The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 1999/10/19 October 19,1999 "I declere under penalty of perjury that I am em:>lo)'ej by the City of Chula Vista in the Office c; . e ".' t:Jr:, an:! that I posted this A:en_.j,,) ;',0 ~n tile !Julletin Board at the Publip 'rvi es iJu:Jding an,<!,,at City HelJ)~J1 ' AGENDA DATED'!/? 5, ~ ~ SIGNED )~7lfffd.!J:J 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL. Councilmembers Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A. Claire Pratt and Jim McCarthy, from The Friends of the Art, will introduce the performance "On Stage Playhouse." B. The following individuals will receive proclamations in honor of their retirement from the City: Lieutenant Eugene D' Ablaing; Agent Roy Duron, Officer Thomas Iniguez; Officer Pablo Godina, Sergeant Tom Keblish, Sergeant Thomas Maloney; Lieutenant David Miller; Agent Mike Miller; and Lieutenant Richard Strickland. Mayor Horton will present the proclamations CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 4 through 7) The slatf recommelldaliolls re~ardill~ IhefiJIlowillf' ilems lisled ullder Ihe COllsenl Calelldar will he ellacled hy Ihe ('OI//Icil hy olle mOlioll, willlOlIl discussioll, ullless a Coullcilmemher, a memher o( Ihe IJ/lhlic, or ('ily slaflrequesls Ihallhe ilem he removedfiJr discussioll. Ilyou wish 10 .'1)eak Oil olle o(lhese ilems, please fill oul a "Requesl 10 Speak" fimu (",'ailaMe III Ihe lohhy) allll slIhmil il 10 Ihe Cily Clerk prior 10 Ihe //Ieelillg Ile/11s pulledfi'oflf Ihe ('ollselll ('alelldar will he discussed afier Acliollllems. Ilems plllled hy Ihe IJ/lhlic will he Ihejirsl ite/11S oj'lJffsilless. 4 APPRO V AL OF MINUTES of Regular Meetings of August 3, August 10 and August 17, 1999; and Adjourned Meetings of August II, August 19, August 31 (4:00 p.m.), and August 31 (600 pm.), 1999 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on October 12, 1999, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported Staffrecommendatiotl' The letter be received and tiled. B. Letter of resignation from the Cultural Arts Commission - Dr Barry A. Russell. Statf recommendation. The resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's Office and the Public Library Agenda 2 October 19, 1999 ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A 35 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE BETWEEN MEDICAL CENTER COURT AND EAST PALOMAR STREET, BRANDYWINE AVENUE BETWEEN EAST PALOMAR STREET AND OLYMPIC PARKWAY, EAST PALOMAR STREET BETWEEN OLEANDER AVENUE AND MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE, AND ADDING THESE ROADWAY SEGMENTS TO SCHEDULE X OF A REGISTER AS MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) Based on the provisions of Chapter 7, Article I of the California Vehicle Code, and pursuant to authority under the City's Municipal Code Section 1048020, the City Engineer has determined that in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and traffic congestion, and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit be established at 35 MPH on certain streets. Staff recommendation' Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption, (Director of Public Works) 7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NUMBER PE-462 FOR PLACEMENT OF A VISITOR ENTRY KIOSK, ARTWORK AND MONUMENT WITHIN A PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHERL Y ENTRANCE TO THE OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER ("A" STREET), SOUTH OF OLYMPIC P ARKW A Y Arco Olympic Training Center requests an Encroachment Permit to allow the placement of a visitor entry kiosk, artwork and monument within a City sewer easement located at the northerly entrance to the Olympic Training Center ("A" Street), south of Olympic Parkway. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 771<' .fi)llowill~ ilems have heell adl'erlised alld or posled as puhlic lIearillg~ as required hy law. If'you wish 10 .\peak 10 allY ilem, please fill oul a "Reqllesllo Speak" fimll (al'ailah/e ill IlIe lohhy) alii! suhmil il 10 IlIe Cily Clerk prior 10 Ihe mee/illg 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON PCA-OO-OI TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1914581 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CONFORM ALL OTHER APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1914581 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CONFORM ALL OTHER APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION (FIRST READING) Agenda 3 October 19, 1999 The Design Review Committee (DRC) has submitted a request to have its name changed to the Design Review Commission. The proposed name change is intended to better convey the DRC's level of responsibility to project applicants. Staff recommendation. Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Planning and Building) 9. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FSEIR-97-02) FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SPA PLAN AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A MlTlGATION MONITORING PROGRAM A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for San Miguel Ranch (EIR 97-02) has been prepared to identify and analyze potential environmental impacts from the proposed San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Map A public hearing on the Draft of this SEIR (DSEIR) was held by the Planning Commission on July 14, 1999 Staff and the consultants (P&D Environmental Consultants and the law firm of Remy, Thomas & Moose) have prepared the Final SEIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Staff recommendation. Council adopt the resolution certifying that the Final SEIR (97-02) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State ofCalitornia CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista. (Director of Planning and Building) 10 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND RELATED DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN/FISCAL IMP ACT ANALYSIS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM, AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICT MAP (FIRST READING) RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN WITH PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, DESIGN GUIDELINES, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLANIFISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM, AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 743 ACRES LOCATED EAST AND NORTH OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD, SOUTH OF SWEETWATER RESERVOIR AND THE SDG&E MIGUEL SUBSTATION, AND WEST OF ROLLING HILLS RANCH Agenda 4 October 19, 1999 Trimark Pacific-San Miguel, LLC has applied for approval ofthe 743-acre San Miguel Ranch SP A Plan and related required documents. The SPA Plan is intended to consistently implement the San Miguel Ranch Amended Horseshoe Bend General Development Plan, which was approved by Council in December of 1996. At that time, the landowner was Emerald Properties Corporation and the project encompassed two, non-contiguous parcels known as the North and South parcels. The 1,852-acre North parcel has since been established as a permanent ecological preserve, and the 743-acre South parcel has been purchased by Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC, who is processing this SPA Plan for the South parcel only. Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on first reading and adopt the resolution. (Director of Planning and Building) ACTION ITEMS The ilems Iisled ill Ihis seclioll of'lhe a~ellda a/'e expecled 10 elicil ,\'uhslalllial discussiolls alld deliheraliolls hy IlIe ('oulleil, Slott: or memhers oj' the puh!ie, The ilems will he cOllsidered illdil'idually hy Ihe ('oullcil, alld slc!!( recommendaliolls may, ill cerlaill cases, he p/'esellled illlhe allemalil'e. I(you wish 10 ,\peak 0/1 allY item, pleasefill oul a "Requesllo ,\jJeak ".limn (a\'(fil"h!e illlhe lohhy) alld suhmil it 10 Ihe ('ily ('I('/'k p/'io/' 10 Ihe meelillg II. RESOLUTION WAIVING CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL AND APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH RNL DESIGN FOR PREPARATION OF CORPORATION YARD CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 crp BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED) On September 15, 1998, Council approved an agreement with San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) for the City's purchase ofSDG&E's South Bay Service Center at 1800 Maxwell Road On November 17, 1998, Council approved an agreement with RNL Design for preparation ofa Corporation Yard Master Plan update and schematic design drawings. RNL Design has completed the Master Plan update and the schematic design drawings for the new Corporation Yard and is prepared to begin construction drawings and other items necessary to go to bid for construction of the improvements needed for City operations. Statfrecommendation. Council adopt the resolution, (Director of Public Works) 12. RESOLUTION WAIVING THE CITY'S FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS, APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE LEGAL FIRM OF REMY, THOMAS & MOOSE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE OLYMPIC P ARKW A Y ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT Agenda 5 October 19, 1999 Many aspects of the process for obtaining environmental clearances for Olympic Parkway have been quite complex. During the preparation of the CEQA document, and then with the processing of the 404 permit, it became evident that the expertise of the law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose would be needed. This resolution authorizes the Mayor to execute an agreement with Remy, Thomas and Moose for these services. Staff recommendation. Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Planning and Building) 13A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DESILTATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND OT A Y PROJECT, LP TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE POGGI CANYON CHANNEL AND AUTHORIZING THE MA YOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT B. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DESIL T A TION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MCMILLIN OT A Y RANCH, LLC TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE POGGI CANYON CHANNEL AND AUTHORIZING THE MA YOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT C RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DETENTION BASIN AND SILTATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT The Tentative Map conditions tl1r the proposed developments in Otay Ranch SPA One require compliance with certain requirements regarding maintenance of the proposed Poggi Canyon improvements In addition, Council Policy Number 522-02 requires the developer to maintain the drainage improvements for 5 years. Currently, the Otay Ranch Company and McMillin are processing mass grading plans with the City for a portion of their project drainage to Poggi Canyon, and issuance of the grading permits is anticipated shortly. The subject agreements delineate the developers' responsibilities for maintaining the proposed Poggi Canyon drainage improvements and establish the security requirements to ensure their performance. Also under consideration is an amendment to an existing agreement with McMillin for Telegraph Canyon, which will exclude all areas located within the Poggi Canyon basin previously included in the agreement Continued from the meetin2 of Octoher 12. 1999. Stafl'recommendation Council adopt the resolutions. (Director of Public Works) ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS A. Scheduling of meetings Agenda 6 October 19, 1999 15. MAYOR'S REPORTS A, Ratification of appointment to the Child Care Commission - Janice Lambert (to fill vacancy created by Commissioner Correira, whose term expires June 30, 2000) 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to a Closed Session and thence to the Regular Meeting of October 26, 1999, at 6:00 p m. in the Council Chambers. *** A Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council Meeting *** It............."',.,'" "', ,,~, '",.. ....0.:~..., r{ ....r Tuesday, October I q, 19q9 6'00 p.m. (immediately following the City Council Meeting) . ,Ji1j5/'ll " ..,:. 1fI4t,. ,: ;,1 i ,- ., il' ' /~, , " ,., , Council Chambers Public Services Building CHULA VISTA CITY COIlNCIL CLOSED SESSION AGENDA Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports offinal action taken in closed session, and the votes taken However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped Nevertheless, the report oftinal action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Otlice. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COIlNSEL REGARDING: . Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) One case. ClN OF CHULA VISTA TRANSMITTAL MEMO October 14, 1999 TO The Honorable Mayor and City Council ~ David D, Rowlands, II., City Manage~' .-/>' City Council Agenda for Tuesday, October 19, 1999 FROM SUBJECT This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, October 19, 1998. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows: 5a, This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on October 12, 1999 in which the City Attorney participated, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND FILED, 5b, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT DR. BARRY A. RUSSELL'S RESIGNATION FROM THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION BE ACCEPTED WITH REGRET AND THE CITY CLERK BE DIRECTED TO POST IMMEDIATELY ACCORDING TO THE MADDY ACT IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY. ~V~ ~ ~~~~ CllY OF CHUIA VISfA OFFICE OFTHE CITY ATTORNEY Date: October 13, 1999 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: John M, Kaheny, city Attorney Re: Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session for the Meeting of 10/12/99 The City Council of the city of Chula vista met in Closed Session on 10/12/99 to discuss: · CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code section Section 54956.9(a) 1. Fritsch v. City of Chula Vista, District Case No. 98-CV- o 9 72 - E CGA · Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) 1, One case, The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions pursuant to Conference with Real Property Negotiator which are required under the Brown Act to be reported, JMK: 19k 5-11 276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910. (619) 691-5037. FAX (619) 409-5823 ''-r. POSl-Consu",,",RocycledPape, CERRITOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 11110 ALONDRA RLVD . NORWALK, CALIFORNIA ~0650,62~8. (562) 860,2451. FAX (562) 46),5005 (")(") ~ -- .......... -:-: :::0 (")0 6 fTI r-'"Tl September 29,1999 ""(") (") ::>;:l:J: I fTI ~c::: ...., Ric Todd v>r- < 0:1> Cultural arts Coordinator ""c::: " fTI "T1- N 0 _U' City of Chula Vista ('")--.; ~ -:; "'- 0- 365 "F' Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Todd; The purpose of this letter is to resign my position on the Cultural Arts Commission and the Performing and Visual Arts Task force. As you know, I have taken ajob at Cerritos College and I have moved from the San Diego area, I have had a wonderful experience with both groups and wish everyone well on their future projects, Sincerely,. ~.~)~ Barry A. Russell, Ph.D, Instructional Dean Fine Arts and Communications CC, WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (3) /~ /c;/P9 5-0 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 10/19/99 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Authorizing the issuance of Encroachment Permit No. PE-462 for placement of a Visitor Entry Kiosk, Artwork and Monument within a public sewer easement located at the northerly entrance to the Olympic Training Center ("A" Street) south of Olympic Parkway SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~ REVIEWED BY: City Manag~ ~ ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes _ NoX) Arco Olympic Training Center requests an Encroachment Permit to allow the placement of a Visitor Entry Kiosk, Artwork and Monument within a City of Chula Vista Sewer Easement located at the northerly entrance to the Olympic Training Center ("A" Street) south of Olympic Parkway (Exhibit "B"), The provisions of Section 12,28 of the Municipal Code dealing with encroachments requires City Council approval for encroachments ofthis kind, RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the subject resolution authorizing the City Engineer to issue Encroachment Permit No. PE-462 for placement of a Visitor Entry Kiosk, Artwork and Monument within a public sewer easement and direct the City Clerk to record said permit. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None DISCUSSION: On July 23, 1999, staff received a copy of a letter from The Stichler Group, Inc. on behalf of their client, ARCO Olympic Training Center, requesting an Encroachment Permit (Exhibit "C") for placement of a Visitor Entry Kiosk, Artwork and Monument within a public sewer easement. The owner believes that the Encroachment is necessary to enhance the public/visitor program by providing a more positive impression and "customer-friendly" operation, The kiosk structure would house a staff person serving as a Tour Specialist/Greeter and provide directions and limited security by observing all vehicular and pedestrian traffic entering OTC during public hours of operation. The Encroachment will also include the existing 40 pieces of porcelainized steel artwork distributed along the median and the existing 20 foot tall porcelainized steel monument sign in the median (Exhibit "D"), With the conditions placed on the encroachment permit, the placement of the kiosk, artwork and monument within the easement will not hamper City crews' access to the sewer utilities and will allow maintenance to take place as usual. 7- / Page 2, Item Meeting Date 10/19/99 This encroachment permit includes an indemnity clause holding the City, its agents and employees harmless from damages resulting from the construction and maintenance of the visitor entry kiosk building, artwork and the monument sign belonging to ARCO Olympic Training Center. The following conditions of approval have been imposed on this encroachment permit: 1 . Encroachment shall be installed and maintained in a safe and sanitary manner by Permittee as determined by City. 2. The Permittee shall remove the Encroachment from the area directly over any sewer main within 4 hours of being notified by the City. Said removal shall be at the sole expense of the Permittee. If not removed within 4 hours of notification by the City or if immediate removal is required, City shall be authorized to remove the Encroachment and the Permittee shall reimburse City for the cost of said removal at the City's full cost recovery rate, 3. If removal is accomplished by City, City shall take reasonable care to prevent damage when removing said Encroachment. However, should Encroachment be damaged, as a result of being removed by the City to a location out of the area impacted by equipment and excavations necessary to repair the sewer main, City shall not be responsible for the cost to repair said Encroachment. Replacing said Encroachment, ifremoved by City or Permittee, shall be the sole responsibility of the Permittee, 4, Any utility needed to provide service to said Encroachment shall not be installed parallel to the sewer main unless within asphalt pavement and at least 15 feet horizontally away from any sewer main. 5. Kiosk shall not be located within 20 feet of any access point (manhole). 6. Permittee is to call Underground Service Alert (One call mark-out service) at 1-800-422-4133 a minimum of two working days prior to any excavation being done in the public right -of-way, including post holes or footing excavations. 7. Permittee shall immediately remove any graffiti from the encroaching objects. The permit has been signed and that signature notarized by Arco Olympic Training Center and is now ready to be issued, The permit will be recorded and run with the land. FISCAL IMP ACT: ARCO Olympic Training Center has paid a $250,00 application fee for processing the Encroachment permit. Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C"- Exhibit "D" - Locator plat Encroachment Permit PE-462 Letter from Stichler Group. Inc. Photos of existing Artwork and Monument H' \Ho'H E'IENGINEER\A GENDA \PE462A.BFS 7-J- ~ fS- -- ~o I . ~ t"'I y~~-~ ~ ===::~ fIC - ~ ('\ > ~ ('0 [fJ ~Q = . +:\~ ~~~ ~ '" .., ~. ::; C,< - C c.. = = ::; '" '" = ~ c "" 0 .., == ::. .., t"" ~ ::: ;;; '" "" C I - -4: '\\ - ~3~ET " IIZ ;; = .., t"" .. - .., C - Z ~ t"' :;, " Q' .. C '" ~ - = ~ ~ n :. ~. .. = :! t"' t"' e.ac ~ 5' ...0 c '" ("l ,., = ::. - .. '" - I - = -F :S' - '" U1 = .., ~ s ~\~ ~~ ;! ' 'F'!fl' \~\ \J \~ \1!S 1'" ~ I ~ , ~ . ~ . h ; . m X . "0 < . :-' j ~ en .... en 0 :n -I Z ;:: .::0 -; '" m :n m CIl > 1'1 -I z 5/' "0 < C'l 1+ ZS- en m ~ m :n .% 'MQC;f' ~/YE/1T /Z1 (Jay Nf7EA' a<174'/<T '" ..... C) ..... . ~~ \ ~~ \ ~ I ~'fEM:4' E-4fEH6VT/'tJ T#E C/7J'CYCh'dU j"/YU +ZS- STA '2.+75 l~ \ ~\ \\ . \ ~ :z ~r m X :c OJ -l -; ~ l' 7' 14' -- 7-3 r.- Recording requested by and please return to: EXHIBIT "B" City Clerk City of ChuIa Vista P,O, Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 91912 [ X] This document benefits permittee, Recording lee required. (This space for Recorder's use, only) Affects Assessor's Parcel No(s). 643-040-07 C.V. File No, 071O-40-PE-462 AUTHORIZATION FOR ENCROACHMENT WITIDN CITY SEWER EASEMENT Permit No. PE-462 Pursuant to Chapter 12,28 of the ChuIa Vista Municipal Code, permission is hereby granted by the City ofChula Vista (hereinafter "City") to: ARCO OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER, (hereinafter "Permittee") whose mailing address is 2800 Olympic Parkway, Chula Vista CA, 91915, to do work within a sewer easement belonging to the City of Chula Vista, All terms and conditions of this permit as to the Permittee shall be a burden upon Permittee's land and shall run with the land. All conditions apply to Permittee and all hislherltheir heirs, assigns, successors or transferees. Whereas, the Permittee has requested the permission from City to encroach on said City's sewer easement and for the direct benefit of the following described property: ADDRESS: 2800 Olympic Parkway, Chula Vista LEGAL DESCRIPTION: being Parcell of Parcel Map No, 16318 in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on December 6,1990 ofO.R, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to do the following work with the inclusion of conditions contained herein: Construct and maintain as approved by the City a 10'XIO' Visitor Entry Kiosk Structure, Artwork and Monument in the median within City's sewer easement at Olympic Parkway entrance to the Olympic Training Center. Limits for the Kiosk Structure location should stay between station 1 + 25 to 2+ 25 and station 2+ 75 to 4+ 00 as shown on the attached plat, Exhibit "A". (hereinafter "Encroachment.") NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows: Page 1 0~4 Permission is hereby granted Permittee to install the above-mentioned Encroachment on said sewer easement belonging to the City described above in accordance with the following conditions: 1. Encroachment shall be installed and maintained in a safe and sanitary manner by Permittee as determined by City. 2. The Permittee shall remove the Encroachment from the area directly over any sewer main within 4 hours of being notified by the City. Said removal shall be at the sole expense of the Permittee, If not removed within 4 hours of notification by the City or if immediate removal is required, City shall be authorized to remove the Encroachment and the Permittee shall reimburse City for the cost of said removal at the City's full cost recovery rate, 3. If removal is accomplished by City, City shall take reasonable care to prevent damage when removing said Encroachment. However, should Encroachment be damaged, as a result of being removed by the City to a location out of the area impacted by equipment and excavations necessary to repair the sewer main, City shall not be responsible for the cost to repair said Encroachment. Replacing said Encroachment, if removed by City or Permittee, shall be the sole responsibility of the Permittee. 4. Any utility needed to provide service to said Encroachment shall not be installed parallel to the sewer main unless within asphalt pavement and at least 15 feet horizontally away from any sewer main, 5, Kiosk shall not be located within 20 feet of any access point (manhole), 6, Permittee is to call Underground Service Alert (One call mark-out service) at 1-800-422-4133 a minimum of two working days prior to any excavation being done in the public right-of-way, including post holes or footing excavations. 7. Permittee shall immediately remove any graffiti from the encroaching objects. Permittee shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the Permittee, or any agent or employee, subcon- tractors, or others (including third parties) in connection with the execution of the work covered by this agreement. except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Pennittee's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Permittee at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Permittee's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Permittee. Permittee hereby agrees to and shall defend City, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents and employees against any claim, and in any suit or proceeding, at law or in equity, for damages caused, or alleged to have been caused, by actions taken or alleged to have been taken under this permit by Permittee directly or by hislher/their agent(s), contractor(s), or agents or employees of same. Permittee further agrees to and shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents and employees, as indemnities, for any claim, suit or proceeding submitted, brought or instituted against City as a result of actions taken, or alleged to have been taken, under this permit, including, but not limited to, any asserted liability for loss of or damage to property or for personal injury, including death, Page 2 ~~5 The undersigned Permittee hereby accepts the foregoing Encroachment permit upon the terms and conditions stated herein and agrees to comply with all stated terms and conditions and with all applicable laws, including any applicable provision of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. It is further agreed that if any part of Permittee's Encroachment or Permittee's rights under this Encroachment Permit should interfere with the future use of the City's right of way by the general public, it must be removed or relocated at Permittee's expense and such right shall be terminated as and when indicated by City. In the event of a dispute arising as to the terms or interpretation of this permit, the City Engineer shall resolve said dispute in his sole and unfettered discretion, reasonably applied. CITY OF CHULA VISTA: Permit approved by: Date: CLIFFORD L. SWANSON DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS D1RECTORICITY ENGINEER (City Clerk to attach acknowledgment.) PERMITTEE: Signature: Date: Title: (Notary to attach acknowledgmenl,) Approved As to Form: JOHN KAHENY, CITY ATTORNEY NOTE: Permittee is to submit a check or money order payable to County of San Diego equal to the total of $7, 00 for the first page and $3,00 for each page thereafter, including notary acknowledgments for all signatories. H:\HOME\ENGINEER\PERMITS\PE462,BFS Page 3 1-(P -, HEAL-THCA"~ -- ~~ '--, "-. EDUCATION STICHLER Jul) :'3. I aG9 EXHIBIT "C:J,?~ ,~ '~ ~- .;: jUl1999 'Ci. i;; ~i' 'm ~ \~ RE~t\~ lU 7 \'"" ...' \'"<"~ "'v / \ ..., cu ' ~/ TECHNOLOGV Office of the Cit) Engineer Permits Section P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, California 9191:' 9655 GRANITE RIDGE OR. SUITE 400 To Whom It May Concern: SAN DIEGO, CALIF"ORNIA 92123 The ARea Olympic Training Center requests an Encroachment Permit to allow placement ofa Visitor Entry Kiosk within the City of Chula Vista Sewer Easement along "A" Street between Olympic Parkway and the Visitors Center. This kiosk will greatly facilitate the arrival of visitors to the Center. The Visitor Entry Kiosk will comply with the Encroachment Penn it Conditions as set forth by City representatives at the preliminary meeting held at your offices on May] 2th. 1999. The Kiosk is required for the Olympic Training Center to assist visitors and the press in finding their \Va: to events. tours. and facilities. The Kiosk will be no greater than 10' x 10'. or 100 square feet in area. and be designed to be removed during an emergency. A preliminar) cost estimate for the entire project within the easement limits is approximately $50,000. We would like to request that any Cit) of Chula Vista permit fees that may be incurred by the ARCO OTC be waived per discussions between City Manager Dave Rowlands and ARCa aTC Director Patrice Milkovich. Attached please find drawings showing possible locations for the Kiosk. We understand you already have adequate documentation covering the Deed, legal description. and title report. If you have any questions. please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely' ~@diM W Ward Thompson, AlA Project Manager The Stichler Group, Inc. Attachments: Site Analysis CC- Patrice Milkovich (OTC Director), File l6191 56$'4-4-40 lBBBI5TICHLEFl! ~/1 FAX: (6191 569':3433 WWW.STICHLEFl!.CO.... ~< - -. lD /JI )>~ :::::I ... !!!.,m '< :::::I ~.~ /JI'< " O' /JI " m >< ~. S' <0 C[J co -0 ':::J' o 0' (J) - ~ j < (6' :< -; o :< ll> a. ;:: ll> :; < ~: Q m a iiJ ::l g ..~ .. - .. -","- .~ , )> ~ o ,.. )> 0' ::l (Q ;:: '" a. 0;' ::l \\1 X I \7i) ---\ ,I '\1' ~.t'. , ,<":, , x.. .. ."'. " \J " ~ ;"f' ~,.',"J ;.i: ",It ,.;II rJ-g RESOLUTION NO, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO, PE-462 FOR PLACEMENT OF A VISITOR ENTRY KIOSK, ARTWORK AND MONUMENT WITHIN A PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY ENTRANCE TO THE OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER ("A" STREET) SOUTH OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY WHEREAS, Arco Olympic Training Center requests an Encroachment Permit to allow the placement of a Visitor Entry Kiosk, Artwork and Monument within a city of Chula Vista Sewer Easement located at the northerly entrance to the Olympic Training Center ("A" Street) south of Olympic Parkway; and WHEREAS, according to Chapter 12.28 of the Municipal Code, any encroachments within a public sewer easement require city Council approval utilizing the encroachment permit process, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize the issuance of Encroachment Permit No, PE-462 for placement of a Visitor Entry Kiosk, Artwork and Monument within a public sewer easement located at the northerly entrance to the Olympic Training Center ("A" Street) south of Olympic Parkway subject to the following conditions: 1, Encroachment shall be installed and maintained in a safe and sanitary manner by Permittee as determined by city. 2, The Permittee shall remove the Encroachment from the area directly over any sewer main within 4 hours of being notified by the city. 3, If removal is accomplished by City, City shall take reasonable care to prevent damage when removing said Encroachment, However, should Encroachment be damaged, as a result of being removed by the City to a location out of the area impacted by equipment and excavations necessary to repair the sewer main, City shall not be responsible for the cost to repair said Encroachment, Replacing said Encroachment, if removed by city or Permittee, shall be the sole responsibility of the Permittee, 4, Any utility needed to provide service to said Encroachment shall not be installed parallel to the sewer main unless within asphalt pavement and at least 15 feet horizontally away from any sewer main. 1 ry-q 5, Kiosk shall not be located within 20 feet of any access point (manhole) . 6, Permittee is to call Underground service Alert (One call mark- out service) at 1-800-422-4133 a minimum of two working days prior to any excavation being done in the public right-of-way, including post holes or footing excavations. 7, Permittee shall immediately remove any graffiti from the encroaching objects, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution and permit, Presented by Approved as to form by if' V- 0)r\ C---d~ JO~Kaheny, City Attorney John p, Lippitt, Director of Public Works H:\home\lorraine\rs\PE462 enc 2 '1-10 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ' Meeting Date 10/19/99 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCA-OO-Ol. Consideration of an ordinance amending Section 19,14.581 of the Municipal Code, and directing the City Clerk to conform all other applicable sections of the Municipal Code to reflect a change in the name of the Design Review Committee to the Design Review Commission. ORDINANCE: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista amending Section 19.14,581 of the Municipal Code, and directing the City Clerk to conform all other applicable sections of the Municipal Code, to reflect a change in the name of the Design Review Committee to the Design Review Commission, SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and BUilding1a~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager Cff;l>r (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..K) The Design Review Committee (DRC) has submitted a request to the Chula Vista City Council to have their name changed to the Design Review Commission, The proposed name change is intended to better convey the DRC's level of responsibility to project applicants, RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached ordinance in order to: 1) Modify Section 19,14.581 of the Municipal Code to rename the Design Review Committee the Design Review Commission, and; 2) Direct the City Clerk to change all other applicable Municipal Code sections to read Design Review Commission, BOARDSICOMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed name change. DISCUSSION: In the attached letter dated September 14, 1999, Chairperson Patricia Aguilar requests that the Design Review Committee be renamed the Design Review Commission, Ms, Aguilar states in her letter that project applicants and architects going before the DRC often do not have a full appreciation of the responsibilities of the Design Review Committee. The DRC feels that the term "commission" better conveys their mission and scope of responsibility to project applicants. The Design Review Committee is responsible for ensuring that development within the City of Chula Vista maintains a high degree of design quality, The DRC applies the City's Design Guidelines in their review of such aspects of development plans as architectural style, site planning, building materials, and landscaping, The DRC reviews commercial, residential, and industrial development, The DRC utilizes the Design Guidelines as well as their design expertise in assessing proposed development and its compatibility with the surrounding area, g-I Page 2, Item Meeting Date 10/19/99 Changing the name of the Design Review Committee would require the modification of language within the Zoning Code, State law requires that changes to the Zoning Code must first be reviewed by the Planning Commission, The Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposed name change at their meeting of September 29, 1999, The PC also took the opportunity to state their support for the Design Review Committee and recognize the difficult job that they perform, The Design Review Committee is established in Section 19,14,581 of the Zoning Code, which states the following: In order to relieve the planning commission of certain functions necessary to the proper administration of this chapter, to intensify this municipality's efforts to improve its townscape, and to promote the orderly growth and amenity of the city and environs, there is established a design review committee with such authority as is granted by the chapter." In order to change the name of the Design Review Committee to the Design Review Commission, the word "committee" must be replaced with "commission" throughout the Municipal Code. At this time, staff is recommending that the above referenced language be modified, with direction given to the City Clerk to conform all other applicable code sections, Staff has prepared a draft ordinance (Attachment "B") which modifies Section 19,14,581 of the Municipal Code, and authorizes the City Clerk to make all other required changes, Staff is of the opinion that the authority and responsibilities of the DRC should be fully acknowledged and conveyed as clearly as possible to project applicants, A similar change was made several years ago, when the Growth Management Oversight Committee was changed to the Growth Management Oversight Commission, As the City Council is aware, the DRC has a significant positive impact upon the quality of design in Chu1a Vista, The title Design Review Commission should help to more fully convey the responsibilities of the DRC. FISCAL IMPACT: None H:\shared\planning\stevexp\DRCnamechangeCC ?-;)- AITIICH A1~ilJT ~ Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - September 29, 1999 2. ING: PCM 96-04; Request to approve the San Miguel Ranch Se . al nning Area (SPA) Plan including the Planne mmunity District e . ns and Design Guid' ; Public Facilities Finance Plan; Afforda i an; Air Quality Improvement Plan; and Water Cons Ion P a IS item to October 6, 1999, omas/O'Neill) (5-0-2) to continue this item to a Special Meeting of the Planlll Commission on October 6,1999. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-00-01; Request to rename the Design Review Committee to the Design Review Commission. Background: Steve Power, Associate Planner reported that Patricia Aguilar, Chair of the Design Review Committee submitted a letter dated September 14, 1999, requesting to rename the Committee to Design Review Commission. The DRC feels that the term "commission" better conveys their mission and scope of responsibility to project applicants, The name change would require the modification of language within the Zoning Code, State law requires that changes to the Zoning Code must first be reviewed by the Planning Commission, The name change would require changing the word "Committee" to "Commission" throughout the entire Municipal Code. At this time, staff is recommending the name change only in Section 19,14.581 of the Zoning Code, with direction to the City Clerk to modify all other applicable code sections at a later date, It should be noted that the City Clerk is in the process updating and reprinting the Municipal Code and those subsequent changes will be incorporated, Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance in order to: 1, Modify Section 19.14,581 of the Municipal Code to rename the Design Review Committee to the Design Review Commission, and; 2, Direct the City Clerk to change all other applicable Municipal Code sections to read Design Review Commission, Public Hearing Opened 6:20 Patricia Aguilar, 1048 Surrey Drive, Chair of the Design Review Committee commended staff for their support to the Committee. Ms, Aguilar stated that the Committee's mission in reviewing industrial, institutional, commercial and multi-family development is to ensure that new development in the City is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and to maintain a high quality of urban and building design within the City, In some cases the Committee acts as advisory to the Planning Commission. Often time, however, the Committee is the only discretional body acting on a project and its decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission. ~-3 ATTACHMENT "A" Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - September 29, 1999 Often, project applicants take a casual approach believing that the Committee is simply there to provide suggestions that they may take or leave and do not fully understand the role and authority embodied in the Committee. It is hoped that a simple name change may help clarify this misconception, Public Hearing Closed 6:23. MSC (Castaneda/O'Neill) that the Planning Commission approve the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance in order to: 1. Modify Section 19.14.581 of the Municipal Code to rename the Design Review Committee to the Design Review Commission, and; 2, Direct the City Clerk to change all other applicable Municipal Code sections to read Design Review Commission. Motion carried. 