occur in the General Fund during the year due to
the cyclical nature of some of our major revenue sources.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolutions which:
1 . Approve a joint powers agreement with the CSCDA;
2. Authorize the borrowing of a maximum of $6 million for fiscal year
1996-97 by issuance of a Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note through
the California Communities Cash Flow Financing Program;
3. Direct the City Manager to include the estimated interest cost of the
borrowing and estimated interest revenues from investment of the note
proceeds in the fiscal year 1996-97 proposed budget.
/1, fJ - )
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 5/14/96
DISCUSSION:
As we work our way through the impacts of the recession, the City's reserves have
decreased to the point where they are insufficient to provide enough cash during
certain times of the year to cover our fairly consistent expenditure patterns until our
larger sources of revenue are received. This is most acute early in each fiscal year
prior to receiving the first large property tax apportionment in mid-December. It
should be noted that this situation is not at all uncommon for local government
entities, especially those funded in large part by property tax revenues.
Under the new direction from the Council regarding Funds with temporarily insufficient
cash balances, Funds such as the General Fund are actually being charged interest at
the pool earnings rate when there is a temporary cash shortfall. While this treatment
is one method to offset the temporary cash shortage, Tax and Revenue Anticipation
Notes (TRANS) are the most commonly used vehicle to obtain large amounts of cash
on a short-term basis, and as explained under Fiscal Impact, are typically less
expensive. Issuing TRANS is an established annual event for many local government
entities, including the County, and the Cities of San Diego, Oceanside, EI Cajon, and
La Mesa. In addition, many school districts also issue TRANS on an annual basis.
Basically, money is borrowed through the municipal market by issuing a one year at
short-term tax exempt rates and may be invested at the higher pool rate until needed.
All money borrowed, plus interest must be repaid at the end of the fiscal year from
any unrestricted revenues of the City. With the difference in the interest rate earned
vs. paid (current spread 1.5% - 2.0%), there is often the opportunity to actually earn
a small amount of arbitrage on this type of borrowing, although this possibility has
been severely curtailed with recent federal tax law changes which limit the amount
borrowed.
It should be noted that when the TRANS are actually priced in mid-June, in the
unlikely event that the interest rate actually achieved is so high as to make the TRANS
borrowing more expensive than an internal borrowing, we can and will abort the
transaction at that time with no cost to the City and cover the temporary shortfalls
with the previously used internal borrowing mechanism. In any event, an
informational item describing the results of the process would be presented to Council
at that time.
The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), sponsored
by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, has
operated a pooled TRANS program for member agencies for several years. The
CSCDA Pool for 1995 included 70 different local government entities. For the small
issuer as the City of Chula Vista would be when compared to larger Counties and
Schools, the pooled concept offers significant savings through sharing the costs of
/1, R-<
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 5/14/96
issuance, a streamlined process, greater market access normally afforded only large
issuers, etc. Membership in CSCDA costs nothing and commits the City to nothing,
yet offers significant opportunities for low cost financing of not only short-term cash
needs, but other long-term project financing as well.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Very preliminary cash flow projections show that the General Fund could incur a
maximum temporary cash shortfall of approximately $3.73 million in late November,
early December based on a balanced budget of $56.1 million. Under current federal
tax laws, the City may borrow on a tax exempt basis an amount not to exceed the
projected maximum deficit plus a reasonable working capital reserve, which is
calculated at $2.24 million based on a prescribed formula, for a estimated borrowing
of $5.97 million. The CSCDA financing team is currently estimating an interest rate
on the TRANS of 3.8%, and a cost of issuance of $16,000 for the City.
Given these projections, the cost of the TRANS would be $242,860 (interest of
$226,860 and cost of issuance of $16,000). Estimated revenue from investing the
proceeds of the borrowing at the weighted average pool earnings rate (5.5%) until
needed is projected to be $235,000. Therefore, the net cost of the TRANS issue is
estimated to be $7,860.
If an internal borrowing is utilized in place of the recommended TRANS issue, the cost
to the General Fund would be approximately $80,000 in interest cost (5.5% interest
rate) which it would have to pay to the pool in order to keep all other City Funds,
especially restricted Funds, whole. In summary, it is estimated that the TRANS issue
would save the City approximately $72,140 ($80,000 vs. $7,860) during fiscal year
1996-97.
II, ~ :3
.",/'.
EXHmIT A
[NAME OF LOCAL AGENCY]
1996-1997 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE, [SERIES--l~
Interest Rate
Maturity Date
Date of
Original Issue
REGISTERED OWNER:
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:
DOLLARS
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the Local Agency designated above (the "Local Agency"),
acknowledges itself indebted to and promises to pay to the registered owner identified above, or registered
assigns, on the maturity date set forth above, the principal sum specified above in lawful money of the
United States of America, together with interest thereon at the rate of interest specified above (the "Note
Rate"). Principal of and interest on this Note are payable in such coin or currency of the United States
as at the time of payment is legal tender for payment of private and public debts, such principal and
interest to be paid upon surrender hereof at the principal corporate trust office of U . S. Trust Company
of California, N.A. in Los Angeles, California, or its successor in trust (the "Trustee"). Interest shall
be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year, consisting of twelve 30-day months, in like lawful money
from the date hereof until the maturity date specified above and, if funds are not provided for payment.
at maturity, thereafter on the basis of a 360-day year for actual days elapsed until payment in full of said
principal sum. Both the principal of and interest on this Note shall be payable only to the registered
owner hereof upon surrender of this Note as the same shall fall due; provided, however, no interest shall
be payable for any period after maturity during which the holder hereof fails to properly present this Note
for payment. If the Local Agency fails to pay this Note when due or the Credit Provider (as defined in
the Resolution hereinafter described and in that certain Indenture of Trust, dated as of 1,
1996 (the "Indenture"), by and between the California Statewide Communities Development Authority
and U.S. Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee), if any, is not reimbursed in full for the amount
drawn on or paid pursuant to the Credit Instrument (as defined in the Resolution and the Indenture) to
pay all or a portion (including the interest component, if applicable) of this Note on the date of such
payment, this Note shall become a Defaulted Note (as defined in the Resolution and the Indenture and
with the consequences set forth in the Resolution and the Indenture, including, without limitation, that
this Note as a Defaulted Note (and any related reimbursement obligation with respect to a credit
instrument) shall bear interest at the Default Rate, as defined in the.Indenture).
It is hereby certified, recited and declared that this Note represents the authorized issue
of the Note in the aggregate principal amount authorized, executed and delivered pursuant to and by
authority of certain resolutions of the Local Agency duly passed and adopted heretofore, under and by
authority of Article 7.6 (commencing with Section 53850) of Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of
the California Government Code (collectively, the "Resolution"), to all of the provisions and limitations
of which the owner of this Note, by acceptance hereof, assents and agrees.
The principal of the Note, together with the interest thereon, shall be payable from taxes,
income, revenue, cash receipts and other moneys which are received by the Local Agency for the general
fund of the Local Agency and are attributable to Fiscal Year 1996-1997 and which are available for
payment thereof. As security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note, the Local
Agency has pledged the first amounts of unrestricted revenues of the Local Agency received on the last
day of _ and _ (and any amounts received thereafter attributable to Fiscal Year 1996-1997) until
the amount on deposit in the Payment Account (as defined in the Resolution), together with available
amounts, if any, on deposit in the Payment Subaccount (as defined in the Resolution) in each such month,
is equal to the corresponding percentages of principal of and interest due on the Note at maturity set forth
in the Pricing Confirmation (as defined in the Resolution) (such pledged amounts being hereinafter called
the "Pledged Revenues"), and the principal of the Note and the interest thereon shall constitute a first lien
~ If more than one Series of Bondi is issued under the Program in Fiscal Year 1995-1996 and if the Note is pooled with
notes issued by other Issuers (88 defined in the Resolution).
LAl-132041.1
A-l
j~/J -/7
and charge thereon and shall be payable from the Pledged Revenues, and to the extent not so paid shall
be paid from any other moneys of the Local Agency lawfully available therefor as set forth in the
Resolution. The full faith and credit of the Local Agency is not pledged to the payment of the principal
of or interest on this Note.
The Local Agency and the Trustee may deem and treat the registered owner hereof as
the absolute owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of principal hereof and
interest due hereon and for all other purposes, and the Local Agency and the Trustee shall not be affected
by any notice to the contrary.
It is hereby certified that all of the conditions, things and acts required to exist, to have
happened and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Note do exist, have
happened and have been performed in due time, form and manner as required by the Constitution and
statutes of the State of California and that the amount of this Note, together with all other indebtedness
of the Local Agency, does not exceed any limit prescribed by the Constitution or statutes of the State of
California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Legislative Body of the Local Agency has caused this
Note to be executed by the manual or facsimile signature of a duly Authorized Representative of the
Local Agency and countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the Secretary or Clerk of the
Legislative Body as of the date of authentication set forth below.
[NAME OF LOCAL AGENCY]
By
Title:
Countersigned
By
Title:
LAH32041.1
A-2
J&/J - J~
AMENDED AND RESTATED
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
RELATING TO THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of June 1, 1988, by and
among the parties executing this Agreement (all such parties,
except those which have withdrawn in accordance with Section
13 hereof, being herein referred to as the "Program
Participants"):
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5
of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Joint
Exercise of Powers Act"), two or more public agencies may by
agreement jointly exercise any power common to the contracting
parties; and
WHEREAS, each of the Program Participants is a
"public agency" as that term is defined in Section 6500 of the
Government Code of the State of California, and
WHEREAS, each of the Program Participants is
empowered to promote economic development, including, without
limitation, the promotion of opportunities for the creation or
retention of employment, the stimulation of economic activity,
and the increase of the tax base, within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, a public entity established pursuant to
the Joint Exercise of Powers Act is empowered to issue
industrial development bonds pursuant to the California
Industrial Development Financing Act (Title 10 (commencing
with Section 91500 of the Government Code of the State of
California)) (the "Act") and to otherwise undertake financing
programs under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act or other
applicable provisions of law to promote economic development
through the issuance of bonds, notes, or other evidences of
indebtedness, or certificates of participation in leases or
other agreements (all such instruments being herein
collectively referred to as "Bonds"); and
WHEREAS, in order to promote economic development
within the State of California, the County Supervisors
Association of California ("CSAC"), together with the
California Manufacturers Association, has established the
Bonds for Industry program (the "Program").
J~/J --/9
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Program, certain
California counties (collectively, the "Initial Participants")
have entered into that certain Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement dated as of November 18, 1987 (the "Initial
Agreement"), pursuant to which the California Counties
Industrial Development Authgrity has been established as a
separate entity under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act for the
purposes and with the powers specified in the Initial
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities ("LCC")
has determined to join as a sponsor of the Program and to
actively participate in the administration of the Authority;
and
WHEREAS, the Initial Participants have determined
to specifically authorize the Authority to issue Bonds
pursuant to Article 2 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act
("Article 2") and Article 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers
Act ("Article 4"), as well as may be authorized by the Act or
other applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Participants desire to rename
the California Counties Industrial Development Authority to
better reflect the additional sponsorship of the Program; and
WHEREAS, each of the Initial Participants has
determined that it is in the public interest of the citizens
within its boundaries, and to the benefit of such Initial
Participant and the area and persons served by such Irtitial
Participant, to amend and restate in its entirety the Initial
Agreement in order to implement the provisions set forth
above; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Program
Participants to use a public entity established pursuant to
the Joint Exercise of Powers Act to undertake projects within
their respective jurisdictions that may be financed with Bonds
issued pursuant to the Act, Article 2, Article 4, or other
applicable provisions of law; and
WHEREAS, the projects undertaken will result in
significant public benefits, including those public benefits
set forth in Section 91502.1 of the Act, an increased level of
economic activity, or an increased tax base, and will
therefore serve and be of benefit to the inhabitants of the
jurisdictions of the Program Participants;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Program Participants, for and
in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements herein
contained, do agree to amend and restate the Initial Agreement
in its entirety to provide as follows:
2 J~/9"oZtJ
379hS
Section 1. Purpose.
This Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions of
the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, relating to the joint
exercise of powers common to public agencies, in this case
being the Program Participants. The Program Participants each
possess the powers referred to in the recitals hereof. The
purpose of this Agreement is to establish an agency for, and
with the purpose of, issuing Bonds to finance projects within
the territorial limits of the Program Participants pursuant to
the Act, Article 2, Article 4, or other applicable provisions
of law; provided, however that nothing in this Agreement shall
be construed as a limitation on the rights of the Program
Participants to pursue economic development outside of this
Agreement, including the rights to issue Bonds through
industrial development authorities under the Act, or as
otherwise permitted by law.
Within the various jurisdictions of the Program
Participants such purpose will be accomplished and said powers
exercised in the manner hereinafter set forth.
Section 2. Term.
This Agreement shall become effective in accordance
with Section 18 as of the date hereof and shall continue in
full force and effect for a period of forty (40) years from
the date hereof, or until such time as it is terminated in
writing by all the Program Participants; provided, however,
that this Agreement shall not terminate or be terminated until
the date on which all Bonds or other indebtedness issued or
caused to be issued by the Authority shall have been retired,
or full provision shall have been made for their retirement,
including interest until their retirement date.
Section 3. Authority.
A. CREATION AND POWERS OF AUTHORITY.
(1) Pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, there
is hereby created a public entity to be known as the
"California Statewide Communities Development Authority" (the
"Authority"), and said Authority shall be a public entity
separate and apart from the Program Participants. Its debts,
liabilities and obligations do not constitute debts,
liabilities or obligations of any party to this Agreement.
B. COMMISSION.
The Authority shall be administered by a Commission
(the "Commission") which shall consist of seven members, each
3
J j;/J -02/
'":l7Qh<;
serving in his or her individual capacity as a member of the
Commission. The Commission shall be the administering agency
of this Agreement, and, as such, shall be vested with the
powers set forth herein, and shall execute and administer this
Agreement in accordance with the purposes and functions
provided herein.
Four members of the Commission shall be appointed by
the governing body of CSAC and three members of the Commission
shall be appointed by the governing body of LCC. Initial
members of the Commission shall serve a term ending June I,
1991. Successors to such members shall be selected in the
manner in which the respective initial member was selected and
shall serve a term of three years. Any appointment to fill an
unexpired term, however, shall be for such unexpired term.
The term of office specified above shall be applicable unless
the term of office of the respective member is terminated as
hereinafter provided, and provided that the term of any member
shall not expire until a successor thereto has been appointed
as provided herein.
Each of CSAC and LCC may appoint an alternate member
of the Commission for each member of the Commission which it
appoints. Such alternate member may act as a member of the
Commission in place of and during the absence or disability of
such regularly appointed member. All references in this
Agreement to any member of the Commission shall be deemed to
refer to and include the applicable alternate member when so
acting in place of a regularly appointed member:
Each member or alternate member of the Commission
may be removed and replaced at any time by the governing body
by which such member was appointed. Any individual, including
any member of the governing body or staff of CSAC or LCC,
shall be eligible to serve as a member or alternate member of
the Commission.
Members and alternate members of the Commission
shall not receive any compensation for serving as such but
shall be entitled to reimbursement for any expenses actually
incurred in connection with serving as a member or alternate
member, if the Commission shall determine that such expenses
shall be reimbursed and there are unencumbered funds available
for such purpose.
C. OFFICERS; DUTIES; OFFICIAL BONDS.
The Commission shall elect a Chair, a Vice-Chair,
and a Secretary of the Authority from among its members to
serve for such term as shall be determined by the Commission.
The Commission shall appoint one or more of its officers or
379h5
4 /<f~-:2;2
employees to serve as treasurer, auditor, and controller of
the Authority (the "Treasurer") pursuant to Section 6505.6 of
the Joint Exercise of Powers Act to serve for such term as
shall be determined by the Commission.
Subject to the applicable provisions of any
resolution, indenture or other instrument or proceeding
authorizing or securing Bonds (each such resolution,
indenture, instrument and proceeding being herein referred to
as an "Indenture") providing for a trustee or other fiscal
agent, the Treasurer is designated as the depositary of the
Authority to have custody of all money of the Authority, from
whatever source derived.
The Treasurer of the Authority shall have the
powers, duties and responsibilities specified in
Section 6505.5 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act.
The Treasurer of the Authority is designated as the
public officer or person who has charge of, handles, or has
access to any property of the Authority, and such officer
shall file an official bond with the Secretary of the
Authority in the amount specified by resolution of the
Commission but in no event less than $1,000. If and to the
extent permitted by law, any such officer may satisfy this
requirement by filing an official bond in at least said amount
obtained in connection with another public office.
The Commission shall have the power to appoint such
other officers and employees as it may deem necessary and to
- retain independent counsel, consultants and accountants.
The Commission shall have the power, by resolution,
to the extent permitted by the Joint Exercise of Powers Act or
any other applicable law, to delegate any of its functions to
one or more of the members of the Commission or officers or
agents of the Authority and to cause any of said members,
officers or agents to take any actions and execute any
documents or instruments for and in the name and on behalf of
the Commission or the Authority.
D. MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION.
(1) Reaular Meetinas.
The Commission shall provide for its regular
meetings; provided, however, it shall hold at least one
regular meeting each year. The date, hour and place of the
holding of the regular meetings shall be fixed by resolution
of the Commission and a copy of such resolution shall be filed
with each party hereto.
5
/~/l;,02J
379h5
(2) Special Meetinqs.
Special meetings of the Commission may be called 1n
accordance with the provisions of Section 54956 of the
Government Code of the State of California.
(3) Ralph M. Brown Act.
All meetings of the Commission, including, without
limitation, regular, adjourned regular, special, and adjourned
special meetings shall be called, noticed, held and conducted
in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act
(commencing with Section 54950 of the Government Code of the
State of California).
(4) Minutes.