4. lFD-99-05; an appeal of a large family daycare permit located at 735 Glover Avenue. Rac round: Beverly Blessent, Senior Planner reported that on July 29, 1999 th Admi . trator approved a large Family Day Care permit at 735 Glover Avenue, property wner with the support of others in the neighborhood appealed this Day Care operation is considered to be an accessory e in a single family residence and ch a use is allowed to provide residential day care r 9-14 children, These homes are requir to obtain a license from the State as well as a rmit from the City, In response to the pub' notice on the permit, the Zoning ministrator received three letters of opposition and a petit~s.igned by twenty-four resid ts in the neighborhood, The letters requested a hearing in acco~ce with Section 19,5 ,147B of the Municipal Code, A Zoning Administrator hearing w held on Jul 9, 1999 and the applicant and her grandfather were present at the hearing and s ke i avor of the project. Eight neighbors spoke in opposition to the permit and voiced th lowing concerns: The City i equired to approve the permit if it complies with all City requirements, The Zoning Admini rator found that the permit met all City requirements. noise traffidspeeding not enough play space i inadequacy of bathro facilities perceived devalu 'on of the neighborhood g--Lf ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 19.14.581 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CONFORM ALL OTHER APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TO REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION, WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee IS responsible for reviewing all significant development within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee has an appreciable positive impact upon the quality of development within the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, it is important to convey the responsibilities and expertise of the Design Review Committee as clearly as possible to project applicants; and, WHEREAS, changing the name of the Design Review Committee to the Design Review Commission will help to better convey the authority, mission and responsibilities of this body; and, WHEREAS, on September 29, 1999 the City Planning Commission voted unanimously, recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning Code text amendment to Section 19,14.581 and direct the City Clerk to conform all other applicable Code sections; and, WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City as least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely October 19, 1999, at 6:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth A venue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the City Council found the proposal, as a procedural amendment, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the General Rule exemption section 15061(b)(3). NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve, and ordain as 'follows: ATTACHMENT "8" ?/5 SECTION I: That Section 19.14.581 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: In order to relieve the planning commission of certain functions necessary to the proper administration of this chapter, to intensify this municipality's efforts to improve its townscape, and to promote the orderly growth and amenity of the city and environs, there is established a design review commission with such authority as is granted by the chapter." SECTION II: That the City Clerk is directed to conform all other applicable Code Sections to reflect the name change. SECTION III: The City Council hereby finds that the text amendment will enhance the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Chula Vista, is consistent with the General Plan, and is supported by public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. Presented by, Approved as to form by, Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning and Building John Kahney, City Attorney ?~~ COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM DATE: October 19, 1999 TO: The Honorable MaYQd City Council David D, Rowlands Jr., City Manager ;rL VIA: FROM: Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT: Council Agenda Item No, 9 - Replacement Page 10 (handwritten page 9-28) to Findings of Fact (San Miguel Ranch SEIR-97-02) Placed on the dais tonight is a replacement page 10 (or handwritten page 9-28) of the Findings of Fact for SEIR-97-02. The amendment references changes to the first and third bullet point under the Landform Visual Quality mitigation measures in order to make them consistent with the San Miguel Ranch SPA policies and City landscape requirements, A strikeout-underline version is also attached, cc: Ann Moore . The landform is to be rounded as much as possible to blend into the natural grade. When slopes cannot be rounded, vegetation is to be used to soften the appearance of manufactured slopes to simulate a contoured landform through the use of landscaping techniques, . Transitional slopes and graded areas adjacent to natural, ungraded terrain are to be planted with native and naturalized plant species to provide a subtle blending between manufactured and natural slopes, and to meet fuel modification requirements. . Contour grading is used in some of the ROA-maintained open space lots outside of the right- of-way along Mount Miguel Road to reinforce the parkway character of the roadway. The minimum 2:1 slopes along these roadways is used outside of the landscape buffer easement in locations where necessary to preserve Otay tarplant areas, where needed to minimize encroachment into the open space, or in 2: I downslope conditions where the slopes are not visible from the roadway, The landscape buffer easements exceed the minimum City requirements along Mt. Miguel Road and will be graded no steeper than a maximum gradient of 5: 1. . Curvilinear streets and slopes are used to conform to the existing topography, to provide visual interest and to minimize straight, hard-edged slopes, A. Biological Resources Significant Effect Significant impacts to a variety of sensitive habitats and individual species would occur as a result of the project. Wetlands, Direct elimination by filling of wetlands and potential degradation or elimination by placement of wetlands within residential lot boundaries could result in impacts to less than 1.5 acres ofUSACOE and CDFG jurisdictional resources. Two sensitive species of plants, San Diego marsh elder, and spiny rush would be impacted, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. The SPA Plan would result in the elimination ofa total of 137.3 acres of coastal sage scrub. This loss is significant because of the sensitive species located in these areas, Several thousand coast barrel cactus individuals on-site would be impacted, California adolphia is also abundant on the project site, with the two largest populations occurring in the eastern portion of the South Parcel. Both of these populations would be impacted. In addition, small populations ofMunz's sage would be impacted in the southern portions near the property boundary, All of these impacts are considered significant. Annual Grassland, The extensive loss of non-native grassland habitat is considered cumulatively adverse but not significant, except where it contains large populations ofrare native plants such as Findings of Fact -10- Draft 3 September 1, 1999 . The landform is to be rounded as much as possible to blend into the natural grade. When slopes cannot be rounded, vegetation is to be used to soften the appearance of manufactured slopes to simulate a contoured landform through the use oflandscaping techniques~ ts ~reate the effost ef a RsrizElmG!lj' aHa yertieally liBa.ulating slsJ3e teFFam, . Transitional slopes and graded areas adj acent to natural, ungraded terrain are to be planted with native and naturalized plant species to provide a subtle blending between manufactured and natural slopes, and to meet fuel modification requirements. . Contour grading is used in some of the HOA-maintained open space lots seteaek areaB outside of the right-of-way along Mount Miguel Road to reinforce the parkway character of the roadway. The laJulseape setBael~ eJ~6eBa tHe R1:HHFElIDl City r0f:1lliremeats aJ.0F.lg l\febl.Tlt },figHel Reaa, ane \":ill13e gra8.BB y:itk 8101386 i~aryiRg tram 5:1 te 2:1. The minimum 2:1 slopes along these roadways is used outside of the landscape buffer easement in locations where necessary to preserve Otay tarplant areas, where needed to minimize encroachment into the open space, or in 2: I downslope conditions where the slopes are not visible from the roadway. The landscape buffer easements exceed the minimum Citv requirements along Mt. Miguel Road and will be graded no steeper than a maximum gradient of5:1, . Curvilinear streets and slopes are used to conform to the existing topography, to provide visual interest and to minimize straight, hard-edged slopes. A. Biological Resources Significant Effect Significant impacts to a variety of sensitive habitats and individual species would occur as a result of the project. Wetlands, Direct elimination by filling of wetlands and potential degradation or elimination by placement of wetlands within residential lot boundaries could result in impacts to less than 1.5 acres ofUSACOE and CDFG jurisdictional resources. Two sensitive species of plants, San Diego marsh elder, and spiny rush would be impacted, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. The SPA Plan would result in the elimination of a total of 137.3 acres of coastal sage scrub, This loss is significant because of the sensitive species located in these areas. Several thousand coast barrel cactus individuals on-site would be impacted. California adolphia is also abundant on the project site, with the two largest populations occurring in the eastern portion ofthe South Parcel. Both of these populations would be impacted. In addition, small populations ofMunz's sage would be impacted in the southern portions near the property boundary, All of these impacts are considered significant. Findings of Fact -10- Draft 3 September 1, 1999 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: q Meeting Date: 10/19/99 ITEM TITLE: REPORT: Consideration of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report) for San Miguel Ranch (SPA) (EIR 97-02) SUBMITTED BY: RESOLUTION EIR 97-02: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista certifying that the FSEIR 97-02 has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and making certain Findings of Fact, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring program~ ad do ting Overriding Considerations Director of Planning and Building ~(i--' City Manager {~yY (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No ...xJ REVIEWED BY: A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for San Miguel Ranch (EIR 97-02) has been prepared to identify and analyze potential environmental impacts from the proposed San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Tentative Map, A public hearing on the Draft of this SEIR (DSEIR) was held by the Planning Commission on July 14, 1999. Staff and the consultants (P&D Environmental Consultants, and the law firm of Remy, Thomas & Moose) have prepared the Final SEIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program, RECOMMENDATION: That Council certify that the Final SEIR (97-02) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State of California CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista, BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Resource Conservation Commission Two meetings were scheduled for the Resource Conservation Commission's review of the DSEIR on June 28, 1999 and July 12, 1999. Unfortunately, there was not a quorum at either meeting, As a result the Resource Conservation Commission did not review and comment on the DSEIR for San Miguel Ranch, Planninl! Commission On July 14, 1999 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, On October 6, 1999, the Planning Commission met to review the Final Subsequent q,,1 Page 2, Item: C3f Meeting Date: 10/19/99 Environmental Impact Report, Subsequent to staffs presentation and public comment, the Planning Commissioners expressed concerns about cumulative regional traffic impacts and their reluctance to recommend certification of this or future environmental impact reports until they see solutions to the regional traffic problems. They originally voted 4 to 3 to deny the certification of the EIR. Dan Marum ofBRW, the traffic consultant on the project addressed the Commission specifically regarding the relationship of San Miguel Ranch's minimal contribution to cumulative traffic to the total cnmulative traffic impacts. He stated that even though projects within the City's General Plan are required to maintain the Threshold Standard of LOS C, it is known that the regional freeway system is projected to operate at LOS E, The Director of Planning and Building stated that the issue of cumulative traffic is being discussed at the regional level, specifically through SANDAG, The Director also stated staffs intention for the City of Chula Vista to continue to meet with CaITrans, MTDB and SANDAG, to discuss effective ways of addressing the required transportation deficiencies, and to hold another Commission workshop with these agencies in attendance, Chairman Willett then made a motion, which was supported, to reconsider the decision of certification of the EIR, The Planning Commissioners then voted 4 to 3 to certify the document. Although the Commission did vote to certify, they continued to strongly express their concerns over the cumulative regional traffic impact problems, DISCUSSION: Proiect Description The SEIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed SPA plan, This document is a "Subsequent EIR" and a Third-Tier EIR. The 1 ,852-acre northern parcel is not a part ofthe current development proposal since it has been established as an ecological reserve through a conservation bank process. In accordance with the approved GDP, the southern parcel is proposed to include 344,1 acres of low, low-medium, medium and medium-high density residential development totaling 1,394 dwelling units, The remainder of the southern parcel will be comprised of 260,7 acres of open space, 13 acres of commercial uses and 15.6 acres of institutional uses, 5,7 acres of community services as well as easements, 21.6 acres of community park, a 5.7 private neighborhood park, and various roadways and trails, Proi ect Historv This project has undergone two prior tiers of environmental review in conjunction with previous approvals for this project. The current SEIR provides the additional project level analysis q, l' Page 3, Item: q Meeting Date: 10/19/99 necessary for the City Council to make an informed decision on the applicant's proposed SPA Plan and tentative map. The first EIR for this project, EIR 90-02, analyzed the impact of developing 357 lots on the Northern Parcel and 1,257 lots on the south parcel, and was certified in 1993, Two Addenda were prepared to that document. The first evaluated the environmental effects or refinements to the proposed land use concept. A second Addendum incorporated additional changes to the Plan and mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources. In 1996, Emerald Properties proposed significant revisions to the previously adopted General Development Plan, including elimination of development on the North Parcel. Therefore, a second EIR (EIR 95-04) was prepared to analyze this revised project. This second ElR was certified, and a General Plan Amendment and Revised General Development Plan were approved in late 1996, This staff report discusses the content of the Final SEIR for the SPA Plan and tentative map, focusing primarily on those impact areas in which the majority of comments were received, The staff report also includes a discussion of those which were found to be significant at the Draft SEIR level due to newly enacted legislation, recent changes in case law and the unfeasibility of controlling mitigation within another jurisdiction. Public and Al!encv Review The San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan SEIR was circulated through the State Clearinghouse for a 45- day review period starting on May 28, 1999 and ending on July 11, 1999, The City of Chula Vista public review period concluded on July 14, 1999 with the close of the Planning Commission public hearing to receive comments on the Draft SEIR from the public, Four Federal and State Agencies, State Office of Planning and Research, State of California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), US Department of Fish and WildlifelCalifornia Department ofFish & Game and California Highway Patrol submitted written comments on the DSEIR. Fourteen local governments, agencies and individuals also provided written comments, Chula Vista Elementary School District, Local Agency Formation Commission, Preserve South Bay, California Native Plant Society, County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, City of San Diego, Sweetwater Union High School District, Sweetwater Authority, Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, the San Miguel Ranch Citizens Advisory Committee, Sempra Energy, Philip Gaughan and Trimark Pacific Homes, L.P, A second letter was received from the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), on Tuesday September 28, 1999, ten weeks after the close of the public review period on the DSEIR (see attached), The letter proposed a specific redesign of the project in the southwest comer to further reduce impacts on the Otay Tarplant. Staff prepared a response to the letter and faxed it to Planning Commission members on October 6, 1999 (see attached), Even with the additional Q,3 Page 4, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 acreage of Otay Tarplant that would be preserved with the redesign proposed by the CNPS, under CEQA the impact to biological resources would still be significant and not fully mitigated, CEQA requires the City to mitigate the impacts to the extent feasible. Thus the question under CEQA is, "Is the California Native Plant Society redesign or alternative a feasible way to further reduce the impacts on the Otay Tarplant?" The CEQA Guidelines recognize "feasibility" as a reasonable balancing of a number of factors: economic, environmental, social and technical. The previous two tiers of environmental review and planning for this project reflect the balancing of these factors, In 1996, the approved General Development Plan for the project included 23 acres of Otay Tarplant preservation with the support of the Resource Agencies, The proposed project has 37 acres of Otay Tarplant preserve, It is the opinion of staff that the proposed project appropriately balances economic, environmental, social and technical factors, It is also staffs opinion that the redesign proposed by the CNPS would create inconsistencies with the Adopted GDP and City Council policies, Specifically the CNPS alternative proposes to eliminate development within a portion of Neighborhoods "J" and "K", These areas are designated for low-density residential development in the General Plan and the General Development Plan, Therefore, the requested changes are inconsistent with the current, adopted General Plan and General Development Plan designations for the project site, The CNPS alternative would specifically reduce the area of low density, estate development within the areas west of the proposed SR-125, The estate development is important in providing a balance of housing types within the community and was designated in this location to maintain a density appropriate and compatible to adjoining existing residential neighborhoods in the Sunnyside community, Therefore, the reduction in the area of estate residential development contemplated by the CNPS alternative would require amendments to both the City's General Plan and the General Development Plan (GDP) for San Miguel Ranch, and create potential incompatibility impacts to the adjacent Sunnyside community. Overall, City staff and the environmental consultant believe that the Final SEIR contains adequate responses to comments made by July 14, 1999. At the Planning Commission meeting of October 6, 1999, three additional written comments were received, These included the texts of two verbal presentations, one from Bertha McKinley of the California Native Plant Society and the other from Stanley Waid representing the Bonita Highlands Homeowners Association, A letter from the Sweetwater Union High School District was also received, Copies of these are attached, The Final SEIR contains responses to comments received during the public review period, including comments made at the Planning Commission Public Hearing of July 14, 1999 on the Draft SEIR. The Responses to Comment section is located in the front of the Final SEIR. As a result of comments received, some revisions have been made to the text which are noted on page 1-2 in the introduction, q~tf Page 5, Item: q Meeting Date: 10/19/99 Sil!nificant and Not Fullv Mitil!able Impacts. During the hearing on July 15, 1999, the Planning Commission expressed concern over a number of the significant and unavoidable project-related impacts identified in the draft EIR. The draft EIR disclosed, in particular, that implementation of the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA on the following resources: Biological resource impact (project and cumulative) Transportation impacts (project and cumulative) Public services and utilities impacts (specifically schools - project and cumulative) Landform/visual quality impacts (project) Air quality impacts (project and cumulative) In light of comments regarding the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the draft EIR, the following is a more detailed explanation of the logic underlying the significance conclusions, It is important to note that the significance conclusions in the draft ElR for project- related impacts on schools and biological resources reflect newly enacted legislation and recent developments in case law, respectively, The conclusion in the draft EIR regarding project-related transportation impacts is based on the absence of any mechanism the City has to condition the proposed project in a manner that would ensure that improvements to roadways within the County of San Diego, as well as to freeway segments (under the jurisdiction of CalTrans), are constructed concurrent with need. Schools The Draft SEIR discloses that the proposed project would generate a number of elementary school and middle/high school students, The Draft SEIR also discloses that, because the two closest schools to the proposed project currently exceed or are expected to exceed capacity at the time of completion of San Miguel Ranch, project-related impacts on schools are significant. The Draft SEIR notes that the applicant is required by state law to pay school impact fees, but that the payment of such fees generally covers less than 25% of the cost to construct new schools. Even though other potential school impact mitigation measures are identified, including Mello Roos financing, the Draft SElR states that no potentially feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce project-related impacts to below a level of significance, The Draft SEIR proposes as mitigation that funding for schools shall be in compliance with state law in effect at the time building permits are issued, The conclusion in the Draft SEIR that project-related impacts on schools are significant and not fully mitigable is best understood against recently-enacted legislation known as "SB 50," The enactment of SB SO (also known as the Leroy F, Greene School Facilities Act of 1998) significantly reformed the methods of financing school facilities construction, Prior to the enactment of SB 50, case law allowed local agencies to require certain types of development projects to contribute impact fees in excess of limits imposed under state law. The enactment of q-5 Page 6, Item: ---3-- Meeting Date: 10/19/99 SB 50; however, preempts and limits the exercise of traditional local agency police power to mitigate school impacts. Under SB 50, mitigation measures available for impacts on school facilities are limited to school district-imposed fees set forth in the Education Code and local agency-imposed fees for interim, non-permanent facilities. These mechanisms are the exclusive means in the post-SB 50 era for local agencies to devise and impose project-specific mitigation of school impacts, In fact, SB 50 provides that local agencies may conclude that project-related impacts are fully mitigated with the payment of the fees authorized under SB 50 even though, as the Draft SEIR notes, the payment of such fees provides insufficient funding for school districts to address school-related impacts, The City has however taken a more conservative position and without the ability to condition the developer to pay sufficient monies to fully fund new school construction we have continued to label the impacts as significant not fully mitigable, It is our understanding that the shortfall appears to have been addressed by an agreement between the applicant and the various school districts affected by the proposed project. Biological Resources Project-related impacts on biological resources are addressed in the Draft SEIR in Section 3.3. As noted in Section 3.3, the proposed project will result in significant direct and indirect impacts to plant communities and wildlife, including species protected under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, (Draft SEIR, pp, 3.3-10 to 3.3-13,) To address these impacts, the Draft SEIR proposes: (I) the preservation of certain portions of the South Parcel as open space (2) implementation of and adherence to a Conservation Bank Agreement entered into by the applicant and the State and Federal wildlife agencies in August 1997; (3) preservation of 166 acres in the North Parcel, an area which is recognized in the MSCP as consisting of "Very High Quality Habitat"; (4) a host of other requirements carried forward to the SPA-level of planning from the City's previous environmental review of proposed development of San Miguel Ranch, (See Draft SEIR, pp, 3.3,13 to 3.3-16.) As noted in the Draft SEIR, each of these mitigation measures will be placed as a condition of project approval on the proposed tentative map(s) in the event that the City Council approves the proposed project. (Draft SEIR, p. 3,3-16,) Despite the mitigation measures set forth in the Draft SEIR, as well as the preservation of the entire North Parcel of San Miguel Ranch agreed to by the applicant in the Conservation Bank Agreement with the wildlife agencies, the Draft SEIR identifies project-related impacts on species "listed" under the state and federal ESA as significant and not fully mitigated, This conclusion and the underlying analysis in the Draft SEIR reflects recent case law addressing the extent to which regional habitat conservation planning under the ESA provides a basis to q-~ Page 7, Item: Meeting Date: 10/19/99 q conclude that project-related impacts on "listed species" are mitigated to below a level of significance for purposes of CEQA, Recent court decisions, coupled with the "mandatory finding of significance" for "endangered, rare or threatened species" under the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs" tit. 14 15000et. Seq.) can be construed to require a finding that the net loss of a "listed" species, or its habitat, is a significant impact under CEQA that is not fully mitigated through ESA-based regional habitat conservation planning, (See Draft SEIR, pp,3,3-l6 to 3,3- 17). Transportation Project-related impacts on traffic and circulation are addressed in Section 3.4 of the Draft SEIR. Section 3.4 describes the "existing conditions" of the area circulation system in the vicinity of the proposed project. (Draft SEIR, pp. 3.4-1 to 3.4-10.) The Draft SEIR then goes on to discuss and analyze project-specific and cumulative impacts on freeways, arterials and intersections in and around the proj ect site during the various "phase" of planned development for the proposed project. (Draft SEIR, pp, 3.4-10 to 3.4-52,) Finally, the Draft SEIR discusses potentially feasible mitigation measures to reduce or avoid project-related impacts to the extent feasible. (Draft SEIR, pp.3.4-53 to 3.4-63,) In general, mitigation measures identified in the Draft SEIR for traffic-related impacts require that infrastructure improvements to the circulation network keep pace with need, For example, the Draft SEIR discloses that under 2010 conditions no significant project-related impacts to roadway segments would result if the City's circulation system is constructed as required pursuant to the Traffic Study, For roadways, intersections and other circulation network improvements within the City's jurisdiction, the Growth Management Ordinance and Traffic Threshold Standard requires that City thresholds be met. Under the City's Growth Management program, traffic analysis is required to be conducted as part of the environmental review for each project to verify the City's threshold policies are met. As the Draft SEIR discloses, if the City's thresholds are not met, the project cannot proceed until the deficiencies are rectified. (See, e,g" Draft SEIR, p, 3.4-54.) In contrast to the City's Growth Management Program and Transportation Development Impact Fee (Trans DIF) program, the County of San Diego has no program to ensure that specific circulation network improvements are in place concurrent with need, The City has informed the County that it is willing to work with them to establish a proportionate share-funding program to resolve cumulative impacts to the County circulation network. In fact, the Draft SEIR proposed to condition the proposed project on a proportionate share contribution to the County of San Diego should a County funding program be established, Absent such a program, however, the Draft SEIR concludes that project-related impacts on County roadways that are not included in the annexation under the proposed project remain significant and not fully mitigated, (See Draft SEIR, p.3.4-58) Likewise, because freeways and freeway-related infrastructure improvements are the responsibility of CalTrans, there is no enforceable means by which the City could require q-1 Page 8, Item: q Meeting Date: 10/19/99 CaITrans to ensure that freeway infrastructure improvements keep pace with demand, (See Draft SEIR, p.3.4-54) Accordingly, the Draft SEIR identifies project-related impacts to County roadways and intersections, as well as freeway segment impacts, as significant and not fully mitigable by the City, Landform and Visual Quality The project site is virtually undeveloped with the exception of several roads and trails. The SDG&E Miguel Substation complex is located to the north of the south parcel, and is screened from several directions offsite by intervening topography, Residents located directly west and southwest have unimpeded views of the site that include Gobbler's Knob, Mother Miguel Mountain, and the western and southern slopes of Horseshoe Bend, The site is also highly visible from the north side of Bonita Valley and Highway 54 at Sweetwater Road, In spite of the facts that guidelines are incorporated that require grading to: protect natural features, minimize the amount of landform alteration and modify the development design to reduce overall earthwork (by 20% from the GDP grading design), the landform alteration and visual impacts are considered significant. Air Quality Project related air pollutant emiSSIOns from both mobile and stationary sources during construction and operation would exceed significance thresholds, Implementation of mitigation measures would include: emissions control for heavy-duty construction equipment through modified combustion/fuel injection systems, hydroseedingllandscaping of the project as soon as possible in order to reduce dust generation, covering of trucks hauling fill material and the watering of the graded area twice a day, These measures would reduce construction-related emissions but not to below a level of significance, The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Regional Air Quality Strategies; therefore the project does not result in a significant project specific impact. However, the San Diego Air Basin is a non-attainment area; therefore, any incremental increase in pollution is considered a significant cumulative impact. The cumulative impact is a regional impact beyond the control of the project applicant and cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. Findings of the FSEIR: Project level and cumulative impacts were identified and divided into three categories: (1) significant and unmitigated (2) significant and mitigable to a less than significant level (3) less than significant q- g Page 9, Item: q Meeting Date: 10/19/99 All feasible (those which can be implemented) mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the project or made conditions of approval. If they are infeasible, they cannot be implemented. A more detailed analysis of some measures will be required at the tentative map or grading plan level of consideration (i,e" noise), The significant and unmitigable cumulative impacts require a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to approve the project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is part ofthe proposed "Findings of Fact", The conclusions regarding the level of significance of each project level and cumulative level impact is based on the previous ErRs and the subject FSEIR. Sienificant Impacts Mitieated to Less than Sienificant Impacts in the following areas will be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of mitigation measures: . Noise . Public Services and Utilities Water Sewage Police Protection Fire Protection Emergency Medical Services . Parks, Recreation and Open Space . Cultural Resources . Paleontological Resources Impacts in the above areas have been mitigated to less than significant through various means such as submittal and approval of plans (Water Master Plan and Water Conservation Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, Brush Management Plan) mitigation monitoring, payment of fees and threshold compliance, Less than Sienificant Impacts Land use impacts for the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan are less than significant. CONCLUSION: All feasible mitigation measures with respect to project impacts have been included in the FSEIR. Since there are five impact areas that are significant and unmitigable (biology, air quality, public services and facilities - specifically schools, traffic, landform and visual quality), staff has included a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the draft Findings of Fact. q~1 Page 10, Item: q Meeting Date: 10/19/99 The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, proposed in the FSEIR, Based on this examination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives (1) meets the project objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the project. FISCAL IMPACTS: The project applicant has paid all costs associated with preparation of the environmental documents. Attachments 1. FSEIR 97-02 A. Comments and Responses B. Errata Planning Commission Resolution EJR 97-02 Draft City Council Resolution Findings of Fact Statement of Overriding Considerations September 28,1999 Letter from the California Native Plant Society(CNPS) October 6, 1999 Staff response to the letter from the CNPS October 6, 1999 text of verbal presentation from S.B. Waid, representing the Bonita Highlands Homeowners' Association, October 6, 1999 Comments to Chula Vista Planning Commission from Bertha McKinley representing the California Native Plant Society , October 6, 1999, Letter from Katy Wright, Director of Planning and Construction, Sweetwater Union High School District 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. H:\home\planning\barbara\SMR\FSEIR.doc 1--/0 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO, EIR-97-02 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR-97-02) FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SPA PLAN MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City") circulated a request for proposals to prepare an environmental impact report for the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and selected the firm of Tetra Tech Inc. with P&D Environmental Consultants (P&D) as a subcontracter to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). On March 21,1998, the City, Tetra Tech, Inc, and Trimark Pacific Homes, Ltd. entered into a three-party contract, where the City managed the preparation of the ErR, Tetra Tech Inc, subcontracted to P & D Environmental Consultants to prepared the EIR, and Trimark Pacific Limited reimbursed the City for the full cost ofEIR preparation, and WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was issued for public review on fill in date, and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and, WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft EIR on July 14, 1999; and WHEREAS, P&D prepared a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 97-02) on the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan; and, WHEREAS, THE Final SEIR incorporates, by reference, the prior EIRs that address the subject property including FEIR 90-02 and SFEIR 95-04 as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs, FEIR 90-02 was certified by City Council on March 23, 1999 and SEIR 95-04 was certified by Council on December 17, 1996 EIR, and; WHEREAS, to the extent that these Findings of Fact conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final SEIR 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 of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project. / Resolution: EIR-97-02 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ofthe City ofChula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: I. FEIR CONTENTS That the FEIR consists of the following: A. Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan, FEIR 90-02 B, San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment, General Development Plan Amendment, SEIR 95-04 (ALL HEREAFTER COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS "FSEIR 97-02" FEIR REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED That the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered FEIR 97-02, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B to this Resolution), prior to approving the Project. Copies of said Exhibits are on file in the Planning Department office, II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WITH CALIFORNIA That the Planning Commission does hereby find that FEIR 97-02, the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B) to this Resolution) prior to approving the Project. Copies of said Exhibits are on file in the Planning Department office. III. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION That the Planning Commission finds that the FEIR 97-02 reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission and the City of Chula Vista staff, IV. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT REPORTING PROGRAM AND CONSIDERATIONS MITIGATION STATEMENT MONITORING AND OF OVERRIDING A. Adoption of Findings of Fact The Planning Commission does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of .2. Resolution: EIR-97-02 Page 3 the findings contained III the Findings of Fact, Exhibit A of this Resolution, B, Statement of Overriding Consideration Even after the adoption of all feasible mltJgation measures and any feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain, Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that 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 Exhibit A identifYing the specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. C, Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in FSEIR 97-02 and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit A to this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section lS09l that the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement same, D. Unfeasibility of Mitigation Measures As more fully identified and set forth in FSEIR 97-02 and in the Findings of Fact for the project, which is Exhibit A to this Resolution, certain mitigation measures described in the above-referenced documents are infeasible, E, Unfeasibility of Alternatives As more fully identified and set forth in SFElR 97-02 and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit A to this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section lS09l that alternatives to the project, which were identified as potentially feasible in FEIR 92-04, were found not to be feasible. F, Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required in the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6; Planning Commission hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in Exhibit" " of this Resolution, a copy of which is 3 Resolution: EIR-97-02 Page 4 on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program is designed to enwsure 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 the Findings of Fact and the Program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the Cityl Council certify SFEIR 97-02. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 15th day of September, 1999 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Diana Vargas Secretary - Planning Commission Exhibits Exhibit A: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring Program c; AH/{d7rnvd ;3 RESOLUTION NO, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FElR-97-02) FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SPA PLAN MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista (""City") circulated a request for proposals to prepare an environmental impact report for the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and selected the firm of Tetra Tech, Inc, with P&D Environmental Consultants (P&D) as a subcontractor to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (E1R). On March 21, 1998, the City, Tetra Tech, Inc. and Trimark Pacific Homes, Ltd. entered into a three-party contract, where the City managed the preparation of the EIR, Tetra Tech, Inc, with P&D Environmental Consultants as a subcontractor prepared the EIR, and Trimark Pacific Limited reimbursed the City for the full cost of EIR preparation, and WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was issued for public review on July 14, 1999, and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and, WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft EIR on July 14, 1999; and WHEREAS, Tetra Tech, Inc. with P& D as a subcontractor prepared a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 97-02) on the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Final SEIR incorporates, by reference, the prior EIRs that address the subject property including the FEIR 90-02 Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan and SEIR 95-04, San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment, General Development Plan Amendment, as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reportmg Programs, FEIR 90-02 was certified by City Council on March 23, 1999 and the Second EIR SEIR 95-04 was certified by City Council on December 17, 1996" and; WHEREAS, to the extent that these Findings of Fact conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final SEIR 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 of Fact 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: 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the Draft SEIR held on July 14, 1999, their public hearing on this project held on October 6, 1999 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 21 000 et seq.), II. FEIR CONTENTS That the FEIR consists of the following: 1. Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan, FEIR 90-02 2. San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment, General Development Plan Amendment, SEIR 95-04 (ALL HEREAFTER COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS "FSEIR 97-02" III. FEIR REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and considered SFEIR 97-02, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( Exhibit B to this Resolution), prior to approving the Project. Copies of said Exhibits are on file in the office of the City Clerk.. IV, CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WITH CALIFORNIA That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 97-02, the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution) are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. 2 V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL That the City Council hereby as its first action, finds that the FSEIR 97-02 reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and hereby certifies FSEIR-97-02, VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING 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 every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution. B, Statement of Overriding Consideration Even after the adoption of all feasible mitIgation measures and any feasible altematives, 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 fornl set forth in Exhibit "B", identifying the specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. c. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in FSEIR 97-02 and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, 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 will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement same. D. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures As more fully identified and set forth in FSEIR 97-02 and in the Findings of Fact for the project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, certain mitigation measures described in the above-referenced documents are infeasible. E. Infeasibility of Alternatives 3 As more fully identified and set forth in SFEIR 97-02 and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, 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 92-04, were found not to be feasible. F. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required in the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6; City Council hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, 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 the Findings of Fact and the Program. VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City ofChula Vista is directed after City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, 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: CL~Q ~ John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning and Building Exhibits Exhibit A: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring Program H: Isharedlatto meylreso luti oncouncil F SEIRdoc 4 ATTACHMENT 4 & 5 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA RE: SAN MIGUEL RANCH SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-97-02) State Clearinghouse Number 96051038 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS I. INTRODUCTION The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for this project addressed the potential environmental effects of approving an annexation to the City of Chula Vista, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Tentative Maps, and other discretionary decisions, The SPA is consistent with the approved General Development Plan, which proposed a mix of land use including residential, commercial/retail, school, community and neighborhood parks, circulation, a trail system, and open space. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would provide a master planned residential community with varying residential densities including low, 10w-medilUll, medilUll, and medilUll-high; and develop community facilities, including an elementary school, a community service facility, community and neighborhood parks, and a retail commercial center. Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the SPA Plan land use categories and a comparison between the amended GP A and the SPA Plan, The amended GDP for San Miguel Ranch provides the major circulation system and access points for the project site, but not the internal circulation system that serves the residential neighborhood, Mt. Miguel Road is proposed as a four-lane Class I collector road that would provide an important link to help implement the City's Circulation Element by connecting East H Street to Bonita Road. This roadway would carry traffic to local collectors within the development area of the project. It would also provide access to the proposed SR-125, connect to Proctor Valley Road on the west side ofthe project, and improve circulation for safety and emergency services. East H Street (west ofMt. Miguel Road) and Proctor Valley Road (east ofMt. Miguel Road), which is desiguated as a scenic highway, is proposed as a six-lane prime arteriaL Secondary roads, primarily residential collectors, would serve the rest of the community and take access from Mt. Miguel Road. Findings of Fact -1- 7' Draft 3 September I, 1999 Table 1 Land Use Summary Table for San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan GDP SPA Low (0-3) L K 86 60.5 1.4 L L 71 62.2 1.1 Low-Medium (3-6) LM J 162 50.5 3,2 LM F 47 12.7 3,7 M G 68 21.8 3,1 LM H 137 33,2 4,1 LM I 118 31.7 3.7 M E 141 29,7 4.7 Medium (6-11) M B 219 11.4 19,2 LM C 100 13.1 7.6 LM D 116 22.9 5.1 Medium High (12-17) MH A 129 7,2 17.9 Residential Total 1,394 356.9 3.9 Non-Residential Land Uses Commercial Uses RC N 14.3 Institutional Uses ES S 13,7 CS M 4,6 OS (So, Parcel) OSI 244.3 Easements E OSI 6.3 Community Park CP OS2 21.6 Neighborhood Park NP OSI 3.5 Circulation uses SR-125 49.6 Major Streets 28.3 PROJECT TOTAL 1,394 743.1 Findings of Fact -2- /6 Draft 3 September I, 1999 Table 2 Land Use Comparison Table for San Miguel Ranch GDP vs. SPA Land Use Designation Gnp and SPA Residential Uses R-L - Low 132.3 122.7 184 157 1.4 1.3 R-LM - Low Medium 165.8 164,1 624 680 3.8 4,1 R-M - Medium 67.5 62.9 473 428 7,0 6.8 R-MH - Medium High 7.8 7.2 113 129 14.5 \7,9 Subtolal 373.4 356.9 1,394 1,394 3.7 3,9 Commercial Uses RC - Retail Commercial Institutional Uses CS - Community Service 7.5 4.6 ES - Elementary School 12.4 \3,7 Sublotal 19,9 18,3 Open Space Uses CP - Community Park 19.0 21.6 NP - Neighborhood Park 3.0* 3,5 OS - South Parcel/Natural 2\3.2 244,3 E - Utility EasementslParkways 15.4 6.3 Subtotal 83.4 77.9 PROJECT TOTAL 738.2 743.1 1,394 1,394 1.9 1.9 Note: The 3,O-acre Neighborhood Park was included in Medium Residential land use acreage of 67.5 acres. Findings of Fact -3- I( Draft 3 September I, 1999 III. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS/APPROV ALS Project approval by the City of Chula Vista would require the following discretionary actions: . Annexation to the City of Chula Vista; . Approval of the SPA Plan; and . Approval of Tentative Map(s). The following state and federal agencies may also be required to take discretionary action before the applicant could implement the project: U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG), and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For the purposes ofCEQA and the findings set forth below, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167,6, the administrative record of the City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this Project shall consist of the following: . The Draft and Final Subsequent EIR (97-02) Third Tier EIR for the Project, including appendices and technical reports; . The Draft and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) 95-04 for the Project, including appendices and technical reports; . The Draft, Final, and Supplemental San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan EIR 90-02, including appendices and technical reports; · The Sphere of Influence Update Study and Final Program EIR for the proposed City ofChula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update; . The Draft EIRlEIS for the Route Location, Adoption, and Construction of State Route (SR) 125 between SR-905 on Otay Mesa to SR-54 in Spring Valley, prepared by Caltrans, including appendices and technical reports; . All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters, and other planning documents prepared by the Applicant, the planning and environmental consultants, and the City that are before the decision-makers as determined by the City Clerk; . All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies to the decision- makers in connection with SEIR on the Project; Findings of Fact -4- 1c2.... Draft 3 September 1, 1999 · 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 public meetings and public hearings; and · Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which they considered including, but not limited to, the following: Chula Vista General Plan (Update) - 2010; Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance; and Chula Vista Threshold/Standards Policy. 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 (Western States Petroleum Association v, Superior Court, (1995) 9 Ca1.4th 559, 565 [38 Ca1.Rptr,2d 139]). V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed ifthere are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (emphasis added). The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifYing both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantial(v lessen such significant effects" (emphasis added), Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects," The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required (see Pub, Resources Code, 921081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, 9 15091, subd, (a)), For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions, The first such finding 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" (CEQA Guidelines, 915091, subd, (a)(I )), The second permissible 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" (CEQA Guidelines, 915091, subd, (a)(2)), The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR" (CEQA Findings of Fact -5- /3 Draft 3 September I, 1999 Guidelines, 915091, subd. (a)(3)), Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors," CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Vallev v, Board ofSuoervisors ("Goleta II") (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 {276 Cal. Rptr. 410]), The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives ofa project (City of Del Mar v, Citv of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal. Rptr, 898]). "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing ofthe relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid,; see also Sequovah Hills Homeowners Assn, v, Citv of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182]). The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code Section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects" (Pub, Resources Code, 921002). For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v, Citv Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515,519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr,842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question (e,g., the "loss of biological resources") less than significant. 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, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less than significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR. In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise Findings of Fact -6- 1'1 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, 9 15091, subd, (a), (b)), With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (CEQA Guidelines, 9915093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub, Resources Code, 921081, subd, (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of approving.., any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions, The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta II, 52 Ca1.3d 553, 576), VI. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when City decision- makers formally approve the Project. The mitigation measures are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated through the process of constructing and implementing the Proj ect. VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for the Project and has been adopted concurrently with these Findings (see Pub, Resources Code, 9 21081.6, subd, (a)(I)), The City will use the MMP to track compliance with Project mitigation measures, The MMP will remain available for public review during the compliance period, VIII. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following summary briefly describes effects determined to be less than significant in the preparation of the EIR: Land Use No significant impacts to land use were identified (SEIR Section 3.1), Findings of Fact -7- !~ Draft 3 September 1, 1999 Finding The land uses associated with the SPA are consistent with those identified for the GDP and analyzed in the GDP EIR, The project did not conflict with any land use plan or policy, physically divide a community, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. Public Services No significant impacts to water were identified (SEIR Section 3,7,1), No significant impacts to sewage were identified (SEIR Section 3.7,2), No significant project impacts to police protection were identified (SEIR Section 3,7.3), No significant impacts to fire protection were identified (SEIR Section 3,7.4), No significant impacts to emergency medical service were identified (SEIR Section 3,7,5), No significant impacts to gas and electric were identified (SEIR Section 3,7,7). No significant impacts to storm drains and water quality were identified (SEIR Section 3.7,9), Parks Recreation and Open Space No significant impacts to parks, recreation, and open space were identified (SEIR Section 3.8). Direct Significant Effects, Mitigation The San Miguel Ranch GDP SEIR and attendant Findings of Fact impose numerous requirements to be addressed at the SPA and Tentative Map level of planning. To ensure compliance with the requirements set forth in the previous Final SEIR, this section sets forth the applicable requirements from the GDP findings for each resource area, LandformNisual Quality Significant Effect A comparison between the GDP and SPA Grading Plans shows that the SPA design reduces the limits of grading by approximately 32 acres, a 7 percent reduction from the GDP, The total quantity of grading is also reduced by approximately 2 million cubic yards, a 21 percent decrease from the GDP Grading Plan. The majority of this reduction occurs on the west side ofSR-125 in order to be more sensitive to the general configuration of the landforms in this area, The total quantity of grading has been reduced from an average of 20,000 cubic yards per graded acre as shown on the GDP, to 17,000 cubic yards per graded acre, a reduction of 15 percent. Notwithstanding these substantial reductions in grading, the development of the San Miguel Ranch will still require an extensive quantity of grading with alteration of topography into padded and terraced building sites, and the landform impacts are considered significant. Findings of Fact -8- 1(" Draft 3 September I, 1999 Because of the extensive quantity of grading (average of over 17,000 cubic yards per acre) resulting in the substantial alteration of the topography into padded and terraced building sites, the landform alteration impacts are considered significant. Views to Mother Miguel and San Miguel Mountains from a short portion of East H Street that extends through the southernmost tip of the San Miguel Ranch project would be modified by grading and development associated with the proposed project. The mountains would continue to be in the background view; however, the foreground view would change from hillsides and landforms dominated by natural vegetation to residential development characterized by landscaped manufactured slopes, ranging in height from 50 feet to about 100 feet, and single-family residences, The impacts to scenic roadway views from this portion of the proposed project are considered to be significant. Visual impacts to the portion of East H Street (scenic roadway) views are considered to be significant. Because of the magnitude ofthe manufactured slopes (3 of which exceed 100 feet), and the fact that these slopes are visible from public viewpoints, the visual impacts are considered significant. Finding Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project impact to below a level of significance. AB described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; however, the City has determined that these impacts are 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, . In developing the SPA Grading Plan, the development design was modified to minimize slopes up against open space and reduce the overall earthwork by over 20 percent from the GDP grading design, Detailed earthwork calculations indicate that the GDP Grading Plan would have required 9,783,000 cubic yards, and the earthwork based on the SPA Grading Plan is 7,699,000 cubic yards, . The SPA Grading Plan makes extensive use of curvilinear streets to help development conform to the current landforms and minimize grading, The design also uses cul-de-sacs to allow street and lot grades to work with the topography, rather than requiring more extensive cut and fill grading, while utilizing the resulting slope and open space areas to retain pedestrian connections and trails within and between neighborhoods. Single-loaded streets are also used where needed to preserve open space and minimize slopes, Findings of Fact -9- ./7 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 · The landform is to be rounded as much as possible to blend into the natural grade, When slopes cannot be rounded, vegetation is to be used to simulate a contoured landform through the use of landscaping techniques to create the effect of a horizontally and vertically undulating slope terrain. · Transitional slopes and graded areas adjacent to natural, ungraded terrain are to be planted with native and naturalized plant species to provide a subtle blending between manufactured and natural slopes, and to meet fuel modification requirements, · Contour grading is used in some of the setback areas outside of the right-of-way along Mount Miguel Road to reinforce the parkway character of the roadway, The landscape setbacks exceed the minimum City requirements along Mount Miguel Road, and will be graded with slopes varying from 5:1 to 2:1. The minimum 2:1 slopes along these roadways is used in locations where necessary to preserve Otay tarplant areas, where needed to minimize encroachment into the open space, or in 2: 1 downslope conditions where the slopes are not visible from the roadway. · Curvilinear streets and slopes are used to conform to the existing topography, to provide visual interest and to minimize straight, hard-edged slopes, A. Biological Resources Significant Effect Significant impacts to a variety of sensitive habitats and individual species would occur as a result of the project. Wetlands, Direct elimination by filling of wetlands and potential degradation or elimination by placement of wetlands within residential lot boundaries could result in impacts to less than 1.5 acres ofUSACOE and CDFG jurisdictional resources, Two sensitive species of plants, San Diego marsh elder, and spiny rush would be impacted, Diegan Coaslal Sage Scrub, The SPA Plan would result in the elimination ofa total of137.3 acres of coastal sage scrub, This loss is significant because of the sensitive species located in these areas, Several thousand coast barrel cactus individuals on-site would be impacted, California adolphia is also abundant on the project site, with the two largest populations occurring in the eastern portion of the South Parcel. Both ofthese populations would be impacted, In addition, small populations ofMunz's sage would be impacted in the southem portions near the property boundary, All ofthese impacts are considered significant. Annual Grassland, The extensive loss of non-native grassland habitat is considered cumulatively adverse but not significant, except where it contains large populations of rare native plants such as Findings of Fact -10- IS" Draft 3 September I, 1999 Palmer's grapplinghook and Otay tarplant. A large portion of Otay tarplant would be impacted by the development ofthe SPA Plan. Impacts to these species are considered significant. In addition, a large population (about 11,000 individuals) of Palmer's grapplinghook exists in the south-central portion of the site and would be impacted, A total of 330 acres of annual grassland would be impacted by the proposed SPA Plan. Surrounding grasslands are rapidly being developed or are proposed for development, which leaves remaining foraging habitat an important cumulative loss. Wildlife, Significant impacts to wildlife may also result from the project. Fragmentation of wildlife habitat and increased impacts from pets, lighting, noise, and wild fires would reduce the quality of the existing habitat for many large mammalian predators, birds of prey, and their prey species. Movement corridors for wildlife identified in the northern sections of the project site would be impacted by the placement of roads or by the removal of vegetation that may affect wildlife movement. Once the predator-prey interactions are disrupted, the resulting quality of wildlife habitat and existence is reduced, Reptiles, Sensitive reptiles, including the San Diego horned lizard and orange-throated whiptail, would be incrementally affected by the implementation of the proposed development on the project site, The San Diego horned lizard and orange-throated whiptail are expected throughout coastal sage scrub on-site. The retention of the large majority ofDiegan coastal sage scrub should enable these species to continue to exist in the area. The impacts to these species are considered significant. Birds. The wildlife species of highest sensitivity in the upland habitat is the coastal California gnatcatcher. The proposed project would significantly impact this species, Approximately II to 12 pairs of gnatcatchers and 5 single males would be affected by the development of the SPA Plan, Only 200 pairs of coast cactus wren are known to remain in San Diego County (Rea and Weaver 1991). Of the 11 pairs on and near the project site, 3 pairs would be eliminated as a result of the proposed development. Five other sensitive upland bird species were detected on-site: loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, blue-gray gnatcatcher, rufous-crowned sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. The displacement of these species by development is considered significant. The project site, supports great horned owl, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, American kestrel, and black-shouldered kites. Cooper's hawks are common in the vicinity, but apparently did not nest on the project site, Northern harriers were also observed on-site, The habitat is attractive to a wide variety of raptors, which indicates its high quality for these birds, Foraging habitat would be reduced for a number of rapt or species occurring on the site or having the potential to occur in the project area, These impacts are considered significant. Mammals, Large carnivorous mammals, such as mountain lion, bobcat, and fox could be reduced due to increases in human activity and loss of habitat. The bobcat would probably be most affected because this species currently uses the property, Reductions of habitat for this species are considered Findings of Fact -11- ICf Draft 3 September 1, 1999 significant. The ringtail, if resident, would be affected mostly by an increase in human activity, as sufficient habitat would continue to exist on-site to support ringtails, Deer corridors in the northern portion of the site would be significantly impacted by the proposed development. Unless the off-site northern areas become developed, movement can occur around the northern portion of the site and through the San Diego Gas and Electric easement after implementation of the project. Finding Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate these project impacts to below a level of significance, As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; however, the City has determined that these impacts are 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. The SPA Plan proposes, as partial mitigation for the impacts, to preserve portions of the South Parcel for biological habitat purposes, The mitigation measures for this project will include implementation of the previously agreed upon requirements established within a Conservation Bank Agreement, as well as site specific mitigation measures that are proposed as a result of analyzing the more refined SPA Plan, Emerald Properties Corporation, the former project applicant and former owner of the project site, signed a Conservation Bank Agreement with the USFWS and the CDFG in August 1997 to devote the North Parcel as part of an ecological reserve for the preservation and protection of sensitive species and habitat. According to this agreement, the 1,852-acre North Parcel has been established as a conservation bank; 500 acres of this area has been acquired by the USFWS, The North Parcel, which is recognized by the MSCP as consisting of "Very High Quality Multi-Species Habitat Values," including coastal sage scrub that is predominantly of "Very High Quality Habitat" and as providing core gnatcatcher populations at a high density, would also be used to sell conservation bank credits to third party purchasers in need of mitigation of biological impacts off-site, Establishment ofthis conservation bank provides an excellent opportunity to implement the on-going regional biological planning efforts in Southwest San Diego County by conserving highly valuable resources within an area which is recognized as an essential part of a regional biological preserve system. Additionally, the North Parcel serves as an integral linkage parcel to the Sweetwater River Corridor, South County Segment of the County of San Diego's Subarea Plan, and the City ofChula Vista's Subarea Plan, The Conservation Bank Agreement requires that 146 acres of open space, containing significant populations of Otay tarplant, be maintained on the South Parcel and 166 mitigation credits be obtained from the San Miguel Mitigation Bank (North Parcel) to mitigate project-related impacts Findings of Fact -12- ;2.0 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 on biological resources, As mentioned previously, this agreement was acknowledged within the final rule published in the Federal Register that granted threatened status to the Otay tarplant. The following mitigation measures for SPA Plan-related impacts would partially reduce impacts to the identified biological resources: . Before any impacts occur to threatened or endangered species. The applicant must receive "take" authorization, This may occur by the City adopting (and having approval by USFWS and CDFG) a Sub Area Plan of the Multiple Species Comprehensive Plan (MSCP), Ifthe City has not adopted their Sub Area Plan, the applicant may be able to obtain authorization ("take") from the County of San Diego under their "take" authorization, if concurrence is reached between the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego (coordination with USFWS and CDFG), will also be required, If take authorization is not obtained from the City or County, project specific take authorization would be required from the USFWS and CDFG to impact threatened or endangered species listed by the federal and state governments, · The applicant will also be required to prepare a Management Plan for the Otay Tarplant preserves prior to approval of any grading permit adjacent to the OS-I, OS-3, OS-6, and OS-7 planning areas (these conditions incorporated into the Tentative Map), · Graded areas along roadways shall be hydro seeded with native plant species consistent with surrounding natural vegetation. This would help to minimize erosion and runoff, as well as improve the area aesthetically by making it visually compatible with adjacent natural areas, As part of this effort, a revegetation plan shall be developed with the help of a revegetation specialist with experience in coastal sage scrub and similar habitats. The revegetation plan shall be prepared by the applicant and a qualified biologist. · The use of non-invasive plants in landscaping areas adjacent to open space will be required for all areas outside of actual lot boundaries, The final species list will be reviewed by a biologist to verify that invasive species are not incorporated, Additionally, homeowners will be encouraged to use non-invasive species in their landscaping adjacent to open space, Iceplant shall not be used in lieu of fire-resistant native revegetation due to associated slope failures and the invasive nature ofthe species. · Grading activities within 200 feet of areas of identified coastal California gnatcatcher pairs, or their associated coastal sage scrub habitat, shall not be conducted during the breeding or nesting season (March I through August 15), This will also help in avoiding the breeding season of many other species of birds, The applicant will adhere to all applicable requirements of federal and state codes (e,g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CDFG Code 3503.5), Grading activities shall be supervised by a qualified biologist. Findings of Fact -13- ~I Draft 3 September 1, 1999 · Site preparation activities, especially staging area operations and maintenance rows for heavy machinery, shall be restricted to areas not being placed in open space, Carelessness on the part of equipment operators can result in the destruction of areas that have been designated for preservation, Areas adjacent to open space shall be fenced prior to initiation of construction activities, A debris fence shall be installed prior to excavation in areas where grading is up-slope of sensitive biological habitats, These recommendations should be incorporated into a construction monitoring plan approved by the City of Chula Vista. . All new and proposed parking lots and developed areas in and adjacent to the natural open space must not drain directly into the open space, All developed and paved areas must prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, and other elements that might degrade or harm the natural environment or ecosystem processes within the open space, This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices, These systems should be maintained approximately once a year, or as often as needed, to ensure proper functioning, Maintenance should include dredging out sediments if needed, removing exotic plant materials, and adding chemical-neutralizing compounds (e.g., clay compounds) when necessary and appropriate. . Recreational uses that use chemicals, potentially toxic or impactive to wildlife, sensitive species, habitat, or water quality will incorporate methods on their site to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage of such materials into the open space, Such methods should include drainage/detention basins, swales, or holding areas with non- invasive grasses or wetland-type native vegetation to filter out the toxic materials, and should be maintained on a regular basis. Where applicable, this requirement should be incorporated into leases on publicly owned property, . Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the open space should be directed away from the open space, Where necessary, development should provide adequate shielding with non- invasive plant materials (preferably native), benning, and/or other methods to protect the open space and sensitive species from night lighting. . A mitigation plan for impacts to onsite drainages will be prepared to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator to mitigate up to 1,5 acres of jurisdictional drainages, The mitigation plan will be implemented prior to or concurrent with impacts to USACOE and CDFG jurisdictional resources, . The applicant will also be required to prepare a Management Plan for the Otay tarplant preserves prior to approval of any map adjacent to the OS-I, OS-3, OS-6, and 08-7 planning areas. Findings of Fact -14- ~ Draft 3 September 1, 1999 B. Transportation Significant Effect No project-specific impacts on transportation would result during the phasing of project buildout as long as improvements to the circulation network are completed, Significant project-related interim impacts could still result, however, if planned improvements to the circulation system are not constructed as demand is created (Draft SEIR, pp, 3.3-13 to 3.3-15, 3.4-53 to 3.4-63). The City of Chula Vista has such a plan in place pursuant to the City's Growth Management Ordinance, In contrast, the County of San Diego does not have a financing and phasing plan to ensure that infrastructure improvements to the circulation system are constructed concurrent with need, Accordingly, project-related impacts on County roadways and intersections could be significant on an interim basis in the absence of infrastructure improvements within the jurisdiction of and under the control ofthe County, The same is true of freeway impacts under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. The San Miguel Ranch project exceeds the CMP threshold of contributing more than 2,400 daily trips to a freeway segment, which is considered a significant impact. All freeway impacts are considered to be significant and unmitigable, as project-related mitigation measures cannot alleviate impacts, For the buildout with SR-125 condition, almost all freeway segments impacts are found to be significant and unmitigable as City-imposed, project-related mitigation measures cannot provide adequate mitigation to return traffic operations to acceptable levels of service. Finding Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project impact to below a level of significance, As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures A deficiency plan will be prepared by Caltrans, with input from the City to rectifY freeway impacts, Ifa funding mechanism is established between the City ofChula Vista and the County of San Diego for cumulative traffic impacts, the applicant will be required to pay its proportionate share contribution for project-related impacts, Findings of Fact -15- d.