The Secretary of the Authority shall cause to be
kept minutes of the regular, adjourned regular, special, and
adjourned special meetings of the Commission and shall, as
soon as possible after each meeting, cause a copy of the
minutes to be forwarded to each member of the Commission.
(5) Ouorum.
A majority of the members of the Commission which
includes at least one member appointed by the governing body
of each of CSAC and LCC shall constitute a quor~m for the
transaction of business. No action may be taken by the
Commission except upon the affirmative vote of a majority of
the members of the Commission which includes at least one
member appointed by the governing body of each of CSAC and
LCC, except that less than a quorum may adjourn a meeting to
another time and place.
E. RULES AND REGULATIONS.
The Authority may adopt, from time to time, by
resolution of the Commission such rules and regulations for
the conduct of its meetings and affairs as may be required.
Section 4. Powers.
The Authority shall have any and all powers relating
to economic development authorized by law to each of the
parties hereto and separately to the public entity herein
created, including, without limitation, the promotion of
opportunities for the creation and retention of employment,
the stimulation of economic activity, and the increase of the
tax base, within the jurisdictions of such parties. Such
powers shall include the common powers specified in this
6
~4~y
379h5
Agreement and may be exercised in the manner and according to
the method provided in this Agreement. All such powers common
to the parties are specified as powers of the Authority. The
Authority is hereby authorized to do all acts necessary for
the exercise of such powers, including, but not limited to,
any or all of the followinq: to make and enter into
contracts; to employ agents and employees; to acquire,
construct, provide for maintenance and operation of, or
maintain and operate, any buildings, works or improvements; to
acquire, hold or dispose of property wherever located; to
incur debts, liabilities or obligations; to receive gifts,
contributions and donations of property, funds, services and
other forms of assistance from persons, firms, corporations
and any governmental entity; to sue and be sued in its own
name; and generally to do any and all things necessary or
convenient to the promotion of economic development, including
without limitation the promotion of opportunities for the
creation or retention of emploYment, the stimulation of
economic activity, and the increase of the tax base, all as
herein contemplated. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the Authority may issue or cause to be issued
bonded and other indebtedness, and pledge any property or
revenues as security to the extent permitted under the Joint
Exercise of Powers Act, including Article 2 and Article 4, the
Act or any other applicable provision of law.
The manner in which the Authority shall exercise its
powers and perform its duties is and shall be subject to the
restrictions upon the manner in which a California county
could exercise such powers and perform such duties until a
California general law city shall become a Program
Participant, at which time it shall be subject to the .
restrictions upon the manner in which a California general law
city could exercise such powers and perform such duties. The
manner in which the Authority shall exercise its powers and
perform its duties shall not be subject to any restrictions
applicable to the manner in which any other public agency
could exercise such powers or perform such duties, whether
such agency is a party to this Agreement or not.
Section 5. Fiscal Year.
For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Fiscal
Year" shall mean the fiscal year as established from time to
time by the Authority, being, at the date of this Agreement,
the period from July 1 to and including the following June 30.
except for the first Fiscal Year which shall be the period
from the date of this Agreement to June 30, 1988.
7 It/f-,;L5
379hS
Section 6. Disposition of Assets.
At the end of the term hereof or upon the earlier
termination of this Agreement as set forth in Section 2
hereof, after payment of all expenses and liabilities of the
Authority, all property of the Authority both real and
personal shall automatically vest in the Program Participants
and shall thereafter remain the sole property of the Program
Participants; provided, however, that any surplus money on
hand shall be returned in proportion to the contributions made
by the Program Participants.
Section 7. Bonds.
The Authority shall issue Bonds for the purpose of
exercising its powers and raising the funds necessary to carry
out its purposes under this Agreement. Said Bonds may, at the
discretion of Authority, be issued in series.
The services of bond counsel, financing consultants
and other consultants and advisors working on the projects
and/or their financing shall be used by the Authority. The
fees and expenses of such counsel, consultants, advisors, and
the expenses of CSAC, LCC, and the Commission shall be paid
from the proceeds of the Bonds or any other unencumbered funds
of the Authority available_for such purpose.
Section 8. Bonds Only Limited and 5Decial
Obligations of Authority.
The Bonds, together with the interest and premium,
if any, thereon, shall not be deemed to constitute a debt of
any Program Participant, CSAC, or LCC or pledge of the faith
and credit of the Program Participants, CSAC, LCC, or the
Authority. The Bonds shall be only special obligations of the
Authority, and the Authority shall under no circumstances be
obligated to pay the Bonds or the respective project costs
except from revenues and other funds pledged therefor.
Neither the Program Participants, CSAC, LCC, nor the Authority
shall be obligated to pay the principal of, premium, if any,
or interest on the Bonds, or other costs incidental thereto,
except from the revenues and funds pledged therefor, and
neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the
Program Participants nor the faith and credit of CSAC, LCC, or
the Authority shall be pledged to the payment of the principal
of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds nor shall the
Program Participants, CSAC, LCC, or the Authority in any
manner be obligated to make any appropriation for such payment.
No covenant or agreement contained in any Bond or
Indenture shall be deemed to be a covenant or agreement of any
8 J6/J-~~
379h5
member of the Commission, or any officer, agent or employee of
the Authority in his individual capacity and neither the
Commission of the Authority nor any officer thereof executing
the Bonds shall be liable personally on any Bond or be subject
to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the
issuance of any Bonds.
Section 9. Local Approval.
A copy of the application for financing of a project
shall be filed by the Authority with the Program Participant
in whose jurisdiction the project is to be located. The
Authority shall not issue Bonds with respect to any project
unless the governing bOdy of the Program Participant in whose
jurisdiction the project is to be located, or its duly
authorized designee, shall approve, conditionally or
unconditionally, the project, inCluding the issuance of Bonds
therefor. Action to approve or disapprove a project shall be
taken within 45 days of the filing with the Program
Participant. Certification of approval or disapproval shall
be made by the clerk of the governing body of the Program
Participant, or by such other officer as may be designated by
the applicable Program Participant, to the Authority.
Section 10. Accounts and Reports.
All funds of the Authority shall be strictly
accounted for. The Authority shall establish and maintain
such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting
practice and by any provision of any Indenture (to the extent
such duties are not assigned to a trustee of Bonds). The
books and records of the Authority shall be open to inspection
at all reasonable times by each Program Participant.
The Treasurer of the Authority shall cause an
independent audit to be made of the books of accounts and
financial records of the Agency by a certified public
accountant or public accountant in compliance with the
provisions of Section 6505 of the Joint Exercise of Powers
Act. In each case the minimum requirements of the audit shall
be those prescribed by the State Controller for special
districts under Section 26909 of the Government Code of the
State of California and shall conform to generally accepted
auditing standards. When such an audit of accounts and
records is made by a certified public accountant or public
accountant, a report thereof shall be filed as public records
with each Program Participant and also with the county auditor
of each county in which a Program Participant is located.
Such report shall be filed within 12 months of the end of the
Fiscal Year or Years under examination.
9
~~~7
379hS
Any costs of the audit, including contracts with, or
employment of, certified public accountants or public
accountants in making an audit pursuant to this Section, shall
be borne by the Authority and shall be a charge against any
unencumbered funds of the Authority available for that purpose.
#
In any Fiscal Year the Commission may, by resolution
adopted by unanimous vote, replace the annual special audit
with an audit covering a two-year period.
The Treasurer of the Authority, within 120 days
after the close of each Fiscal Year, shall give a complete
written report of all financial activities for such Fiscal
Year to each of the Program Participants to the extent such
activities are not covered by the reports of the trustees for
the Bonds. The trustee appointed under each Indenture shall
establish suitable funds, furnish financial reports and
provide suitable accounting procedures to carry out the
provisions of said Indenture. Said trustee may be given such
duties in said Indenture as may be desirable to carry out this
Agreement.
Section 11. Funds.
Subject to the applicable provisions of each
Indenture, which may provide for a trustee to receive, have
custody of and disburse Authority funds, the Treasurer of the
Authority shall receive, have the custody of and disburse
Authority funds pursuant to the accounting procedures
developed under Section 10 hereof, and shall make the"
disbursements required by this Agreement or otherwise
necessary to carry out any of the provisions or purposes of
this Agreement.
Section 12. Notices.
Notices and other communications hereunder to the
Program Participants shall be sufficient if delivered to the
clerk of the governing body of each Program Participant.
Section 13. Withdrawal and Addition of Parties.
A Program Participant may withdraw from this
Agreement upon written notice to the Commission; provided,
however, that no such withdrawal shall result in the
dissolution of the Authority so long as any Bonds remain
outstanding under an Indenture. Any such withdrawal shall be
effective only upon receipt of the notice of withdrawal by the
Commission which shall acknowledge receipt of such notice of
withdrawal in writing and shall file such notice as an
amendment to this Agreement effective upon such filing.
10
J~ ~-c2~
379h5
Qualifying public agencies may be added as parties
to this Agreement and become Program Participants upon: (i)
the filing by such public agency of an executed counterpart of
this Agreement, together with a certified copy of the
resolution of the governing body of such public agency
approving this Agreement and the execution and delivery
hereof; and (ii) adoption of a resolution of the Commission
approving the addition of such public agency as a Program
Participant. Upon satisfaction of such conditions, the
Commission shall file such executed counterpart of this
Agreement as an amendment hereto, effective upon such filing.
Section 14. Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, the Commission
may authorize indemnification by the Authority of any person
who is or was a member or alternate member of the Commission,
or an officer, employee or other agent of the Authority, and
who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to a
proceeding by reason of the fact that such person is or was
such a member or alternate member of the Commission, or an
officer, employee or other agent of the Authority, against
expenses, judgments, fines, settlements and other amounts
actually and reasonably incurred in connection with such
proceeding, if such person acted in good faith and in a manner
such person reasonably.believed to be in the best interests of
the Authority and, in the case of a criminal proceeding, had
no reasonable cause to believe the conduct of such person was
unlawful and, in the case of an action by or in the right of
the Authority, acted with such care, including reasonable
inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position
would use under similar circumstances.
Section 15. Contributions and Advances.
Contributions or advances of public funds and of the
use of personnel, equipment or property may be made to the
Authority by the parties hereto for any of the purposes of
this Agreement. Payment of public funds may be made to defray
the cost of any such contribution. Any such advance may be
made subject to repayment, and in such case shall be repaid,
in the manner agreed upon by the Authority and the party
making such advance at the time of such advance.
Section 16. Immunities.
All of the privileges and immunities from
liabilities, exemptions from laws, ordinances and rules, all
pension, relief, disability, workers' compensation, and other
benefits which apply to the activity of officers, agents or
employees of Program Participants when performing their
11
~~~9
379hS
respective functions within the territorial limits of their
respective public agencies, shall apply to them to the same
degree and extent while engaged as members of the Commission
or otherwise as an officer, agent or other representative of
the Authority or while engaged in the performance of any of
their functions or duties extraterritorially under the
provisions of this Agreement.
Section 17. Amendments.
Except as provided in Section 13 above, this
Agreement shall not be amended, modified, or altered except by
a written instrument duly executed by each of the Program
Participants.
Section 18. Effectiveness.
This Agreement shall become effective and be in full
force and effect and a legal, valid and binding obligation of
each of the Program Participants at 9:00 a.m., California
time, on the date that the Commission shall have received from
each of the Initial Participants an executed counterpart of
this Agreement, together with a certified copy of a resolution
of the governing body of each such Initial Participant
approving this Agreement and the execution and delivery hereof.
Section 19. Partial Invaliditv.
If anyone or more of the terms, provisions,
promises, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall to
any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or
voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent .
jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions,
promises, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall not
be affected thereby, and shall be valid and enforceable to the
fullest extent permitted by law.
Section 20. Successors.
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure
to the benefit of the successors of the parties hereto.
Except to the extent expressly provided herein, no party may
assign any right or Obligation hereunder without the consent
of the other parties.
Section 21. Miscellaneous.
This Agreement may be executed in several
counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of
which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
12 I~/j-Jt/
379h5
The section headings herein are for convenience only
and are not to be construed as modifying or governing the
language in the section referred to.
Wherever in this Agreement any consent or approval
is required, the same shall~not be unreasonably withheld.
This Agreement is made in the state of California,
under the Constitution and laws of such state and is to be so
construed.
This Agreement is the complete and exclusive
statement of the agreement among the parties hereto, which
supercedes and merges all prior proposals, understandings, and
other agreements, including, without limitation, the Initial
Agreement, whether oral, written, or implied in conduct,
between and among the parties relating to the subject matter
of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper
officers thereunto duly authorized, and their official seals
to be hereto affixed, as of the day and year first above
written.
Program Participant:
[SEAL]
By
Name:
Title:
ATTEST:
By
Name:
Title:
379hS
13 /t-1-;J / )/1, IJ- 3.!J.
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
TIllS PURCHASE AG}mEMENT (the "Purchase Agreement"), dated as of the
purchase date (the "Purchase Date") specified in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof,
entered into by and between the signatory local agency designated in Exhibit A (the "Local Agency") and
the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the" Authority"), for the sale and delivery
of the principal amount specified in Exhibit A of the Local Agency's 1996-1997 Tax and Revenue
Anticipation Note (the "Note") to be issued in conjunction with the notes of other Issuers (as hereinafter
defined) participating in the Program (as hereinafter defined), as determined in the Pricing Confirmation
(as hereinafter defined), pooled with notes of other Issuers and assigned to secure a series (the "Series")
of bonds (the "Bonds") designated in Exhibit A;
WITNESSE'IlI:
WHEREAS, local agencies are authorized by Sections 53850 to 53858, both inclusive,
of the Government Code of the State of California (the" Act") (being Article 7.6, Chapter 4, Part 1,
Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code) to borrow money by the issuance of temporary notes;
WHEREAS, the legislative body of the Local Agency (the "Legislative Body") has
heretofore adopted its resolution finding that the Local Agency needs to borrow funds in its fiscal year
ending June 30, 1997 ("Fiscal Year 1996-1997") in the principal amount set forth in Exhibit A and that
it is necessary that said sum be borrowed at this time by the issuance of a note therefor in anticipation
of the receipt of taxes, income, revenue, cash receipts and other moneys to be received by the Local
Agency during or attributable to Fiscal Year 1996-1997;
WHEREAS, on the resolution date set forth in Exhibit A, the Local Agency adopted (as
specified in Exhibit A) a resolution or resolutions (collectively or singularly, as applicable, the
"Resolution") authorizing the issuance and sale of the Note in the name and on behalf of the Local
Agency;
WHEREAS, the Local Agency has determined that it is in the best interests of the Local
Agency to participate in the California Communities Cash Flow Financing Program (the "Program"),
whereby participating local agencies (the "Issuers") will simultaneously issue tax and revenue anticipation
promissory notes for purchase by the Authority;
WHEREAS, under the Program, the Authority will form one or more pools of notes (the
"Pooled Notes") and assign each note to a particular pool (the "Pool") and sell a Series of Bonds secured
by each Pool pursuant to an indenture, dated as of July 1, 1996 (the "Indenture"), by and between the
Authority and U.S. Trust Company of California, N.A. (the "Trustee"), and sell each such Series to
Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., as representative of the underwriters of the Program (collectively, the
"Underwriter");
WHEREAS, if so indicated in Exhibit A, the payment by the Local Agency of its Note
will be secured in whole or in part (jointly, but not severally. with notes of the other participating Issuers
assigned to the same Series of Bonds) by a letter of credit, policy of insurance, proceeds received from
a separate bond issue issued by the Authority for such purpose (the "Reserve Fund") or other credit
instrument (collectively, the "Credit Instrument") tt' be issued by the entity or entities designated in
Exhibit A as the credit provider (the "Credit Provider");
01996, Orrick, Harrington. Sutcliffe. All right. re.erved.
LAl-124163.1
l~rJ-- 33
WHEREAS, such Credit Instrument may be issued pursuant to a reimbursement
agreement, commitment letter, indenture or other agreement (the "Credit Agreement") as identified in
Exhibit A;
WHEREAS, in order to participate in the Program, the Local Agency has agreed to be
responsible for its share of the fees and expenses of the Trustee, and, if applicable, the Credit Provider
and the costs of issuing the Bonds, and the costs, if applicable, of issuing the Credit Instrument, which
anticipated fees, expenses and costs of issuance will be deducted from the purchase price set forth in
Exhibit A and which unanticipated fees, expenses and costs of issuance will be billed to the Local Agency
as the same may arise;
WHEREAS, the costs of issuance which will be deducted from the purchase price set
forth in Exhibit A for the Local Agency shall not exceed one percent (1 %) of the principal amount of
each Note; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program, the Authority is submitting this offer to purchase
the Note pursuant to this Purchase Agreement;
NOW, TIlEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. Oblieation to Purchase. Upon the terms and conditions and in reliance upon
the representations, warranties and agreements set forth herein, the Authority shall purchase from the
Local Agency, and the Local Agency shall sell to the Authority, the Note, as described herein and in the
Resolution.
Section 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price of the Note shall be the purchase price
set forth in the pricing confirmation attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Pricing Confirmation "). The Note
shall bear interest at an interest rate per annum set forth in the Pricing Confirmation, which is hereby
agreed to by and between the Authority and the Local Agency by its duly authorized representative
executing this Purchase Agreement on behalf of the Local Agency.
Section 3. AdjuStnients to Principal Amount of Note and Purchase Price. The
Authority and the Local Agency hereby agree that the principal amount of the Note purchased by the
Authority and sold to the Authority by the Local Agency pursuant to this Purchase Agreement may be
reduced, as determined by the Authority and each Local Agency, based upon the advice of Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe ("Bond Counsel H), in order that the proceeds produced from such sale of such
Note will be an amount which will not be subject to either (i) yield restriction (in order for interest to
be excluded from gross income under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
"Code")) or (ii) a rebate requirement (under Section 148 of the Code). The Authority and the Local
Agency hereby further agree that the purchase price of the Note shall be reduced as a result of any
reduction of the principal amount of the Note required by this section.