-.3 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 C. Air Quality Significant Effect PMto emissions would exceed the threshold of significance for the first year of construction activities and would be considered significant. Motor vehicle emissions would be the primary source of pollutants resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project is estimated to generate 29,284 daily trips, which are equivalent to approximately 201,633 vehicle miles per day (VMD). Estimated daily emissions associated with project-generated VMDs would exceed the thresholds of significance for all criteria pollutants with the exception of PM to' As a result, the proposed project would create a significant impact on air quality. Finding Pursuant to Section l509l(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations, Mitigation Measures To reduce short-term pollutant emissions during the construction phase, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the SPA Plan: . Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction. . Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as soon as possible and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation, . Trucks hauling fill material shall be covered, . A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces, . To control dust raised by grading activities, the graded area shall be watered twice a day, Other mitigation measures shall be considered and implemented upon City approvaL Such measures may include, but are not limited to, phasing grading so relatively smaller areas are exposed and revegetating graded areas as rapidly as possible, Findings of Fact -16- ~~ Draft 3 September I, 1999 F. Noise Significant Effect Significant noise levels would occur at residences adjacent to Mt. Miguel Road and East H Street. Finding Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Mitigation Measures . To reduce noise levels at sensitive receptor locations, particularly residences within the project site, to acceptable levels, a noise wall along the following locations shall be installed: Eastern boundary of Neighborhood D along Mt. Miguel Road; Northern boundary of Neighborhood G along Mt. Miguel Road; Southwestern/southern boundary of Neighborhood H along Mt. Miguel Road; Southern boundary of Neighborhood F along Mt. Miguel Road; Northern boundary of Neighborhood A along East H Street; and Noise wall also needed adjacent to Neighborhoods B and C along Mt. Miguel Road, The noise wall shall be erected along the rear property lines of the locations identified above, shall have a maximum height of six feet, and shall be of solid masonry construction with a material weight of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and which would not allow any air space along their entire length, This noise wall would serve as a sound attenuation barrier to reduce exterior noise along Mt. Miguel Road and East H Street by 15 dBA. E. Public Services and Utilities-Schools Significant Effect Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to school facilities, Impact fees that the affected school districts could levy against the proposed project under current state law are widely recognized as inadequate to meet the needs of the school districts. Because current state law prohibits the City of Chula Vista from imposing additional or other mitigation measures for project-related impacts on schools, the impact is considered significant and not fully mitigable, Findings of Fact -17- c2~- Draft 3 September 1, 1999 Finding Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project impact to below a level of significance, As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures will partially reduce project related impacts to below a level of significance: Funding for the school shall be in compliance with state law in effect at the time of building permits, F. Cultural Resources Significant Effect Development of the proposed project would result in a significant impact to cultural resources from direct and indirect impacts, Based on the proposed project, five ofthe ten archaeological sites in the proposed project site that have been identified as unique would be directly impacted by development activities, including excavation, grading and construction, The remaining five unique sites, and a portion of a sixth site, would be preserved within open space areas, Additionally, indirect impacts to cultural resources would have the potential to occur at all of the sites as a result of the increase in population associated with occupation of the residential development. These new residents would use the open space areas, One of the proposed elements of the project would be the construction of trails, These trails may pass over or near several archaeological sites that may be considered unique, thus creating a situation in which the site may be subjected to disturbance from pedestrian or equestrian traffic and relic hunting, This would also be considered a significant impact to cultural resources, Finding Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) ofthe CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Mitigation Measures · A data recovery program shall be established for the four archaeological sites, which would be directly impacted by excavation and grading activities, These sites include 501-4529, 501-4580,501-12066, and 05112084N, The data recovery program shall include a detailed procedure for collection of information from the surface and subsurface artifact deposits Findings of Fact -18- .2..(, Draft 3 September 1, 1999 within the framework of an approved research design. The data recovery program shall also establish procedures to be followed should a previously undiscovered site be located during project development. The research design must be submitted to the City of Chula Vista for approval prior to the initiation of any mitigation programs, . The six unique sites that will not be directly impacted but may be indirectly impacted shall be protected within easements to mitigate potential indirect impacts, Sites requiring preservation include: SDI-4529, SDI-4525, SDI-8657 (part), SDI-8658, SDI-12063, and SDI-12,064, Any trails that may be planned to pass through the archaeology site will be reviewed by an archaeologist to determine potential impacts and mitigations. . A qualified archaeologist shall monitor the site during excavation and grading of the project as well as during any project-related off-site utility improvements to ensure that any significant deposits, artifacts, or human remains not identified during the evaluation phase may be analyzed prior to the destruction of the archaeological sites, Any previously undiscovered sites will require evaluation in accordance with the approved data recovery program. . In the event that any new or previously undetected portions of an archaeological site are encountered during the grading of the project or related improvements, the grading shall be diverted by the monitoring archaeologist to allow the site to be evaluated for uniqueness, If the site is found to be unique, grading impacts would be considered significant and must be mitigated to below a level of significance through either a data recovery program, as described above, or preservation. . Wherever feasible parks, green space, or other open space will be planned to provide protection for unique archaeological sites, Unique sites within these open space areas that are located proximal to a pedestrian and/or equestrian trail will be preserved through capping or covering with a layer of soiL Any capping or landscaping within the archaeological preserve must be reviewed by the Project Archaeologist and the City to ensure that sites will not be impacted by these actions, G. Paleontological Resources Significant Effect Impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities cut into geological formations and destroy the buried fossil remains, The project area is underlain by a variety of formations, some which are known to contain fossils in the surrounding area (Proctor Valley/Eastlake/Bonita). Based on a review ofthe concept plan, it appears that extensive development would occur in those areas underlain by formations, which have a moderate to high potential to contain paleontological resources, including the Otay and Sweetwater formations, These formations occur in the Horseshoe Findings of Fact -19- ;27 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 Bend and Gobblers Knob area, Mass excavation in these formations would result in significant impacts to paleontological resources, Finding Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Mitigation Measures To mitigate or minimize potential impacts to paleontological resources to below a level of significance, the following measures shall be implemented during project grading. . Prior to issuance of development permits, the project applicant shall present a letter to the City of Chula Vista indicating that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program (a qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M,S, or Ph,D, in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques). . A qualified paleontologist shall be at any pre-grade meetings to consult with grading and excavation contractors, At this time the units (mudstone and gritstone) of the Sweetwater formation should be located for use by the paleontologist. . A paleontologist monitor shall be onsite at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive formations (i.e" Otay and Sweetwater-mudstone portion only) to inspect cuts for contained fossils, . A paleontological monitor shall be onsite on at least a half-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of moderately sensitive formations (i,e" debris flow deposits and Sweetwater-gritstone portion only) to inspect cuts for contained fossils, . A paleontological monitor shall periodically inspect original cuts in deposits with an unknown resource sensitivity (i,e., stream/quaternary deposits), . In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low or moderately sensitive formations it may be necessary to increase the per day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found then the monitoring should be reduced. . A paleontological monitor is not needed during grading of rocks with no resource sensitivity (i,e" Santiago Peak Volcanics-meta-volcanic portion), Findings of Fact -20- ~x Draft 3 September I, 1999 . A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materiaL The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. · When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period oftime. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage time, In these instances the paleontologist (or 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 at the site, . Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted and cataloged. . Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall then be deposited (with the owners 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 should include discussion of the methods used, stratigraphic section exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils, IX. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Cumulative impacts are those, which "are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects," (Public Resources Code Section 21083,2, subd, (b),) Several development proposals have been submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by the City of Chula Vista in proximity to San Miguel Ranch, These current or probable future development proposals would affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as San Miguel Ranch, Several potentially significant cumulative impacts are associated with development of San Miguel Ranch in conjunction with these surrounding development projects, The proposed project along with other related projects will result in the following cumulative environmental effects: Biological Resources, Transportation, Air Quality, Noise, and Schools, The cumulative impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these cumulative impacts have been reduced to an acceptable level when balanced against specific overriding considerations, The sections below define each of the cumulative impact issues and proved the reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures adopted to substantially lessen or avoid them, Findings of Fact -21- ;Lc; Draft 3 September 1, 1999 or the reasons why proposed mitigation measures are infeasible due to specific, economic, social, or other considerations, A. Biological Resources Significant Effect Wetlands, Significant cumulative impacts would occur to 1.5 acres of wetland habitat loss, and impacts to two sensitive species: San Diego marsh elder and spiny rush, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. The SPA Plan would result in the elimination of a total of 137,3 acres of coastal sage scrub, This loss is cumulatively significant because of the sensitive species located in these areas, Several thousand coast barrel cactus individuals on-site would be impacted, California adolphia is also abundant on the project site, with the two largest populations occurring in the eastern portion of the South Parcel. Both of these populations would be impacted, In addition, small populations ofMunz's sage would be impacted in the southern portions near the property boundary, All of these impacts are considered cumulatively significant. Annual Grassland, The extensive loss of non-native grassland habitat is considered cumulatively significant. A total of 330 acres of annual grassland would be impacted by the proposed SPA Plan, Surrounding grasslands are rapidly being developed or are proposed for development, which leaves remaining foraging habitat an important cumulative loss, Wildlife, Significant impacts would occur due to the direct impacts to the habitat of various wildlife speCies, Other significant cumulative impacts to wildlife may also result from the project. Fragmentation of wildlife habitat and increased impacts from pets, lighting, noise, and wild fires would reduce the quality of the existing habitat for many large mammalian predators, birds of prey, and their prey species. Movement corridors for wildlife identified in the northern sections ofthe project site would be impacted by the placement of roads or by the removal of vegetation that may affect wildlife movement. Once the predator-prey interactions are disrupted, the resulting quality of wildlife habitat and existence is reduced, Reptiles, The impacts to sensitive reptile species are considered cumulatively significant. Birds, Approximately 11 to 12 pairs of gnatcatchers and 5 single males would be affected by the development of the SPA Plan, This is considered cumulatively significant. Only 200 pairs of coast cactus wren are known to remain in San Diego County, Of the 11 pairs on and near the project site, 3 pairs would be eliminated as a result of the proposed development. This is considered a significant cumulative impact. Findings of Fact -22- 3CJ Draft 3 September 1, 1999 Five other sensitive upland bird species were detected on-site: loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, blue- gray gnatcatcher, rufous-crowned sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow, The displacement of these species by development is considered cumulatively significant. The project site, as reported from 1991 survey information, supports great homed owl, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, American kestrel, and black-shouldered kites. Cooper's hawks are common in the vicinity, but apparently did not nest on the project site, Northern harriers were also observed on-site. The habitat is attractive to a wide variety of raptors, which indicates its high quality for these birds, These impacts are considered cumulatively significant. Mammals, Large carnivorous mammals, such as mountain lion, bobcat, and fox could be reduced due to increases in human activity and loss of habitat. Reductions of habitat for this species are considered cumulatively significant. Deer corridors in the northern portion of the site would be significantly impacted by the proposed development. Finding Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project impact to below a level of significance, As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations, B. Transportation Significant Effect Freeway Segments As with interim Year 2010 conditions, almost all freeway segment impacts are found to be significant and unmitigable because proposed improvements have not been identified that provide adequate mitigation to return traffic operations to acceptable levels of service (Table 3), These impacts are identified in this analysis in order to facilitate the transportation planning efforts of Caltrans and SANDAG and to indicate that the San Miguel Ranch Project Team remains committed to participating in freeway deficiency planning under CMP guidelines. This long-range impact identification process is a critical factor in developing strategies to improve the performance of the regional transportation network as it relates to Southbay freeway operations, Upgrading I-80S to a ten-lane facility is a long-range mitigation need. The City ofChula Vista and the project applicant, along with all other Southbay jurisdictions and land developers should participate in the multi- agency study team approach to developing freeway deficiency plans, Findings of Fact -23- 3/ Draft 3 September 1, 1999 '" .... ... <II Q. S ..... .... '" ".... <II " ... ... c S .c f: 01).. .. = "'0" ...., ....... ~~~ ,Q.i::; = <II....=> ~.!;: = <II 8~ a~ "'''0 => " i:'<II <II S S = '" .... . cB(1)~ a]] -'"" P..>~ ,..,~ - g ,0 ,,""' - .....Olll uooo <.:: '00 ",- , '0'0- "."bl) 0'".13 ,,;Ail i:; ~:g 0",::< ,.., '" - ;> ~ o ',p ":'Cjca~ .~ ~ 5~ .g~ e;3 (1) :3 ll) 0 ~ .D ll) l-o u:! 0 'r bl) g'~ . Z -E .s._ ~ ~ i-oJ::.-o..c o '" ::l',p '" (.) u..o ;::l j..:; -- U .....c d.l ~ 0.. ~'E ~ '0' t';I S ~ ~ J-< '" e 0 0 p.. ~ +-> (.) U '" '" >- '0 '" o ~ _ 8 '" ,.., ~ tl g "''''u ,,~-" OJ '" ". 8 '" '" -6 .:.a 50 0'0 " :e~dj ;;>B~ 0,,", 0 -N- ""'-"'" ~~V( , .^ ~ -~" '" .;j.;j ""'''"'''"' ~~~ r/.lr./.)~ . . . tl IS ~ i:! '" ~~ IS ~ ~~ ~ " {l - "==0 ~- 'Z' t~tig " '" '0 .~ ~'S~ &:; ~ 6&l ui ""' '" ....:::l:;:: ~ il ~ .a ~ .~ Q ...... ~ ~ 0",'" E-<-O>'" ~ s= 0 ~;;>- o " 11 bl) ,0 s~l ~~ ~~ s:: I3.J P-4 CI) Cf.l ? I ..g..cQ) ~_Q)_ ." '0 -'" " ,~ '0 ::s: ca ca ... (])<.,j...j s:: 0- il S ,.., OJ ~~~ e~~lII ..s:U)~r.r.ill)Q)O..cN ~]"C ll) 00..6."5'"-;' o,",,"oSSo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z _ ..... c/J r/J ,.., ~ ~ o .:::; -:caca~ ..... +-> +.:> "3 8 ~ ~ S ~'go(1)5 ~ 0..0 lI) l-o U'} 0 z'r bl) g.~ ,z j;i ~.- ,,~ 1-<t::_O,.D o 11) ;::l '"p ca (.) u..c ;:j l-o ... U .....c Q) ~o..~'.E~ 'S caS s:: ~ J-< '" e 0 0 ~ a:I..... () U '" '" >- '" -'" ..!l - '" '" ~ o - ""' N - ~ '" oi:j '" ~ '" '" ~,.., ...< '" ~~ - '" o~ . '" ,.., - '" .~ ~ ,,'0 t:: '" <~ * * '" " '" 8>- Z ~ ~ .......Cl.otl) ~.~ ~ ~ ~~ UQt:i :E ca -.s~ B<o::tB V)~<o::t o~""' O?r.f.l~ - '" ~ ~." ""' ........ * I ,0 * ~~oo ~r./)r.Il~ o Z . . . '" " .9 00 t) ~ ~ ~ t E ~~ ~ ;g ,,- o ::l ",.g -- :3 '5 ~~ " ' .... " : ~.s n) ... l5.. Q)"8.~ ~ .5 .~ ~ ~ : B ~ 5hl1Jea S'"Eit)Cf.lOO lI) .!:: "3 U'J ~ cl:S..3 1:) ~ 6- 8 8:9 S"~ Cf.l ro ll);3 00'- ;::l._'o~ ~l-oU...~8lUc.S> ~.8.s~]l-o~(1)~ 0""0 QJ 0.. QJ 11)..c 00 (1) l-oll);::lC~""''''lU'''''' s:: t) '"0 .S g. ~ ;s ~ ....... ro Vl u ...c: ro ~- rou_~ouoo 0.. v t:Q.)=~U[IJ'.c v= Q.) ~ v ~ v'~'- u 0 u<.8E~~-BS~gz '" '" >- ~ 13 ~ 1:> "J; ~ o I-l '" J-< ';::l ~ '" '" o t; ~ +-- >~ '0 q ~ ,,- '" """' _ 'ON 'S "'0- o Eii~ ~ 0 '" ~ ~ ;;~ >. 0 00 v "'C ~....... '1 ~ :::::~_.....~ ~ 0 QJ ~ .. ~ :> ~ 6b~ iZi -'" ,.., .... '" '" B] ~ i:i':I: >::: ~ u 00....- +-- ........~ 0"_ ta c; ~ ~ ~ ~~",:>~i5p; o - '0 '" o ~ " ::l bl) ~ ~ '" . . . . '" ,.., - '" ~.g t:: '" <~ 3~ '" '" ~~ ...- Q....; ~ " -s .!o! & CIl '" 8 z '" 8 z ,,;. N , " g z '" " o 'a u '" '" t - " - 1:: ~ ~ ~ :;;; " ~ 'C Q,l = = .~ .... = o U '" Q,l - "Q ~ Eo< .... <8 @ 0. >> u 5'" .~O uoo ~~ '0'0 i5'@ -.... "V) " > , 0: ,,~ 0 Q U1 Z " 0: o Z " 0: o Z 00 ~ 00 ~ ~ " " 4:l U1 a S'il 'O~ 8U1 ~il:: o~ ~ ~ ~~ 8B 11 i '" 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I:: U1 ~ 8 .s c; .s :;t; .b '0 ~ G ~ U1 u ~ ~ -e 'g '" '" ~ 00..... ~ ~"" '0 ~ a":: 8 U....l'" ~-g '1:: 0 P4~ .... oV) ~~ .. U1 .... .. V)V) ~~ U1...!; . . . 00 00 >> - '" E.g ~ '" <~ - 00 '" '" I::t; o.~ u> 00 j ~..... 8'0 S .s 0 ~~ o:~ .g :>l;:;!; il::~ 0", ~~ V) '" o 0 "?~ - ....'0 '" 8 ~ '0 il:: ~ 5 B ~ 'C U~~P4 . . . . 00 0: S ~ u " 00 b ~ 0: - .... .s ~ ~ C/):::::: E ;:: <8 '" v""'CI a.i 0.. 5""S ~ G > 5' ~ 0: ' e 0> t:: .~:g O",.......l.9 () 00 13 ~ t;:i , .~ 5 k)~:;; '0..... p.. = ~t)~ g.~ o~~......"1" ~....oo"V) oV'';::;> , l-o -+->.- iU~ ~..sSQ", " 0: ~ " 0: o Z 00 " :>- 00 " :>- >, ~ -.; > " 00 o~ ~ ~ "'~ a .s 13'0 '0 '" 8~ ~"8 B ~ V) '" ~ 'C ...!;P4 ~~'O , , '" ~~..9 "''''..... . . 00 ~ ~ " ~ ... V) N - V)~ 0'" 0;:; NO ~-B ".~ :>-~ * " 0: o Z " 0: ~ 00 " :>- '" -g.... € ] __Oll.) ;:l > E P:: ~ 0 ~8~ ~ ~ .s ] ~S(JJ d) '"0 t) 5 u '" ~ > '" " u ;au'" < 0 4:l ;:::::;..c= 0 ~ p::: Gf.l .s o Q........ J;:J ~ ~'"O ~ .:; ~ ~ 5 '~o"" tn B .~ '""~ U ,~~Q 0-", P4 _ '" ~~.. .;; .;; .;;s-= ca o'"c:l ro ca ca >.. Cl:I -5.....~ p::: 0 o~~ s;:;!;~ :"~ ~l:l-g Cl:I~"8 ;>.a~ ~..c: 0 ~lZlO uJ-JCl:I>,rog.p::: ..;,:.... -.;00....l"....l1;O.s1l V) V) !i; '0 .... .s >>~ >>,,'- 0: 10 ro 1-0 tn d ctI r::: ll) p::: 00 'C 0 0..... __ V +J 0) 0 ;> "'...!;P4~u>O,oOf-<P4< . . . . . . 00 >> '" .~ ~ ""'0 " '" ~~ 33 .... B u J: B '0 oj ~ '" ~ 'S o P4 .;; '" o ~'O vB 5h~ ~~ a=a "'> . . "">'" ",.'" &'" ...-- Q --" ... " .c !; ~ e- '" ,;. N , ~ " ti: 'co ~ " 'B " ti:; 'C ... = = .~ .... = o U '" ... ~ Eo-< ~ .8 cg11 ,,~ d 1n ~ :; ~ U IOU o "..c:: - "" A 11 ~ ~ o 0 ~ ~ -" $ ",E-< .~ ?1 ~ ~ ~ - 0 ;::I .."'0 ti ~ 5 ~~~]~ c::""" ctI rn C;o~~b: "El 21n ~ b.O <lJ CI:S ctI .s '5 uu~o~ . . * " 5 z .... <8 " " -a >> <..> "'" .~o <..>00 lC' "..... '0'0 A&l ..s~ ~V( ,,~ 0", " 5 z " " o Z '" ~ '" " >< '0 '" '" A ~ ~ " ,,""' 0 ;::I l-'-l..... ;>. c:: ] ~..... a ~ <lJ ;::I.t:l <lJ U <( ;::I 0 lZ) ~..t:: ......c::i!aooo.. (lj ~ ..... d (lj ctI ./:l....;::lH<..>5h c::.......... 0""0._ I1.l Q)...... tZl 0'"0.- U (lj V) 0...... 11) ;eJijo~';;E-< 8o.JO?.s';:.s ~~~",~;j!; 28t~~~ ~~U)~CJ:lU'J "'$1:r:.;,:.;,:.;,: Q)........_V')V")V') ~ I-< V1 I I I ;>O"~~~ "'~~"''''''' . . . " " o . . . z '" 5 .., <..> " '" .... " .E '" >> '" ~ " " .... ~ .s .~ '" o 0", NN ....~ '" , ~~ " " ~ " " ~ " " o Z '" " '" 0 ;>-'".;:j ~ '" <..> '" :> " '6;> '" ~ 11 tl 0- ~.E " " o Z " " o Z " " o Z " " o Z e:i "" '" ~ ~ '" ;.,,,, "':>< ~s ~ t5 ~ .- ~ ",0. ~"'2 i ~ ~.~ ~tlt; ,D " '" ~o~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ '" ~ 8 5 as~g. s ;.,- s ~ ~ "'d~.g e]~ G.}l,tj r9 '" '" ~ ""-~ .~ ~ 8- "'" ~ .S CI) 0 ~>5.s .go~ ~ ."",, ,,~ '" ~"E = ~","" '" :> U i; '" ~ '" s o oS 2 ::r:.5 ~ . '" o ^ .~ ~.5 (';jtS:o ee~ ~] '0 Vl~r2.! :.s .,s .... ~::3 .g ~ ~ S]~ """,0 'uN ;:: [~.~ .s '" ~ o~.::l ,D~g s~ .... 1;; OJ)~ e.5 '"C ~ e ~ tS: g. = '" ~ '" ~.I!,s Vl ~ ~ " '" '" .,g .~ .tJ ~c] ~ ~ 0 '" '- ~ ~o"" .5 Vl (\) "" _ 0. " '" 0 C\3;>Oj Vl~ > i::~.g "',D '" S~.o OIl o.~ ~ ~ ~ ;.,uS '" '" ~ '" " '"Os~ ",,,0. 8a'3c - ~ " e~~ ~.s 5 il.I U .~ '" '" o~ * ~ u .I! '" ~.s V')~ ~]~ '" " ii: OJ ~ " o '" 3/ ~ :.s ~ ~ o "" ~ 'g ! ] 5 .- S .lJ '" u :> '" 0 E-<lS. .~ =: ~ .:= ;"", ",0 "0 <'" 0Il~ .~ ~ .a '" p.. ~ ,g ~ " 0 8"" .- ~ ~ .~ .~= 'ag u '" '" 's ~ C'~ ~.s - ~ :-;::::.0 ~,::; ~ 0 ai:: ~ s I'l ~ ~ 8 ..,.0. ":'5 Bl,g '0 " ~ ~ ~oS "" ~ o '" oE:l L ..: " co .9: t,...;.~ 0"" " 8 .,8 u uO "'0 ~o ",,,, 5 ~ "':>< ,s '" 1ii,s ,s tl ~] o ;::l """" ~ '" .~ ""2 .Qg '" ~ a':: '" " ,s S '" '" :,::: > "" 0 :::lS. :5 .....'" ~& ...-' Q -,^ ... " "'" ~ e- '" .,,; .I! u '" .~ ;., 0:: .f; '" ] u '" ~ '" o '': '" " '" u ~ 1ii ,s ~ oS ~ '" :E 'G <.!l "" .I! ~ , '" '" , '" ,s '- o '" 1ii ,s ~ '" 1ii u 'i3 .S ~ ;::l -0 u ~ u '" ~ " '" <..> '" ." OIl en '" .:: 1ii ] ;::l u '" ,s .S ~ u .;; ~ ill, " 'B " t;:: "~ '" ~ Year 2010 with SR-125 The following discussion summarizes the significant and unmitigable residual impacts under year 2010 Conditions for each network component. Freeway Segments The San Miguel Ranch project exceeds the CMP threshold of contributing more than 2,400 daily trips to a freeway segment, which is considered a significant impact. All freeway impacts are considered to be significant and unmitigable, as project-related mitigation measures cannot alleviate impacts. The San Miguel Ranch Project Applicant should participate in the multi-agency study team approach to freeway deficiency plauning and contribute a "fair share" contribution to mitigate impacts. Project-related traffic was found to range from 1.5 to 2.3 percent on SR-54 from I-80S to Ildica Street and from 1.7 to 6.7 percent on SR-125 from SR-54 to Lonestar Road as a percentage of total freeway ADT, Because there is currently no mechanism for the implementation of this program, the impacts are considered unmitigable at the project level. Arterial Roadwav Sel!ments No significant project-related impacts to roadways were found based on the level of significance criteria. In addition, no Study Area segments have been identified as having impacts unrelated to the project and being unmitigated under Year 2010 with Proposed Project conditions, This assumes that all arterials are improved in accordance with their General Plan designation; however, because the County of San Diego does not have a financing and phasing plan for their circulation improvements, these impacts may be significant and unmitigable during interim conditions, Due to the uncertainty of the timing of these improvements, the impacts are considered significant in the cumulative condition, Buildout with SR-125 The following discussion summarizes residual impacts found under Full Southbay Buildout Conditions for each network component. Freeway Segments As with Interim Year 2010 conditions, almost all freeway segments impacts are found to be significant and unmitigable as project-related mitigation measures cannot provide adequate mitigation to return traffic operations to acceptable levels of service, These impacts are identified in this analysis to facilitate the transportation planning efforts of Caltrans and SANDAG and to indicate that the San Miguel Ranch Project Team remains committed to participating in freeway deficiency planning under CMP guidelines, This long-range impact identification process is a critical factor in developing strategies to improve the performance of the regional transportation network as it relates to Southbay freeway operations, As previously stated, upgrading I-80S to a 10-lane facility is a long-range mitigation need, The City of Chula Vista and the project applicant, along with all other Southbay jurisdictions and land developers, should participate in the multi- Findings of Fact -27- 3-) Draft 3 September 1, 1999 agency study team approach to developing freeway deficiency plans. As previously indicated, because there is no mechanism in place to implement this program, the impacts are identified as unmitigable, Arterial Roadwav Seements The majority of Study Area arterial segments are forecast to be able to facilitate the anticipated Buildout traffic volumes, The previous section, however, outlined cumulative mitigation measures for certain Study Area segments which are forecast to perform at LOS C or worse at the Buildout timeframe. The proposed mitigation would successfully improve levels of service to within acceptable levels, thereby leaving no significant and unmitigable impacts identified for roadway segments under Full Southbay Buildout Conditions, As previously stated, the County of San Diego does not have a phasing or financing program for their circulation network. Due to the uncertainty of the timing of the improvements, interim conditions may be significant. Therefore, impacts are considered significant in the cumulative condition, Finding Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations, Mitigation Measures Below is a summary of freeway conditions and mitigation strategies under Year 2010 conditions, Many of these mitigation measures have not been planned, designed, funded or agreed to by agencies responsible for their improvements. . SR-54. This facility is built to its ultimate eight-lane cross-section (six lanes + two HOV lanes) by this timeframe. Future Year 2010 levels of service on SR-54 from I-80S to I1dica Street are projected to range from LOS E to F(2). Possible mitigations, however, include TSM or TDM improvements that would maximize flow on this eight-lane facility. These improvements include the implementation of ramp metering, . SR-125. Under tollway operation, this six-lane facility is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) under Year 20 I 0 conditions, . I-80S. Mitigation strategies for this facility include developing a deficiency plan that evaluates the concept of widening this freeway from its current 8-lane cross section to 10 lanes, Findings of Fact -28- 3~ Draft 3 September 1, 1999 Southbay Buildout For the Southbaybuildout scenario, improvements to the freeways will be necessary, SR-125 and I-80S may be required to be expanded to 10 lanes. These facilities are the responsibility ofCaltrans, Arterial Roadwav Sel!ments Southbay Buildout Mitigation for arterial roadways which are forecasted to experience unacceptable levels of service under full Southbay Buildout conditions generally corresponds to additional carrying capacity, The planning level analysis for Full Southbay Buildout conditions is intended to assist local jurisdictions with the planning of potential improvements and allow sufficient time to gather funds, The following critical roadway segments should be examined for the possibility of upgrading classifications or providing other improvements based on forecasted average daily traffic volumes in order to maintain an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better). This evaluation should include a detailed analysis to ensure that sensitive community issues are taken into consideration, San Miguel Road San Miguel Road is recommended for upgrade to a three-lane collector with enhanced intersection geometry under Full Southbay Buildout conditions, While a four-lane collector classification would be appropriate based on forecasted volumes on this segment, a three-lane geometry with enhanced intersection treatments would provide adequate traffic flow while reducing right-of-way requirements, This classification is based on the volume of IS,800 ADT forecasted for San Miguel Road under Full Southbay Buildout conditions, This upgrade may ultimately require a GP A to the Sweetwater Community Plan. Since the Proposed Project is forecast to contribute only 0,7 percent of daily traffic to this roadway segment, this segment is considered to have a cumulative impact under this timeframe, Proctor Valley Road Proctor Valley Road between San Miguel Road and Mt. Miguel Road is recommended for upgrade to a three-lane collector with enhanced intersection geometrics, including signalization of Mt. Miguel Road/Proctor Valley Road (Intersection 21) under Full Southbay Buildout Conditions, Similar to San Miguel Road, this segment is forecast to carry enough traffic (14,600 ADT) to warrant a four-lane classification, However, a three-lane geometry with enhanced intersection treatments would likely provide adequate flow while reducing right-of-way requirements, Since the Proposed Project is forecast to contribute only 1,5 percent of daily traffic to this roadway segment, this segment is considered to have a cumulative impact under this timeframe, Findings of Fact -29- 37 Draft 3 September I, 1999 East H Street East H Street between Hidden Vista Drive and I-80S will remain a six-lane prime arterial under Full Southbay Buildout conditions. Forecasted ADT volumes indicate the need for an eight-lane facility, Geometric improvements to the interchange at I-80S could improve levels of service also and maintain acceptable operations without widening the segment. The right-of-way for an eight-lane cross-section should be secured, however, to assure ability to maintain acceptable levels of service. Otay Lakes Road Otay Lakes Road between Eastlake Parkway and SR-125 Southbound Ramps will remain a six-lane prime arterial under Full Southbay Buildout conditions, Forecasted ADT volumes indicate the need for an eight-lane facility, Geometric improvements to the interchange at SR-125 could improve levels of service also and maintain acceptable operations without widening the segment. The right- of-way for an eight-lane cross-section should be secured, however, to assure ability to maintain acceptable levels of service. Due to cumulative and interim impacts to the County circulation network (i,e" circulation network that may not be constructed concurrent with demand), the applicant will be required to implement the following mitigation measure at building permit stage: · If a funding mechanism is established between the City and County for cumulative traffic impacts, the San Miguel Ranch proj ect will be conditioned to pay their proportionate share contribution. Peak Hour Intersections Year 2010 Conditions Intersection I (Briarwood RoadlSR-54 westbound ramps) is forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour under this scenario, which is not required to be mitigated by this project. A conceptual geometric design was provided to mitigate this impact. A. Air Quality Significant Effect Motor vehicle emissions would be the primary source of pollutants resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project is estimated to generate 29,284 daily trips, which are equivalent to approximately 201,633 vehicle miles per day (VMD), Estimated daily emissions associated with project-generated VMDs would exceed the thresholds of significance for all criteria pollutants with the exception of PMlO, As a result, the proposed proj ect would create a significant impact on air quality. Findings of Fact -30- 3g Draft 3 September 1, 1999 Finding Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project impact to below a level of significance, As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations, Mitigation Measures Mitigation from the GDP/GPA has been incorporated into the project's Air Quality Improvement Plan; however, there are no feasible mitigation measures are available at this time to reduce project operation-related emissions. B. Noise Significant cumulative impacts (exceeding 65 dB or if over 65 dB, increase must be 3 dB or greater) were identified at the following locations: . Briarwood Road; . Otay Lakes Road (East H Street); . Sweetwater Road (Central Avenue to Briarwood); . East H Street (Corral Canyon Road); . East H Street (Eastlake Drive); . East H Street (SR-125); . Proctor Valley Road (Mt. Miguel Road and Lane Avenue); . Otay Lakes Road (Eastlake Parkway); and . Otay Lakes Road (Lane Avenue), Finding Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project impact to below a level of significance, As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations, Mitil!:ation Measures There are no feasible mitigation measures for this project to implement. Findings of Fact -31- 3'1' Draft 3 September 1, 1999 C. Schools Significant Effect According to State law, the fees collectable from the project proponent would not be adequate to fund the necessary improvements to the school system. Cumulative impacts to schools are considered significant and unmitigable, Finding Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project impact to below a level of significance, As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations, Mitigation Measures Implementation ofthe following mitigation measures will partially reduce impacts: . Funding for the school shall be in compliance with state law in effect at the time of building permits. X. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the Project will cause unavoidable significant environmental effects, as outlined above (see Section IX), 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 ofthese alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental effects (Citizens for Oualitv Growth v, City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App,3d 433 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727]; see also Pub, Resources Code, S 21002,) Because it is a judgment call whether an alternative is environmentally superior, these findings contrast and compare the alternatives analyzed in the FEIR with Project. In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts, Where the significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption 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 Findings of Fact -32- 'In Draft 3 September I, 1999 for the finally-approved Project, are significant and cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation. The Project would have a significant, unavoidable adverse environmental impact with respect to the following: LandformNisual Quality (Project) The project has significant and unmitigated project level landform alteration and visual quality impacts due to the extent of grading required, Biological Resources (Project and Cumulative) Significant and unmitigated impacts at project and cumulative levels are associated with the loss of sensitive biological habitats and several plant and animal species, Transportation (Project and Cumulative) The project level significant and unmitigated impacts are associated with the increase number of vehicles accessing the circulation system, Significant and unmitigated cumulative impacts are associated with uncertainty of the timing of construction of infrastructure located in the County of San Diego. Because this infrastructure may not be constructed at the time of demand, and the project has no ability to construct the infrastructure, significant impacts may occur, Several freeways in the vicinity have been determined not to be able to operate at acceptable levels in the future conditions. Air Quality (Project and Cumulative) Project level construction and vehicular emissions will exceed thresholds of significance. Noise (Project and Cumulative) Increased traffic levels result in significant noise levels within the project and cumulative on the nearby circulation element. Public Services and Utilities B Schools (Project and Cumulative) Due to inadequate funding, school facilities on a project and cumulative basis, will be significant affected, 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, g15l26, subd, (d)]. CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible," as it applies to the findings requirement: "Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a Findings of Fact -33- <II Draft 3 September I, 1999 reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" [Pub. Resources Code, 921061.1], The CEQA Guidelines provide a broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors, CEQA Guidelines, 915364 states "The lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or technological factor." Accordingly, "feasibility" is a 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 highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." 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, 9 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, 9 15364; Pub. Resources Code, 921081; see also Citv of Del Mar v. Citv of San Diego (1992) 133 Cal.App,3'" 401, 414-417). In City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1992) 133 Cal.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 based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors, We accordingly conclude that San Diego did not abuse its discretion under CEQA in rejecting various project alternatives as infeasible," Findings of Fact -34- t/~ Draft 3 September 1, 1999 @. (emphasis added),) These Findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate that the selection of the finally approved Project, while still resulting in significant environmental impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and other benefits, In rejecting all of the alternatives, the decision-makers have examined the finally approved Project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The decision-makers believe that the Project best meets the finally approved Project objectives with the least environmental impact. The objectives considered by the decision-makers are: . Prepare a land use and facilities plan consistent with the approved amended GDP for San Miguel Ranch, . Provide a plan that is feasible and flexible to the changing housing "market" within the South Bay region. . Provide for the orderly development of the project to assure compatible development in the surrounding community. . Ensure efficient and timely provision for the phasing and financing of community facilities, including roads, parks, schools, water/sewer facilities, and urban runoffl flood control. . Provide a plan that contributes significantly to the local, state, and federal conservation efforts by conserving large areas of important biological habitat. . Propose mitigation measures that: (1) reflect the more refined nature of a SPA plan (as opposed to a GDP); and (2) address impacts that were previously not considered significant or which substantial new information reflects will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report, Consequently, the SPA Plan is based upon a statement of goals and objectives prepared by both the project applicant and City staff during the preparation of the amendment to the GDP. These goals and objectives were approved by the Chula Vista City Council upon adoption of the amended GDP for San Miguel Ranch in December 1996, The SPA plan, tentative maps, and proposed mitigation measures continue to achieve these goals and objectives by proposing additional mitigation measures focused primarily on more defined proj ect plans, or in some cases, additional information, Findings of Fact -35- cf3 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 The approved goals and objectives address four broad areas: · Housing/Community Character/Land Use. The goals and objectives relating to housing, community character, and land use address the character of the proposed development, including housing types, community design, preservation of natural features, and compatibility with adjoining land uses. . Resource Conservation. The goals and objectives relating to resource conservation establish a development plan that preserves or otherwise conserves sensitive habitat and other natural resources and minimizes impacts to adjoining watersheds. · Community/Public Facilities. The goals and objectives relating to community and public facilities address the creation of schools, parks, and other important public facilities and services in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner. . Circulation, Public Safety and Welfare. The goals and objectives relating to circulation, public safety, and welfare respond to various regional and local traffic circulation needs, including the proposed alignment ofSR-125, as well as police and fire protection. The Final EIR for the project examined a broad range of 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. Alternatives The decision-makers have considered whether any of the project alternatives discussed in the SEIR could substantially lessen or avoid the identified significant effects. As explained below, the decision-makers conclude that none of the project alternatives could both meet the objectives of the project and lessen or avoid the identified significant effects, No Project The No Project alternative assumes that no development would occur on the project site, The project site would remain in its current undeveloped condition, Because the project site would remain undeveloped under the No Project alternative, all of the unmitigated impacts of the project as revised would be avoided. However, the No Project alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons: a. Inconsistent with City's General Plan. The Chula Vista General Plan designates that the project site provide for a variety of Low, Low-Medium, Medium, and High Residential land uses. The No Project alternative contemplates no development at the project site, and is not consistent with the City's General Plan designation for the project site, Findings of Fact -36- Lit{ Draft 3 September 1, 1999 In addition, the Eastern Territories Element of the City's General Plan contains objectives, which call for the creation of a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses, This project would provide for a balanced community, The No Project alternative, however, does not provide this benefit, as it does not contemplate development of the project site for urban development, including residential school, park, commercial, and open space uses. b. Eliminates Fiscal Benefits to City. As vacant, undeveloped land, the project site generates no revenue for the City of Chula Vista; however, the city incurs very few costs from the site in its undeveloped condition. This fiscal situation would continue under the no project alternative, However, the project would provide a potential source of revenue once buildout is completed, The fiscal benefits would not be realized under the No Project alternative, c. Inconsistent with Project Goals and Objectives. The No Project alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project. For example, the objectives considered by the City, which would not be realized under the No Project alternative include: (1) creation of a high- quality master-planned residential development consistent with the GDP designation; (2) provision of a commerciaVretail center, community park, and elementary school to serve the needs of the project site; (3) implementation of regional and local circulation facilities by providing for the extension of SR-125, the designation of San Miguel Road as a major four- lane collector, and connection from East H Street to Bonita Road; (4) the implementation of necessary public utilities and services to the area including water, sewage, police, fire, emergency medical, parks, recreation, and open space; and (5) a linkage to schools, parks, and shopping centers through the use of bicycle and pedestrian trails as an alternative to the automobile. County Land Use The County Land Use alternative assumes that the project would be developed in accordance with the existing requirements under the County of San Diego. This alternative was included because the project site is currently within the unincorporated County jurisdiction, This alternative was evaluated in earlier documentation and rejected by the decisions makers with the appropriate findings and statement of overriding considerations, However, this alternative is infeasible for the following reasons: a. Inconsistent with City's General Plan. The Chula Vista General Plan provides for a variety of Low, Low-Medium, Medium, and High Residential land uses, The County Land Use Alternative contemplates approximately 255 units, and is not consistent with the City's General Plan designation for the project site, In addition, the Eastern Territories Element of the City's General Plan contains objectives, which call for the creation of a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses. This project would provide for a balanced community. The County Land Use Alternative, however, does not provide this benefit, but provides limited development ofthe project site, Findings of Fact -37- '-f~ Draft 3 September 1, 1999 b, Inconsistent with Project Goals and Objectives. The County Land Use Alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project. For example, the objectives considered by the City, which would not be realized under this alternative include: (I) creation of a high-quality master-planned residential development consistent with the GDP designation; (2) provision of a commercial/retail center, community park, and elementary school to serve the needs of the project site; (3) implementation of regional and local circulation facilities by providing for the extension of SR-125, the designation of San Miguel Road as a major four-lane collector, and connection from East H Street to Bonita Road; (4) the implementation of necessary public utilities and services to the area including water, sewage, police, fire, emergency medical, parks, recreation, and open space; and (5) a linkage to schools, parks, and shopping centers through the use of bicycle and pedestrian trails as an alternative to the automobile, Reduced Grading Alternative The Reduced Grading Alternative assumes that the project would be redesigned to avoid significant landform alteration/visual quality impacts. This project would require a General Plan and GDP amendments, This alternative was evaluated in earlier documentation and rejected by the decisions makers with the appropriate findings and statement of overriding considerations, This alternative is infeasible for the following reasons: a, Infrastructure. This alternative would result in a substantial reduction in the number of dwelling units that can be accommodated, As such, the project proponent is not able to finance major infrastructure, such as Mount Miguel Road, b, Off-site Mitigation Requirements. Although the extent of landform alteration would be reduced, the extent of habitat disturbance was not anticipated to change substantially. Therefore, the mitigation requirements for off-site preservation would be similar, The previous property owner agreed to not develop the North Parcel as long development potential was transferred to the South Parcel. Preservation of the North Parcel may not be feasible if this alternative were selected, The magnitude of the impacts (including landform) of this decision was disclosed to the Council and the public when the GDP was approved, Findings and a Statement of Overriding Conditions were also adopted. c, North Parcel Annexation. The City may annex the North Parcel; therefore, the EIR addressed this option as an alternative. XI. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On , at a properly-noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista certified the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for San Mignel Ranch General Development Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment, Resolution 96-XX, recommending certification of the Final SEIR to the City Council (see City of Chula Vista Planning Commission Resolution), Findings of Fact -38- % Draft 3 September 1, 1999 XII. MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDED BY THE PUBLIC The following section discusses several changes to the project suggested by government agencies, organizations, and individual members of the public. Many of these recommendations were made in comments (written and oral) on the Draft SEIR submitted during the public review period for that document. Others arose in separate written comments the context of public hearings on the project. A. Mitigation Measures Biological Resources Comment 7: The comment suggests that the SEIR identify mitigation to satisfY the California Department ofFish and Game's ("DFG") obligations as a responsible agency under Fish and Game Code section 1600. FindinglRationale: No additional mitigation is necessary because the SEIR already identifies mitigation for impacts on resources within the DFG's jurisdiction, That mitigation is discussed in detail in Section 3.3 ofthe Draft SEIR and in Response to Comment 7 in the Final SEIR. In brief, mitigation for impacts ofthe project consists of creating 1.5 acres of wetlands. The Draft SEIR requires the project applicant to submit a detailed site-specific mitigation program for review and approval by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. The City will ensure that the mitigation program fully mitigates impacts on wetland resources. That determination should assist DFG, but, as a responsible agency, DFG must make its own independent finding that the identified wetland mitigation plan is satisfactory. (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 7, p,3.3-15.) Comment 8: The comment requests that the SEIR provide more information about onsite open space management. In particular, the comment asks the SEIR to indicate how the open spaces will be managed, who will be responsible for the management, how the management will be funded, and what measures will be implemented. Further, the comment suggests that conservation easements covering the open space areas be deeded to the City ofChula Vista, Finding/Rationale: No additional mitigation is needed, The applicant will be required to prepare a Management Plan specifying ownership, management responsibilities and funding. Although the specific content of the Management Plan is yet to be prepared, the plan will address methods to prevent: human disturbance, invasion by exotic plants and animals, and habitat disruption from other activities (e.g., drainage, fuel management, illegal dumping, etc,). The applicant will be required to fund the plan; however, exact details regarding plan financing cannot be fully elucidated until plan preparation begins. (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 8.) Findings of Fact -39- "17 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 Comment 57: The comment asks whether the Project would indirectly affect Otay tarplant through habitat fragmentation and, if so, how those impacts would be mitigated. Finding/Rationale: Additional mitigation is infeasible, Mitigation for impacts on Otay tarplant consists of preservation in open space areas on the south parcel and on the north parcel. The Otay tarplant preserves were designed in coordination with the USFWS and CDFG. The preserve areas were identified based upon the distribution of the plants and population sizes. The preserve areas were designed to maximize the potential for the long-term viability of this species, The Management Plan for the tarplant preserve areas will reduce the indirect impacts associated with development adjacent to the preserve areas, The above measures do not fully mitigate impacts on Otay tarplant. Additional mitigation, short ofthe No Project Alternative, would similarly fall short of complete mitigation. (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 57, pp. 3.3-13 to 3,3-16.) A redesign to further minimize impacts was considered and discussed in Chapter 4 "Selection of Alternatives Considered". The SEIR states "Because the City ofChula Vista has concluded in three previous EIRs that no feasible alternative would eliminate all impacts to endangered, rare, or threatened species, and because the three previous EIRs sufficiently analyzed a reasonable range of project alternatives, there are no potentially feasible project alternatives that would entirely avoid project-related impacts on species listed under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, This conclusion is all the more clear when one considers the on-site distribution of Otay tarplant and California gnatcatchers, as set forth in the baseline habitat map ([Final SEIR, ]Figure 3.3- I), Because of the extensive distribution of sensitive biological resources, particularly Otay tarplant and California gnatcatchers, preservation or avoidance of such resources would eliminate the potential to achieve project objectives as set forth in Section 2.3 of the EIR. An alternative that avoids any impacts to endangered, rare, or threatened species, for example, would preclude design of a regional circulation network (Mount Miguel Road), provision of housing opportunities (other than minimal low density estate housing), and school or park facilities, Such an alternative would be substantially similar to the No ProjectlNo Development Alternative, an alternative analyzed in the EIR, Accordingly, based on the discussion above and the alternatives analysis in the previous EIRs for planned development of San Miguel Ranch, the EIR does not include analysis of a Biological Avoidance Alternative because it could not meet project objectives and would be tantamount to the No Development Alternative." (Final SEIR, pp, 4-3 to 4-4,) Comments 61 and 62: The comment asks whether the Project will affect California adolphia and Palmer's grapplinghook and, if so, how those effects will be mitigated, FindinglRationale: Additional mitigation is infeasible, Mitigation for impacts ofthe Project on special-status plant species consists of setting aside open space for plant preservation, especially on the north parcel. Even with this mitigation, impacts on special-status plant species will remain significant. (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 61, pp, 3.3-13 to 3.3-16,) See also Finding/Rationale on Comment 57. Findings of Fact -40- yS' Draft 3 September 1, 1999 Transportation Comment 11: The comment requests that the project developer contribute a "fair share" toward the cost of implementing traffic mitigation measures on SR-54, SR-125, and I- 805, FindingIRationale: The suggested mitigation is infeasible, The City is unaware of any existing state funding mechanism for impacts on state roadways that apportions the costs of traffic mitigation to individual development projects. A condition providing for payment of the "fair share" of funds as requested would therefore be unenforceable, and infeasible mitigation under CEQA. (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 11, p, 3.4-58,) Nevertheless, because the state may at some point develop a highway impact fee to defray the costs of building infrastructure to serve growth regionally, including growth within the City, the City will adopt the following condition: "If a funding mechanism is established between the City and the State of California for regional cumulative traffic impacts on state roadways, the San Miguel Ranch project will be conditioned to pay its proportionate share contribution," Comment 13 and 15: The comments request that the applicant closely coordinate with Caltrans during the design process for San Miguel Ranch, FindinglRationale: No additional mitigation is necessary, The applicant is coordinating with Caltrans and will continue those discussions throughout the design process. (Final SEIR, Responses to Comments 13 and 15,) To ensure that these cooperative efforts continue, the City will adopt the following condition: "Coordinate closely with Caltrans to ensure that the project incorporates state roadway design considerations," Comment 16: The comment states that encroaclunent permits will be required for any work in Caltrans' rights-of-way, FindinglRationale: No additional mitigation is necessary, The applicant intends to obtain encroaclunent permits when required, (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 16,) To ensure that appropriate permits are obtained, the City will adopt the following condition: "Obtain an encroaclunent permit from Caltrans before conducting any activity in rights- of-way for state roadways." Comments 21 and 22, The comments state that construction ofregional roadways (SR-54 and SR-125) must occur prior to development of San Miguel Ranch, FindinglRationale: The mitigation is unnecessary. The technical analysis for the San Findings of Fact -41- if'! Draft 3 September I, 1999 Miguel Ranch identified certain assumptions related to the future circulation network (see Final SEIR, pp, 3.4-13 and 3.4-14,) Specifically related to SR-54, the Final SEIR identifies the recently completed improvements of Phase I (South Inner Loop) that connects SR-54 from 1-805 to the future alignment ofSR-125. The Final SEIR and associated traffic study assumes that "by Year 2010, SR-54 will be constructed as a six- lane freeway with two HOV lanes" (Final SEIR, p. 3.4-14,) The SEIR discloses that portions of SR-54 will not meet acceptable levels of service with or without the project. The SEIR indicates that a deficiency plan for SR-54 must be completed (Final SEIR, pp, 3.4-56 through 3.4-57.) With or without SR-54, the project will be conditioned so that not more than 675 equivalent dwelling nnits can be built prior to the completion of SR -125 south. Based on Caltrans' anticipated timing for completion of construction currently underway, the remaining improvement ofSR-54 north to SR-125 will be completed prior to the construction ofSR-125 south, Because the project's contribution does not represent a significant impact, improvements to the circulation network are planned, and because these improvements are the responsibility of others, the project has not been required to wait until these improvements to SR-54 are completed. (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 21; see also FindingslRationale for Comments 43 and 44.) Pursuant to the East H Street capacity analysis by Willdan Associates, which is on file at the City of Chula Vista, the project cannot exceed 675 equivalent dwelling units within the area without SR-125, Connection of future Mt. Miguel Road to Proctor Valley Road, and commencement of any housing construction in areas west ofSR-125 are not proposed to occur until after SR-125 is constructed, IfSR-125 is not constructed, an additional traffic analysis is required before any additional units beyond the 675 units can be permitted. The traffic analysis must show that the City's threshold standards are met. This condition is specified in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program, (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 22.) Comments 24 and 25: The comments state that the applicant should be required to contribute a "fair share" toward the improvements to unincorporated roadways in general and improvements to San Miguel Road in particular, FindinglRationale: The mitigation measure is infeasible, The County of San Diego has no mechanism that apportions the cost of constructing roadway improvements to individual projects, The suggested mitigation is therefore unenforceable and inadequate under CEQA, (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 24,) Nevertheless, because the County may at some point develop an impact fee to defray the costs of building infrastructure to serve growth in the City, the City will adopt the following condition: "If a funding mechanism is established between the City and the County of San Diego for regional cumulative traffic impacts on County roadways, the San Miguel Ranch project will be conditioned to pay its proportionate share contribution." Comment 28: The comment requests that the City condition the project on payment of "fair share" fees toward the construction of improvements to the SR-54/Briarwood Findings of Fact -42- :)'Q Draft 3 September I, 1999 interchange, FindinglRationale: The suggested mitigation is infeasible. The project will not cause a significant direct impact on this interchange, The project will, however, make a significant contribution to the cumulative impact on traffic flows using this interchange. The City of San Diego has no mechanism for apportioning the cost of roadway improvements to growth. Accordingly, this mitigation measure is unenforceable and infeasible. (Final ErR, Response to Comment 28,) Nevertheless, because the City of San Diego may at some point develop a traffic impact fee to defray the costs of building infrastructure to serve growth in the City ofChula Vista, the City ofChula Vista will adopt the following condition: "If a funding mechanism is established between the City of Chula Vista and the City of San Diego for cumulative regional traffic impacts on City of San Diego roadways, the San Mignel Ranch project will be conditioned to pay its proportionate share contribution." Comment 43: The comment requests that the City place effective, legally binding limits on the Project to ensure implementation of transportation improvements needed to accommodate project-related traffic, FindinglRationale: The suggested mitigation is unnecessary in part and infeasible in part, The City of Chula Vista is responsible for managing the circulation network within the city limits, The City has established a Growth Management Ordinance that monitors the performance of the circulation network. The City also collects fees from new development based on the number of additional estimated average daily vehicle trips generated. The City uses these funds to make improvements to the circulation network as needed to meet demand. Within the boundaries of San Miguel Ranch, the City has conditioned that all roadways must be developed to keep pace with demand. The City also has required the applicant to fund the Project's share of regional circulation network improvements within the City ofChula Vista, Accordingly, the mitigation required for the Proj ect will ensure that construction oftraffic improvements occurs concurrent with demand. (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 43, p, 3.4-53; SPA Volume 5, Public Facilities Financing Plan, pp, 11.5.4.1-1 to 11.5.4.1-34,) The City has no authority to make improvements to the circulation network outside of the City ofChula Vista, The City cannot, therefore, make improvements to the circulation system under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, or the State of Cali fa mia. As explained above, however, the City ofChula Vista will adopt conditions requiring San Miguel Ranch to contribute its proportionate share to construction of roadways in jurisdictions outside the City of Chula Vista, provided the jurisdictions establish appropriate funding mechanisms to collect these fees, (Refer to Findings/Rationale on Comments 11,24,25, and 28.) Noise Findings of Fact -43- ::.); Draft 3 September 1, 1999 Comment 12: The comment suggests that the SEIR identify noise barriers or other appropriate mitigation for noise from SR-125 as the developer's responsibility, Finding/Rationale: No additional mitigation is necessary, The applicant and Caltrans are currently negotiating how mitigation for traffic noise from SR-125 will be funded. Regardless of the outcome, the applicant must demonstrate to the City Engineer that noise levels will be reduced below 65 dE(A) CNEL, which is the City's threshold of significance. (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 12.) Schools Comment 33: The comment notes that school mitigation fees may not generate a sufficient amount the City implement a measure designed to make up any funding shortfall for school facilities required to serve the project. Finding/Rationale: The suggested mitigation is infeasible, The EIR indicates that due to current funding requirements specified by the SB 50, current statewide funding is inadequate to meet the needs of school districts, The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, commonly known as SB 50, significantly reformed the methods of financing school facilities construction, Prior to the enactment of SB 50, case law argnably stood for the proposition that local agencies could require certain types of development projects to contribute impact fees in excess oflimits imposed under state law, (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 33.) The enactment of SB 50 preempts and limits the exercise of traditional local agency police power to mitigate school impacts, Under SB 50, mitigation measures available for impacts on school facilities are limited to school district-imposed fees set forth in the Education Code and local agency-imposed fees for interim, non-permanent facilities, These mechanisms are the exclusive means in the post-SB 50 era for project-specific mitigation of school impacts, In fact, SB 50 provides that local agencies may conclude that project-related impacts are fully mitigated with the payment of the fees authorized under SB 50 even though many believe that the payment of such fees provides insufficient funding for school districts to address school-related impacts. Despite this potential short-fall, however, state law precludes local agencies, including the City, from conditioning the approval of individual projects on any means other than those allowed under SB 50, Thus, although the applicant has indicated a willingness to provide supplemental funding for both school districts affected by the project, the City may not legally condition the project on the payment ofthose funds, (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 33,) Comment 36: Similar to Comment 33, this comment contends that statutorily authorized fees will not completely defray the cost of constructing school facilities to serve the project. The comment notes, however, that the applicant has offered to implement measures to fully fund school facilities and requests that the City revise the mitigation for Findings of Fact -44- ,s-~ Draft 3 September 1, 1999 schools to require that supplemental financing, Finding/Rationale: The suggested revision to the mitigation in the SEIR is infeasible, As discussed in the preceding finding, SB 50 prohibits the City from requiring the applicant to provide more school funding than the school district can collect via the fees set by Government Code section 65995, The City cannot legally condition the project on payment of additional school fees, Accordingly, any requirement to provide those funds is unenforceable and therefore infeasible, (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 36,) Drainage Comment 6: The comment recommends relocating the outlets for drainage pipes to avoid discharges of stormwater into Otay tarplant preserves in Open Space area numbers 6 and 7 (OS-6 and OS-7), Finding/Rationale: The suggested mitigation is unnecessary, Drainage lines do not convey stormwater into either OS-6 or OS-7, (Final SEIR, Response to Comment 6.) Comment 39: The comment asks that the City of Chula Vista provide for the maintenance ofthe drainage system for the Project. Finding/Rationale: The suggested mitigation is unnecessary, In the Public Facilities Financing Plan, the applicant must include a Fiscal Impact Analysis ("FIA"), The FIA estimates the net cost of the Proj ect to the City by comparing the proj ected costs associated with construction and maintenance of public services and utilities against projected revenues from the Project. The developer must agree to implement financing mechanisms to eliminate any projected fiscal deficit to the City from the Project. (Response to Comment 39; SPA Volume 5, Public Facilities Financing Plan, pp. 11.5.4.14-2 through 11.5.4,15-12,) Comment 40: The comment suggests the need for an additional detention basin(s), especially for pipes that drain Neighborhoods B, C, D, E, F, G, S, and portions ofH and I. Finding/Rationale: The mitigation is unnecessary, The drainage system for the Project would prevent the Project from contributing to downstream flooding problems, The proposed drainage system consists of a network of drainage pipes connected that would carry stormwater to three detention basins, The detention basins are designed to collect all onsite drainage and slow the rate at which it flows offsite, The system is engineered with enough capacity to ensure that peak runoff rates during the 100-year storm are no higher than under present conditions, (Final SEIR, Responses to Comments 37 and 68,) Accordingly, after development, the project site will generate peak drainage flows no higher than currently result during the 100-year storm, The project's drainage system will cause water to flow downstream for a longer period than under current conditions, Findings of Foci -45- S-3 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 Flooding does not result from these prolonged flows, however, but from peak flows, Thus, by ensuring that development will not increase peak flow during the IOO-year storm, the drainage plan mitigates drainage impacts from the project. (Final SEIR, p. 3,7- 18.) The original layout of the drainage plan is depicted in Figure 3,7-1 of the Final SEIR, After the City released the Draft SEIR, the City Engineer required the relocation of Detention Basin No, I, The new location for this basin is south of Mount Miguel Road at the northwest comer of Neighborhood K. The City Engineer concluded that the revised system will be as effective at controlling drainage as the system originally proposed by the applicant. Stated differently, the changed drainage system, like the proposed system, will reduce drainage generated during the IOO-year storm to existing levels. This means that the flows resulting from a storm (that occurs once in 100 years) would be detained in the basins and discharged at a volume the same or less than occurs today, (Final SEIR, Responses to Comments 37 and 68.) Flooding periodically occurs downstream of the project site on properties located in the County, The main cause ofthis flooding is inadequately sized facilities and the lack of maintenance, The drainage system in the County is the responsibility of the County of San Diego. It is the responsibility of the upstream development not to worsen flooding of downstream properties. As noted above, the engineering studies prepared for the project show that the proposed drainage system will prevent increases in peak runoff from the project site during the IOO-year flood, Thus, the project will not exacerbate flooding problems on downgradient properties and will not result in significant flooding impacts, (Responses to Comments 37 and 68; Final SEIR, pp, 3.7-17 to 3,7-18.) B. Alternatives Biological Resources Comment 63: The comment suggests that the proposed project should be redesigned to further reduce project-related impacts on Otay tarplant (Hemizonia conjugens), a plant listed as "endangered" under the California Endangered Species Act and "threatened" under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The comment asserts without specificity that reduced project-related density "that preserves additional Otay tarplant" is "reasonable," The commenter similarly reiterates the same statements in a letter to the City of Chula Vista dated September 28, 1999. (See Letter to Planning Commission, City ofChula Vista, from Cindy Burrascano, California Native Plant Society (CNPS), (September 28, 1999),) Attached to the CNPS letter is an attachment entitled "Figure 4," among other attachments, According to CNPS, Figure 4, which is taken in part from Figure 4 in Appendix B of Volume I of the Technical Appendices to the Draft EIR, depicts additional areas of Otay tarplant on the proposed project site that CNPS asserts should be preserved in order "to provide adequate protection for the species." As with its earlier comment, CNPS asserts that a project redesign to preserve additional Otay tarplant is not Findings of Fact -46- ")'1 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 "unreasonable." Finally, oral and written testimony by the CNPS at the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission hearing on October 6,1999, clarifies previous comments by CNPS and "offer[s] an alternative [,]" (Oral and Written Testimony of Bertha McKinley, CNPS, Comments to Chula Vista Planning Commission (October 6,1999).) According to this testimony, and based on the calculations offered by CNPS, the alternative design preferred by CNPS, which generally proposes to expand the Otay tarplant preserves west of SR 125 to encompass the majority of the southern half of San Miguel Ranch SPA neighborhoods "J" and "K," decreases the total number of individual tarplant impacted by the proposed project on the South Parcel by approximately 43% and doubles the total number individuals preserved on the South Parcel. CNPS also asserts its preferred alternative "would result in only 200 fewer units" than the proposed project. FindinglRationale: The alternative proposed by CNPS is infeasible and would not reduce project-related impacts on Otay tarplant to below a level of significance. The CNPS alternative is premised on a redesign of the proposed project, a project that is consistent with the current General Plan and General Development Plan (GDP) land use designations, as well as current zoning, for the project site, The current land use and zoning designations, and the underlying density and intensity of development, are the product of two prior tiers of environmental review by the City under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for San Miguel Ranch, In fact, after approving the initial GDP for San Miguel Ranch in 1993, a legislative action designating both the North and South Parcels for development, the City resolved to amend the GDP in 1996 in order to preserve and protect in perpetuity the biological resources on the approximately 2,000- acre North Parcel. Specifically, all impacts to populations in the San Miguel Ranch North Parcel were avoided and 23 acres of suitable tarplant habitat was designated preservation in the South Parcel, along with additional open space, in connection with the City's adoption of the 1996 Amended GDP. During the City's review ofthe GDP for San Miguel Ranch in 1993, and the Amended GDP in 1996, the City considered and rejected as infeasible reduced density alternatives that would further reduce impacts on biological resources, including the Otay tarplant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-1 to 4-4,) As contemplated, the San Miguel Ranch SPA therefore reflects the previous exercise of legislative discretion by the City, The City's exercise oflegislative discretion with respect to San Miguel Ranch, both currently and in the context of the two previous tiers of environmental review, necessarily and reasonably involves the balancing and accommodation of a number of relevant environmental, economic, social and technological factors affecting comprehensive, long-term land use planning by the City, Against this backdrop, the CNPS proposes to eliminate development within a portion of the San Miguel Ranch SPA desiguated for low-density residential development in the General Plan and the Amended GDP that the City adopted in 1996, The changes required Findings of Fact -47- S-S- Draft 3 September 1, 1999 by CNPS are therefore inconsistent with the current adopted General Plan and GDP designations for the project site, The CNPS alternative would, in fact, require amendments to both the City's General Plan and GDP for the property. The CNPS alternative would specifically reduce the area of low density, estate development within San Miguel Ranch; a type and amount of development required by the City's General Plan and the San Miguel Ranch GDP, The areas west ofSR 125 that are the subject of the CNPS alternative are currently designated consistent with the City's long-term regional planning goals for low density residential development that will provide a significant amount and balance oflarge lot, estate development within the City. In addition, low-density development is proposed in this location to maintain a density appropriate to and compatible with adjoining existing residential neighborhoods in the Sunnyside community, The CNPS alternative and the resulting decrease in estate residential development would therefore require substantial revisions to the General Plan and San Miguel Ranch GDP in order to attain the City's goal of providing estate-type housing within San Miguel Ranch and the City generally, Such revisions would necessitate a significant reduction in the overall number of dwelling units in San Miguel Ranch beyond that asserted by CNPS, Moreover, an overall decrease in density that would result with the CNPS may result in making the project economically infeasible, The CNPS alternative is also infeasible because oftechnical engineering considerations. Due to key grading considerations, eliminate of development as proposed by CNPS would preclude the planned "loop road" circulation system, and result in