Section 4. Deliverv of and Pavment for the Note. The delivery of the Note (the
"Closing") shall take place at 8:00 a.m., California time, on the closing date set forth in the Pricing
Confirmation or at suck other time or date as may be mutually agreeable to the Local Agency, the
Authority and the Underwriter, at the Los Angeles office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe or such other
place as the Local Agency, the Authority and the Underwriter shalt mutually agree. At the Closing, the
Local Agency shall cause the Note to be delivered to the Authority, duly executed and authenticated,
together with the other documents hereinafter mentioned, and the proceeds of the purchase price of the
Note set forth in the Pricing Confirmation shall be deposited in an amount indicated in the Pricing
LAl-124163.1
2 /It,/J ~J1
ConfirIilation as the Deposit to Proceeds Fund which shaIl be held by the Trustee for the Local Agency
and the remainder in the Costs of Issuance Fund held thereunder.
If at any time prior to 90 days after the Closing Date, any event occurs as a result of
which information relating to the Local Agency included in the official statement of the Authority relating
to the Series of Bonds to which the Note is assigned (the "Official Statement") contains an untrue
statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein
in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the Local Agency shall
promptly notify the Authority and the Underwriter thereof, and if, in the opinion of the Authority or the
Underwriter, such event requires the preparation and publication of a supplement or amendment to the
Official Statement, the Local Agency shall cooperate with the Authority and the Underwriter in the
preparation of an amendment or supplement to the Official Statement in a form and in a manner approved
by the Authority and the Underwriter, and all reasonable expenses incurred thereby shall be paid by the
Local Agency.
Section 5. The Note. The Note shall be issued in substantially the form set forth in the
Resolution, without coupons in the fuIl principal amount set forth in Exhibit A.
Section 6. Representations and Warranties of the Local A2encv. The Local Agency-
represents and warrants to the Authority and the Underwriter that:
(a) All representations and warranties set forth in the Resolution are true and correct
on the date hereof and are made for the benefit of the Authority and the Underwriter as if set forth
herein.
(b) The information relating to the Local Agency included in the Official Statement does
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make
the statements therein in light of the circumstance under which they were made not misleading.
(c) A copy of the Resolution has been delivered to the Authority and the Underwriter,
and the Resolution will not be amended or repealed without the consent of the Authority and the
Underwriter, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld.
(d) The Local Agency acknowledges that the Authority is authorized to execute the
Indenture, to assign the Note to the Trustee under the Indenture and to issue the Series of Bonds pursuant
to the Indenture.
(e) The Local Agency shall provide the required Payment Account Deposit Certification
(upon a request therefor) in accordance with Section 5.06 of the Indenture.
Section 7. Conditions Precedent to the Closin:. Conditions precedent to the Closing
are as foIlows:
(a) The execution and delivery of the Note consistent with the Resolution.
(b) Delivery of a legal opinion addressed to the Local Agency (with a reliance letter
addressed to the Authority and the Underwriter), dated the date of Closing, of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe ("Bond Counsel ") with respect to the validity of the Note in form and substance acceptable to
the Authority and the Underwriter.
LAl-124163.1
~
3 /~~-3..!:>
(c) Delivery of a legal opinion, dated the date of Closing, of counsel to the Local
Agency, with respect to the due authorization, execution and delivery of the Note, in form and substance
acceptable to Bond Counsel.
(d) Approval by the Credit Provider of the credit of the Local Agency and inclusion
of the Local Agency's Note in the assignment, together with notes of other Issuers, to a Series of Bonds,
to secure the Series of Bonds, which approval in the event the Credit Instrument is the Reserve Fund shall
be evidenced by the issuance of an "SP-l +" rating with respect to the applicable Series of Bonds by
Standard & Poor's Ratings Group.
(e) Delivery of each certificate, document, instrument and opinion required by the
agreement between the Authority and the Underwriter for the sale by the Authority and purchase by the
Underwriter of the Series of Bonds to which the Pooled Note is assigned.
(f) Delivery of such other certificates, instruments or opinions as Bond Counsel may
deem necessary or desirable to evidence the due authorization, execution and delivery of documents
pertaining to this transaction and the legal, valid and binding nature thereof or as may be required by the
Credit Agreement, as well as compliance of all parties with the terms and conditions thereof.
Section 8. Events PermittiDl the Authority to Terminate. The Authority may
terminate its obligation to purchase the Note at any time before the Closing if any of the following
occurs:
(a) Any legislative, executive or regulatory action (including the introduction of
legislation) or any court decision which, in the judgment of the Authority, casts sufficient doubt on the
legality of obligations such as the Note, and the tax-exempt status of interest on obligations such as the
Bonds, so as to impair materially the marketability or to reduce materially the market price of such
obligations;
(b) Any action by the Securities and Exchange Commission or a court which would
require registration of the Note, the Bonds or any instrument securing the Note or Bonds under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the public offering thereof, or qualification of
the Resolution or the Indenture under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended;
(c) Any restriction on trading in securities, or any banking moratorium, or the
inception or escalation of any war or major military hostilities which, in the judgment of the Authority,
substantially impairs the ability of the Underwriter to market the Bonds; or
(d) The Underwriter terminates its obligation to purchase the Series of Bonds to
which the Note is assigned pursuant to its agreement with the Authority for the purchase of such Series
of Bonds.
Neither the Underwriter nor the Authority shall be responsible for the payment of any
fees, costs or expenses of the issuance, offering and sale of the Local Agency's Note except the
Underwriter shall be responsible for California Debt Advisory Commission fees and for its own internal
costs. The fees, costs and expenses that are categorized in the "Costs of Issuance" definition in the
Indenture shall be paid from the Costs of Issuance Fund. The Local Agency shall pay any additional
costs attributable to it as set forth in the Resolution other than the fees, costs and expenses so payable
from the applicable Costs of Issuance Fund.
LAl-124163.1
4
J~/l~:J?
Section 9. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the Local Agency agrees
to indemnify and hold harmless the Authority and the Underwriter and each person, if any, who controls
(within the meaning of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or of Section 20 of the
Securities Act of 1934, as amended) the Authority or the Underwriter, and the officers, directors, agents
and employees of the Authority and the Underwriter igainst any and all losses, claims, damages,
liabilities and expenses arising out of any statement or information in the Preliminary Official Statement
or in the Official Statement (other than statements or information regarding an Issuer other than the Local
Agency) that is untrue or incorrect in any material respect or the omission or alleged omission therefrom
of any statement or information (other than statements or information regarding an Issuer other than the
Local Agency) that should be stated therein or that is necessary to make the statements and information
therein not misleading in any material respect.
Section 10. Credit A2reement. The Local Agency shall comply with all lawful and
proper requests of the Authority in order to enable the Authority to comply with all of the terms,
conditions and covenants binding upon it under the Credit Agreement.
Section 11. Notices. Any notices to be given to the Underwriter under the Purchase.
Agreement shall be given in writing to Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., " CA
, Attention: . Any notices to be given to the Authority under the Purchase
Agreement shall be given in writing to the Authority, 1100 "K" Street, Suite 101, Sacramento, CA
95814, Attention: Secretary. Any notices to be given to the Local Agency shall be given in writing to
the address specified in Exhibit A.
Section 12. No Assienment. The Purchase Agreement has been made by the Local
Agency and the Authority, and no person other than the Local Agency and the Authority or their
successors or assigns and the Underwriter shall acquire or have any right under or by virtue of the
Purchase Agreement. All of the representations, warranties and agreements contained in the Purchase
Agreement shall survive the delivery of and payment by the Authority for the Note and any termination
of the Purchase Agreement.
Section 13. Applicable Law. The Purchase Agreement shall be interpreted, governed
and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
Section 14. Effectiveness. The Purchase Agreement shall become effective upon the
execution hereof by the Authority and execution of the Pricing Confirmation by the Local Agency, and
the Purchase Agreement, including the Pricing Confirmation, shall be valid, binding and enforceable from
and after the time of such effectiveness.
Section 15. Severability. In the event any provision of the Purchase Agreement shall
be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate
or render unenforceable any other provision hereof.
Section 16. HeadilJ&S. Any headings preceding the text of several sections hereof shall
be solely for convenience of reference and shall not constitute a part of this Agreement, nor shall they
affect its meaning, construction or effect.
Section 17. Execution in Counterparts. This Purchase Agreement may be executed
and entered into in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall
constitute but one and the same instrument.
LAl-124163.1
5
J~/)~3:7
.--/
/'
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Purchase Agreement to
be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Purchase Date set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Member of the Commission
of the Authority
LAl-12-i163.1
6
J~IJ ,3'6
EXHmIT A
PRICING CONFIRMA nON
Name of Local Agency: CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Address of Local Agency:
Purchase Date:
Closing Date:
Maturity Date:
Repayment Date:
First Pledge Month:
Pledge Amount:
Pledge Percentage:
Second Pledge Month:
Pledge Amount:
Pledge Percentage:
Reserve Requirement:
Series of Bonds to which
Note will be assigned:
Note/Series of Bonds Secured
by Credit Instrument: _ yes _ no
Type of Credit Instrument:
Credit Provider:
Credit Agreement:
If Credit Instrument is the Reserve Fund,
is there a Reserve Credit Instrument? _ yes _ no
Principal Amount of Note: $
Interest Rate (Note Rate):
Net Interest Cost (NIC):
Default Rate:
Purchase Price
(including costs
of issuance):
Less:
Costs of Issuance:
Credit Instrument Cost:
Deposit to Proceeds
Account:
Resolution Date
of Local Agency:
LAl-124163.1
A-I
Jj,[J-j
· By initialing the box at the end of this paragraph, the undersigned Local Agency
certifies that, in connection with the issuance of the Note under the Resolution and after reasonable
inquiry, it is the reasonable expectation of the Local Agency that the aggregate amount of all tax-exempt
obligations (excluding private activity bonds) issued or to be issued by the Local Agency during the 1996
calendar year, including the Note, all other notes and bonds, and all tax-exempt leases, executed or
delivered during the 1996 calendar year will not exceed 55,000,000 (See Section 3.8 of the Certificate
of the Local Agency if the Local Agency is unable to make this certification) . . . . . .. . . . .. D
Investment Alternative - Initial the appropriate box relating to the investment of proceeds
received from the issuance and delivery of the Local Agency's Note:
Initial
One Box
Yes, the undersigned directs the Trustee to invest the proceeds
received from the issuance and delivery of the Local Agency's Note
in the Guaranteed Investment Contract described in Attachment I.
(Do not wire the proceeds as previously directed in Section 4.7 of
the Certificate of the Local Agency.)
No, do not invest the proceeds received from the issuance and
delivery of the Local Agency's Note in the Guaranteed Investment
contract, wire the proceeds as directed in Section 4.7 of the
Certificate of the Local Agency.
Yes
D
No
D
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Purchase Agreement, including this Pricing Confirmation,
is agreed and accepted to on the Purchase Date set forth above.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By
Authorized Representative
· Please initial the box lit the end of Paragraph No. 16 only if applicable to the Local Agency.
LA1-I32041.1
A-I
Jj;.A''1v
CITY OF CIRJLA VISTA
LOCAL AGENCY RESOLtrrION
NUMBER /8" ~ ~ 'I
RESOLtrrION AUTIlORIZING AND APPROVING THE BORROWING OF
FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-1997; THE ENTERING INTO
AN AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT;
THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A 1996-1997 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE
THEREFOR AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITIES CASH FLOW FINANCING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, local agencies are authorized by Section 53850 to 53858, both inclusive,
of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act")' (being Article 7 .6, Chapter 4, Part 1,
Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code) to borrow money by the issuance of temporary notes;
WHEREAS, the legislative body (the "Legislative Body") of the local agency specified
in Section 25 hereof (the "Local Agency") has determined that a sum (the "Principal Amount"), not to
exceed the Maximum Amount of Borrowing specified in Section 25 hereof, which Principal Amount is
to be confirmed and set in the Pricing Confirmation (as defined in Section 4 hereof), is needed for the
requirements of the Local Agency, to satisfy obligations of the Local Agency, and that it is necessary that
said Principal Amount be borrowed for such purpose at this time by the issuance of a note therefor in
anticipation of the receipt of taxes, income, revenue, cash receipts and other moneys to be received by
the Local Agency for the general fund of the Local Agency attributable to its fiscal year ending June 30,
.1996 ("Fiscal Year 1996-1997");
WHEREAS, the Local Agency hereby determines to borrow, for the purposes set forth
above, the Principal Amount by the issuance of the Note (as hereinafter defined);
WHEREAS, it appears, and this Legislative Body hereby finds and determines, that the
Principal Amount, when added to the interest payable thereon, does not exceed eighty-five percent (85 %)
of the estimated amount of the uncollected taxes, income, revenue (including, but not limited to, revenue
from the state and federal governments), cash receipts and other moneys of the Local Agency attributable
to Fiscal Year 1996-1997 and available for the payment of the principal of the Note and the interest
thereon;
WHEREAS, no money has heretofore been borrowed by or on behalf of the Local
Agency through the issuance of tax anticipation notes or temporary notes in anticipation of the receipt
of, or payable from or secured by, taxes, income, revenue, cash receipts or other moneys for Fiscal Year
1996-1997 ;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 53856 of the Act, certain moneys which will be received
by the Local Agency during and attributable to Fiscal Year 1996-1997 can be pledged for the payment
of the principal of the Note and the interest thereon (as hereinafter provided);
Copyright, 1996, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. All rights reserved.
LA 1-132048.1
JJ~
NEW CSCDA MEMBER RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Local Agency has determined that it is in the best interests of the Local
Agency to participate in the California Communities Cash Flow Financing Program (the "Program"),
whereby participating local agencies (collectively, the "Issuers ") will simultaneously issue tax and revenue
anticipation notes;
WHEREAS, the Program requires the participating Issuers to sell their tax and revenue
anticipation notes to the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the "Authority")
pursuant to note purchase agreements (collectively, "Purchase Agreements"), each between such
individual Issuer and the Authority, and dated as of the date of the Pricing Confirmation, a form of which
has been submitted to the Legislative Body;
WHEREAS, the Authority, in consultation with Sutro & Co. Incorporated, as financial
advisor for the Program (the "Financial Advisor"), will form one or more pools of notes (the "Pooled
Notes") and assign each note to a particular pool (the "Pool") and sell a series (the "Series") of bonds
(the "Bonds") secured by each Pool pursuant to an indenture (the "Indenture") between the Authority and
U.S. Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (the "Trustee"), each Series distinguished by whether
or what type(s) of Credit Instrument(s) (as hereinafter defined) secure(s) such Series, by the principal
amounts of the notes assigned to the Pool or by other factors, and the Local Agency hereby acknowledges
and approves the discretion of the Authority to assign the Note to such Pool and such Indenture as the
Authority may determine;
WHEREAS, as additional security for the owners of each Series of Bonds, all or a
portion of the payments by all of the Issuers of the notes assigned to such Series mayor may not be
secured (by virtue or in form of the Bonds, as indicated in the Pricing Confirmation, being secured in
whole or in part) by an irrevocable letter (or letters) of credit or policy (or policies) of insurance or
proceeds of a separate bond issue issued for such purpose (the "Reserve Fund") or other credit instrument
(or instruments) (collectively, the "Credit Instrument") issued by the credit provider or credit providers
designated in the Indenture, as finally executed (collectively, the "Credit Provider"), pursuant to a credit
agreement or agreements or commitment letter or letters or, in the case of the Reserve Fund, an indenture
(the "Reserve Indenture") (collectively, the "Credit Agreement") between (i) in the case of an irrevocable
letter (or letters) of credit or policy (or policies) of insurance, the Authority and the respective Credit
Provider and (ii) in the case of the Reserve Fund, the Authority and U.S. Trust Company of California,
N.A., as trustee of the Reserve Indenture (the "Reserve Trustee");
WHEREAS, if, as designated in the Pricing Confirmation, the Credit Instrument is the
Reserve Fund, bonds issued pursuant to the Reserve Indenture (the "Reserve Bonds ") may, as indicated
in the Pricing Confirmation, be secured by an irrevocable letter of credit or policy of insurance or other
credit instrument (the "Reserve Credit Instrument") issued by the credit provider identified in the Reserve
Indenture as finally executed (the "Reserve Credit Provider"), pursuant to a credit agreement or
commitment letter (the "Reserve Credit Agreement") identified in the Reserve Indenture as finally
executed, such Reserve Credit Agreement being between the Authority and the Reserve Credit Provider;
WHEREAS, the net proceeds of the Note may be invested by the Local Agency in
Permitted Investments (as defined in the Indenture) or in any other investment permitted by the laws of
the State of California, as now in effect and as hereafter amended, modified or supplemented from time
to time;
WHEREAS, as part of the Program each participating Issuer approves the Indenture, the
alternative forms of Credit Agreements, if any, and the alternative forms of Reserve Credit Agreements,
if any, in substantially the forms presented to the Legislative Body, with the final form of Indenture, type
of Credit Instrument and corresponding Credit Agreement and type of Reserve Credit Instrument and
LAl-132041.1
2
Jb~
corresponding Reserve Credit Agreement, if any, to be determined and approved by delivery of the
Pricing Confirmation; .