either two long cul-de-sac accesses which would be problematic with regard to fire service requirements, or require a significant amount of landform alteration to connect the two main accesses through an area currently slated for preservation (OS-9), Finally, in concluding that the CNPS alternative is infeasible, the City rejects the CNPS assertion that mitigation measures associated with the proposed project do not adequately protect the Otay tarplant. It bears emphasis that the proposed San Miguel Ranch SPA provides additional environmental benefits over the approved Amendments to the GDP, including a 60% increase in total acreage ofthe tarplant preserves (37 acres) and an overall increase in preserved natural open space on the South Parcel from approximately 213 to more than 244 acres. The presence ofOtay tarplant on San Miguel Ranch has resulted in efforts to configure project development in a way that preserves substantial areas containing Otay tarplant and suitable soils, Amendments to the San Miguel Ranch GDP in 1996 were adopted, in particular, based on a redesign of the proposed project, including preservation of the entire North Parcel and substantial reduction in project- related impacts to biological resources generally, The conservation and avoidance of sensitive biological resources on the project site is, in fact, the subject of a conservation bank agreement between the current applicant's predecessor in interest and the California Department ofFish & Game and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The conservation and preservation of biological resources associated with the proposed SPA is also acknowledged as a critical component of regional efforts to preserve Otay tarplant through the Service's issuance of two "biological opinions" under the San Diego Multiple Findings of Fact -48- )~ Draft 3 September 1, 1999 Species Conservation Program (MSCP) that conclude, in layman's terms, that the Otay tarplant is adequately covered by the MSCP. Thus, in finding the CNPS alternative infeasible, the City exercises its independent judgment and finds that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the expanded Otay tarplant preserves currently proposed for the project preserve large populations of Otay tarplant in areas with the required clay soils and particular hydrology to ensure that enough volume of plants are producing seed with enough variability to germinate under a range of weather conditions and thereby not go extinct. The City also finds based on the exercise of its independent judgment that the expanded Otay tarplant preserves currently proposed project will not contribute to the overall viability of the species because the expanded preserve design takes in the specific biological requirements of the plan, Schools Comment 76 recommended an alternative location for the proposed elementary school, contending that traffic generated by the planned school site would pose an unacceptable risk to residents. FindinglRationale: The alternative location recommended by Comment 76 would result in greater impacts than the planned school site. The feasibility ofthe suggested alternative was reviewed in the context of proceedings on the SEIR. Community members, as well as the Planning Commission, requested an evaluation of relocating the planned school from its current site along Proctor Valley Road north into Community E, The SEIR evaluated the impacts of that location and determined that it would not reduce any significant environmental impacts of the planned site. Traffic generated from the school will be distributed on the circulation network and relocating the school would not reduce any significant impacts on the regional circulation network, If the Chula Vista Elementary School District decides to develop the school, the District will undertake a site planning effort. Because the site is three acres larger than the typical elementary school site (13 acres instead of 10 acres), the District will have greater spatial flexibility to design onsite facilities to minimize traffic flow problems, The District may, for example, build an internal roadway connecting the school to Neighborhood E to the north, which would lessen school traffic on Proctor Valley Road, Other measures to manage traffic flows on Proctor Valley Road include, orienting campus buildings and structures to encourage traffic to use the internal access road, separating bus and private vehicle drop off points, and providing adult traffic monitors during peak periods, These measures will reduce impacts of the planned school to less than significant levels, Additionally, the location for the school site recommended by the comment would cause greater than those that would result from the proposed location, Circulation impacts of the recommended school site, because it would be located on a cul-de-sac, would be Findings of Fact -49- -;-7 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 greater than the planned site. The recommended site would also not allow the flexibility to mitigate traffic impacts by modifying the site design, XIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Background The CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide: a. CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed proj ect outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable, b, Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR, but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record, This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3). c, If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination (CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaT. Code Regs, Section 15093), The Statement The Project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in detail in Section IX of these Findings of Fact (Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures): . Noise (Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts); . Schools (Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts); . LandformNisual Quality (Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts); . Biological Resources (Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts); . Transportation (Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts); and . Air Quality (Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts), The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts, Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts, adoption of the measures will not fully avoid the impacts, The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Based on this examination, the City has determined that none ofthese alternatives both (1) meets Project objectives; and (2) is environmentally preferable to the finally approved Project. Findings of Fact -50- ')7 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 As a result, to approve the Project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 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 unavoidable significant effects, CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an ErR, Rather, ErRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse" (Public 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 Cal.3d 190,206 [Cal.Rptr.377]), Decision-makers 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 mitigation measures found in the CEQA findings, when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant effects identified in the Final SEIR. Certain significant effects of the San Miguel Ranch project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, In approving the project, the City has balanced the benefits of the San Miguel Ranch project against these unavoidable environmental effects. In this regard, the City finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA findings, have been or will be implemented with the project, and any significant remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable due to the following substantial social, environmental and economic or other considerations, all of which are based upon the facts set forth in the CEQA findings, Final SErR and the record ofthe proceedings for this project. Environmental Protection and Preservation The Project would eliminate impacts to sensitive species in the north parcel and reduce impacts to sensitive species in the south parcel to below a level of significance. The USFWS, the CDFG, and Emerald Properties have entered into an agreement which indicates the dedication of 146 acres of open space on the South Parcel (including a 2 I-acre Otay tarplant preserve) and 166 acres of the North Parcel, as mitigation for totalhiological impacts as long as the north parcel is not developed, but dedicated as a permanent ecological reserve and the City completes its Subarea Plan. The Points of Agreement calls for a combination of acquisition and the establishment of a conservation bank on the north parcel, in addition to the dedicating of 166 acres of mitigation land. The fee title to the I 66-acre of mitigation land will be transferred to the CDFG or the USFWS (or to an organization approved by them) following the City's authorization of the project based upon an approved MSCP Subarea Plan for Chula Vista. Elimination of development in the north parcel will permanently preserve 1,298 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 93 acres of mixed chaparral, 15 acres of dry marsh/wetland, and 90 acres of annual grassland, Dedication of the North Parcel as a permanent ecological reserve will also protect important wildlife corridors, Findings of Fact -51- )K' Draft 3 September I, 1999 High Quality Residential Development · Master planned community with Low, Low Medium, Medium, and High residential and retail/commercialland uses, · Community facilities including an elementary school, community facility, neighborhood and community parks, and trail system. · Transportation and circulation facilities including SR-125, connection ofH Street to Bonita Road, and the construction of San Miguel Road as a four-lane collector. . Regional housing needs with a variety ofresidential densities and housing types, Regional Housing Needs The San Miguel Ranch GDP Project would help meet a projected long-term regional need for housing by providing a 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. In recent years, the cost of housing compared to other uses has residential 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 San Miguel Ranch GDP provides a mixture of housing types in proximity to one another, responding to needs of singles, families, students, and seniors, With a variety of single-family and multi-family designations, a broad range of housing types and costs are anticipated. The classification of a portion of the San Miguel Ranch housing product type as attached will assist in providing more affordable housing, since it is recognized that the key contributing element of the cost of housing is the price of land, This range of housing types and prices will promote socioeconomic diversity, which the City finds both important and desirable, For the foregoing reasons, the City finds that the Project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits, Findings of Fact -52- <;7 Draft 3 September 1, 1999 California Native plant Societ~ San Diego Chapter P.o. Box 121390 San Diego, CA 92112 Planning Commission City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 September 28, 1999 ATT;LJ C H A.1 E)JT (, Re: San Miguel Ranch Project Dear Commissioners: As expressed in your previous hearing concerning the draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for San Miguel Ranch, the California Native Plant Society is exceedingly concerned about inadequate protection of Otay tarplant (Hemizonia conjugens) with the San Miguel Ranch project. A lawsuit was filed against u.S. Fish & Wildlife Service challenging the Biological Opinion for the Multiple Species Conservation Program. I have enclosed a copy of Figure 4 with highlighting of the draft proposed preservation with our preferred preservation extension highlighted in green, To better explain the issue and document that the inadequate protection was known by wildlife agencies, I have enclosed copies of paperwork that was in US Fish & Wildlife Service files that I personally copied when trying to determine if the California Native Plant Society would have a winnable case if we challenged the Biological Opinion for the Multiple Species Conservation Program for Otay tarplant. As much as the developers would like to protect the species in the current proposed preserve design, the issue concerning viability has more to do with the biology of this particular species. Otay tarplant is annual specific to clay soils. Being an annual means it must set seed that germinates and survives to reproduce. During multiple drought years seeds that germinate frequently dry up before having produced viable seed, If this happens in small populations with few seeds, the population can disappear no matter how hard one has tried to protect the area from impacts. 5 year droughts are known to occur in California, The best protection against extinction is having a large population with a great deal of seed that contains variability such that not all seeds germinate under the same conditions. Hopefully that combined with differences in microhabitats ensures some of the seeds survive to repopulate an area during better environmental conditions for the species. Conserving populations on a stream bank for a small annuals when upstream development will increase water flows, as is being proposed in the Otay River Valley, is unlikely to provide adequate protection for the species, ~o ~} Dedicated to the preservation of ca{ifornia native f{ora ";':'\ ,,~j! Since the project as planned already costs the City and there are traffic impacts, it is not unreasonable to request a redesign that would be more sensitive to the resources ofChula Vista, and in this case the probable survival ofa species, If there are any questions we can address, please do not hesitate to contact our Conservation Chairperson at (858) 812-7023 during the day and (619) 421-5767 at night and on weekends. Sincerely, ~~ Cindy Burrascano Chapter Conservation Chair 0/ I I I "' "E '" C. ~ e "E -Ql c: " 0'0 c: a::o..g - -0 ;i.ffilt) e. e. ffi '" "'J:: 1-1-- >>" '" "''' 1515~ I I . I ~. . . . . . . . ./~ . . . . . j ~ ~ 11 J ~ <~ ~ l;i ~ J-j 11 ~ "-- <:L.- e ~ ~ "- <t H >.< z~ "~''':>-.<~.. ,-. .~~~,c;':::;;~~" "'-..- ...,....:: ~::,-, ,''--~Jf "'~,,"- :~:~-;....::::~ ~>:: "E Ql E 0. o Q; > Ql o J!l >- en J:: 0. al '" " a, 0 00. 0. e {3. 0.. .! :I:~i.,;_~0~~, '-""""'..-:;'.:",-- '-, ~ <~ (:i .( -- / ;;.....'~~- "':c'::" .~:~ ~-; -" 1~'~I ~ '~ ; ~. .>'; ~;~i~~~ < Q) (]) LL o o o r- 01 o o to :>, C'll -;:: (]) > .cO -c ::I C'll 0_ C/)e. .c(]) ()~ c en C'll.r:. O::::t: - ~ (]) en 5,c .- 0 ::2::;::; C'll c- C'll ::I C/)g- e. '<t_ (]) C ... C'll ::Ie. .2' rn LLf- >- III - o /, J rJ~:( -. The MSCP, as currently proposed, provides little positive benefit to the species' long-term conservation , (See Figure 3C) and appears to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery oftms , species. _ , ,_ ~~~~~~1 Approved or Proposed Development - Figure 2. MSCP Preservation Figure 1. Direct and Identifiable Thre:Jts It/ \/1 Non-cxist.:lnt to poor (0 to 40 percent) ;; o ! ~o ] 1l s I No thre:lts 1 ;.?Mi -; '~~:~';~ 1"1 ~ i:. 6 .'~~ ~~"'M'WX, F:lir (40.70 percent) - .. CJ .. Good" (70-100 percent) c o ;70 -; ~ , ~ Indirect threats .A:'i.~umin2 Ammendmcnl areas., 70% pn::u:rve an::u, .:md Olay Vallcy avoid impllcL'I.. . ~ .. Extirp:ltcd C:=J Prcs...umcd Extirpated ~ :t:. Figure 3. Long-term A. B. c. Conservation Potenti:J1 " 1 A. Current long-term conservation ff}(J POOR ;; .. 0 0 F~tmerllcd .lldlorboL.~d. colll1ltlolt'lrJOIl andl~ ~ ~ potential without consideration or burr~p<"r;requlrlnlhIl:UJ'INIn.alCmlent " ] 25 ~1\,~~ proposed impacts or MSCP. .5 ~~~'$] FAIR " ., 1l " ~"'~.. ,~~ ':.~ Slime rrncmerllllUon: pCICW' ID modenlle buffers; ;; j ;; B. Long-term conservation pnten- cunnl:unllonlldcql,,1.al.CbutnvtlllC31li:dlcastone ~ j 31 adjacenlllfQwllbJ.arCcbloekol"llpenSp:lCe. ';81 ]. 27 ! tial with MSCP in conjunction - GOOD c .~ c with proposed development .: -" LaUe or no rrallllnmlatlun,...tIl bulTcred, ;; ;; projects. !Urrounded,lIl'mO'CI)'NrTllllndrd..b)'larl;e i -; -; ~ bloduo(eontlltUUIIsnatllnlopcll'pacC. s- o ;. ;. ~ ;; ~ 47 35J C. Long-term conservation poten- CJ ~ .= Prcs...umcd Extirp:ltcd .. ~ ., tial without MSCP. 0 i i i " . ~ " ~ . ~ ;; . .. ~3 .~ MEMORANDUM May 12, 1997 TO: Gail Kobetich, Sherry Barrett, Nancy Gilbert, and Loren Hays c~iJJl X?~~,>> FROM: Fred Roberts SUBJECT: Dtay Tarplant (Hemizonia conjugl!llS) srarus in the MSCP. I have been updating our files and reviewing the effects of the proposed MSCP for San Diego thornmim (Acamhominrha ilidjolia), Dtay tarplam (Hemizonia conjugens), and willowy monardella (Monardella linoides ssp. viminea) for the final dete:mimu:ion of Service action for these species. While the MSCP allows for adequate conservation of San Diego tho=int and willowy monardella, significam populations of both species oc= outside the MSCP subregion. However, after discussions with HCP staff it has become evident that there are major inconsistencies and contradictions with the available scientific data and the Service's current position on the stams of Dtay tarplam. It is unclear why the Service has not considered a potential jeopardy determination for the Dtay tarplant as it penains to the internal Section 7 consultation on the proposed MSCP, ~ Dtay tarplam occurs within a relatively restricted area of southwestern San Diego County and is associated with a relatively narrowly defmed habim (clay soils and clay subsoil associations). Less then 20 perce:Jt of this habitat within the range of this species will be conserved under the propcsed MSCP conservation. Based on my review, about "D percent of all individuals are proposed for developmem (See Figure 1). Nearly 98 percent of all remaining populations are subject to some form of threat (e,g. current or furore edge effects, fragmentation and isolation, off-road vehicle activity, or non-native plant species competition). The proposed MSCP adequately conserves about two-thirds of the major populations. However, these populations account for only about one third of all individuals. The inadequately conserved major populations support about 70 percent of all individuals (See Figure 2). A single project (Rancho San - Miguel) will eliminate nearly 40 percent of known individuals alone. The Rancho San Miguel complex is so large relative to other populations, the number of individuals in the population complex remaining after induced impacts will still be larger than all of the other major populations combined. However, these plants will be inadequately conserved. The Rancho San Miguel project, in conjunction with Highway 125, will effectively fragment, isolate, and result in a situation where the majoriry of the population will be either immediately adjace:Jt to development, or within one quarter mile of development. Since areas adjacent to development are extremely vulnerable to replacement by non- native plam species, and other forms of habitat degradation, it is likely that the remaining individuals in the complex will be subject to continued threats and will ultimately decline. Currently, about 80 percent of the Dtay tarplants have good long-term conservation potential. The' populations are generally in large blocks of natural open space without nearby development and . associated indirect impacts (see Figure 3A). However, the long-term conservation potential with the currently proposed MSCP in conjunction with approved and proposed development is considerably less favorable (Figure 3B). About one half the known individuals will be extirpated and another 25-30 percent will be at high risk. Again this is largely a result of proposed impacts from the Rancho San Miguel Project. /P/ . ~~ MSCP TarK.e Dlant So.ct.. Remdzonia con;~~ens Otay ta.rplme OSFWS: Catasory 2 candidate CDFG: Endansared. CI1'S: List lB Ovnall Distribution: Appra%1mately U populations in southun Sm D18go Count.y. south of Spr1.ng Vall.y. and. aue popul.ation known in BeJa C.U!ornia, Mexico. All Cnit.ad Stat.. populationa U8 l.imi.teri to th. MSCtJ p~a.r... aistorie Distribution: 1991. (- live of the 17 historic locations tor this spaci.. .are r.pa~.d as extirpated .s of MSCP Distribution: Vicinitha of Otay M...fRiver V~.,. and San Miguel Mountain. i!abitat: Clay :!Ioi~ on slop.. and IDes.. with co.seal. sq. scrub or grasaland. MSCP Stm'ldard and Guidelines: Include within the opec space/pr...rve systam. the ran!;. of gllnetic diversity within atay tarplant by pr...rvin& lID adequat. amount (as datu-mined by specific. subsequent studies) of the major (ljruter than 1.000 individua.ls). mown populadons 'a.g.. Dennery Canyon. Oeay River Valley. WOol.! Canyou, PogS.1. Canyou, Salt Creek, P:roctor Vdl...,., and San H..1&ual lDOUD.tain), and any newly discove:red, a1ajor populations and smaller populat.1.ona (e.g., Sweetwetar Resarvoir, Sprin& Valley Creek) that are determinad to contr.1.bute sign.1.ficantly to the ganetic divarsity of the spacies. Stabi1l2e ~d maintain all preservad populations. ( MHPA Plan Cavera~e: Specitic studias hKVe not been conduct.d, as recommended in the Standards and Guidellnes, to d.teCD.ine ..ad.quae... d8s:r.e of pruu'"rat.1.on of major known populations. Of th. known populations, ebr.. (Rice Canyon, C.nnery Canyon, and Salt Cr.ak) tall ~tir.ly w.1.thin 100% p:ras.rvation ar.... The Sal.t Cr.ek and Rice Canyon population. ue l.ikely to be a!t'.ctad by edse, and the Rice Canyon population is al.so expected to be a!t.cted by habitat isolation. (The Rice Canyon populaeion was not identiUed as a major population by Ogd.n although it i4 report.d in R.aJ::.!ind to have over 1,000 individuals. Th. OeltlJery Canyon popul.ation is identifi.d .. a lDajor populat.ion by Ogden, althou8h Rare!ind reports only on. individual in this u...) The at.,. River Vall.Y, Welt' Canyon, 1'015&1 Cattyon, and p:roctor Vall.,. ~ would be only partially pre..~ed under tha ~^ (79%, 68%, .~., aIlQ ~U., r.sp.c~.v.~~ th. Service believes that much 0 e 1015&.1. l.on may lIVe a.a .en ost to the Sunbow drvwlopment), and all these populations Lre e%pected to be highly susceptible to ads- ef~.cts. Ogden's malysis indicae.. that only 29% o! the San Miguel populatioa would be preserved, and that the remainins population would be subject. to eds. ef!ects (RA:re!ind reports location# for ~s species both on San Miguel Ranch and on the east side o! San Migual Mount.ain. !he Service assumes that Ogden was r8!e:r:1n8 to the San Misuel Ranch population). ~ Risk to 50ec1.s: Threatened by developmeot &nd continuo~ &&ricultur8. This species e%periences ext=~8 population !~uctuations f:rom year :'0 year, and is apparently hi&1lly senstive t.o env1rc:cmantal stochasticity. In 19*;, Barry t4ncwit% survey.d historical ~ocation. of this species and found no Ctay tarplant, surmising that. the species we. extinct. In -. plants were qain found in these locations. It is uncertaJ.n whether the.e populations would have recovered if th. conditions laadin& to the decline had persisted for several years, given that we have no int.:o:rmation resudin& 1on&-tUJIl seed. viability. this in!onDation iudicatoes that the species alay be ext:remely vulnerable to lInV'i.ronmw.t.l and d8UlClsraphic seochaaticity. The largest popu.laton, on San Mizuel Ranch, is thrut-ned by propo.ed dev.tlopment. Local Emert's Recommendations: Raiser (1994) recommends that substantial portions o! all populations be prot.cted and placed in biological open spaca. Service Evaluation: Service concurs with MSCP standuds mod suidellnes. Based on the cur:rant plan and the tact that the MSC? are. is critical for this specie. survival, Ctay tarplant is noe adequately p:rotected witb..in the MSCP are. since all mown populations ot this species are at risk. The San Miguel Ranch population has beeD found t.o number several hundred thousand individuaLs, thus the ?robabi~ity of long-term parsisunca of this population would be b.i&h i~ laft tntact. All the other known populations of this species are orders of magnitude smaller than th. San MiSUeL B.aneh population, and are thus more vulnerable to anvi:rocmental sed d~sraphic stocbasticity. If the eetire San Miguel population is preserved, the species could probably sustain losses to the other populations 45 proposed under the MBPA. Bowrver, it' most of the San Miguel Ranch population is lost to development, the long-t.rm persistence ot oeber populations 130 mare critical, and the certainty o! such persistence may be low (see above, under Risk to Species). ~: ': l' -. ,~~ the one population that has the s:reatast p:robebility of lons-term persistence if left intact, an San Miguel Ranch, is three.t.ned by p:roposed development and the majority of this .populaeion would be lost under the Cfc) ~. ( ~. ~--' ft-.......,z,..,. _ '--'''J CJC-' r i ;;CI~) HII1'A. 'the laIla-teCD "I'1abillt:y at popalatJ.c::ad outaid. the Sail Kiaual :R..a:lc.b. &1'.. 18 qL1..Ucmabl. &1VeD the bval ot 10.. CJ:t.1c1pa~ecl UDder the l'EA~ Manas.-:a~ ccmald.r.~iQl1 includ.1Dc ceqaacy ot baa.n IIDCI. at&bJ.l.1dDs &tiaeJ.na, popu.L..:ticma lDWI't h. add.r...~. 'there tIJlSt. ha . .__ to na.1J.aat.e the 1mpo.rt.aDCa ot err newly !oaDcl papalat.iCDS 80 .. to d..t.%mina it tb.,. ccmtributa 51&DJ,fio_t.l7 to the Icetic diftn1ty, md tha%a.fa:. .bould. b. pr...rftd .. di5CUSSed. 1n the poU.,.. _." rV?""'..... ....._..............~..4......_r.~',.....~,,~.,.., ,- P'iDdlm::.. nua.-~.-Waa.tCr...~~'........f'*.. iIpMJ..as _ -~- ir tbe-"" ~ ta..... ca'r.sol.v.d.. aad- .... "8111 ...,.,oft&u'T:'-,..._...._"._~.......-~u._._-- "--..", m._~ ~ -.'_.~~, - ." . .F....SOii ~.-=;hJ--f;;;,,;.;... ta:~:-.i1a.iarit!."tb. "t.;;;;L ~ '~'i:o. __ pc>plIlaU..... _t'"..o..::u'_'~;;;"':~"t:b8'_'m::--- .. -.- " . .." ..-.' m '" ."... " -- .-.......- . . b)> ..-.:sa=t:rot.tbe-s-IIlpe.t;........ _ !,~.-:.'.t.a-..l..oaC.~;1.QQXd. alLcRbU" -.s= papd.&Ucma are prHKftlCIraatdJ.::.......~r_.. ~..;.r#i?"L n_~h.f..~~.tJW:,:otber ~U=- Gel..ea!D. cia&r.. ot Lou. aDd still -..--....!dab prob.J:I:l.lllt:T d' . -'--- penJ.Rcc:.. - 6& " .f' ,'<1.0 >>/'~ '/ r '') i ~.' I'" t/ 7 (j'UL ,,! / ~ 'I /~J Of ~j A'Znj J . C ~ IJJCI rjL~J ryti:" Jrj,.~ ~ ffc;Ll,,~ 01,,~^Jt lidL ~c ,()~f.)J)0 c nr(lU~ --1-(,L" ) v vJr., ;/,v I' fiyjdL Ii March 21, 1995 Memorandum To: Gail Kobetich, Field Supervisor From: Habitat Conservation Planning Branch Staff Subject: Species Coverage under MSCP We understand that you will be meeting with Susan Hamilton of the City of San Diego on Thursday, March 23, to discuss the level of target species coverage under the currently proposed MSCP preserve plan. We would like to provide you with some informacion and staff recommendations regarding several species for which we have concerns regarding their level of protection under the plan. One of our greatest concerns is that assurances will be given to the~City before we have had a chance to work with them on feasible modifications to the preserve design, and that any incentives for such modifications would be lost. We would truly appreciate your review of these comments prior to your March 23 meeting. California ~atcatcher: The risk to this species within the MSCP area under the proposed plan is moderate to high due to further fragmentation and reductions in linkage. Ogden's analysis found that only 48~ of the occurrences within the MSCP area are included in the MHPA and free of edge effects. Several key issues should be resolved before this species is c:onsidered adequately covered under the plan: 1) Otav Ranch: Development bubbles for this project are "hard lined" into the MHPA. As detailed in our recent draft letter to the County, this development would significantly reduce gnatcatcher numbers within a core population area and would reduce habitat value by narrowing connections and increasing urban/wildland interface. 2) 70% urotection areas: This level of protection does not give sufficient assurance that preserve design will be adequate for maintaining gnatc:atcher population viability within the MHPA. Key areas of concern within 70% protection zones include the Proctor Valley area south of San Miguel Mountain and the Lake Hodges area southwest of the dam. Western burrowin~ owl: Although this is a wide ranged species, the burrowing owl is reported to be declining throughout its range. The western burrowing owl has been designated as threatened in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, and is listed as endangered in Manitoba, Minnesota, and Iowa. A 1993 state-wide analysis by the Institute for Bird Populations indicated that &7 v burrowing owl pairs in California had been reduced by 70% within the previous two decades. Of 14 burrowing owl locations shown on MSCP maps, none fall within 100% protection areas.. One falls in a 90% protection area, six fall within~70% preservation area1 and seven fall entirely outside the proposed preserve area. Locations of two additional breeding pairs reported by the Institute for Bird Populations fall outside the proposed preserve area. Thus, less .than half of the known locations are expected to be protected under MSCP. Furthermore, only 37% of the grassland habitat for this species which occurs in the MSCP planning area is expected to be preserved under the proposed plan. The argument has been made that impacts to this species within the MSCP subregion would be insignificant because the subregion represents such a small proportion of the species' range. Due to the large range of this species, however, such a determination could be made in any planning area, and multiple plans of this nature could jeopardize the species. Since the species is experiencing widespread decline as a result of burrowing mammal control activities and direct habitat loss, the Service believes that the loss of half the known burrowing owl locations and 63% of the grassland habitat in the MSCP subregion represents a significant cumulative impact to the species. ~ Otay tarulant: 100% of the known range for this species occurs within the MSCP subregion, and the species is at high risk under the currently proposed plan. The single largest Otay tarweed population, supporting about 60% of all known individuals, is on San Miguel Ranch which is proposed for development. Four of the remaining major populations are within 79%, 69%, 43% and 80% preservation areas, and 5 aaJitional major populations may be subject to edge effects. Dtay tarplant exhibits extreme annual population fluctuations and is thus highly vulnerable to stochastice extinction. In the late 70s, expert botanist Barry Tanowitz surveyed historical locations of this species and found no individuals, surmising that the species may be extinct. Although plants were found again in these locations several years later, we have no information on seed viability and it is thus uncertain whether the species would have recovered if conditions leading to the decline had persisted much longer. Staff believes that substantial loss of the largest population, supporting approximately 60% of all known Gtay tarplant, and inadequate protection of nine remaining populations consitutes a significant impact that could jeopardize the continued existence of this species. We recommend substanially increased preservation of the San Miguel population. If this cannot be achieved, we recommend full protection of all other major populations. San Die~o thornmint: 707. of the known range for this species is within the MSCP subregion, where it is at moderate risk. 8 of 10 major populations are in the MSCP study area, and 4 of these are not adequately protected. However, the County has indicated that further protection of some of these populations may be feasible, and we should work with the jurisdictions to get greater . assurance of such protection before "signing off" on the species. For example: &y ~\ rt.. -r- --'---.;:" ~~~ A1O/CtfMEtUT 7 CIlYQf CHULA VISTA Department of Planning and Building Date: October 6. 1999 To: Chairman Willett and Members of the Planning Commission Ed Batchelder, Senior Planne~ Barbara Reid. Environmental1flofects Manager'13R. From: Subject: San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Hearing. October 6. 1999- California Native Plant Society letter dated September 28. 1999 Last Thursday, September 30, 1999, you were sent a copy of the above noted letter from the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) regarding preservation of the Otay tarplant within the San Miguel Ranch project area. A color copy of Figure 4, the CNPS preferred preservation alternative, which was originally sent in black and white on Thursday, will be provided on the dias tonight. Staff has since had the opportunity to review the letter, which effectively requests that the area of proposed Otay tarplant preserve be expanded in the project area west of SR 125 through significant reduction of development areas encompassing the majority of the southern half of SPA neighborhoods "'.I"' and "K". Through that review, staffhas evaluated the project redesign proposed by CNPS, and believes that it is problematic based upon the following land use planning considerations: . The CNPS alternative is premised on a redesign of the proposed project, a project that is consistent with the current General Plan and General Development Plan land use designations, as well as current zoning, for the project site. These current land use and zoning designations. and the underlying density and intensity of development. are the product of two prior tiers of environmental review for the proposed development of San Miguel Ranch. The proposed project therefore reflects the previous exercise oflegislative discretion by the City. That process necessarily and reasonably involved the balancing and accommodation of relevant environmental. economic. social and technological factors affecting comprehensive land use planning by the City. . The CNPS alternative proposes to eliminate development within a portion of Neighborhoods "J" and "'K". These areas are designated for low density residential development in the General Plan and the General Development Plan. Therefore. the requested changes are inconsistent with the current, adopted General Plan and General Development Plan designations for the project site. Accordingly. the CNPS alternative would require amendments to both the City's General Plan and the General Development Plan (GDP) for San Miguel Ranch. (/j Planning Commission/CNPS memo -2- 10/6/99 . The CNPS alternative would specifically reduce the area oflow density, estate development within the project; a type and amount of development that is required by the City's General Plan and which is necessarily an important component ofthe San Miguel Ranch GDP. The subject areas west of SRI25 were designated low density residential to provide for a significant amount and balance of large lot, estate development, which is viewed by the City as important in meeting the City's overall planning goals. In addition, they were also designated in this location to maintain a density appropriate and compatible to adjoining existing residential neighborhoods in the Sunnyside community. Therefore, with the reduction in the area of estate residential development contemplated by the CNPS alternative, current General Plan policies and the San Miguel Ranch GDP would require substantial revisions in order to attain the City's goal of providing estate-type housing within San Miguel Ranch. Such revisions would necessitate a significant reduction in the overall number of dwelling units in the project. In general, decreases in density result in increased housing and development costs. which may result in making the project economically infeasible. . Due to key grading considerations, elimination of development in the suggested area would also preclude the planned "loop road" circulation system, and result in either two long cul- de-sac accesses which would be problematic with regard to fire service requirements, or require a significant amount oflandform alteration to connect the two main accesses through the OS-9 area, an area currently slated for preservation. Staff is not proposing any change at this time to its recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the SPA project as proposed, and is prepared to discuss the matter further at tonight's meeting. Please feel free to contact either of us (Ed 691-5005, Barbara 691-5097) should you have any questions in the interim. cc: Bob Leiter Jim Sandoval Duane Bazzel Doug Reid Rich Zumwalt Ann Moore John Mattox, Remy- Thomas Betty Dehoney, P&D Environmental Services I A:\SMR-RPTS\CNPS I-PC ,MEM) 76 ATTACH[~ENT 8 BONITA HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 458 30!'!ITr:. CA 91QOB-0458 FAX (619)479-2200 Octobe)' 6. 1999 ~'lanning Commissiorl City of Chula Vista Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: My name is Stanley 8. Waid. I reside at 5617 Galloping Way. BClni~a. CA 01Q02. where 1 have li\led since Sept~mbEr 1 Q75,. I was the original treasurer of the Bonita Highlands Homeowners Association when the homeowners assumed t~le llic:.nagement of the as~;ociation in 1':J77 from the developE-',_ L1rrfc.rtunatel)/.. 1 hBV,=' seen the city of Chula Vista. witr-, ti,~'ir exte'f1s:ive acquisition or land tc the s;out.h and €~f..:.Sl ,; ()U,- 66- horrles~ anci the subsequent development of th~~ E:l-€:cl, ::::evereJ\ irrll:.'l.n9f' ::'fl our lifestvl-s 2nd ha~; causecl U~-; c'onsi6eTat,le e):pens~ Olle to flooding and build up of silt irl lentr21 (1-8~k w~lic~1 flows through a lc!t for whic~, ~I~ 21-e resPoflsit.le. when I mO\led her{:~ in 147S" C.orTal Lanyon Road was 21 ~ul-de-sac. With the build out of Eastlake and Bonita Lon; Canyon. CC'Tral Canyon Road was opened to H Street t:, t~IE south. Ironically, Rutgers Avenue. which connects with Corral Canvon Road has a speed limit of 25 mph and an all-way STOP at the top of the hill. We are ne.t so luc~v. Your traffic personnel have increa~;ed the speed limit on your portion of Corral Canyon to 40 mph. Even though I have been successful in getting your city to install an all way STOP at Country Vistas and the County a t~lree way STOP at Blacksmith Road~ at the eXp~rl~:0 of a 3S n,ph, which is impossible to enforce. Our homes on Corral Canyon front on the street with every driveway exiting on same. The value of these homes decli ned e>\tE:nsi\/ely wheri (("'(ral Canyon opened up due t.