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program each participating Issuer will be responsible for
its share of (a) the fees of the Trustee and the costs of issuing the applicable Series of Bonds, and (b),
if applicable, the fees of the Credit Provider, the fees of the Reserve Credit Provider (which shall be
payable from, among other sources, investment earnings on the Reserve Fund and moneys in the Costs
of Issuance Fund established and held under the Indenture), the Issuer's allocable share of all Predefault
Obligations and the Issuer's Reimbursement Obligations, if any (each as defined in the Indenture);
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program each participating Issuer will be responsible for
its share of the fees of the Reserve Trustee and the costs of issuing the applicable Series of Reserve
Bonds, all such costs and fees being payable from the proceeds of the applicable Series of Bonds (or, with
respect to costs and fees of the Reserve Credit Provider, as may otherwise be provided in the Reserve
Indenture);
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program, the underwriter will submit an offer to the
Authority to purchase, in the case of each Pool of Notes, the Series of Bonds which will be secured by
the Indenture to which such Pool will be assigned;
WHEREAS, it is necessary to engage the services of certain professionals to assist the
Local Agency in its participation in the Program;
WHEREAS, in order to participate in the Program, the Authority requires that the Local
Agency enter into and execute the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating
to the California Statewide Communities Development Authority, dated June 1, 1988 (the "Amended
Agreement"), pursuant to which the Authority is in existence and operates;
WHEREAS, there is now before this Legislative Body a form of the Amended
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, this Legislative Body, following careful review and consideration, hereby
determines that it is in the public interest and for the public benefit of the Local Agency to enter into and
authorize the execution of the Amended Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Legislative Body hereby finds, determines, declares
and resolves as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. This Legislative Body hereby finds and determines that all the
above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. Authorization of Issuance. This Legislative Body hereby determines to
borrow solely for the purpose of anticipating taxes, income, revenue, cash receipts and other moneys to
be received by the Local Agency for the general fund of the Local Agency attributable to Fiscal Year
1996-1997, by the issuance of a note.in the Principal Amount under Sections 53850!3;~. of the Act,
designated the Local Agency's "1996-1997 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note" (the "Note"), to be
issued in the form of one fully registered note at the Principal Amount thereof, to be dated the date of
its delivery to the initial purchaser thereof, to mature (without option of prior redemption) not more than
thirteen months thereafter on a date indicated on the face thereof and determined in the Pricing
Confirmation (the "Maturity Date"), and to bear interest, payable at maturity and computed upon the
basis of a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months, at a rate not to exceed ten percent (10%) per
LAl-l3>>Il.l
3
) tJ, /9-18
annum as determined in the Pricing Confirmation and indicated on the face of the Note (the "Note Rate").
If the Series of Bonds issued in connection with the Note is secured in whole or in part by a Credit
Instrument or such Credit Instrument (other than the Reserve Fund) secures the Note in whole or in part
and all principal of and interest on the Note is not paid in full at maturity or payment of principal of and
interest on the Note is paid (in whole or in part) by a draw under, payment by or claim upon a Credit
Instrument which draw, payment or claim is not fully reimbursed on such date, such Note shall become
a Defaulted Note (as defined in the Indenture), and the unpaid portion (including the interest component,
if applicable) thereof (or the portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof with respect
to which a Credit Instrument applies for which reimbursement on a draw, payment or claim has not been
fully made) shall be deemed outstanding and shall continue to bear interest thereafter until paid at the
Default Rate (as defined in the Indenture). If the Credit Instrument is the Reserve Fund and the Reserve
Bonds issued to fund the Reserve Fund are secured by the Reserve Credit Instrument and a Drawing (as
defined in the Indenture) pertaining to the Note is not fully reimbursed by the Reserve Principal Payment
Date (as defined in the Indenture), such Note shall become a Defaulted Reserve Note (as defined in the
Indenture), and the unpaid portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof (or portion
(including the interest component, if applicable) with respect to which the Reserve Fund applies for which
reimbursement on a Drawing has not been fully made) shall be deemed outstanding and shall continue
to bear interest thereafter until paid at the Default Rate. If the Note or the Series of Bonds issued in
connection with the Note is unsecured in whole or in part and the Note is not fully paid at maturity, the
unpaid portion thereof (or the portion thereof to which no Credit Instrument applies which is unpaid) shall
be deemed outstanding and shall continue to bear interest thereafter until paid at the Default Rate. In
each case set forth in the preceding three sentences, the obligation of the Local Agency with respect to
such Defaulted Note or unpaid Note shall not be a debt or liability of the Local Agency prohibited by
Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution and the Local Agency shall not be liable thereon
except to the extent of any available revenues attributable to Fiscal Year 1996-1997, as provided in
Section 8 hereof. The percentage of the Note to which a Credit Instrument, if any, applies (the "Secured
Percentage") shall be equal to the amount of the Credit Instrument divided by the aggregate amount of
unpaid principal of and interest on the unpaid notes (or portions thereof) of all Issuers, expressed as a
percentage (but not greater than 100%) as of the maturity date. The percentage of the Note to which the
Reserve Credit Instrument, if any, applies (the "Secured Reserve Percentage") shall be equal to the
amount of the Reserve Credit Instrument divided by the aggregate amount of unpaid principal of arid
interest on such unpaid notes (or portions thereof, including the interest component, if applicable),
expressed as a percentage (but not greater than 100%) as of the Reserve Principal Payment Date.
Both the principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable in lawful money of the
United States of America, but only upon surrender thereof, at the corporate trust office of U.S. Trust
Company of California, N .A. in Los Angeles, California.
The Note shall be issued in conjunction with the note or notes of one or more other
Issuers as part of the Program and within the meaning of Section 53853 of the Act.
Section 3. Form of Note. The Note shall be issued in fully registered form without
coupons and shall be substantially in the form and substance set forth in Exhibit A as attached hereto and
by reference incorporated herein, the blanks in said forms to. be filled in with appropriate words and
figures .
Section 4. Sale of Note: Deleeation. The Note shall be sold to the Authority pursuant
to the Purchase Agreement. The form of the Purchase Agreement, including the form of the pricing
confirmation supplement (the "Pricing Confirmation") set forth as Exhibit A thereto, presented to this
meeting are hereby approved. The authorized representatives set forth in Section 25 hereof (the
"Authorized Representatives ") are each hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the
LAl-13204l.1
4
J~/l~11/
Purchase Agreement in substantially said form, with such changes thereto as such Authorized
Representative shall approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by his or her execution and
delivery thereof; provided, however, that the Purchase Agreement shall not be effective and binding on
the Local Agency until the execution and delivery of the Pricing Confirmation. The Authorized
Representatives are each hereby further authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Pricing
Confirmation in substantially said form, with such changes thereto as such Authorized Representative
shall approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by his or her execution and delivery thereof;
provided, however, that the interest rate on the Note shall not exceed ten percent (10%) per annum, the
discount on the Note, when added to the Local Agency's share of the costs of issuance of the Bonds, shall
not exceed one percent (1.0%), and the Principal Amount shall not exceed the Maximu~ Amount of
Borrowing. Delivery of an executed copy of the Pricing Confirmation by fax or telecopy shall be deemed
effective execution and delivery for all purposes.
Section 5. Prog:ram Approval. The Pricing Confirmation shall indicate whether and
what type of Credit Instrument and, if applicable, Reserve Credit Instrument will apply.
The forms of Indenture, alternative general types and forms of Credit Agreements, if any,
and alternative general types and forms of Reserve Credit Agreements, if any, presented to this meeting
are hereby acknowledged, and it is acknowledged that the Authority will execute and deliver the
Indenture, one or more Credit Agreements, if applicable, and one or more Reserve Credit Agreements,
if applicable, which shall be identified in the Pricing Confirmation, in substantially one or more of said
forms with such changes therein as the Authorized Representative who executes the Pricing Confirmation
shall require or approve (substantially final forms of the Indenture, the Credit Agreement and, if
applicable, the Reserve Credit Agreement are to be delivered to the Authorized Representative concurrent
with the Pricing Confirmation), such approval of the Authorized Representative and this Legislative Body
to be conclusively evidenced by the execution of the Pricing Confirmation. If the Credit Agreement
identified in the Pricing Confirmation is the Reserve Indenture, it is acknowledged that the Authority will
issue the Reserve Bonds pursuant to and as provided in the Reserve Indenture as finally executed.
Anyone of the Authorized Representatives of the Local Agency is hereby authorized and
directed to provide the Financial Advisor or the underwriter with such information relating to the Local
Agency as the Financial Advisor or the underwriter shall reasonably request for inclusion in the
Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement of the Authority. Upon inclusion of the information
relating to the Local Agency therein, the Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement or such
other offering document is, except for certain omissions permitted by Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Rule"), hereby deemed fmal within the meaning of the Rule
with respect to the Local Agency and any Authorized Representative of the Local Agency is authorized
to execute a certificate to such effect. If, at any time prior to the end of the underwriting period, as
defined in the Rule, any event occurs as a result of which the information contained in the Preliminary
Official Statement or other offering document relating to the Local Agency might include an untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein,
in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the Local Agency shall
promptly notify the Financial Advisor and the underwriter.
Subject to Section 8 hereof, the Local Agency hereby agrees that if the Note shall become
a Defaulted Note, the unpaid portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof or the
portion (including the interest component, if applicable) to which a Credit Instrument applies for which
full reimbursement on a draw, payment or claim has not been made by the Maturity Date shall be deemed
outstanding and shall not be deemed to be paid until (i) any Credit Provider providing a Credit Instrument
with respect to the Note or the Series of Bonds issued in connection with the Note, has been reimbursed
for any drawings, payments or claims made under or from the Credit Instrument with respect to the Note,
LAl-132lMl.l
5
J ~ A4t
including interest accrued thereon, as provided therein and in the applicable Credit Agreement, and,
(ii) the holders of the Note, or Series of the Bonds issued in connection with the Note, are paid the full
principal amount represented by the unsecured portion of the Note plus interest accrued thereon
(calculated at the Default Rate) to the date of deposit of such aggregate required amount with the Trustee.
For purposes of clause (ii) of the preceding sentence, holders of the Series of Bonds will be deemed to
have received such principal amount upon deposit of such moneys with the Trustee.
Subject to Section 8 hereof, the Local Agency hereby agrees that if the Note shall become
a Defaulted Reserve Note, the unpaid portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof or
the portion (including the interest component, if applicable) to which a Reserve Credit Instrument, if any,
applies for which full reimbursement on a Drawing has not been made by the Reserve Principal Payment
Date shall be deemed outstanding and shall not be deemed paid until (i) any Reserve Credit Provider
providing a Reserve Credit Instrument with respect to the Reserve Bonds (against the Reserve Fund of
which such Drawing was made) has been reimbursed for any Drawing or payment made under the
Reserve Credit Instrument with respect to the Note, including interest accrued thereon, as provided
therein and in the Reserve Credit Agreement, and (ii) the holders of the Note, or Series of Bonds issued
in connection with the Note, are paid the full principal amount represented by the unsecured portion of
the Note plus interest accrued thereon (calculated at the Default Rate) to the date of deposit of such
aggregate required amount with the Trustee. For the purposes of clause (ii) of the preceding sentence,
holders of the Series of Bonds will be deemed to have received such principal amount upon deposit of
such moneys with the Trustee.
The Local Agency agrees to payor cause to be paid, in addition to the amounts payable
under the Note, any fees or expenses of the Trustee and, to the extent permitted by law, if the Local
Agency's Note is secured in whole or in part by a Credit Instrument and, if applicable, a Reserve Credit
Instrument (by virtue of the fact that the. Series of Bonds is secured by a Credit Instrument and, if
applicable, Reserve Bonds are secured by a Reserve Credit Instrument), any Predefault Obligations and
Reimbursement Obligations (to the extent not payable under the Note), (i) arising out of an "Event of
Default" hereunder (or pursuant to Section 7 hereof) or (ii) arising out of any other event (other than an
event arising solely as a result of or otherwise attributable to a default by any other Issuer). In the case
described in (ii) above with respect to Predefault Obligations, the Local Agency shall owe only the
percentage of such fees, expenses and Predefault Obligations equal to the ratio of the principal amount
of its Note over the aggregate principal amounts of all notes, including the Note, of the Series of which
the Note is a part, at the time of original issuance of such Series. Such additional amounts will be paid
by the Local Agency within twenty-five (25) days of receipt by the Local Agency of a bill therefor from
the Trustee.
Section 6. No Joint Oblieation. The Note will be issued in conjunction with a note or
notes of one or more other Issuers, assigned to secure a Series of Bonds. In all cases, the obligation of
the Local Agency to make payments on or in respect to its Note is a several and not a joint obligation
and is strictly limited to the Local Agency's repayment obligation under this Resolution and the Note.
Section 7. D~position of Proceeds of Note. A portion of the moneys received from
the sale of the Note in an amount equal to the Local Agency's share of the costs of issuance (which shall
include any fees and expenses in connection with any Credit Instrument (and the Reserve Credit
Instrument, if any) applicable to the Note or Series of Bonds and the corresponding Reserve Bonds, if
any) shall be deposited in the Costs of Issuance Fund held and invested by the Trustee under the
Indenture and expended as directed by the Authority on costs of issuance as provided in the Indenture.
The balance of the moneys received from the sale of the Note to the Authority shall be deposited in the
Local Agency's Proceeds Subaccount hereby authorized to be created pursuant to, and held and invested
by the Trustee under, the Indenture for the Local Agency and said moneys may be used and expended
LAl-132IlMl.l
6
J~ 19 .,pt,
by the Local Agency for any purpose for which it is authorized to use and expend moneys, upon
requisition from the Proceeds Subaccount as specified in the Indenture. Amounts in the Proceeds
Subaccount are hereby pledged to the payment of the Note. The Trust ~ will not create sub accounts
within the Proceeds Fund, but will keep records to account separately for proceeds of the Bonds allocable
to the Local Agency's Note on deposit in the Proceeds Fund which shall constitute the Local Agency's
Proceeds Subaccount.
Section 8. Source of Payment.
(A) The principal amount of the Note, together with the interest thereon, shall be
payable from taxes, income, revenue (including, but not limited to, revenue from the state and federal
govemnients), cash receipts and other moneys which are received by the Local Agency for the general
fund of the Local Agency and are attributable to Fiscal Year 1996-1997 and which are available for
payment thereof. As security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note, the Local
Agency hereby pledges certain unrestricted revenues (as hereinafter provided, the "Pledged Revenues")
which are received by the Local Agency for the general fund of the Local Agency and are attributable
to Fiscal Year 1996-1997, and the principal of the Note and the interest thereon shall constitute a first
lien and charge thereon and shall be payable from the first moneys received by the Local Agency from
such Pledged Revenues, and, to the extent not so paid, shall be paid from any other taxes, income,
revenue, cash receipts and other moneys of the Local Agency lawfully available therefor (all as provided
for in Sections 53856 and 53857 of the Act). The term "unrestricted revenues" shall mean all taxes,
income, revenue (including, but not limited to, revenue from the state and federal governments), cash
receipts, and other moneys, intended as receipts for the general fund of the Local Agency attributable to
Fiscal Year 1996-1997 and which are generally available for the payment of current expenses and other
obligations of the Local Agency. The Noteholders, Bondholders, Credit Provider and, if applicable, the
Reserve Credit Provider shall have a first lien and charge on such certain unrestricted revenues as
hereinafter provided which are received by the Local Agency and are attributable to Fiscal Year
1996-1997.
In order to effect the pledge referenced in the preceding paragraph, the Local Agency
hereby agrees and covenants to establish and maintain a special account within the Local Agency's general
fund to be designated the "1996-1997 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note Payment Account" (the
"Payment Account") and further agrees and covenants to maintain the Payment Account until the payment
of the principal of the Note and the interest thereon. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Local Agency
elects to have Note proceeds invested in Permitted Investments to be held by the Trustee pursuant to the
Pricing Confirmation, a subaccount of the Payment Account (the "Payment Subaccount") shall be
established for the Local Agency under the Indenture and proceeds credited to such account shall be
pledged to the payment of the Note. The Trustee need not create a subaccount, but may keep a record
to account separately for proceeds of the Note so held and invested by the Trustee which record shall
constitute the Local Agency's Proceeds Subaccount. Transfers from the Payment Subaccount shall be
made in accordance with the Indenture. The Local Agency agrees to transfer to and deposit in the
Payment Account the first amounts received in the months specified in the Pricing Confirmation as
Repayment Months (each individual month a "Repayment Month" and collectively "Repayment Months")
(and any amounts received thereafter attributable to Fiscal Year 1996-1997) until the amount on deposit
in the Payment Account, together with the amount, if any, on deposit in the Payment Subaccount, is equal
in the respective Repayment Months identified in the Pricing Confirmation to the percentage of the
principal and interest due on the Note at maturity specified in the Pricing Confirmation. In making such
transfer and deposit, the Local Agency shall not be required to physically segregate the amounts to be
transferred to and deposited in the Payment Account from the Local Agency's other general fund moneys,
but, notwithstanding any commingling of funds for investment or other purposes, the amounts required
LAl-132IlMt.1
7
/t~"'"
to be transferred to and deposited in the Payment Account shall nevertheless be subject to the lien and
charge created herein. Anyone of the Authorized Representatives of the Local Agency is hereby
authorized to approve the determination of the Repayment lAonths and percentages of the principal and
interest due on the Note at maturity required to be on deposit in the Payment Account and/or the Payment
Subaccount in each Repayment Month, all as specified in the Pricing Confirmation, by executing and
delivering the Pricing Confirmation, such execution and delivery to be conclusive evidence of approval
by this Legislative Body and such Authorized Representative; provided, however, that the maximum
number of Repayment Months shall be six and the maximum amount of Pledged Revenues required to
be deposited in each Repayment Month shall not exceed fifty percent (50 %) of the principal and interest
due on the Note at maturity. In the event on the day in each such Repayment Month that a deposit to
the Payment Account is required to be made, the Local Agency has not received sufficient unrestricted
revenues. to permit the deposit into the Payment Account of the full amount of Pledged Revenues to be
deposited in the Payment Account from said unrestricted revenues in said month, then the amount of any
deficiency shall be satisfied and made up from any other moneys of the Local Agency lawfully available
for the payment of the principal of the Note and the interest thereon, as and when such other moneys are
received or are otherwise legally available.
(B) Any moneys placed in the Payment Account or the Payment Subaccount shall be
for the benefit of (i) the holder of the Note and the holders of Bonds issued in connection with the Notes,
(ii) (to the extent provided in the Indenture) the Credit Provider, if any, and (Hi) (to the extent provided
in the Indenture and, if applicable, the Credit Agreement) the Reserve Credit Provider, if any. The
moneys in the Payment Account and the Payment Subaccount shall be applied only for the purposes for
which such Accounts are created until the principal of the Note and all interest thereon are paid or until
provision has been made for the payment of the principal of the Note at maturity with interest to maturity
(in accordance with the requirements for defeasance of the Bonds as set forth in the Indenture) and, if
applicable, (to the extent provided in the Indenture and, if applicable, the Credit Agreement) the payment
of all Predefault Obligations and Reimbursement Obligations owing to the Credit Provider and, if
applicable, the Reserve Credit Provider.
(C) The Local Agency hereby directs the Trustee to transfer, at least two (2) Business
Days (as defined in the Indenture) prior to the Note Maturity Date (as defined in the Indenture), any
moneys in the Payment Subaccount to the Bond Payment Fund (as defined in the Indenture). In addition,
at least two (2) Business Days prior to the Maturity Date of the Note, the moneys in the Payment Account
shall be transferred by the Local Agency to the Trustee, to the extent necessary, to pay the principal of
and interest on the Note or to reimburse the Credit Provider for payments made under or pursuant to the
Credit Instrument. In the event that moneys in the Payment Account and/or the Payment Subaccount are
insufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Note in full on the Maturity Date, such moneys
shall be applied in the following priority: first to pay interest on the Note; second to pay principal of the
Note; third to reimburse the Credit Provider for payment, if any, of interest with respect to the Note;
fourth to reimburse the Credit Provider for payment, if any, of principal with respect to the Note; fifth
to reimburse the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, for payment, if any, of interest with respect to the
Note; sixth to reimburse the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, for payment, if any, of principal with
respect to the Note; and seventh to pay any Reimbursement Obligations of the Local Agency and any of
the Local Agency's pro rata share of Predefault Obligations owing to the Credit Provider and Reserve
Credit Provider (if any) as applicable. Any moneys remaining in or accruing to the Payment Account
and/or the Payment Subaccount after the principal of the Note and the interest thereon and any Predefault
Obligations and Reimbursement Obligations, if applicable, have been paid, or provision for such payment
has been made, shall be transferred to the general fund of the Local Agency, subject to any other
disposition required by the Indenture, or, if applicable, the Credit Agreement. Nothing herein shall be
deemed to relieve the Local Agency from its obligation to pay its Note in full on the Maturity Date.
LAl-132041.1
8
J~/J'!/t'
(0) Moneys in the Proceeds Subaccount and in the Payment Subaccount shall be
invested by the Trustee pursuant to the Indenture as directed by the Local Agency in Permitted
Investments as described in and under the terLlS of the Indenture. Any such investment by the Trustee
shall be for the account and risk of the Local Agency, and the Local Agency shall not be deemed to be
relieved of any of its obligations with respect to the Note, the Predefault Obligations or Reimbursement
Obligations, if any, by reason of such investment of the moneys in its Proceeds Subaccount or the
Payment Subaccount.
(E) At the written request of the Credit Provider, if any, or the Reserve Credit
Provider, if any, the Local Agency shall, within ten (10) Business Days following the receipt of such
written request, file such report or reports to evidence the transfer to and deposit in the Payment Account
required by this Section 8 and provide such additional financial information as may be required by the
Credit Provider, if any, or the Reserve Credit Provider, if any.
Section 9. Execution of Note. Anyone of the Authorized Representatives of the Local
Agency or any other officer designated by the Legislative Body shall be authorized to execute the Note
by manual or facsimile signature and the Secretary or Clerk of the Legislative Body of the Local Agency,
or any duly appointed assistant thereto, shall be authorized to countersign the Note by manual or facsimile
signature. Said Authorized Representative of the Local Agency, is hereby authorized to cause the blank
spaces of the Note to be filled in as may be appropriate pursuant to the Pricing Confirmation. The
Authorized Representative is hereby authorized and directed to cause the Authority to assign the Note to
the Trustee, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement, this Resolution and the
Indenture. In case any Authorized Representative whose signature shall appear on any Note shall cease
to be an Authorized Representative before the delivery of such Note, such signature shall nevertheless
be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery.
The Note need not bear the seal of the Local Agency, if any.
Section 10. Intentionally Left Blank. This section has been included to preserve the
sequence of section numbers for cross-referencing purposes.
Section 11. Representations and Covenants of the Local A2ency.
The Local Agency makes the following representations for the benefit of the holder of
the Note, the owners of the Bonds, the Credit Provider, if any, and the Reserve Credit Provider, if any:
(A) The Local Agency is duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws
of the State of California and has all necessary power and authority to (i) adopt this Resolution and
perform its obligations thereunder, (ii) enter into and perform its obligations under the Purchase
Agreement, and (Hi) issue the Note and perform its obligations thereunder.
. (B) (i) Upon the issuance of the Note, the Local Agency shall have taken all action
required to be taken by it to authorize the issuance and delivery of the Note and the performance of its
obligations thereunder, and (ii) the Local Agency has full legal right, power and authority to issue and
deliver the Note.
(C) The issuance of the Note, the adoption of the Resolution and the execution and
delivery of the Purchase Agreement, and compliance with the provisions hereof and thereof do not
conflict with, breach or violate any law, administrative regulation, court decree, resolution, charter,
by-laws or other agreement to which the Local Agency is subject or by which it is bound.
LAl-132IIM1.l
9
/~/l,~f
(0) Except as may be required under blue sky or other securities laws of any state
or Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, there is no consent, approval, authorization or other
order of, or filing with, or certification by, any regulatory authority having jurisdiction over the Local
Agency required for the issuance and sale of the Note or the consummation by the Local Agency of the
other transactions contemplated by this Resolution, except those the Local Agency shall obtain or perform
prior to or upon the issuance of the Note.
(E) The Local Agency has (or will have prior to the issuance of the Note) duly,
regularly and properly adopted a preliminary budget for Fiscal Year 1996-1997 setting forth expected
revenues and expenditures and has complied with all statutory and regulatory requirements with respect
to the adoption of such budget. The Local Agency hereby covenants that it shall (i) duly, regularly and
properly prepare and adopt its final budget for Fiscal Year 1996-1997, (ii) provide to the Trustee, the
Credit Provider, if any, the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, and the Financial Advisor and the
underwriter, promptly upon adoption, copies of such final budget and of any subsequent revisions,
modifications or amendments thereto and (iii) comply with all applicable laws pertaining to its budget.
(F) The sum of the principal amount of the Local Agency's Note plus the interest
payable thereon, on the date of its issuance, shall not ex.ceed fifty percent (50%) of the estimated amounts
of the Local Agency's uncollected taxes, income, revenue (including, but not limited to, revenue from
the state and federal governments), cash receipts, and other moneys to be received by the Local Agency
for the general fund of the Local Agency attributable to Fiscal Year 1996-1997, all of which will be
legally available to pay principal of and interest on the Note.
(G) The Local Agency (i) has not defaulted within the past twenty (20) years, and is
not currently in default, on any debt obligation and (ii), to the best knowledge of the Local Agency, has
never defaulted on any debt obligation.
(H) The Local Agency's most recent audited financial statements present fairly the
financial condition of the Local Agency as of the date thereof and the results of operation for the period
covered thereby. Except as has been disclosed to the Financial Advisor and the underwriter, the Credit
Provider, if any, and the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, there has been no change in the financial
condition of the Local Agency since the date of such audited financial statements that will in the
reasonable opinion of the Local Agency materially impair its ability to perform its obligations under this
Resolution and the Note. The Local Agency agrees to furnish to the Authority, the Financial Advisor,
the underwriter, the Trustee, the Credit Provider, if any, and the Reserve Credit Provider, if any,
promptly, from time to time, such information regarding the operations,. financial condition and property
of the Local Agency as such party may reasonably request.
(I) There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity,
before or by any court, arbitrator, governmental or other board, body or official, pending or, to the best
knowledge of the Local Agency, threatened against or affecting the Local Agency questioning the validity
of any proceeding taken or to be taken by the Local Agency in connection with the Note, the Purchase
Agreement, the Indenture, the Credit Agreement, if any, the Reserve Credit Agreement, if any, or this
Resolution, or seeking to prohibit, restrain or enjoin the execution, delivery or performance by the Local
Agency of any of the foregoing, or wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would have a
materially adverse effect on the Local Agency's financial condition or results of operations or on the
ability of the Local Agency to conduct its activities as presently conducted or as proposed or contemplated
to be conducted, or would materially adversely affect the validity or enforceability of, or the authority
or ability of the Local Agency to perform its obligations under, the Note, the Purchase Agr~ment, the
Indenture, the Credit Agreement, if any, the Reserve Credit Agreement, if any, or this Resolution.
LAl-131041.1
10
/;;~ ~JlJ
(1) Upon issuance of the Note and execution of the Purchase Contract, this
Resolution, the Purchase Contract and the Note will constitute legal, valid and binding agreements of the
Local Agency, enf<'rceable in accordance with their respective terms, except as such enforceability may
be limited by bankruptcy or other laws affecting creditors' rights generally, the application of equitable
principles if equitable remedies are sought, the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases and the
limitations on legal remedies against local agencies, as applicable, in the State of California.
(K) The Local Agency and its appropriate officials have duly taken, or will take, all
proceedings necessary to be taken by them, if any, for the levy, receipt, collection and enforcement of
the Pledged Revenues in accordance with law for carrying out the provisions of this Resolution and the
Note.
(L) The Local Agency shall not incur any indebtedness secured by a pledge of its
Pledged Revenues unleSs such pledge is subordinate in all respects to the pledge of Pledged Revenues
hereunder.
(M) So long as the Credit Provider, if any, is not in default under the Credit
Instrument or the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, is not in default under the corresponding Reserve
Credit Agreement, the Local Agency hereby agrees to pay its pro rata share of all Predefault Obligations
and all Reimbursement Obligations attributable to the Local Agency in accordance with provisions of the
Credit Agreement, if any, the Reserve Credit Agreement, if any, and/or the Indenture, as applicable.
Prior to the Maturity Date, moneys in the Local Agency's Payment Account and/or Payment Subaccount
shall not be used to make such payments. The Local Agency shall pay such amounts promptly upon
receipt of notice from the Credit Provider or from the Reserve Credit Provider, if applicable, that such
amounts are due to it.
(N) So long as any Bonds issued in connection with the Notes are Outstanding, or any
Predefault Obligation or Reimbursement Obligation is outstanding, the Local Agency will not create or
suffer to be created any pledge of or lien on the Note other than the pledge and lien of the Indenture.
Section 12. Tax Covenants. (A) The Local Agency shall not take any action or fail to
take any action if such action or failure to take such action would adversely affect the exclusion from
gross income of the interest payable on the Note or Bonds under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (the "Code"). Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Local Agency shall not
make any use of the proceeds of the Note or Bonds or any other funds of the Local Agency which would
cause the Note or Bonds to be an "arbitrage bond" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code, a
"private activity bond" within the meaning of Section 141(a) of the Code, or an obligation the interest
on which is subject to federal income taxation because it is "federally guaranteed" as provided in
Section 149(b) of the Code. The Local Agency, with respect to the proceeds of the Note, will comply
with all requirements of such sections of the Code and all regulations of the United States Department
of the Treasury issued or applicable thereunder to the extent that such requirements are, at the time,
applicable and in effect.
(B) The Local Agency hereby (i) represents that the aggregate face amount of all tax-
exempt obligations (including any tax-exempt leases, but excluding private activity bonds), issued and to
be issued by the Local Agency during calendar year 1996, including the Note, is not reasonably expected
to exceed $5,000,000; or (ii) covenants that the Local Agency will take all legally permissible steps
necessary to ensure that all of the gross proceeds of the Note will be expended no later than the day that
is six months after the date of issuance of the Note so as to satisfy the requirements of Section
148(f)(4)(B) of the Code.
LAl-l32041.1
11
/,,/9 -fI
(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, upon the
Local Agency's failure to observe, or refusal to comply with, the covenants contained in this Section 12,
no one other than the holders or former holders of the Note, the owners of the Bond, the Credit Provider,
if any, the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, or the Trustee on their behalf shall be entitled to exercise any
. right or remedy under this Resolution on the basis of the Local Agency's failure to observe, or refusal
to comply with, such covenants.
(0) The covenants contained in this Section 12 shall survive the payment of the Note.
Section 13. Events of Default and Remedies.
If any of the following events occurs, it is hereby defined as and declared to be and to
constitute an "Event of Default":
(A) Failure by the Local Agency to make or cause to be made the transfers and
deposits to the Payment Account, or any other payment required to be paid hereunder, including
payment of principal and interest on the Note, on or before the date on which such transfer,
deposit or other payment is due and payable;
(B) Failure by the Local Agency to observe and perform any covenant, condition or
agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Resolution, for a period of fifteen
(15) days after written notice, specifying such failure and requesting that it be remedied, is given
to the Local Agency by the Trustee, the Credit Provider, if applicable, or the Reserve Credit
Provider, if applicable, unless the Trustee and the Credit Provider or the Reserve Credit
Provider, if applicable, shall all agree in writing to an extension of such time prior to its
expiration;
(C) Any warranty, representation or other statement by or on behalf of the Local
Agency contained in this Resolution or the Purchase Agreement (including the Pricing
Confirmation) or in any requisition or any financial report delivered by the Local Agency or in
any instrument furnished in compliance with or in reference to this Resolution or the Purchase
Agreement or in connection with the Note, is false or misleading in any material respect;
(0) A petition is filed against the Local Agency under any bankruptcy, reorganization,
arrangement, insolvency, readjustment of debt, dissolution or liquidation law of any jurisdiction,
whether now or hereafter in effect and is not dismissed within 30 days after such filing, but the
Trustee shall have the right to intervene in the proceedings prior to the expiration of such thirty
(30) days to protect its and the Bond Owners' (or Noteholders') interests;
(E) The Local Agency files a petition in voluntary bankruptcy or seeking relief under
any provision of any bankruptcy, reorganization, arrangement, insolvency, readjustment of debt,
dissolution or liquidation law of any jurisdiction, whether now or hereafter in effect, or consents
to the filing of any petition against it under such law; or
(F) The Local Agency admits insolvency or bankruptcy or is generally not paying its
debts as such debts become due, or becomes insolvent or bankrupt or makes an assignment for
the benefit of creditors, or a custodian (including without limitation a receiver, liquidator or
trustee) of the Local Agency or any of its property is appointed by court order or takes
possession thereof and such order remains in effect or such possession continues for more than
30 days, but the Trustee shall have the right to intervene in the proceedings prior to the
expiration of such thirty (30) days to protect its and the Bond Owners' or Noteholders' interests.
LAl-132041.1
12
) b/J -'/J.
Whenever any Event of Default referred to in this Section 13 shall have happened and
be continuing, the Trustee, as holder of the Note, shall, in addition to any other remedies provided herein
or by law or under the Indenture, if applicable, have the right, at its option without any further demand
or notice, to take one or any combination of the following remedial steps:
(1) Without declaring the Note to be immediately due and payable, require the Local
Agency to pay to th~ Trustee, as holder of the Note, an amount equal to the principal of the Note
and interest thereon to maturity, plus all other amounts due hereunder, and upon notice to the
Local Agency the same shall become immediately due and payable by the Local Agency without
further notice or demand; and
(2) Take whatever other action at law or in equity (except for acceleration of payment
on the Note) which may appear necessary or desirable to collect the amounts then due and
thereafter to become due hereunder and under the Note or to enforce any other of its rights
hereunder.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Local Agency's Note is secured in whole or in part
by a Credit Instrument (other than the Reserve Fu~d) or if the Credit Provider is subrogated to rights
under the Local Agency's Note, as long as the Credit Provider has not failed to comply with its payment
obligations under the Credit Instrument, the Credit Provider shall have the right to direct the remedies
upon any Event of Default hereunder, and, not withstanding the foregoing, if a Reserve Credit Instrument
is applicable, as long as the Reserve Credit Provider has not failed to comply with its payment obligations
under the Reserve Credit Agreement, the Reserve Credit Provider shall have the right (prior to the Credit
Provider) to direct the remedies upon any Event of Default hereunder, in each case so long as such action
will not materially adversely affect the rights of any Bond Owner, and the Credit Provider's and Reserve
Credit Provider's (if any) prior consent shall be required to any remedial action proposed to be taken by
the Trustee hereunder.
If the Credit Provider is not reimbursed on the Maturity Date for the drawing, payment
or claim, as applicable, used to pay principal of and interest on the Note due to a default in payment on
the Note by the Local Agency, or if any principal of or interest on the Note remains unpaid after the
Maturity Date, the Note shall be a Defaulted Note, the unpaid portion (including the interest component,
if applicable) thereof or the portion (including the interest component, if applicable) to which a Credit
Instrument applies for which reimbursement on a draw, payment or claim has not been made shall be
deemed outstanding and shall bear interest at the Default Rate until the Local Agency's obligation on the
Defaulted Note is paid in full or payment is duly provided for, all subject to Section 8 hereof.
If the Credit Instrument is the Reserve Fund and the Reserve Bonds are secured by the
Reserve Credit Instrument and all principal of and interest on the Note is not paid in full by the Reserve
Principal Payment Date, the Defaulted Note shall become a Defaulted Reserve Note and the unpaid
portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof (or the portion thereof with respect to
which the Reserve Fund applies for which reimbursement on a Drawing has not been fully made) shall
be deemed outstanding and shall bear interest at the Default Rate until the Local Agency's obligation on
the Defaulted Reserve Note is paid in full or payment is duly provided for, all subject to Section 8 hereof.