~.' increased traffic and speeding. In conclusion, Eastlake, Long Canyon, Salt Creek, Rollii"19 Hills, Otay Ranch and now another development will be a huge detrement our lifestyle as well as increase our e.pense regarding the flood control of Central Creek. PLease do your best to stop any additional development which wiil impact our lovely community which is one of the largest sel-managed HOA's in California and of which I and my neighbors are very p,-oud. Thank 'lou! Comments to Chula Vista Planning Commission - 6 Oct 1999 - San Miguel Ranch Plan Bertha McKinley, representing the California Native Plant Society, San Diegollmperial Counties Chapter, PO Box 121390, San Diego CA92112. My comments will address the long term species survival ofOtay Tarplant in terms of the design of the San Miguel Ranch project which is before you today. I refer you to our letter of September 28, in which we make three points and offer an alternative: (1) Weare very concerned about the inadequate protection of the Otay T arplant with the San Miguel Ranch project. Our contention of inadequate protection is supported by paperwork from staff biologists at the wildlife agencies which documents their knowledge of inadequate protection for this plant. Copies of these documents were included in the Sept 28 letter (2) The species biology dictates what is required for species survival and the current design does not meet these needs. Otay T arpiant is an annual plant which means it must set seed that germinates and survives to reproduce. In multiple drought years, plants frequently dry up before they can produce seed, With small populations, this can result in disappearance of the entire population. Therefore, the best protection against extinction is to have a large population which will include enough volume of plants producing seed with enough variability that seeds will germinate under a range of weather conditions. Another critical aspect of the biology of this plant is that is specific to clay soils with a particular hydrology. It is unlikely to be found on other types of soil or to survive if the hydrology of its preferred location is changed. To ensure survival of the species. the preserve design has to be large enough and in the right place. (3) While it is commendable to increased the acreage of the preserve footprint, the specific biological requirements of the plant must be considered in order for the increased area of protection to effectively contribute to the survival of the species. Unfortunately, the areas included in the expanded design do not contribute to the survival of the Otay T arplant for two reasons: the footprint is not large enough, and it does not include large enough concentrations of plants to increase the likely percentage of preservation of the species. We would like to suggest a more effective design which is described in green on the map of the alternative preserve design referred to in our Sept 28 letter. The additional preserve areas we are proposing would result in significantly increased preservation of the species.. I am handing out to you now the calculations supporting the increased percentage of preservation based on data in figure 2 of the Technical Appendices. Our proposal increases the percent protection from roughly the 30% in the EIR to 60% or better. It also has the advantage of allowing significantly more housing units than would be allowed under the County alternative land use ordinance. While the County plan mandates 669 fewer units as a matter of zoning, our request would result in only 200 fewer units and avoid currents. impacts - a win, win situation for development and the Otay Tarplant. CNPS therefore requests that the commission not approve the San Mi,guel Ranch project as presented and adopt our suggested footprint for the preserve design to better ensure the continued SUf\~val ohms species, If there are any questions we can address, please do not hesitate to contact our Conservation Chairperson at (858)812-7023 during the day and (619)421-5767 at nights and on weekends. Thank you for considering our concerns Sincerely, Bertha McKinley Chapter Vice President San Miguel Ranch Otay Tarplant Preservation Calculations Based on Data in Figure 2 (Large Scale Map titled "San Miguel Ranch 1998 Otay Tarplant Populations") In the Technical Appendices Volume I EIR Preferred Alternative Imoaeted Preserved Imn::lcted Prp.!=terved 15755 13933 15755 13933 9260 18996 171231 18996 711 24915 23232 24915 6699 1596 10459 1596 192380 4509 39 4509 8679 851 10 851 198431 455 11538 455 17648 30649 35105 30649 25087 7 30 7 46570 370 3028 370 4585 10452 32677 10452 5647 69146 74 69146 12494 10408 50 10408 22555 61697 195788 61697 1058 10814 101524 10814 3800 46782 159 46782 80 67019 2415 67019 252 65 17540 65 70 31 25516 31 1013 21339 9260 9507 2501 711 29659 9507 6699 21339 29659 192380 2501 8679 25516 198431 2415 17648 17540 25087 159 46570 1005 24000 4585 1716 96000 5647 171231 12494 23232 22555 10459 1058 39 3800 10 80 11538 252 35105 70 30 1013 3028 25005 32677 97716 74 10000 8628 50 195788 101524 1JlQ.Q.Q llli2ll 1278916 501323 1780239 719176 1061063 1780239 601323 1161063 % Preserved on Southem Parcel T ot21 Plants ..E1E Prefem~<i 1780239 28% 60% % Preserved With 100.000 on Northern Parcel Preserved 1880239 32% 62% SWEETWATER U:NION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING AND FACILITIES October 6, 1999 Cit}" of Chula Vista Planning Commis...,ion Anention: Mr. Ed Batchelder, Senior Planner City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Planning Commissioners: Re: San Miguel Ranch I regret that I am unable LO ..nend the meeting this ~vening, however, I wish to make the Planning Commission aware of the natus of di~cussion~' between the applicant {San Miguel ~ ---Ra:ndr)-andtne-5'Weetu":lt'ertJn ;on High-SchootD rsrricr regardinpchool-mitigation:- n.__~~__ As you may recall, nearly 450 studcnrs will be generated by the San Miguel Ranch project and this CI"eltes a serious imp..cr on the Sweetwater Union High School Distnct's ability to hous: and educate children. Stat~ law no longer allOv.'s <l school district to m~date full mitigation from a development project. However, T :-im:o.rk Pacific Homes has agreed to enter into an agreement with us th.t will result in full mitig.tion. \X"e, of course, are pleased with this commitme=nr and look fOr\\'ard to the timely completion of that effort. We have met with the applicant on two separat<: occasions, but unfortun~tely our initial. goal of completing these discussions by today, h2S not occurred. W'e are however, comfortable that th~e discussions will be successfully completed in the near future. Without such an ap-eemem, our ability to serve the housing needs of the srudents in grades 7 through 12 will be in serious jeopardy. Thilnk you for the opporrunil y to comment. If you should have ;lOY question~, please contact me at 691.58'H. SlZli ~~ Katy Wright Director of Planning & ConstruCtion KW/sI 1130 FI~TJi AVENUJ:. CHLJI A VISTA' CALIFORNIA. 91911 (619) 691-5553 (619) 420-0339 (Fax) tw"gh~'sdroc.l;I2xilUS ';/7 ~) October 19, 1999 City Council City of Chula Vista, Californill Re: The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report EIR 97-02 (Third Tier EIR) San Miguel Ranch Dear City Council, For the whole of 25 minutes, the Chula Vista Planning Commission showed wisdom, courage and responsiveness for its own residents and the region, during the deliberation on subject documents, last October 6, 1999. The Planning Commission after long and careful deliberations carried on from a previous meeting, voted to disapprove above document and the project. That resolve, coUapsed and the vote was reversed after hearing from the Developer and a Planning Commission member from an unusual rules of order procedure. This development shall further exacerbate the frustration of Chula Vista residents from recent developments approved by the city in the past several years as follows: . These developments have been reduced to enclaves whose residents must battle the daily chaotic highway traffic in order to earn their mortgage payments and all other costs of ownership and of raising a family. . Every additional forty-four (44) homes constructed, generate a minimum of a mile long of cars that must leave the enclave and enter the highway. (Try adding a half teaspoonful of water to a full gallon jug.) . Residents are being placed at risk during the peak hour traffic, because emergency response vehicles and teams could no longer move efficiently through several Chula Vista roads. (Are there lawsuits in the horizon?) Subject document have inaccuracies requiring corrective action. Some of these include but are not limited to the following: . Table 3.4-3 on subject document did not reflect current LOS conditions when Southwestern College and Bonita Vista High are in session. The chaos in the mornings and afternoons when students join the regions commuting work force, do not merit a LOS of A in most ofthe Chula Vista roads leading to these schools. A more up-to-date LOS study during school sessions must be made to reflect realistic conditions (see CHP and Sweetwater Valley Civic Assn. letter and minutes of Planning Commission, included in above document). . The numerous unmitigable and partially mitigable conditions stand out in above cited document (FSEIR). It reflects a project EIR that do not merit final approval. . The cumulative impacts of the city ofChula Vista developments continue to exacerbate potential damage and harm to nearby communities and the region as well as its very own residents. . Response 52 in the FEIR regarding mitigation monitoring by the city of Chula Vista, is one of the most serious deficiencies of the FEIR. Other Cities, County, State and Federal agencies with overlapping jurisdictions have been exempted by CEQA to monitor mitigation measures according to this response. It is for this reason that the City ofChula Vista has been able to approve with abandon, previous developers regardless of the consequences. City Council members, could you show more than 25 minutes of wisdom, courage and responsiveness? I urge you to be an improvement over the performance of your own Planning Commission in the interest of your own citizens and the region. Thank you. Yours truly, ~ 5732 Sweetwater Rd. Bonita, CA 91902 Sweetwater Valley Civic Association P. O. Box 232 Bonita, CA 91908 cc: Supervisor Greg Cox SANDAG County of San Diego City of San Diego Preserve South Bay Sweetwater Valley Civic Association DIE SAN DIEGO UMoN-TRmUNEa SUNDAY"SEPTEMBER 5,1999 , . &:<Stopping growth" (Editorial, -4ug. 26): , , . -Once ~ yoUr editorial showed the ,.very shallOWvieWyoU have on .the l!l:lIly issues regarding highway construction in this region. Does the end justify the means? . Under the guise of building highways for the good of the region, there are in- nwnerable underlyiog selfish motives catering to special vested inrerestsand developers. Most of those Who object see that the proposed highWa;ys are only a stop.gap measure !hatonlywijlwoi"sen traffic congestion. All highway roostruction in this region only acceIef.rtes develop.. ment and encourages more driving, which no con.slruction JlI"Ogl~ ever / can aspire to satisfy. . LettheproP<>nenlBofmore ~ get their ways iegaIIy. Better sIilI, offer an alternatiVe solution to driving and COngestion_ sqch as a Iightrail fo.l'~ whose footprint is the equiyaJem ofa . two-lane roaq in""earl of a 10-lane!nIl- way /highway. 'That would JlI"'eserve our natural1and- scape from further desecration. It would slow environmental-deterioration and reduce objections to. reasonable &< Uw th. .RAYYMzoN .f!o1tita 8/2-1/1'1 Not all growth is good: Don't ralJ 125 opPQnents Re: "Stopping growth" (Editorial, Aug. 26): . You apparently were too busy being amazed to consider what yOU said be- fore publishing it You opined that just because activist groups have the right to sue, that doesn't mean they are right Amazingly' though, just because the San Diego As- sociation of Governments board gave unanimous approval to start work on the state Route 125 connector road before approval of the ,environmental report, - that made it right Your convoluted logic reveals your bias. 1 can't understand how any newspa- per would endorse giving anyone li- cense to proceed without legal and reg- ulatory safeguards. ,You then call for reform, noting that it is undemocratic for "tiny bands" of activ- ists to:file lawsuits. Surely, you don't en- dorse such a preposterous notion, i' As for what is undemocratic, try the unchecked power of Caltrans and the federal highway administration. Every politician who represents the Bo- nita/Sunnyside area went on.record as fuvoring a different alignment of the connector road than the one chosen by these two out-of.control, WU"esponsive bureaucracies. Maybe your time would be better spent examining that situation for undemocratic principles. DAVID R GIU.EsPIE ""'". ' . Bonita , Your editorial addressing the delay caused by ("m your judgment) "merit- less lawsuits" follows your usual line of thinking: Growth is good, and the more growth, the greater the good. . But for whom? Certainly not for cur- rent residents who jam the freeways and beaches, as they are finding their piece of San Diego beCOming more un- inhabitable ':',ery day. Most CUI {'ent residents do not benefit from more growth, and that is why you are corr'~ when yOU describe the 00- rent mind-set "prevalent throughout San Diego that growth and the newcom- ers it, engenders are not welcome here." MJ.BEAKY San Diego I take exception. In your.assertion that !tis wrong to use everykgaj ~'we have to stop;i toDmad that we Dever , askedotvored fur. This cOuntly's laws were set up in order to.plutect:the litt1e guyfrom being tmceremoniOusly sW;,d- I~ by &overnment . The fuctis that this section Of Route 1.25 is using-tax: dollarstopajrfora toll road that wiD profit a P!ivate eu....yGIly for 35 years after it is built. This Jl3!1ica.. Jar section of road, from state Route 54 to San Miguel Road, is right neid:to the waIl oftheSw~ Darn. IlIimpIy cannot believe that it is Wise !n buiId that ,. .~to.-!ldam.thatis more.than.l(J() . . years old. Nor is it wise to be blliJ.-!;"gin the basin of the Sweetwater River. The . ,..h,,"CeS Of.;m enviromi:1entaI i!;;,,;<>>er are~. . . VICKlA LOWE .'~ CLEAN-UP PROJECT (1-5 to 1-805) OCTOBER 15 & 16, 1999 REGIONAL PARK ALE\ PROJECT BOL WEEVIL RESTAL'R\~T BOY SCOLTTS BORDER PATROL EXPLORERS CAUH)ITh'IA STATE PARKS AND RECREATIO:\" CALTRA:\"S SAN DIEGO (GRAY DAVIS' OFFlCE) CALTR\NS SAc'" DIEGO (HWY ~L'\lNTE\ACE) CllL 1",\ \"1ST A PLAJ\'NING DEPARTME~ T cm L\ VISTA POLICE DEPARnlE"TS' STREET TEA\I CHLfL\ \"ISTA PUBLIC WORKS ~L\INIE,\;Ac,\;CE ellL 'L.\ VISTA Pl'I3LlC WORKS PARK ~L\I:\"TE:\",\:\"CE CHL'L.\ VISTA CODE ENFORCE1vIENT CHL'RCH OF CHRIST (IGLESIA:-JI CRISTO) DEBRIS BOX OONOV.-\.'\; PRISON ECOLOGY AUra WRECKING EL TIGRE 1vL\RKI,r HA~"SO:\" AGGREGATES L\ H\R SA1'<lTATION ~IETROPOLITAN DEVELOP~lE~T TRA:\"SIST BOARD :\"ATIO:\",\I. WILDLIFE REFL'GE SYSTnl OT,\ Y V.\LLEY REGIONAL PARK. CAC ~IE~IBERS P.\ClFlC WASTE ~lANAGEl\/E'.T W.\STE ~IANAGEl\1ENT PEOPLES CHEVROLET SD CITY cot ~CIL JL\N VARGAS SD CITY LITTER CODE E~"FORCE~lli~-r SD cm ~1'Y PROBATION DEPARnlE~-r SD CITY ENVIRO~"l\lE"TAL SER\KES SD POLICE, SOl THERN DIVISIO:\" COM\L.\"l) POST SD POLICE DEP,\RnlE:--T HOl\IELESS Ol TRE.\CH TEA~I SD PARKS AND RECRI,ATION DEP.\Rnn:~r PL\..'\~l:\"G SD PARKS AND RECREATIOl'.", OPE.'l SPACE DEF~rr SD POLICE SOl TIlERN DI\"lSION, CRI~IE Al'.",\L YSIS SD TRANSIT TROLLEY SD POLlCE DEPART!dE'iT SOL TllER.J,\; OFFICE LI.\lSO:\" SD RlTlRED VOLlT;>.'1ToER SE,,10R PATROL S~L\RT .-\.'\D FINAL SOl TIl\VESTER'i COLLEGE CLASS SOlTTH\\"EST HIGH SCHOOL SOl TIIL.\ND PLAZA PARKHOl'SE TIRES VO:-.rS W,\LL~L-\RT SUPPORT PROVIDED BY FORTY FOUR ACTIVITIES Relocation of homeless people living in encampments on Friday Provided food and drinks for 100 worke", on Saturday Provided 8 volunteers on Saturday Provided II volunteers on Saturday Provided information relative to park volunteers Authorizt.-d expendittrres of over time and equipment use Provided teams to cleanup both sides of 1-805 and 1-5 Provided Otay River Valley Parcel Owoer ~Iaps Provided SDPD Street Team help in locating encampments Provided end loaders, trucks and operators on Friday Provided 300 trash bags Provided assistance in identif)ing parcel cooe violations Provided 110 voluntee", on Saturday Provided 2 Roll on Roll oIT large trash containers Provided 20 man working crew on Friday Ammged for the pickup of 6 wrecked cars, some burnt Provided sandwiches and soft drinks for 4D people Provided end loaders and eqltipment operato'" to clear and load Provided 12 portable toilets I servicing as required Issued request to dean. area around trolley line crossing valley Performed rough survey of area .' pennission and small equipment Provided Organizational Assistance Planning mxl 5 voluIlteers Wai,ed Otay Land Fill Tipping Fees (20 passes) Provided 12 Roll on Roll off large tmsh containers and pickup Provided 2 pick-up trucks with drivers to haul bags to dumpsters Rtx.Juestcd City of San Diego Departments to prm.ide assistance Provided i.lssist;mce identifying crxle violations documentation Pmvided 30 probationers, working Friday and Saturday Provided identilieation and picI..-up of ha7.ards material disposal Provided mobile large motor home type for command control Idcntilied homeless peuple to project Alfa for transportalion Provided Regional Park map for use as work control Provided assistance in posting camps Provided a GIS sector map (three) for use in coordinating ..york ,\uulOrized Palm Trolley Sta as Command Area pins 800 bags Coordinated SD & CY Street Team sweeps PIlwided .... vehides for liaison aOO transporting lunches Provided Gloves and Trash Bags Provided {} College Biology Class students on Sanrrday Provided 92 High School volunteers on Sanrrday Provided 100 pair of gloves and use of water coolers Provided for disposal of 76 tires Provided ((Xl l1mches and soda drinks Pmvided food, drinks, gloves aOO tmsh bags Note: "Certificates of Recognition", sib'lled hy Senator Steve Peace <nxl Assemblywoman Denise Ducheny to be presented to major participants. "Certificates of Recognition", signed by John Willett, Chairperson, Otay Valley Re~>ional Park, Citizens Ad\isory Cumntittee to be presented to individnal eoordinato",. Co-Chairs: Sgt. Bill Frew, SDPD and John Willell, Chairperson, O\"RI' CAe Merkel & Associates, Inc. 3944 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite C1 06' San Diego, CA 92123 Ph. (619) 560-5465' Fax (619) 560-7779 E-mail MerkelInc@aol.com October 19, 1999 M&A# 96-070-05 Barbara Reid Planning Department City ofChula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Otay Tarplant Comments on Subsequent EIR for San Miguel Ranch Dear Barbara: As you have requested, Merkel & Associates has reviewed the CNPS September 28, 1999 letter regarding the draft Supplemental EIR for the San Miguel Ranch project. The letter focuses on the issue of the take being contemplated for Otay Tarplant (Hemizonia conjugens). Specifically, the CNPS letter addresses concerns over inadequacy of the proposed tarplant preserve to ensure long-term viability for the species. The issues cited in the CNPS comments include concerns that the essential habitat conditions and microhabitat variability be captured within the preserve areas to ensure that protect the species under a wide range of weather conditions, including drought. CNPS has raised concerns that the current project design does not take into account the specific biological conditions required to support this species long-term. Finally, CNPS has proposed an alternative conservation area layout designed to enhance the overall conservation of the species on the San Miguel Ranch project and thereby regionally increase conservation for this species. While there may be no argument that more conservation is better. it is essential to first contemplate the quality of conservation. Sheer numbers, while easiest to comprehend and address, are not the most biologically significant factors when considering the conservation of rare plants and animals and nowhere is this more true than when considering a narrow endemic annual plant such as the Otay Tarplant. In this regard, we wholly agree with CNPS that it is essential to consider the biology of the species and the particular environmental conditions which favor the species occurrence when designing a preserve system. We do however, disagree with the assertion that such consideration was not contemplated in the conservation design. The Otay Tarplant conservation design was based on surveys conducted during the peak of drought conditions following a prolonged drought in the late 1980's. The conservation effort focused on ensuring that the large tracts of clay soils and persistent populations of significant size were incorporated into the tarplant preserve design. The design further recognized that the adjacent lands around SDG&E facilities also supported tarplant and would add to the overall connectivity and size of the effective preserve. The focus of conservation on large tracts of land supporting good populations during drought years was not an inadvertent occurrence based on site development planning, but rather a biologically reasoned design, Subsequent to this original open space design of 1992, the boundaries ofthe open space have been further expanded capturing additional tarplant as well as other unique habitat Biological Consulting . Environmental Permitting . Habitat Restoration . Ecological Management Barbara Reid October 19. 1999 Page 2 and geologic features. While this expansion has included a significant amount of additional open space which lacks the unique clay soil environments which support Otay Tarplant, it is appropriate to recognize that this design is an expansion based on working outward from a core conservation area for the species that has not only been inherently dependable in occurrence over time, but which is connected to other off- site areas via the SDG&E lands and conservation commitments that have been made through the SDG&E Subregional Plan and Implementing Agreement with the USFWS and CDFG. Another concern that has been expressed by the CNPS has been one of ensuring that enough habitat diversity and plant diversity exists to ensure that viable seed is set at a frequency high enough to maintain the populations during adverse environmental conditions. There are actually three issues that are intertwined in this concern that need to be addressed. Only two of which have been identified in the CNPS comments, The first is the maintenance of high genetic diversity in plant materials to ensure that plants are suited to a wide range of environmental variables. In essence this means ensuring that a significant amount of genetic recombination occurs through sexual reproduction between individual plants. By virtue of the fact that Otay Tarplant is an annual, every individual in a population is a product of new genetic combinations. Thus, unlike either long-lived species with low levels of reproduction, or species which produce by asexual means such as fragmentation, relatively few individual annual plants are necessary to maintain a relatively rich genetic diversity and impart diversity to the seed base. In addition, the CNPS has noted that prolonged drought periods are a common occurrence within southern California. This has resulted in the development of a life history strategy in tarplant that ensures that not all plants germinate and grow in any given year and significant seed bank remains in the soil over multiple years. While we are not aware of the maximum period for delayed germination, field observations on closely monitored areas such as the Otay Water District San Miguel Habitat Management Area would suggest that seed may remain viable for at least two or more years. The second issue with regard to ensuring long-term viability is one of ensuring environmental diversity. As pointed out by CNPS, having great microhabitat diversity ensures that a greater amount of seed will set each year than would occur in the event that habitat was monotypic, This is true and we fully agree. However, it is worth noting that the preserve of tarplant on San Miguel includes not only significant populations that were productive during drought conditions, but also populations that occur on other soil types and in different subpopulations (San Miguel North), as well as populations which occur on variable slopes, exposures, and within differing microhabitats. In addition, the design links many of the areas together with viable corridors for transporting seed via animals, wind, and mechanical means. Finally, while we believe the Otay Tarplant populations within the San Miguel site as currently designed have an inherent capacity to persist, changing land-uses have the potential to modify the environment in a manner which allows a degradation of the quality of the tarplant preserve area. Unless the area is adequately managed to promote and conserve suitable habitat conditions within this area, tarplant could continue to erode within preserve lands, irrespective of the size of the preserve area. Of greatest concern is the allowance for continued development of a heavy growth of non-native grasses and excessive off- road vehicle uses. To combat these issues, site management should focus on I) increasing the amount of clay soils suitable to support tarplant within the preserve by clay topsoil salvage from development areas; 2) efforts to reduce annual grass and weed growth within the preserve and expand the occurrence of native grasslands species which afford less competition with tarplant; and 3) providing protection of the site from off-road vehicle and active recreational uses. Barbara Reid October 19, 1999 Page 3 In summary, while we concur with much of the concern that CNPS has raised in its comments, I do not believe that the conservation area design has failed in taking these issues into account. I further want to point out that while we agree with CNPS that more conservation is always preferred, there is no means of determining whether the proposed expansion suggested by CNPS will radically alter the long-term viability ofthe on-site preserve, In fact, much of the area proposed to be incorporated into an expanded preserve would be quite similar to the existing populations in terms of environmental characteristics of soils, slope, aspect, and hydrology. Further, these populations when viewed during the drought periods were less well developed than most of the populations conserved in the preserve as designed. I do encourage the City to consider the fact that tarplant is not only limited in distribution and has clearly suffered from development pressures, but the species has also suffered from the extensive proliferation of non-native grasses. As such, the need for management of a preserve is essential to ensuring viability. I would argue that this is the case, even more so than the size or shape of the preserve itself. Many small populations oftarplant have persisted in relatively urbanized and disturbed areas within the City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista for over a decade with signs of expansion and contraction over the years in response to rainfall conditions. These populations have, however suffered more from physical disturbance and proliferation of grasses than other identified impacts. I hope this letter provides an adequate response to your request for review of the CNPS issues. Please let me know if! can provide more. Sincerely, 7W~~/ Keith Merkel Principal Consultant CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT \ Item:-1Q Meeting Date: 10/19/99 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-96-04; Consideration of the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and related documents including the Planned Community District Regulations and Design Guidelines, Public Facilities Finance Plan/Fiscal Impact Analysis. Affordable Housing Program, Air Quality Improvement Plan, and Water Conservation Plan - Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC Resolution Approving the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan with Planned Community District Regulations, Design Guidelines, Public Facilities Financing Plan/Fiscal Impact Analysis, Affordable Housing Program, Air Quality Improvement Plan. and Water Conservation Plan for approximately 743 acres located east and north of Proctor Valley Rd., south of Sweetwater Reservoir and the SDG&E Miguel Substation. and west of Rolling Hills Ranch. SUBMITTED BY: Ordinance Approving the San Miguel Ranch Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Districts Map Director of Planning and Bu~~tg ~ City Manag~ VCJ 6J!l (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No-X) REVIEWED BY: Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC has applied for processing and approval of the 743 acre San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and related, required documents. The SPA Plan is intended to implement the San Miguel Ranch Amended Horseshoe Bend General Development Plan (GDP) which was approved by Council in December 1996. At that time, the landowner was Emerald Properties Corporation and the project encompassed two, non-contiguous parcels known as the North and the South parcels. The 1,852 acre North parcel has since been established as a permanent ecological preserve, and the 743 acre South parcel has been purchased by Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC who is processing this SPA Plan for the South parcel only. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR-97-02) for the project is presented in a separate, accompanying report. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and related, required documents, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, /0 -I Page 2, Item: _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On October 6, 1999, the Planning Commission considered the proposed project and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the City Council approve the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan, Planned Community District Regulations, Design Guidelines, Public Facilities Financing PlanlFiscal Impact Analysis, Affordable Housing Program, Air Quality Improvement Plan, and Water Conservation Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft City Council Resolution. With regard to the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for this project, the Commission expressed significant concerns with regard to cumulative traffic impacts of this project on regional facilities such as I-80S, 1-5 and SR54 as presented in the FSEIR. They initially voted (4- 3) not to recommend certification of FSEIR-97 -02 based upon those concerns, even though they indicated that they supported the project as reflected by their unanimous vote to recommend approval of the SPA Plan. After substantial discussion with regard to this issue, the Commission reconsidered its initial vote, and voted (4-3) in favor of recommending certification of FSEIR-97-02. Draft minutes from the meeting are attached. In doing so, however, they stressed their reluctance in continuing to approve large scale development without a concerted effort on the City's part to address sub-regional and regional traffic and transportation improvement planning and funding within the South Bay area. They requested that the City take an active role in establishing a working dialog with Caltrans and SANDAG to evaluate and discuss responses to traffic conditions on the regional freeway system, including transit and congestion management techniques such as staggered work hours. The Commission wished to make clear its position that we have reached a point where pending growth requires that action be taken by agencies responsible for managing the expansion and improvement of regional transportation facilities. In follow up to the joint Planning Commission, GMOC and EDC workshop on local transportation planning and growth management activities held on September 8,1999, staff made the Commission aware that it intends to schedule an additional Commission workshop meeting with Caltrans and SANDAG in attendance to discuss present and future planning activities and coordination regarding regional transportation facilities. PUBLIC INPUT: San Miguel Ranch SPA Citizens Review Group (CRG) - As required by the City Council as part of its approval of the San Miguel Ranch GDP in December 1996, a citizens group was formed to assist in the preparation of the SPA Plan. The CRG held 13 meetings on an approximately monthly basis between May 1998 and July 1999. The CRG held its final meeting on July 29, 1999. The CRG's comments and recommendations on the SPA Plan are summarized on a table in Attachment 6 and are further presented under Item 6 in the Discussion section of this report, Petition from Estancia Neighborhood Residents Regarding the Elementary School Site Location - On July 6, 1999, the Planning and Building Department received petitions from residents of the Estancia subdivision objecting to the proposed location of the elementary school site within the San jO--d- Page 3, Item Meeting Date: 10/19/99 Miguel Ranch project. The Estancia subdivision borders the south side ofthe San Miguel Ranch SPA area along Proctor Valley Rd. Petitions were received from ]5] (9]%) of the 165 homes in Estancia. The Planning Commission heard testimony on this matter at the July 14, 1999, hearing on the project's Draft SEIR, and at the October 6, 1999, hearing on the SPA Plan. This issue is reviewed further under the Discussion section (Item 7) of this report. BACKGROUND: 1. Site Characteristics The San Miguel Ranch SPA site encompasses the approximately 740 acre area commonly referred to as the San Miguel Ranch South Parcel. It is bounded by Proctor Valley Road to the west and south, Mother Miguel Mountain and the SDG&E Miguel Substation to the north, and the Rolling Hills Ranch project area and Otay Water District property to the east (see Attachment I). The South Parcel SPA site contains varied topography represented by two major landforms known as Gobblers Knob and Horseshoe Bend which are located in the western and central portion ofthe site, and several finger canyons and a prominent ridge in the eastern portion. The site is effectively bisected by the future alignment ofSR125, creating a west and an east subarea. The SPA site is also traversed by two SDG&E transmission line corridors, one bisecting the site in a north-east/south-west alignment, and another, smaller one in a north- south alignment within the eastern portion of the site. A small area of wetlands exists in conjunction with Proctor Creek which runs along a portion of the south edge of the site before it enters the Bonita Meadows property to the west. The SPA site is comprised largely of grasslands, but does contain some coastal sage scrub and the attendant biological resources including the California Gnatcatcher. The Otay Tarplant, considered a narrow-endemic plant species which is listed as endangered at the state level and threatened at the federal level, is also present on the SPA site. 2. Existing General Plan, Zoning, and Land Use General Plan The General Plan designations for the SPA site were established in 1996 and consist of Low Residential (0-3 du/ac) and Open Space in the areas west of future SR125. The areas east of SRI25 are reflective of a more suburban condition and consist of Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac), Medium-High Residential (11-18 du/ac), Public & Quasi-Public (elementary school and community purpose facility sites), Parks & Recreation (community park), Commercial Retail and Open Space (see Attachment 2). Surrounding General Plan designations in the western area of the site are also Low Residential and Open Space for the future Bonita Meadows site south and west of Proctor Valley Road and the existing Sunnyside residential community and Mother Miguel Mountain to the north. The eastern area of the site is bounded by Open Space to the north, and by Low Medium and Medium Density designations to the east and south in conjunction with the Salt Creek I and Rolling Hills Ranch projects. /D~3 Page 4, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 Zoning The San Miguel Ranch area is pre-zoned Planned Community (PC) through adoption of the GDP in 1996. The project area is proposed for annexation to the City. Approved land uses are shown on the attached GDP Diagram (see Attachment 3). Areas in the City to the south and east of the site are zoned PC as part of the Salt Creek I and Rolling Hills Ranch projects respectively. There is also a block of largely vacant unincorporated area to the south near the central portion of the project site, known as the Haley's subdivision, which is zoned A702 (ldu/2ac). The Bonita Meadows property to the west is within unincorporated Sunnyside area and zoned S88-Specific Plan. To the north is existing residential in the unincorporated Sunnyside area and zoned RR1-Rural Residential (ldu/ac). Current Land Use The project site is currently vacant. To the north is the existing, unincorporated residential area of Sunnyside, and SDG&E's Miguel Substation and transmission line right-of-way; to the west the vacant Bonita Meadows site; to the south the existing Estancia single family subdivision, the Makenzie Creek neighborhood park, and the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School in RoIling Hills Ranch; to the east are developing single family neighborhoods within Rolling Hills Ranch, and the Otay Water District property which will be developed with a golf course. 