Section 14. Trostee. The Local Agency hereby directs and authorizes the payment by
the Trustee of the interest on and principal of the Note when such become due and payable, from amounts
received by the Trustee from the Local Agency in the manner set forth herein. The Local Agency hereby
covenants to deposit funds in such account or fund, as applicable, at the time and in the amount specified
herein to provide sufficient moneys to pay the principal of and interest on the Note on the day on which
it matures. Payment of the Note shall be in accordance with the terms of the Note and this Resolution.
LAl-131041.1
13
J~4-{3
Section 15. Sale of Note. The Note shall be sold to the Authority, in accordance with
the terms of the Purchase Agreement, hereinbefore approved, and issued payable to the Trustee, as
assignee of the Authority.
Section 16. Approval and Execution of Amended A2reement. The Amended
Agreement is hereby approved and anyone of the Authorized Representatives of the Local Agency is
hereby authorized and directed to execute the Amended Agreement, with such changes, insertions and
omissions as may be approved by such official and the Secretary or Clerk of the Local Agency is hereby
authorized and directed to attest the same.
Section 17. Approval of Actions. The aforementioned Authorized Representatives of
the Local Agency are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Note and cause the Trustee to accept
delivery of the Note, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement and the Indenture.
All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the Local Agency or this Legislative Body with
respect to the sale and issuance of the Note and participation in the Program are hereby approved,
confirmed and ratified and the Authorized Representatives and agents of the Local Agency are hereby
authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Local Agency, to do any and all things
and take any and all actions and execute any and all certificates, agreements and other documents which
they, or any of them, may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the lawful issuance and
delivery of the Note in accordance with, and related transactions contemplated by, this Resolution. The
Authorized Representatives of the Local Agency referred to above in Section 4 hereof are hereby
designated as "Authorized Local Agency Representatives" under the Indenture.
In the event that the Note or a portion thereof is secured by a Credit Instrument, anyone
of the Authorized Representatives of the Local Agency is hereby authorized and directed to provide the
Credit Provider and, if applicable, the Reserve Credit Provider, with any and all information relating to
the Local Agency as such Credit Provider or Reserve Credit Provider may reasonably request.
Section 18. Proceedinp Constitute Contract. The provisions of the Note and of this
Resolution shall constitute a contract between the Local Agency and the registered owner of the Note,
and such provisions shall be enforceable by mandamus or any other appropriate suit, action or proceeding
at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction, and shall be irrepealable. The Credit Provider,
if any, and the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, are third party beneficiaries of the provisions of this
Resolution and the Note.
Section 19. Limited Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
herein or in the Note or in any other document mentioned herein or related to the Note or to any Series
of Bonds to which the Note may be assigned, the Local Agency shall not have any liability hereunder or
by reason hereof or in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby except to the extent payable
from moneys available therefor as set forth in Section 8 hereof.
Section 20. Amendments. At any time or from time to time, the Local Agency may
adopt one or more Supplemental Resolutions with the written consents of the Authority, the Credit
Provider, if any, and the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, but without the necessity for consent of the
owner of the Note or of the Bonds issued in connection with the Note for anyone or more of the
following purposes:
(A) to add to the covenants and agreements of the Local Agency in this Resolution,
other covenants and agreements to be observed by the Local Agency which are not contrary to
or inconsistent with this Resolution as theretofore in effect;
LAl-l3llNl.1
14
J ~ /J -:d'/
(B) to add to the limitations and restrictions in this Resolution, other limitations and
restrictions to be observed by the Local Agency which are not contrary to or inconsistent with
this Resolution as theretofore in effect;
(C) to confirm, as further assurance, any pledge under, and the subjection to any lien
or pledge created or to be created by, this Resolution, of any monies, securities or funds, or to
establish any additional funds or accounts to be held under this Resolution;
(0) to cure any ambiguity, supply any omission, or cure or correct any defect or
inconsistent provision in this Resolution; or
(E) to amend or supplement this Resolution in any other respect;
provided, however, that any such Supplemental Resolution does not adversely affect the interests of the
owners of the Note or of the Bonds issued in connection with the Notes.
Any modifications or amendment of this Resolution and of the rights and obligations of
the Local Agency and of the owner of the Note or of the Bonds issued in connection with the Note may
be made by a Supplemental Resolution, with the written consent of the owners of at least a majority in
principal amount of the Note and of the Bonds issued in connection with the Note outstanding at the time
such consent is given; provided, however, that if such modification or amendment will, by its terms, not
take effect so long as the Note or any Bonds issued in connection with the Note remain outstanding, the
consent of the owners of such Note or of such Bonds shall not be required. No such modification or
amendment shall permit a change in the maturity of the Note or a reduction of the principal amount
thereof or an extension of the time of any payment thereon or a reduction of the rate of interest thereon,
or a change in the date or amounts of the pledge set forth in this Resolution, without the consent of the
owners of such Note or the owners of all the Bonds issued in connection with the Note, or shall reduce
the percentage of the Note or Bonds the consent of the owners of which is required to effect any such
modification or amendment, or shall change or modify any of the rights or obligations of the Trustee
without its written assent thereto.
Section 21. Severability. In the event any provision of this Resolution shall be held
invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or
render unenforceable any other provision hereof.
LAl-132IlI41.1
15
/~/}~
Section 22. Appointment of Bond Counsel. The law firm of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, Los Angeles, California is hereby appointed as Bond Counsel for the Program. The Local
Agency acknowledges that Bond Counsel regularly performs legal services for many private and public
entities in connection with a wide variety of matters, and that Bond Counsel has represented, is
representing or may in the future represent other public entities, underwriters, trustees, rating agencies,
insurers, credit enhancement providers, lenders, financial and other consultants who may have a role or
interest in the proposed financing or that may be involved with or adverse to Local Agency in this or
some other matter. Given the special, limited role of Bond Counsel described above the Local Agency
acknowledges that no conflict of interest exists or would exist, waives any conflict of interest that might
appear to exist, and consents to any and all such relationships.
Section 23. Appointment of Financial Advisor and Underwriter. Sutro & Co.
Incorporated, Los Angeles, California is hereby appointed as financial advisor for the Program. Morgan
Stanley & Co. Inc., together with such co-underwriters, if any, identified in the Purchase Contract, is
hereby appointed as underwriter for the Program.
Section 24. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its date of
adoption.
Section 25. Resolution Parameters.
(A) Name of Local Agency: CITY OF CHULA VISTA
(B) Maximum Amount of Borrowing: $ 6,000,000
(C) Authorized Representatives:
TITLE
1. City Manager
2. Finance Director
3. Assistant Finance Director
4.
[Attach form of Certification of the Secretary or Clerk of the Legislative Body, with respect to the
Resolution, if desired (such form of Certification is not required).]
16 /tA-J't
RESOLUTION NO. I?':L C; CJ
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
INCLUDE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 PROPOSED
BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS OF $242,860 FOR TAX AND
REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE PROJECTED INTEREST
AND ISSUANCE COSTS AND ESTIMATED INTEREST
REVENUES OF $235,000 FROM INVESTMENT OF THE
NOTE PROCEEDS
WHEREAS, it is being recommended that the City joint the
California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) in
order to take advantage of the opportunity to borrow money on a
short-term basis at the lowest cost; and
WHEREAS, such a borrowing is recommended as an
alternative to borrowing from other City Funds in order to cover
the temporary cash shortfalls that occur in the General Fund during
the year due to the cyclical nature of some of our major revenue
sources; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the City Manager be
directed to include the estimated interest cost of the borrowing
and estimated interest revenues from investment of the note
proceeds in the fiscal year 1996-97 proposed budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby direct the City Manager to include
in the fiscal year 1996-97 proposed budget appropriations of
$242,860 for Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note Project Interest and
issuance Costs and Estimated Interest Revenues of $235,000 from
Investment of the Note Proceeds.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert Powell, Director of
Finance
Bruce M. Boogaard, City
Attorney
C:\rs\CSCDA
/tJ,g -- /
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ,,1f8~
Meeting Date 5/14/96
,)"
Resolution' Amending FY 1995-96 budget, appropriating funds for
previously approved MOU's
Resolution (i')~~ending the Fringe Benefit Resolution for Middle
Managers.
Resolution '~ranSferring funds between departments in accordance with
the budget transfer policy
BUdgetManage~~
City Manage~
U
(4/5ths Vote: YesXXNo_)
Subsequent to the adoption of the budget, Council has approved MOU's with POA, IAFF,
CVEA, WCE, and revised the benefits resolution for Unrepresented and Middle Managers. The
budget was not amended as a result of these actions, as it was intended to return to Council to
appropriate the total funds required after all negotiations processes had concluded. Due to
expenditure savings realized from staff turnover city-wide, the POA and IAFF MOU
appropriations are the only ones which are recommended to be appropriated.
The Middle Manager's have completed negotiations with the City Manager and the Benefits
Resolutions is recommended to the approved in accordance with those negotiations.
As a result of implementation of the Council Policy on "Financial Reporting and Transfer
Authority", staff has monitored all budgets and determined that in order to complete the fiscal year
with all department budgets in compliance with this policy, transfers are requested to cover issues
within two departments.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council amend the FY 96-97 budget to:
1. Appropriate funds for POA and IAFF MOU's
2. Adopt modification of the Fringe Benefits Resolution for Middle Managers
3. Authorize transfer of funds between summary accounts and between departments
for issue in the Library and the Police Department.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMEND A TION: Not applicable.
17-- J
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 5/14/90
DISCUSSION:
MOU APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1995-96
At the time that the FY 1995-96 budget was adopted, staff was still actively involved in labor
negotiations with the International Association of Fire Fighter's (IAFF), Police Officer's
Association (POA), Chula Vista Employee Association (CVEA) and Western Council of
Engineers (WCE). In addition, staff was also discussing amendments to the "benefits resolution"
of Unrepresented Employees and Middle Managers. While negotiations are in process, Council
has historically adopted the MOU or Benefits Resolution without appropriating funds to support
the new agreements. This has been done primarily to not hinder negotiations which may still be
in process. The main concern being that if the cost of a package for one unit becomes public, it
may have a negative impact on the process of other active negotiations. This information has,
however, been provided to Council in confidential memorandums.
Since all labor contracts for the current year are known, staff is recommending that the funds may
now be appropriated without interference with on-going labor negotiations. The table below lists
all appropriations approved as part of approved MOU or Benefits Resolutions, however, it is
recommended that the appropriations for POA and IAFF be implemented, as all other departments
were able to absorb the additional MOU costs and are projected to end the fiscal year in a positive
situation for salaries and benefits. Rather than appropriate funds which are not needed it is
recommended that these funds remain in the general fund reserve.
MOlI Amendments FY 1995-96
BARGAINING FY 95-96 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES
UNIT COST
IAFF $111,934 MOU ratified by Council on October 17, 1995, gave 3% increase in
PERS retirement pick-up ($122,634) offset by savings in Health
Insurance Costs of $10,700. No other issues had any fiscal impact.
POA $191,090 MOU ratified by Council on November 7 ,1995, approving 2 year
MOU with costs in first year (95-96) of $191,090 for stipend and
other minor changes.
CVEA $126,135 MOU ratified by Council June 27,1995 for 4 year MOU, with cost
in the current year (95-96) for Special Adjustments ($47,735) and
Stipend ($78,400).
17-~
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 5/14/90
BARGAINING FY 95-96 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES
UNIT COST
WCE $4,600 Unilateral implementation of MOU with benefits same as CVEA,
including stipend
Unrepresented $3,800 Closed session action approving a stipend
Middle Mgmt $14,600 Closed session action approving a stipend and other changes listed in
more detail below which are requested to be approved by Council.
Executive Mgmt $0 Closed session action to approve additional day off with pay which
will be forfeited if not used prior to end of current fiscal year. No
fiscal impact.
Total $452,254
Appropriation $303,024 Includes appropriation for IAFF and POA only
Recommended
Funds to remain in $149,230 Appropriations for all other units not required
Reserve
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT FRINGE BENEFIT RESOLUTION
The City Manager has met with the Middle Managers and the following recommendations represent
the culmination ofdicussions from FY 1994-95. These changes will be implemented upon adoption
by City Council and will bring employees in this group in line with changes in other MOD's and
agreements.
Flexible Benefits
Plan
$7,208 It is recommended to increase the allowable flex plan
contribution to the deferred compensation plan from
25% to 30%. Fiscal impact for FY 95-96 is based not
on direct cost but in increased Flex Plan monies not
returned. This cost estimate assumes that employees
who have funds available, and no other reimbursable
options remaining, will increase their flex plan
contributions the additional 5%.
)7--3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date '!i/14JCJfl
Bilingual Pay
$300 It is recommended that all non-safety Mid-Managers
receive bilingual pay equal to all other non-safety
employees ($40.00 per month). This is an increase over
the current $35.00 per month. Cost of increasing the
bilingual pay $5 a month for 5 employees is $300 per
year
$300 It is recommended that the City provide $100 towards
safety shoes for Mid-Managers in the classifications of
Fleet Manager and Senior Public Works Supervisor.
Cost of providing $100 to three Mid-Managers for
safety shoes is $300 per year
Uniforms/Safety
Equipment
Total
$7,808
The following adjustments to the Classifications in the Mid-Management group are recommended
to reflect those positions which have been deleted, re-titled or are no longer in active use:
Animal Control Manager
Assistant to Mayor and City Council (UC)*
Assistant Transit Coordinator
Battalion Chief
Building Projects Supervisor
Building Services Superintendent
Business Office Manager
CBAG Executive Director (DC)
CIP Stipel visor
Collections Supervisor
Communications Systems Manager
Computer Operations Manager
Conservation Coordinator
Crime Analysis Manager*
Crime Laboratory Manager*
Deputy City Attorney (U C)
Deputy City Clerk
Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation
Disastel Plepaledness Coordinator
Development Projects Manager
Economic Development Manager (UC)
Emergency Management Coordinator
Environmental Projects Manager
17 - If
Environmental Resource Manager
Environmental Review Coordinator
Fire Marshal
Fleet Manager
Geographic Information Systems Manager
Housing Coordinator (UC)
Infer mation Sy stems Manager
Landscape Architect
Library Automation Manager
Micro Computer Specialist
Open Space Coordinator
Principal Community Development Specialist
Principal Librarian
Principal Management Analyst
Principal Management Assistant
Principal Personnel Analyst
Principal Planner
Public Information Coordinator (UC)
Public 'Nor ks COOl dinator
Public Works Maintenance Superintendent
Purchasing Agent (U C)
Recreation Super intendent
Redevelopment Coordinator (UC)
Risk Manager
Senior Accountant
Sel1ior Animal Contr 01 Officer*
Senior Civil Engineer
Senior Economic Development Specialist
Senior Clime Analyst*
Senior Librarian
Senior Management Analyst
Senior Management Assistant
Senior Park Supervisor
Senior Personnel Analyst
Senior Planner
Senior Public Works Supervisor
Supervising Construction Specialist
Senior Recreation Supervisor
Supervising Evidence Technician*
Systems and Programming Manager
Traffic Engineer (UC)
Transit Coordinator (U C)
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 5/14/96
11-5
-,
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date ~/14fQh
Volunteer Coordinator (NIC)
* New titles for existing classifications or positions.
BUDGET TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION
Prior to FY 1995-96, the City Manager and the Director of Finance were jointly authorized to
approve transfers of appropriations between line item accounts within departments, and, transfers
of appropriations between departments for employee services accounts only. Council adopted a
policy which eliminated this practice and requires the following:
1. Requires Council approval for transfers of appropriations between departments,
regardless of amount.
2. Requires Council approval for transfers of appropriations greater than $15,000
between summary accounts within a department.
3. Delegates authority to the City Manager for approval of transfers of appropriations
for amounts less than $15,000 within summary accounts within the same
department upon certification by Director of Finance that appropriations are
available.
Throughout the fiscal year staff has been closely monitoring the actual expenditures in all
departments. In order to meet the guidelines of the "Policy" it is recommended that transfers be
approved between summary accounts in the Library and transfers between departments for the
Police Department. These issues are discussed below and detailed in the attached chart.
1. POLICE DEPARTMENT
The Police Department has done a good job in monitoring expenditures throughout the year.
However, as the budget reflects our best estimate at the time it is approved, the actuality of needs
often changes during the course of a fiscal year. The Salaries and Wages category account is
projected to be in a deficit situation at year end by $209,551. This amount will be offset, however,
by the appropriation of PO A MOD of $191,090 recommended above, leaving a negative balance of
$18,461, which is .1% of the Police Employee Services category. This amount is recommended to
be covered by a transfer of$20,000 from Employee Services savings within the Finance Department.
With this transfer the Employee Services account is projected to end the fiscal year in a positive
situation.
While the department was able to maintain savings in salaries due to higher than expected turnover,
II-~
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date ~/14/9n
the main problem within employee services is a projected over expenditure in Worker's
Compensation. The account was originally estimated at $479,610 by Risk Management, but is now
projected to be at $762,548 at year end. The Police Department and Risk Management have worked
closely together on this issue and the projection is based on three cases which are currently pending.
However, because settlement of these cases and others can change at any time, it is recommended
that we continue to use the estimate of$762,548 as it is the most realistic figure we have at this time.
Should this situation change after year end closing and these expenses are not realized, staff will
return to provide additional clarification on this issue.
Within the Supplies and Services Category it is estimated that the Police Department will end the year
with a deficit of$31,865. The primary problems are in Postage ($5,891), Equipment maintenance
($16,147) and Telephone ($16,488). These accounts are ones which the department has little control
over and it is recommended that savings in supplies and service in the Public Works budget be
transferred to cover this issue.
LIDRARY
The Library has also been very diligent in their monitoring and control of expenditures. Since this
fiscal year represented the first full year of operation of the South Chula Vista Library, many
estimates of true expenditures have been validated and some have been wrong. One of the ones
which was underbudgeted is Utilities. This account is estimated to go over by $55,952 department
wide. This includes an underestimating the cost of utilities at the South Chula Vista Library, an
overestimation of savings from the retrofit program at Civic Center and an increase in utility rates as
well. As a note, the Utility account includes, gas, electric and water. For the Fiscal Year FY 96-97
budget, water has been separated into its own account. The over expenditure of$38,506 in Supplies
and Services indicates that the department has made up for some of the over expenditure in Utilities
by savings funds in other accounts. This overage can be handled within the Library, as their bottom
line for fiscal year end is projected to show a savings of $71,727. This is because the department will
return $110,233 in Employee Services savings, mostly due to staff turnover. It is recommended that
$38,506 be transferred from the Employee Services category to the Supplies and Services Category
which will still maintain a positive bottom line of $71,727.
FY 1995-96 Proposed Position Reductions
During the adoption of the FY 1995-96 budget, several difficult staffing decisions were made. In
Public Works, the final result was the intended Layoff of 1.00 Equipment Mechanic I, and bumping
down to lower classifications affecting at least 6 individuals. The City Council approved a delay in
implementation of these issues to see if some additional resignations or retirements which might
expand our options to try to save these individuals salaries and positions. The Public Works
Department did a great job in doing just that. By taking advantage of vacant positions throughout
the department they will end the year with savings in Salaries and Wages of$31,982. This savings
is greater than the savings anticipated from these reductions and was accomplished without
implementing the layoff or the bumping scenario.
17-;7
Page 8, Item
Meeting Date 5/14/9fl
While staffhad intended to implement these reductions mid-year, it was our belief that Council also
did not want to implement these changes, if there was a viable alternative. During this time, staff has
been able to take better advantage of the vacancies which have occurred, and is recommending a
structure in the proposed FY 1996-97 budget which limits the layoffs and bumping, provides greater
operational efficiency and still reduces expenditures significantly.
The impact of the delay in implementation is that the Equipment Mechanic I position has been
retained for the full fiscal year, but will be recommended to be deleted effective July 1, 1996. The
individual will be offered an option for bumping to a lower classification, but retain a city position and
the right to go back to the Equipment Mechanic series if and when an opening is available. The other
changes which were not implemented were 6 individuals bumping to lower classifications within the
Operations Division. The vacancy structure during the year has been different than what had been
anticipated, and staff has been able to maintain existing salary and position levels while still providing
the same cost savings anticipated. This delay has also allowed the division to explore further options
for staffing which will be presented in the proposed FY 1996-97 budget.
FISCAL IMP ACT:
The result of the above actions will appropriate only $303,024 of the total $452,254 MOD and
bargaining units funding authorized. The remaining transfers recommended have a net zero cost,
since the transfers can be accomplished within current funding authorization. The result of the
appropriation and transfers is still a estimated return of $703,190 to the general fund at fiscal year
end. This savings represents a 1.2% savings from the Council amended budget. The approval of the
proposed revised Fringe Benefit Resolution of Middle Manager's will add $7,808 which can be
absorbed within the existing funding level.
C:\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\BDCLENUP.F96
J7.-.9
en
w
0::
o
CD
w
~
()
I-
Z
::::>
o
()
()
<(
>-
0::
<(
~
~
::::>
en
Cl
z
<(
en
I-
Z
W
~
I-
0::
<(
a..
w
Cl
Z
W
W
~
I-
W
tn co
! en
::::s 0::
== W
"C U.
c: en
CI) z
e- ~
w
- I-
CI) Cl
~ w
::::s Cl
m<Dm
"C~~
Cl)LO~
't)(])O
CI)(])
,_...- ()
e>-W
D.u.0::
~I
OOOOOOM~OM~OO~NOON~
O~~O~O~~O~~~~~~O~MN
00 O~O~~O~M WWO~O~
~~ O~~NMON~ ~M~O~~
~~ ~N~M~~~O ~~WM~~
~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~
~ ~ ~
o
~
~
M
o
~
~
-0 ~
ill '~
L.. C CI)
CI:l .- UJ
0>0>"C
>-<..>c:
-oCca
2C1:ltn
CI:l CI:l CI)
Eco::
~ -S
W ::::s
UJ
L..
~
f/)
C
CI:l
L..
I-
l")
l")
N
00000000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~O~~O
o 0
- -
N N
Cf) Cf)
~ ~
I
00
~O
o
o
'o;t
~
o
o
o
o
'o;t
~
LO
CO
...-
l"-
N
N
~
OOOOI"-OCf)(])OOOOOLO(])OCOO<D
~~~~LOOCO'o;tO~~~~<D'o;tI"-LO(])O
(])LO(])'o;tO CONLOCO(J)I.O
~ ri r--: ri 6 ...-- 'o;t- LO- 6 6 ro
~...-~o Cf)~NCf)...-Cf)
~...- ~ ~...-~~
~ I ~ I
L..
-0 0>
0>-
-0 f/)
C C
0> ~
EI-
E
o
c..>
0>
0::
-0 <<tn
ill ~
L.. C ';:
CI:l ._ (;,.
~ 0> ,~
~ <..> VI
-oCCI)
2 CI:l ~
~~.2
~ ~
W W
00000000000000
~~~~~~~~~o~~~o
o 0
6 6
N N
~ ffl
I
N
00000
ffl ffl ffl ffl 0
o
o
'o;t
ffl
I
OOOOCf)OOOON...-OO...-Cf)ONNCf)
OLO~OCOO(J)fflOCOCOfflffl<D(J)Cf)CO'o;tCf)
00 O...-LO'o;t Ol"-Cf) 'o;tCf)'o;t(J)ON
~~ 66r--:~ 6NID romN~ri6
...-~ ...-Nffl...- LOCf)O ...-ffl'o;tCf)'o;t...-
ffl ffl~ ~ fflffl...- ffl fflfflffl...-
ffl I ffl
o
o
o
o
'o;t
ffl
I
LO
o
o
<D
I"-
'o;t
ffl
/7-7
......
c
f/) f/) 0>
.~ 5 ~ K
~ :g c..> 0
.- E .~ 0>
E 0 0> >
E L.. Coo 0>
o a.. >. .Q 0 Cl
'0 () >. 0> ...... _ >.
506:gE-tjgCo>:g
Of/):::J.9 0> f/)06 E:::J
() -0 E ~ () .~ ...... 0 E
>.roE>.>.EE~E
;4:00;4:;4:-00>0>0
()CO()()()<(~a..()
ro
......
C
0>
E
t
0> ro
0> 0> c..> Q..
C C 0>
c..> CI:l Cl 0>
C C L.. I c..>
CI:l C :::J C 0>
c ro f/) 0 0 L..
U. a.. C z a.. u.
0> C
C 0
:;:;
f/) CI:l
:::J 0>
o f/) L..
I~c..>
L.. 0>
0600::
O>~ 06
.~ <..> f/) C:-
-o=~~
'S .g ro .0
coa..a..:.:J
....J
<(
I-
o
I-
Q)
.2
(5
0-
c:
Q)
C)
~
Q)
>
o
Q)
.2
(5
0-
.S
Q)
C)
ctl
...
Q)
... >
....... Q) 0
<( > ...
O 0 Q)
O-o~>
~ .9 ~ 8
Q) ..c 0
u. O::J_
~ ai c: 1Il
- c: _ ~
:;;u:c:g
Q)c::::J>
-g .;;; 8 .2
Q) C) ~ :.0
E .S ~;;:
E > .....
8 ~ E .S
Q) 1Il E 1Il
... Q) :::J .~
1Il 0 1Il 0..
g .~ ai g.
.S! en ~ en
a.~~C:
e>'..clll
0..2 1Il g>
a. a. "'C '>-
ctl E c:
::lw.2~
0...............
~ ~ ~ ~
1Il Q) Q) Q)
Q) .!I' ..... .....
.... ~ 1Il 1Il
:5 c: c: c:
_ ctl ~ ~
g ~ .... ....
...
..-NM
RESOLUTION NO. /fr2 C; /
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING FY 1995-96 BUDGET, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
MOU'S
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the budget,
Council has approved MOU's with POA, IAFF, CVEA, WCE, and revised
the benefits resolution for Unrepresented and Middle Managers; and
WHEREAS, the budget was not amended as a
actions, as it was intended to return to Council to
total funds required after all negotiations
concluded; and
result of these
appropriate the
processes had
WHEREAS, due to expenditure savings realized from staff
turnover city-wide, the POA and IAFF MOU appropriations are the
only ones which are recommended to be appropriated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the FY 1995-96 budget and
appropriate $303,024 from the unappropriated balance of the General
Fund for the previously approved MOU's.
Presented by
John Goss, City Manager
C:\RS\approp.bud
J 7r9-'/
RESOLUTION NO. / ff:2 tj~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FRINGE BENEFITS FOR
MIDDLE MANAGERS FOR FY 1995-96
WHEREAS, the City Manager has met with the Middle Managers and the
following recommendations amending the current benefits resolution are recommended in order
to bring this group in line with changes:
Flexible Benefits Plan
$7,208
Bilingual Pay
$600
Uniforms/Safety Equipment
$300
Total
$8,108
It is recommended to increase the allowable
flex plan contribution to the deferred
compensation plan from 25 % to 30 %. Fiscal
impact for FY 95-96 is based not on direct
cost but in increased Flex Plan monies not
returned. This cost estimate assumes that
employees who have funds available, and no
other reimbursable options remaining, will
increase their flex plan contributions the
additional 5 % .
It is recommended that all non-safety Mid-
Managers receive bilingual pay equal to all
other non-safety employees ($40.00 per
month). This is an increase over the current
$30.00 per month. Cost of increasing the
bilingual pay $10 a month for 5 employees
is $600 per year
It is recommended that the City provide
$100 towards safety shoes for Mid-
Managers in the classifications of Fleet
Manager and Senior Public Works
Supervisor. Cost of providing $100 to
three Mid-Managers for safety shoes is $300
per year
WHEREAS, it is also recommended that adjustments to the Classifications in the
Mid-Management group are recommended to reflect those positions which have been deleted,
re-titled or are no longer in active use.
/7!J-j
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby amend the Middle Management Fringe Benefits as set forth in the
attached Exhibit A for FY 1995-96.
Presented by
Dawn Herring, Budget Manager
C:Rs\MM Fringe Benefit
J7[J~;2
EXHIBIT A
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT FRINGE BENEFIT COMPENSATION PLAN
FISCAL YEAR 1995-96
II. MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GROUP
A. Membership
Animal Control Manager
Assistant to Mayor and City Council (UC)
Assistant Transit Coordinator
Battalion Chief
Border Environmental Business Cluster Manager
Border Environmental Commerce Alliance Director
Building Projects Supervisor
Building Services Superintendent
Business Office Manager
CBAG Executive Director (UC)
Collections Supervisor
Communications Systems Manager
Computer Operations Manager
Conservation Coordinator
Deputy City Attorney (UC)
Deputy City Clerk
Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation
Economic Development Manager (UC)
Emergency Management Coordinator
Environmental Projects Manager
Environmental Resource Manager
Environmental Review Coordinator
Fire Marshal
Fleet Manager
Geographic Information Systems Manager
Housing Coordinator
Landscape Architect
Library Automation Manager
Micro Computer Specialist
Open Space Coordinator
Principal Community Development Specialist
Principal Librarian
Principal Management Assistant
Principal Personnel Analyst
Principal Planner
Public Information Coordinator
Public Works Maintenance Superintendent
Purchasing Agent (UC)
Redevelopment Coordinator
Risk Manager
Senior Accountant
) 76'3
Senior Civil Engineer
Senior Community Development Specialist
Senior Crime Analyst
Senior Librarian
Senior Management Assistant
Senior Park Supervisor ' ,
Senior Personnel Analyst
Senior Planner
Senior Public Works Supervisor
Senior Recreation Supervisor
Supervising Construction Specialist
Systems and Programming Manager
Traffic Engineer (UC)
Transit Coordinator (UC)
Volunteer Coordinator (NIC)
B. Fringe Benefits
1 . Retirement
The City will pay the 7% employee's contribution to the Public Employees
Retirement System for non-safety classifications. For safety classifications,
the City will pay 7%, and the employees will pay 2% of the 9% employee's
contribution to PERS.
2. Deferred Compensation Plans
(A) Employees in the Middle Management Group may participate in the
City's approved deferred compensation plans.
(B) There will be a cap of 30% of the adjusted flex plan balance which
may be used for deferred compensation, provided the employee
has contributed a like amount during the same fiscal year.
3. Flexible Benefit Plan
Effective 7/1/93, each Middle Manager wi If receive $5,545 annually to be
used for the purchase of employee benefits as specified in the CVEA
Memorandum of Understanding for FY 1994/95-1997/98, and any
additional uses approved by City Council.
4. Health and Dental Payroll Deductions Treated as Pre-Tax
Under Sections 125, 105, and 213 of the Internal Revenue Code,
the City will treat all payroll deductions for health and dental care on a pre-
tax basis, unless an affected employee requests that such deductions be
taxed. If the City does not meet IRS regulations or if the IRS regulations
change for any reason, this benefit may be discontinued.
5. Medical Premium Retirement Benefit Plan
The City will offer a medical premium retir~~ent benefit plan, under Section
/76'/
457 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code through the JPEBA, Joint Powers
Employees Benefit Authority (or an equivalent plan). This program will
provide employees the option of making unlimited pre-tax contributions
from their wages to pre-fund post-retirement health insurance premium
costs for themselves and their dependents. Since IRS Section 457(f)
requires restrictions on the program that can result in forfeiture of the
contributions to the City for specified reasons, employees are advised to
carefully review the information that will be provided on the program prior
to deciding whether or when to participate.
The City will pay the start-up costs associated with third party
administration. Participating employees will pay the participant costs
(currently $24 per year). If the City does not meet IRS regulations or if the
IRS regulations change for any reason, this benefit maybe discontinued.
6. Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA's)
Employees may elect to budget by salary reduction, for certain health and
dependent care reimbursements on a pre-tax basis. The rules governing
FSA's ar.e contained in the Internal Revenue Code. If IRS regulations
change or the City does not met IRS regulations, this benefit may be
discontinued.
(A) Health Care FSA - Employees may reduce their salary up to $2,500
to pay for eligible health related expenses. Salary reductions not
spent by the end of the plan year, by law, are forfeited to the City.
(B) Dependent Care FSA - Employees may reduce their salary up to
$5,000 to pay for eligible dependent care. Salary reductions not
spent by the end of the plan year, by law, are forfeited to the City.
(C) FSA Administration - Participating employees will pay the monthly,
per employee or per transaction administration fees, if any.
7. Long Term Disability Insurance
The City will pay the full cost of the long-term disability insurance premium
for middle management positions.
8. Professional Enrichment
$17,000 will be set aside, outside the flex plan, for professional enrichment
to be used exclusively by Mid-Managers. Professional enrichment may be
used for conferences and training to a maximum of $800 per middle
manager per fiscal year.
9. Ufe Insurance
City pays for a life insurance policy in the amount of $47,000 each. An
additional $3,000 group term life insurance policy is included in the flexible
benefits plan.
J7E'-~
10. PERS
The PERS 1959 Survivors Benefit third level employee premium cost per
month will be paid by the City.
11. Sick Leave Reimbursement
Sick leave shall accrue and be reimbursed as designated in the Civil
Service Rules, Chapter 2.00, Section 2.02.
12. Vacation
Middle Managers earn ten days vacation per year in the first through fourth
year of continuous employment, fifteen days vacation per year in the fifth
through fifteenth year of continuous service, and twenty days per year after
completion of fifteen years of continuous service. An employee may not
accumul~te more than three times the number of vacation days accrued
annually. Middle managers who have in excess of the three year limit will
have until June 9, 1994, to reduce their vacation balance to the three year
maximum. Any vacation time in excess of the three year maximum on
June 10, 1994, will be transferred to an excess vacation account where it
will remain available for use or cash out upon separation from City service,
at the employee's option. From that time forward, no vacation credits in
excess of the three year maximum will be accrued. Accumulated unused
vacation credits remaining upon separation from City service shall be paid
off in cash.
13. Administrative Leave
Middle Managers will receive 5 normal work days of administrative leave
each fiscal year. At the discretion of the department head, a middle
manager may receive up to 2 normal work days of bonus administrative
leave per fiscal year. Administrative Leave will be pro-rated at the time of
hire. Administrative leave will be utilized on a "use it or lose it" basis, with
any unused administrative leave balances at the end of a fiscal year or
upon separation from City service lost and not accumulated nor paid off
in cash.
14. Holidays
The Middle Management group will be credited 4 normal work days each
fiscal year for floating holidays (Lincoln's and Washington's Birthdays,
Admission Day, and Veteran's Day). Floating holiday time will be pro-rated
at time of hire based on which of the four holidays have not yet passed.
Floating holiday time must be used within the fiscal year for which it is
credited and will not be accumulated from year to year. Floating holiday
time in an employee's last fiscal year of City employment will be pro-rated
based on which of the four holidays have passed at the time of separation
from City service. Employees who have not used this pro-rated amount of
floating holiday time for their last fiscal year shall be paid off in cash for the
unused amount upon separation. Employees who use floating holiday
time and leave City service before the holiday passes will be charged for
17[)-~
such time.
The City will be closed on the following hard holidays: Independence Day,
Labor "Day, Thanksgiving,' Day After Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's
Day, Memorial Day.
15. Mileage Reimbursement
Middle Managers may b~ eligible for the City's Mileage Reimbursement
Program when required to use their private automobile for authorized City
business. .
26t per mile
24t per mile
22t per mile
- first 200 miles
- next 300 miles
- over 500 miles
16. Bilingual Pay
Those Mid-Managers who, upon recommendation of their Department
Head, approval of the Director of Personnel, and successful completion of
a bilingual performance evaluation will receive $40 per month in addition
to their regular pay on the condition that they continuously utilize their
bilingual skills in the performance of their duties.
17. Acting Pay
When a middle manager is assigned to perform the duties of a higher paid
classification for a period of more than 10 consecutive work days, such
employee may be compensated with a minimum of 5 percent above
current salary rate up to a maximum of 20 percent, effective the first day
of the out of class assignment.
18. Flexible Work Schedule
Middle Managers are permitted, with the prior and continuing approval of
their Department Head, to work a flexible schedule that fits within the bi-
weekly pay period. Proposals by employees to revise work schedules will
be considered by supervisors and Department Heads who will take into
account the employee's request, staffing needs, departmental operations
and the employee's overall job responsibilities and performance.
Middle Managers who are allowed to work flexible work schedules will not
be entitled to any additional sick leave, vacation, administrative leave, or
holiday benefits as a result of their non-standard work schedule.
19. Middle Managers in the classifications of Fleet Manager and Senior Public
Works Supervisor shall receive $100/year each towards the purchase of
safety shoes.
Exceptions to the above sections apply to Suppression Battalion Chiefs, as follows:
J78-?
1 . Suppression Battalion Chiefs will receive holiday pay equivalent to two
week's salary in lieu of all floating and hard holidays. The Fire Marshal
and Non-Suppression Battalion Chiefs will receive the same floating and
hard holidays benefits as other middle managers.
2. Suppression Battalion .Chiefs will earn extra compensation equivalent to
straight time pay only when they fill in for an absent Battalion Chief as Shift
Commander or when they are assigned to a strike team or multiple - alarm
incident for command duty that is beyond their normal work schedule.
Non-Suppression Battalion Chiefs will earn the same extra compensation
when filling in for a Suppression Battalion Chief as Shift Commander on
holidays or weekends.
3. Suppression Battalion Chiefs are eligible to receive Bonus Administrative
Leave, but will not receive regular Administrative Leave. The amount of
Bonus Administrative Leave Suppression Battalion Chiefs are eligible to
receive is the same amount as other Middle Managers are eligible to
receive; the amount is based on normal work days for employees working
a standard schedule, not on the Suppression shift schedule.
4. Sick Leave and Vacation Accruals for the Suppression Battalion Chiefs will
be in accordance with the 1995-96 Memorandum of Understanding with
the International Association of Firefighters Local 2180, except that the
maximum vacation accrual will be three times the amount accrued
annually:
C. All employees provided for herein are FLSA-exempt.
Effective April 15, 1986, an FLSA-exempt employee shall not be placed in leave
without pay status for any absence, due to personal reasons not covered by
some form of leave with pay, of less than the employee's regular work day, but
rather shall be charged annual leave tir:ne, if available, for the absence and shall
be paid for the portion of the absence not covered by such leave time, so long
as the employee has, in fact, worked for a portion of the work day. If the exempt
employee is absent from an entire work day, he/she shall be charged annual
leave time for the absence, if available, and shall be placed in leave without pay
status for the portion of the absence not covered by such leave time. Thus, for
example, if an exempt employee works three hours of a work day, is authorized
to take five hours of the day off for personal reasons, and has at the time three
hours of annual leave time available, the employee will be charged his/her three
hours of leave time and will be paid, for the remaining two hours of the absence.
As a further example, if an exempt employee is authorized to take an entire work
day off for personal reasons and has, at the time, six hours of annual leave
available, the employee will be charged his/her six hours of leave time and will be
placed in leave without pay status for the remaining two hours of the absence.
If such absences are not authorized by the employee's supervisor the employee
shall be placed in absence without leave (AWOL) status, and disciplinary action
shall be considered, as appropriate. Every attempt should be made to minimize
absences without leave of less than one work day for FLSA-exempt employees.
Effective April 15, 1986, an FLSA-exempt employee who is absent due to sickness
or disability for less than a work day and whose sick leave and annual leave
}78-~
balances are inadequate to cover the absence shall be paid for the portion of that
less-than-a-day absence not covered by such leave time, so long as the employee
has, in fact, worked for a portion of the work day. If the employee is absent for
an entire work day due to sickness or..disability, he/she shall be charged sick
leave and/or annual leave time for the absence,' if available, and shall be placed
in leave withou.t pay status for the portion of t~e absence not covered by such
leave time. Thus, for example, if an exempt employee works two hours of the day
and is off for six hours due to sickness. and has at the time two hours of sick
leave and two hours of annual leave time, the employee will be charged his/her
four hours of leave time and wiW be paid for the remaining two hours of the
absence. As a further example, if an exer:npt employee is absent for an entire
work day due to sickness, and has, at the time, two hours of sick leave and four
hours of annual leave, the employee will be charged his/her six hours of leave
time and will be placed in leave without pay status for the remaining two hours
of the absence. If such absences are nqt authorized by the employee's
supervisor, the employee shall be placed in absence without leave (AWOL) status,
and disciplinary action shall be considered, as appropriate. Every attempt shall
be made to minimize absences without leave of less than one work day for FLSA-
exempt employee.
[WP: C:\letters\mid-bene.96)
/7;:]--'1
"
RESOLUTION NO. /8";< 9.3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TRANSFERRING FUNDS BETWEEN
DEPARTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUDGET
TRANSFER POLICY
WHEREAS, as a result of implementation of the Council
Policy on "Financial Reporting and Transfer Authority", staff has
monitored all budgets and determined that in order to complete the
fiscal year with all department budgets in compliance with the
policy, transfers are requested to cover issues within two
departments; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the attached budget
transfers be approved in accordance with Council policy; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby transfer funds between departments
in accordance with the budget transfer policy.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funds are transferred between
departments in accordance with the budget transfer policy as set
forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
John Goss, City Manager
ity
Presented by
/ 7C ~/
~!'V......
-l -l -l :J
ii3 ii3 ii3 Q.
:J :J :J a
CIl CIl it CD
ctctCD CIl
;;; ;;; ;;; ~
---0
lG2'mc
:s. g, 3 D)
:J CIl ~ :g
~ C" ~ ..,
~ CD .g
:J ~ CD :J.
en CD en ~
c: CD CD -.
"0 :J =2 g
~ CIl -. CIl
(5' c: ~ ..,
CIl 3 CIl CD
:J 3 CIl 8
"UD)~3
c: -< 5' 3
c" D) <0 CD
~ 8 ~. ~
<c: "TIc..
o ;a -. _
~ :J ~ j;
CIl :J "TI
0' S; ~ "TI
(') ii3 - Qo
o 0 "U
~-<(')O
.., 0)>
o ~ '-"
~ ;;;
ii3 <
<0 CD
CD ii3
5' cg
"U
Q. :J
o' "U
CD Q.
o'
CD
..
~
o
:;;
r
riJiJOJ
o-O>cc
~~o-
0> en -. C.
-< o:J
QO~co
;::OoQO
CD ~ I
o ^
~ en 0
CD C
~ ~.
o' :J
:J CO
'TliJZ:J
~ 0 0 en
CD :J C
o I ~
CD 0 0>
CD :J
"'0 0
0> CD
::1-
3
CD
:J
.....
0>
'Tl(')iJ~~(')(')(')OJ(')
:JOCDcoc.;::;:;::;:oo;::;:
0> 3Cri33'<'< 30>'<
:J 3 0 ..... S' (') ~ 3 a.. (')
o C :J QO -. - :::: c en 0
CD :J:J ~ ~ O:J C
-. CD :J ~ ^ ~ -. QO :J
.:< - 0' ~ ~.:< (') Q.
o eno '< iJ03-
CD CD:J a
< ~ 3 3
CD < -.
o o' ~ ~
"'03 CD o' o'
en :J :J
CD en en
:J
.....
ffl
~
~
0>
o
o
0'1
I
ffl
~
_0
o
o
o
iJ
0>
:J
:J
:J
CO
ffl I ffl
~fflfflffl ffl ~fflffl ffl fflffl ffl
~~W~ffl~ OWO'1 ~ffl~~ ffl~
ow~~mm ~~p ~~pp ~~
~ow~w~ w~o ~~~o 00
w~mwmO>fflfflmmOfflmOmOffl0'10
w~~ow~oo~~oooowoooo
I
ffl ffl
~ ~
o 0
o 0
Offlfflfflffl0 fflfflffl
000000000
I'J
I
ffl
~
o
o
Offlfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl
0000000000
m m
g ~
- 3
9 OJ 0>
.... 0> .....
(1) 0> CD
(1):Jc.
eno-<
(1) CD CD
.., -. 0>
::So :J ~
(") m
(1) :J
(I). C.
;::0
CD
8
3
~3
~ CD
0> :J
:J C.
en CD
CD'c.
~
ffl
~
~
~
~
m
0'1
ffl
~
o
o
o
o
I ffl I ffl
ffl ffl ~ ffl ffl ~ ffl
W~W~fflW Offl~ffl
_m _0 _0 _0'1 _~ _~ _0 _W _~ _W ffl
O'1mmO'1~m o~mO'1m
OmO'1~~O>fflfflfflfflO~mOO'1fflfflfflffl
o>omomO'1ooooomwo~oooo
ffl
~
_0
o
o ffl
00
I
ffl ffl
W W
~ ~
o 0
OfflfflOfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl
00000000000000000
I'J
c.l
c.l
en
g ~
=OJ3
(1) 0> 0>
(1)_.....
I>> 0> CD
~:Jc.
c.O-<
CD CD
en -. 0>
(1) :J ~
< m
-. :J
(") C.
(1)
~
~
0>
:J
en
CD'
~
~
......
o
~w
-
CD
o
~ ~ ~
~~-~~ -~- ~~~~ ~
......~wm-~ o-~~w-~-~-
~~9~~~ m~ow~--o ~~
......o=omm w~b~~b~b 00
~w~o~......~~==o~......o~o~~o
CD~OO~~OO-WOCDwoooooo
/7C-~
I~
;::O'Tl"'D
m-<a
(') ~.....
om (1)
~ma
::;::000'1(1)
:::::..tbc.
mO>m
Z c:
o c.
m cc
o (1)
~ -
~ ~
Z 'i
en ~
'Tl C.
m ;:;:
;::0 c:
en Cil
OJ (I)
m
~
m
m
Z
o
m
iJ
~
;::0
~
~
m
Z
~
en
~
z
o
en
c
~
~
~
~
~
(')
(')
o
c
z
~
(')
~
m
G>
o
;::0
m
tI:I
:><:
::r:
H
ttl
H
8
:J::'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
Item c2tJ b
Meeting Date 5/14/96
Resolution} %,:2. / f'Taki~g a position to support SCA 26, which is not
addressed in the Legislative Program and therefore requires direct Council
action.
SUBMITTED BY: Councilman Rindone
Legislative Committee
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No,X")
The City's 1995-96 Legislative Program was last amended by Council on December 12, 1995.
Although this program was intended to provide comprehensive direction to the Legislative
Committee on City's legislative priorities, there are certain issues which are reserved for direct
action by the Council.
Attached is an analysis of a bill which is not addressed in the Legislative Program. This item
was recommended for direct Council action by Councilman Rindone based on the potential
benefit to the city through more timely budget adoption by the State Legislature. The Legislative
Committee also recommends that Council take a position to support this bill.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution supporting SCA 26.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: Legislative Committee recommends approval
of the resolution.
DISCUSSION
The bills proposed for Council action is follows:
1. SCA 26 (Thompson) BUDGET BILL PASSAGE: VOTE REOUIREMENT Would
exempt Budget Bill appropriations from that 2/3 vote requirement, thus requiring only
a 50% + 1 vote majority in each house to pass a state budget.
FISCal Impact: No direct fiscal impact. However, to the extent that this measure would
promote more timely state budget adoption, this measure would assist Chula Vista and
other cities in obtaining a true picture of available revenues (considering state grants and
other appropriations, and revenue take-aways). This would, in turn, increase the ability
for cities and other local agencies to make informed and timely budget decisions of their
own.
Legislative Committee Recommendation:
SUPPORT
c:\wp51\memos\cc514.113
Attachments: Analysis and bill text, SeA 26
c:;.tJ b - /
RESOLUTION NO. / g.J.. 9 L/
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TAKING A POSITION TO SUPPORT SCA
26 NOT ADDRESSED IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City's 1995-96 Legislative Program was last
amended by Council on December 12, 1995 and although this program
was intended to provide comprehensive direction to the Legislative
Committee on City's legislative priorities, there are certain
issues which are reserved for direct action by the Council; and
WHEREAS, based on the potential benefit to the city
through more timely budget adoption by the State Legislature,
Councilman Rindone is recommending direct Council action on SCA 26
(Thompson) which would exempt Budget Bill appropriations from that
2/3 vote requirement, thus requiring only a 50% + 1 vote majority
in each house to pass a state budget; and
WHEREAS, the Legislative Committee also recommends that
Council take a position to support this bill.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby take a position to support SCA 26
not addressed in the Legislative Program.
Jerry Rindone, Councilman
Appr ved as t9/lorm by
:[
ruce M.
Attorney
Presented by
C:\rs\sca26
dtJb-~
. --~._--~._~_"_",_,_--",,,--~'-'._-'~'--'-'._--'~-'-'-"-"~---...---",..~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
May 6, 1996
I BILL I AUTHOR I TITLE I INTRODUCED I AMENDED
SCA 26 THOMPSON BUDGET BILL: PASSAGE: 1/30/96 --
VOTE REQUIREMENT
CITY POSITION LEAGUE POSITION RELATED BILLS ADDRESSED BY LEG. PROGRAM
PENDING NO POSITION NONE NO
STATUS: Pending in Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments
BACKGROUND:
Existing provisions of the California Constitution provide that appropriations from the
General Fund, except appropriations for the public schools, are void unless passed
in each house by a 2/3 supermajority vote.
SCA 26 would:
Exempt Budget Bill appropriations from that 2/3 vote requirement, thus requiring only
a 50% + 1 vote majority in each house to pass a state budget.
A majority vote budget is among the combination of recommendations of several
these organizations reviewing the state budget process including the California
Constitution Revision Commission. the California Citizens Budget Commission, the
California Council of Economic and Environmental Balance's project CPR-California
Prosperity Thru Reform and the California Business Roundtable.
According to the report of the California Citizens Budget Commission, California is
the only state in which a supermajority vote for budget approval is constitutionally
required under all circumstances. Especially as the legislature deals with the realities
of term limits and contentious battles over the speakership,
FISCAL IMPACT: No direct fiscal impact. However, to the extent that this measure would promote
more timely state budget adoption, this measure would assist Chula Vista and other
cities in obtaining a true picture of available revenues (considering state grants and
other appropriations and revenue take-aways) for timely adoption of City budgets.
DATE TO COUNCIL
May 14, 1996
RECOMMENDATION
SUPPORT
LETTERS
YES
C:\wp51 \ANAL YSES\sca26.ana
;2{}h --:3
In bill text, brackets have special meaning:
[A> <A] contains added text, and
[D> <D] contains deleted text.
California 1995-96 Regular Session
1995 CA SCA 26
Introduced
Thompson
SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
No. 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCED BY Senator Thompson
JANUARY 30, 1996
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 26--A resolution to propose to
the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution
of the State, by amending subdivision (c) of Section 8 and subdivision
(d) of Section 12 of Article IV thereof, relating to the state budget.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SCA 26, as introduced, M. Thompson. Budget bill: passage: vote
requirement.
Existing provisions of the California Constitution provide that
statutes calling elections, statutes providing for tax levies or
appropriations for the usual current expenses of the state, and urgency
statutes shall go into effect immediately upon their enactment.
This measure would also provide that statutes enacting Budget Bills
shall go into effect immediately upon their enactment.
Existing provisions of the California Constitution provide that
appropriations from the General Fund, except appropriations for the
public schools, are void unless passed in each house by rollcall vote
entered in the journal, 2/3 of the membership concurring.
This measure would additionally exempt appropriations in the Budget
Bill from that 2/3 vote requirement.
Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
c2tJh-L-j
"I
Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That the
Legislature of the State of California at its 1995-96 Regular Session
commencing on the fifth day of December 1994, two-thirds of the
membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of
the State of California that the Constitution of the State be amended as
follows:
First--That subdivision (c) of Section 8 of Article IV is amended to
read:
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this
subdivision, a statute enacted at a regular session shall go into effect
on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment
of the statute and a statute enacted at a special session shall go into
effect on the 91 st day after adjournment of the special session at which
the bill was passed.
(2) A statute, other than a statute establishing or changing
boundaries of any legislative, congressional, or other election
district, enacted by a bill passed by the Legislature on or before the
date the Legislature adjourns for a joint recess to reconvene in the
second calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session, and in
the possession of the Governor after that date, shall go into effect on
January 1 next following the enactment date of the statute unless,
before January 1, a copy of a referendum petition affecting the statute
is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to subdivision (d) of
Section 10 of Article II, in which event the statute shall go into
effect on the 91 st day after the enactment date unless the petition has
been presented to the Secretary of State pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 9 of Article II.
(3) Statutes calling elections, statutes providing for tax levies or
appropriations for the usual current expenses of the State, [A> statutes
enacting budget bills, <A] and urgency statutes shall go into effect
immediately upon their enactment.
Second--That subdivision (d) of Section 12 of Article IV is amended
to read:
(d) No bill except the budget bill may contain more than one item of
appropriation, and that for one certain, expressed purpose.
Appropriations from the General Fund of the State, except appropriations
[A> in the budget bill or <A] for the public schools, are void unless
passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, [0> two
thirds <0] [A> two-thirds <A] of the membership concurring.
c2Vb -5
:1 "'
cr--I (