3. Prior Planning Approvals Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan (GDP), April 1993 - The initial master planning efforts for the San Miguel Ranch project area were commenced in the mid- to later-1980's when the project was owned by Unocal Investment, and were also considered during the City's General Plan Update which was completed in July, 1989. At the time of the General Plan update. the property was purchased by San Miguel Partners, who then processed the property's first GDP under the project name of Rancho San Miguel, which was approved by the City Council in April 1993 (see Attachment 4), The Rancho San Miguel GDP contained 1,619 dwelling units; 357 low density (I du/ac) units on the North Parcel, and 1,166 low density (2 du/ac) and 96 low-mediwn density (4.5 du/ac) units on the South Parcel. The GDP also included a 6.7 acre conference center and inn on the North Parcel, and an elementary school, community park. community purpose facility site, and a 14 acre neighborhood commercial center on the South Parcel. San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment, and Amended Proctor Vallev and Amended Horseshoe Bend GDPs, December 1996 - In July 1994, the San Miguel Partners lost control of the property through foreclosure by Emerald Properties. Emerald then proceeded to replan the property given two key issues which had significant effects on the project site; the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and refined alignment studies for SR125. The result of this process was the /0 -tf Page 5, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 approval of two alternate GDPs by the City Council in December 1996. The two GDPs were predicated upon two of the preferred alignment alternatives for SR125; Proctor Valley and Horseshoe Bend. These two GDPs represented a significant change in land use planning for the project over the original Rancho San Miguel GDP. Due to valued habitat resources, the entire 1,852 acre North Parcel was set aside as permanent open space, as were select portions of the South Parcel including approximately 38 acres for Otay Tarplant preserves. In recognition of the significant open space contributions to the MSCP, which precluded previously approved development on the North Parcel, and added further constraints to the development envelope on the South Parcel, a General Plan Amendment was concurrently processed. The resulting plan approved 1394 dwelling units on the South Parcel only, with lower density residential uses in the west adjacent to the existing Sunnyside area, and more suburban residential densities in the eastern area adjacent to the Salt Creek I and Rolling Hills Ranch areas. The elementary school, community park, community purpose facility, and neighborhood commercial uses were all retained and located in the more suburban, eastern portion ofthe site. In March 1997, Caltrans announced the Modified Horseshoe Bend alignment as the preferred alignment for SR125, setting the stage for SPA planning to move forward based on the Amended Horseshoe Bend GDP. DISCUSSION: 1. Project Description - Proposed San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and Planned Community District Regulations A. Proposed San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan As noted above, the proposed SPA Plan is predicated upon the Amended Horseshoe Bend GDP. Because SRl25 will bisect the South Parcel, the site is effectively divided into west and east subareas. Consistent with the approved GDP, the SPA Plan proposes 1,394 residential units of varying density, along with support uses including an elementary school, public community park, private neighborhood- serving park, private pocket parks, a community purpose facility site, and neighborhood commercial area as discussed as follows (see Attachment 4): Western Subarea - (Neighborhoods J, K. L. and OS-6, -7, -8, and -9) The areas west ofSRI25 contain lower density single family uses and open space, including one of the two Otay Tarplant preserve areas. Neighborhood J - Under the approved GDP, the 50.5 acre Neighborhood J is defined as a "clustered" development area pursuant to the General Plan's provisions for the clustering oflow density residential units. In consideration of the set-aside of the Otay Tarplant preserve (OS-6), and preservation of the adjoining ridge of Horseshoe Bend to the north (OS-7), Neighborhood J may cluster units to a density not greater than 4.5 dulac, and ultimately be subdivided into lots not less than 7,000 /0-5 Page 6, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 square feet. The SPA proposes 162 single family detached units with a density of 3.2 dulac. Neighborhood K - This 60.5 acre neighborhood is proposed as a low density single family area of up to 86 units, at a density of 1.4 dulac, in keeping with the more semi-rural character of the Sunnyside area. Neighborhood L- This 62.2 acre neighborhood is also proposed as a low density single family area with up to 71 units, at a density of 1.1 du/ac. While generally similar to K, Neighborhood L will contain the largest lots in the project since it directly adjoins existing semi-rural residential areas in Sunnyside. The SPA's PC District Regulations also require increased development setbacks for lots along this existing development edge. While not specifically called out as an open space area on the Site Utilization Plan, land adjacent to the easterly entrance to this neighborhood, north of Mt. Miguel Road, is proposed as a landscaped area which will function as a private pocket park, and privately maintained. OS-6 - This 31.8 acre area is open space set aside specifically as an Otay Tarplant preserve, and will be subject to ongoing management pursuant to a preserve management plan which must be entered into prior to final subdivision map approval. It will likely be turned over to a third-party environmental entity which will own and manage it. It also encompasses a portion of the Horseshoe Bend landform. OS-7 - This 26.2 acre area is permanent open space and encompasses the western portion of Horseshoe Bend. Although it is not expressly required to be set aside as an Otay Tarplant preserve. it is anticipated that this area will be included in a preserve with OS-6, and tumed over to the third-party entity to own and manage, due to its adjacency and the presence of Diegan Sage Scrub vegetation. OS-8 - This 3.3 acre area includes common slopes, and a private pocket park to serve some of the neighborhood recreational needs of residents in the western area of the project. The pocket park will also be privately maintained. OS-9 - This 6.9 acre area is permanent open space, and encompasses the western flank of Gobblers Knob which will be left ungraded as a result of requirements to reduce the project's grading impacts to that land feature. Eastern Subarea - (Neighborhoods A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. M. N. and CPo NP. S. and OS-1 through -5) Neighborhood A - This 7.2 acre site is proposed for a multi-family rental project of up to 129 dwelling units, which equates to 17.9 du/ac. It is also intended as one of two sites designated by the Affordable Housing Plan (SPA Volume 4) to produce required low- and moderate-income affordable units. It is located adjacent to the neighborhood commercial center ("N") and along six-lane Proctor Valley Rd. Adjacent to the south is the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School in Rolling Hills /0-(0 Page 7, Item_ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 Ranch. This area is subject to further site plan and design review and is required to be well integrated with the commercial area. Neighborhood B - This 11.4 acre site is planned for up to 219 higher density town homes or condominiums at 19.2 dulac. The site is located adjacent to the SDG&E easement, future SR125 and Mt. Miguel Rd, It is also designated by the Affordable Housing Plan as a site for providing required low- and moderate-income affordable housing units. This area is subject to further site plan and design review. Neighborhood C - This 13.1 acre site is planned for up to 100 small or cottage lot single family detached or single family attached dwelling units at a density of 7.6 dulac. It is intended to provide alternate product types and to stratify pricing in for- sale, single family housing. This area is subject to further site plan and design revIew. Neighborhood D - This 22.9 acre site is adjacent to the south of Neighborhood C, and is similarly planned for up to 116 small lot, single family detached dwelling units, at a density of 5.1 dulac. This area is subject to further site plan and design revIew. Neighborhood E - This 29.7 acre neighborhood is planned for up to 141 single family detached dwelling units at a moderate density of 4,7dulac. The neighborhood is in the central portion of the site and adjoins the elementary school site. Neighborhood F - This 12.7 acre neighborhood is planned for up to 47 single family detached units, at a density of 3.7 dulac. It is situated west of the community park site and will have trail access to the park. Access to the future 10 acre Vista Mother Miguel project area adjacent to the north will be provided through neighborhood F. The Vista Mother Miguel project will be required to use the same development standards as those in neighborhood F to ensure compatibility. Neighborhood G - This 21.8 acre neighborhood is planned for up to 68 single family detached dwelling units, at a density of 3.1 du/ac. Neighborhood G adjoins Neighborhood E along the collector street at the core of the eastern project area, and is of a similar, but slightly less density than Neighborhood E due to topography. Neighborhood H - This 33.2 acre neighborhood is planned for up to 137 single family detached dwelling units, at a density of 4.1 dulac. East ofMt. Miguel Road, this neighborhood adjoins the community park site. It uses a series of back to back cul-de-sacs parallel with the topography, which will create several pocket parks within the neighborhood. The pocket parks provide a neighborhood amenity and identifier, as well as for pedestrian access through the neighborhood to the community park, and emergency vehicle access, /D~ 1 Page 8, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 Neighborhood I - This 31.7 acre neighborhood is planned for up to 118 single family detached dwelling units, at a density of 3.7 dulac. It is similar to and adjoins Neighborhood H, and is the northeastern most development area in the project. Its northern edge abuts an SDG&E power line right-of-way, and provides an on-site equestrian and pedestrian trail which accommodates connection of the City Greenbelt trail system between San Miguel Ranch to the east, through the Otay Water District property and to the Salt Creek corridor within the Rolling Hills Ranch project. Neighborhood M - This 4.6 acre area is the location for the projecfs primary, required Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site, which could be a future church, YMCA facility or other quasi-public serving use as defined in Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code. It is located along six-lane Proctor Valley Rd, and across from the commercial center, where it is easily accessible from the surrounding area that it will serve. Due to topographic constraints, the proposed acreage at this site is less than the 5.76 CPF acres required of the project based on its projected population. Staff has worked with the applicant for them to provide additional acreage, and a multi- purpose community meeting building in conjunction with the community park site to meet the balance of the requirement. This issue and related conditions of SPA approval are presented further in the Analysis section of this report. Neighborhood N - This 14.3 acre area is planned as the neighborhood commercial shopping center, and anticipated to have a grocery anchor. Also located along East H Street/Proctor Valley Rd., it is well situated to serve the surrounding communities. There are no commercial services proposed within the Rolling Hills Ranch or the EastLake Vistas neighborhoods, and this commercial center is a key component to insuring access to necessary services within walking distance of a concentration of residential neighborhoods. The nearest alternate centers are at East H Street and Otay Lakes Road, and at Otay Lakes Road and EastLake Parkway within the Eastlake Greens project. CP - This 21.6 gross acre site will accommodate the public community park. The site size is larger than the amount of park acreage required for the project, but it will also serve the needs of other area development. As noted with Neighborhood M above, additional acreage will also be provided at the community park site in satisfaction ofa portion of the projecfs community purpose facilities requirement. Staff will be working with the developer to establish a master plan for the park facilities and design subsequent to completion of the Citywide Parks Master Plan which is presently under preparation. NP - This 3.5 acre site is planned for a private neighborhood park, is located in the core of the eastern area neighborhoods, and near the elementary school. Although a public neighborhood park was not required in this project by the General Plan, approval of the GDP was conditioned for the SPA to provide a minimum 3-acre, private neighborhood-serving park to ensure needs of the residents in the core area of the project were met. A public neighborhood park is provided in nearby Rolling Hills Ranch, just south of the commercial center (N). /()~g Page 9, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 8 - This 13.7 acre site is planned for the elementary school, which will serve children within the project, and within the existing Estancia neighborhood across the street and the future Bonita Meadows project. 08-1 - This 28.5 acre area is the second of the two dedicated Otay Tarplant preserve areas. Along with OS-6 (and likely OS-7) it will subject to a management plan, and will be turned over to a third-party environmental entity which will own and manage it. 08-2, -4 and -5 - These open space areas encompass a total of 14.8 acres and are comprised of manufactured and natural slopes that are peripheral to neighborhood areas. They will be maintained by the homeowners association or through formation of a community facilities district. 08-3 - This 110.9 acre natural open space area includes a prominent ridge and flanking slopes which form the eastern edge of the project with Rolling Hills Ranch, Although not part of an established preserve like those for the Otay Tarplant, this area contains coastal sage scrub and other resources and is a material part of the project's biological mitigations under the EIR. Trail access through the area is allowed, and will occur near the northern edge in conjunction with making the City's Greenbelt trail connections, and near the south edge to conveniently connect Neighborhood H to Mt. Miguel Road and the commercial area. B. Proposed Planned Community District Regulations The proposed Planned Community District Regulations (SPA Volume 2) comprise the zoning requirements and standards for San Miguel Ranch, through the establishment of specific Land Use Districts and according Use Matrices and Development Standards (see Attachment 5). They have been prepared with close scrutiny, and in comparison to similar provisions in a number of previously approved planned communities. The regulations set all of the building envelope, bulk and setback requirements, and establish performance standards for all aspects of the San Miguel Ranch community, and are intended to guide development of the project. Staff has included a draft of the City Council Ordinance required to enact the Regulations as part of the proposed Planning Commission Resolution for action on the project. 2. Public Facilities Financing Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis (PFFP/FIA) - As required by the City's Growth Management Ordinance, the proposed San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) (presented in SPA Volume 5) analyzes the impact of the project on a phase-by-phase basis, and identifies the required public facilities and services necessary to mitigate those impacts consistent with the City's adopted Threshold Standards. It also addresses the costs associated with providing these necessary facilities and services, and identifies the obligation of the developer to pay for these mitigation costs along with the corresponding fee program or other finance method. The PFFP describes in detail the cost, financing mechanism and timing for necessary infrastructure installation for all public facilities. In the case of San Miguel Ranch, the public facilities needed to serve the /O-UJ Page 10, Item_ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 project will be paid for by the developer through either subdivision exactions, Development Impact Fees, or the formation of Community Facilities Districts. Also presented is the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) which analyzes the costs and revenues associated with project over time, and at buildout, and identifies whether projected revenues generated by the project (e.g., property tax, sales tax, etc.), will cover the cost to the City to serve the project area (e.g" police and fire service. parks and recreation. street maintenance. etc.). Due largely to property tax revenue sharing under the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement which applies to areas to be annexed, the proj ect is forecast to operate at a net, annual fiscal deficit of $125,100 at buildout. The City and developer will negotiate and establish a fee program in conjunction with the tentative subdivision map, and prior to annexation, to offset this projected fiscal deficit. Since the adjacent, future 10 acre Vista Mother Miguel project will use much of the same infrastructure required for San Miguel Ranch, staff requested that the project's impacts be assessed concurrently, and presented in the same document so that all future needs in the area would be assessed. The Vista Mother Miguel project is just starting the plan review process, and will be brought forward separately at a future date. 3. Affordable Housing Plan- The Housing Element of the City's General Plan requires all projects of 50 or more housing units to provide at least 10% of that housing as affordable to low- and moderate-income households. A minimum of one-half of those units (5% of project total units) must be affordable to low-income households, and the other to moderate-income, Based on a project total of 1394 units. San Miguel Ranch must provide 140 affordable units; 70 units for low- income and 70 units for moderate-income. The San Miguel Ranch Affordable Housing Plan (SPA Volume 5) proposes to satisfy these requirements within Neighborhoods A and B. Neighborhood A is planned as a higher density rental housing project (17.9 du/ac), and B is planned as a higher density, for-sale condominium project (19.2 du/ac). One of the City's objectives in providing affordable housing in master planned communities is production of rental housing for families, and to have the units concurrently phased with the rest of the project. Since Neighborhood A. where the rental units are located, is currently proposed for the last phase of the project (Phase IV), staff will be focusing on delivering units from Neighborhood B which is part of Phase l!, and working with the developer to accelerate the development of Neighborhood A. As is done with all master planned communities, an agreement between the City and the developer, which ties the phasing of affordable units to the ability to obtain building permits for the overall project, is required in conjunction with the tentative subdivision map approval. 4. Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP)- As required by the City's Growth Management Ordinance, the proposed San Miguel Ranch AQIP (presented in SPA Volume 6), contains an analysis of the project's air quality impacts along with proposed measures to reduce those impacts both during and after construction. Typically, the most significant potential for air quality improvement derives from policies 10 ~/O Page 11, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 and programs established at the broadest geographic level (i.e, state and federal), and aimed at reducing automobile emissions. There are, however, measures that can be applied on a city or project level which can have a positive benefit. As an outgrowth of the City's C02 Reduction Plan, the City's AQIP guidelines require that the project design incorporate site design features that optimize the potential to achieve meaningful automobile trip reduction. There were also specific measures presented in the GDP EIR which were required to be addressed through the AQIP. In summary, and consistent with the City's requirements, the AQIP's provisions are as follows: Construction operations - There are a number of requirements to reduce the emissions of construction equipment. and to control dust during and immediately after grading and construction operations. These provisions are common to all developments. Site operations- all swimming pools shall use solar energy with back-up low NOx water heaters. low NOx commercial-size water heaters shall be installed in all on-site facilities. residential units and other common facilities shall use gas fired furnaces outfitted with heat transfer modules providing a 70% reduction in NOx emissions. a park and ride facility will be provided in conjunction with the CPF and/or commercial center site, bus stops, turnouts, and shelters have been provided along Proctor Valley Road and Mt. Miguel Road to support bus service within the project. a system of bicycle lanes, and an extensive and inter-connected trail system are provided to promote walking, and lessen automobile trips. The inclusion of parks, an elementary school, and a commercial center with the more dense eastern area of the project provides a more balanced community, and also promotes the reduction of auto trips necessary to reach these services. garages shall be wired for 220 volts to accommodate charging of electric vehicles. incorporate enhanced energy conservation features in excess of the minimwn requirements of Title 24 through participation in SDG&E's "Comfort Wise", EP A's Energy Star or other similar programs. utilize energy efficient lighting wherever feasible. provide a gas connection to fireplaces. provide an outside natural gas connection to encourage use of gas fired barbecues. provide outside electrical outlets to encourage use of electrically powered yard maintenance equipment. make available more than two phone lines to each home to support in-home offices and telecommuting, and work with the cable TV provider to include high-speed electronic communications connections. install energy efficient landscaping in all development common areas. 5. Water Conservation Plan- As also required by the City's Growth Management Ordinance, the proposed San Miguel Ranch Water Conservation Plan (presented in SPA Volwne 7) discusses the project's water demands/conswnption and conservation measures. In summary. Table 5 of the Plan indicates that the implementation of a typical water conservation plan for a single family dwelling 10.-' II Page 12, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 results in a water savings of approximately I 37gallons per household, per day. Devices included in the calculation were ultra low flow shower heads, efficient clothes washer and dishwasher, pressure reducing valve, low water use landscaping, soil moisture sensors, and use of a water conservation guide. The Water Conservation Plan lists a number of indoor and outdoor measures, including the installation of water saving devices and appliances, in addition to educational information and programs for residents on the issue, It also discusses the use of recycled water for the irrigation of parks and common landscape areas within the project. Compliance with the Water Conservation measures is included in the proposed SPA conditions of approval. The City Council will be considering changes to its guidelines for preparation of water conservation plans in the near future. The revised guidelines may require incorporation of additional water conservation measures and/or participation in pilot projects to evaluate new measures, such as graywater systems. While the San Miguel Ranch Water Conservation Plan discusses the potential water savings. and advantages and disadvantages of individual graywater systems, it does not require the systems to be used. Since Council has not yet established any policy or requirements regarding such measures, a SPA condition of approval has been included which requires the applicant to amend the Water Conservation Plan as necessary to comply with forthcoming Council provisions regarding graywater systems. 6. San Miguel Ranch SPA Citizens Review Group (CRG)- As part of its approval of the GDP in 1996, the City Council required that a citizens group be formed to provide input to formulation of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan. With Council's approval in May 1998, staff drew together a broad based 8 member group, plus 4 alternate members. The membership included representation from the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, adjacent Sunnyside residents, adjacent Salt Creek I residents, adjacent non-resident owner, the environmental community, and a City member at large. The CRG held 13 meetings on an approximately monthly basis from May 1998 to July 1999. The CRG was presented with all aspects of the EIR, and of the SPA Plan and related documents as they were developed. Many spirited discussions were held, and the CRG raised a number of issues in the process, many of which are responded to by the SPA Plan. There are, however, some issues which the CRG feels are still outstanding. Staff prepared, and the CRG approved a summary table at its last meeting on July 29, 1999, which presents issues raised by the CRG along with the SPA related response (see Attachment 6). The main issues that the CRG feels require further resolution or assurances include: a. That the City actually apply and enforce the 675 EDU limit for development within the areas east ofSRI25 before SRI25 is in place. StaffResDonse- The project's PFFP establishes a limit of 675 EDUs (equivalent dwelling units) of development that can occur within the project's eastern area prior to SR125, and which will be a condition of both SPA and Tentative Subdivision Map approval in accordance with the Findings of Fa:J~r the project's /0- I Page 13, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 FSEIR-97-02. The condition will establish a building permit limit at this level, and any change to this limit could not occur without afurther traffic study (which would he subject to review hy the County of San Diego), and an amendment to the PFFP which would require Planning Commission and City Council approval. This is less than total development east ofSR125, which is 1028 dwelling units plus the non- residentia/uses. Aft. Miguel Rd will not he connected west to Proctor Valley Rd. until afier SR125 is constructed. Development will not occur in the areas west of SR125 until after SR125 is in. Any change to this would also require County review. b. That the City and County work to address projected, longer-term, emulative traffic impacts to San Miguel and Proctor Valley Roads, and consider ways to mitigate those impacts other than widening the roads. Staff response - The project's trips amount to only a small (approximately 3%) amount of the total, cumulative trips projectedfor the long-term on San Miguel and Proctor Valley Roads. The volume impuctsfor year 2010 and beyond are largely attributable to vehicles seeking access to SR125. The County has been awure of this long-term impuct condition at least since 1993 when the City Councilund Board of Supervisorsjointly approved Otay Ranch Stuff ugrees that the County and City need to work together to ident!fj; how this projected, cumulative condition will he responded to. The City has previously committed to contribute proportionute, fair share funding to whatever solution is determined. c. That the project be required to add a detention basin at OS-4, south of Proctor Valley Rd. So that there is no large area of development that does not drain through a basin. Concern is that without a basin there, umegulated flows from a 60" pipe could overwhelm, existing inadequate drainage facilities in the County along Central Creek. and exacerbate historic flooding conditions there, The basin would essentially work as a relief valve, Staff response - The project proposes 3 on-site detention basins to regulate the off- site discharge rate of drainage flows so that pre-development flow volumes are not exceeded. and to ensure that the project does not change existingflooding conditions in Central Creek. At the City's request, the developer has moved the detention hasin from Neighhorhood L to south of Mt. Miguel Rd. in Neighborhood K, to pick up more of the druinage fi'om the western ureu of the project. andfurther regulate off-site flows. A drainage study prepured hy Hunsaker & Associates concluded that a basin at OS4 is technicalZv not needed. since the proposed basin upstream is designed to regulate existingflows going through that areu, so that even without a basin at OS4. the totul pre-development.flow is not exceeded downstreum. Regardless, the City has mude the CRG's request and reusoning known to the applicant, who hus indicated the.v will consider the request in light of the concern. d. Noise from the ongoing operation of Jensen's Kennel will serve as a built-in nuisance to proposed homes at the west end of neighborhood 1. / 0 _ /.3 Page 14, Item_ Meeting Date: 10/]9/99 Staff reSDonse - The west end of Neighborhood L which borders the kennel property contains a deep. setback slope which will receive a dense, landscape screening treatment. The largest lot in the project (62.500sq-fi. +) is located at the corner of the property where it abuts the kennel. to achieve the greatest possible setback to development. A wall is to be placed along the top o{slope, which varies from 50 to lDD/eet/rom the property line along the western edgc o.fNeighborhood L. The wall will provide some sound attenuation, and the rear setback to homes in this area must he a minimum of 50 ft. .from the top of the slope. The homes will also have dual pane windows. and the developer will be required to include the kennel use in the real estate disclosures to huyers. e. That the City will actually apply and enforce conditions requmng ongomg maintenance of the detention basins, and a funding mechanism for that. StaffresDonse - As a condition of development approval. the proposed basins and other drainage facilities will have maintenance assured through formation o{ a community facilities district, or a homeowners association, to he financed by residents benefittingfrom the hasins. This is a standard approach which has been recently used in several other projects. 7. Petition from Residents of the Estancia Neighborhood- As indicated in the Public Input section of this report, on July 6, 1999, petitions were submitted from 151 (91%) of the 165 homes in the Estancia subdivision, objecting to the proposed location ofthe elementary school site along Proctor Valley Road. The Estancia subdivision is located on the south side of Proctor Valley Road across from the proposed school site. A copy of one of the petitions is included in Attachment 7. In summary, the petition indicates the Estancia residents' concern that traffic patterns associated with access to the school site from Proctor Valley Road, across from their subdivision, will result in spill over traffic into their neighborhood, which will present both safety and nuisance situations. In discussions they have cited problem conditions that have developed around select other schools in the EastLake area. The residents are requesting that the school site be moved northerly into the subdivision where a portion of Neighborhood E now sits, and that housing being moved to the south along Proctor Valley Road where the school now sits. Access to the site would thereby be eliminated from Proctor Valley Road, and be internal to San Miguel Ranch along the street in the central portion of the core area, Staff reSDonse - Mr. Gaughan is a member of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Citizens Review Group (CRG) and represents the Estancia neighborhood on the CRG. Staff has been in contact with Mr. Gaughan and the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) since he first identified this issue in September. 1998. The location of the school site in the SPA, and the access of! Proctor Valley Road, are both consistent with the adopted GDP. A principal access.from Proctor Valley Rd. is preferred by the City and the CVESD over an internal residential street, since Proctor Valley Rd. is sized to accommodate through traffic and needed bus access to the site, and the fact that the /0 .- /'-1 Page 15, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 Proctor Valley Rd. intersection with Mt. Miguel Rd. will be signalized. As discussed in the Final SEIR , impacts may be greater if the school site is moved. Analysis of a more detailed level of trip movements with regard to their potential affect upon the Estancia neighborhood would require further study based on a ;,pecific site planning proposal from the CVESD. School site plans are typical(v not developed by the CVESD until a later date. Stal/has worked with the applicant and thc CVESD to identify site plan changes to re;,pond to the concerns of the Estancia resident's, and required the applicant to provide an access to the school site internal to the San Miguel Ranch project. The purpose (If requiring the internal connection was to provide for convenient drop-off and pick-up of studentsfi'om thc project, to reduce the volume of trips which would otherwise have to use the Proctor Valley Road entrance. The internal connection also promotes ahility to walk to school from within the project. Staff and Mr. Lowell Billings from the CVESD most recentf.v met with Mr. Gaughan on July 2. 1999, to discuss the CVESD 's evolving approach to site planning standards in response to traffic experiences at other schools. and more specificalf.v a concept plan for the San Miguel Ranch site prepared by the CVESD's architect. The District has recognized the necessity for specific site planning and on-site circulation considerations. and they have been discussed with Mr. Gaughan and the C RG In addition to the required internal access from the project, several of the site planning considerations discussed to reduce the likelihood of traffic spilling over into the Estancia neighborhood are: Separating hus and private vehicle drop-off points to avoid traffic conflict. Providing designated, adequate parking areas for staff and visitors. Having an internal loop drive with a pull-out lane that allows cars to stop for on-site drop off without blocking the through circulation. Providing an on-site connecting drive between the Proctor Valley Rd. entrance and the internal project entrance, This could provide the ability for vehicles entering .from Proctor Valley Rd. to exit through the project. This type of through circulation has been included at the new Thurgood Marshall elementary school in neighboring Rolling Hills Ranch, and the CVESD will he monitoring its effectivcness. Providing a parking lane along a portion ()(the north side (llProctor Valley Rd. along the school frontage and to the immediate east (lithe site. Recommending that adult traffic monitors be present during drop-off and pick-up periods to ensure vehicles appropriately use the site's special circulation features. As a result of these discussions with the CVESD, and their recognition of the need for special site design requirements, it is staffs conclusion that many of the Estancia residents' concerns can be effectively addressed at the forthcoming school site planning stage. The CVESD indicates that it normally works closely with neighboring residents when planning a school site, and is committed to do so with the San Miguel Ranch school site. The CVESD will also work with City staff, and has in the past worked with the City's (Traffic) Safety Commission regarding site planning and circulation issues. /0-/5 Page 16, Item_ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 ANALYSIS: A. SPA Plan and Design As noted in the Discussion section, the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan has been designed to be substantially consistent with the GDP approved in December 1996. The applicant and staff have ensured that the SPA land use proposals, and development policies and regulations are in keeping with the provisions of the GDP as presented below. The following is also intended to present the facts necessary for the Planning Commission to make the findings needed to approve the SPA as presented in Draft City Council Resolution. Land Use Plan and Consistencv with the GDP - The following table presents a comparison of the proposed SPA land uses to the approved GDP, As can be seen, the proposed SPA is materially consistent with the approved GDP. In a few instances, there are relatively minor variations which staff feels do not affect the basic land use types or characteristics established by the GDP. Such variations are typical when moving from a GDP to a SPA due to refinements in scale and measurement from a conceptual GDP "bubble" diagram. to the more refined SPA Site Utilization Plan, and in consideration of the more detailed scale of SPA land planning in relation to site design considerations such as topography, grading, and early lotting and subdivision layouts, In general, the proposed SPA Plan has fewer acres of residential area, slightly more acres in the retail commercial site, slightly jess acres of institutional uses, more acres of open space uses, and less acres in right-of-way for major roads and SR125. With regard to institutional uses, the GDP included a 7.5 acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site, which was in excess of the 5.76 net acres required of the project based on population. A portion of that 7.5 acres was constrained by topography and difficult to develop. The applicant's proposed SPA currently includes a 4,6 gross acre CPF site, which is at minimwn 1.16 acres under the 5.76 net acre requirement. While staff and the applicant agree that the project's entire 5.76 net acre CPF requirement cannot be met at SPA area "M" due to topographic constraints, area "M" must be able to function as the primary CPF site. In order to ensure that SPA area "M" provides a viable CPF site, staff is requiring that 3.0 to 3.5 net useable acres be provided in conjunction with the tentative subdivision map. The applicant has proposed, and staff concurs, that the balance of the CPF acreage not provided at area "M", be provided through expansion of the community park site by an equivalent amount of net acres, and the provision of a multi-purpose community building and associated parking to accommodate CPF type uses such as Boy Scout or Girl Scout meetings, or other community functions. That acreage would be above and beyond acreage associated directly to the community park function, and would not be credited towards meeting any of the project's public park requirements. Pursuant to Section 19.48.025(B) of the Zoning Ordinance, alternate forms of providing for a portion of required CPF acreage may be approved in conjunction with SPA approval provided that other community purpose facilities are guaranteed to be made available to the community. In order to ensure compliance with this requirement, and provision of the additional acreage and multi-purpose community meeting building in conjunction with the /0 .- / {p Page 17, Item_ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 community park site, the applicant has agreed to add necessary language and provisions to the SPA Plan and the PC District Regulations. Staffhas prepared related conditions of SPA approval, and errata pages presenting the required SPA Plan and PC District text changes are included as Exhibit B to the Draft City Council Resolution attached to this report, / 0 ~ /1 Page 18, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 Land Use Consistency Comparison Table for San Miguel Ranch GDP vs. SPA DD'S/Gro s Acre SPA GOP R-L - Low 132,3 122.7 184 157 1.4 1.3 R-LM - Low Medium 165.8 164.1 624 680 3.8 R-M - Medium 67.5 62.9 473 428 7.0 R-MH - Medium Hi h 7.8 7.2 113 129 14,5 CP - Communi Park NP - Nei hborhood Park OS - South ParcellNatural E - Utili Esmts/Parkwa s 19.0 21.6 3.0' 213.2 15.4 3,5 244.3 6.3 SR-125 Ri ht-of-wa 51.9 49.6 Ma" or Roads 31.5 28.3 Sublolol 83.4 77.9 PROJECT TOTAL 738.2 743.1 ** 1,394 1.394 1.9 1.9 . .. ... The 3 .O-acre Neighborhood Park was included in Medium Residential land use acreage of 67.5 acres. Includes Pacific Bay Homes Parcel of 4.35 acres. Figure reflects required net useable acres for Community Purpose Facilities. Approximately 2.26 to 2.76 acres of this requirement will be provided within an expanded, net useable community park site of approximately 17.92 to 18.42 acres. Circulation The only street requirements set forth in the GDP were for Mt. Miguel Road, a portion of Proctor Valley Road along the south side ofthe project. and for East H Street/Proctor Valley Road through the project to Rolling Hills Ranch. The only required General Plan Circulation Element streets within the project are the four lane Mt. Miguel Road, six-lane East H Street/Proctor Valley Road, and the future SR125. /0 -j g Page 19, Item_ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 The SPA Plan provides for the installation of Mt. Miguel Road as a Class I Collector (4 lanes) through the project site between Proctor Valley Road in the west and East H Street. The SPA also reflects the proposed configuration ofSR125, including ramp connections to Mt. Miguel Road. Proctor Valley Road along the site's west and south boundary is also required and shown as a Class III Collector (2 lanes). East H Street/Proctor Valley Road in the southeast portion of the SPA is shown as a six-lane prime arterial, and appropriately designated as a scenic corridor. It has already been constructed in conjunction with the Rolling Hills Ranch project. Grading The GDP recognized the significant topography and landform characteristics of the San Miguel Ranch south parcel, which most notably contains the Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob features. The GDP and the GDP EIR also recognized that there would be significant grading and landform impacts associated with development of the planned land uses. It is for this reason that both the GDP and the GDP EIR included mitigation measures requiring that there be subsequent analysis during SPA review to reduce general grading impacts, and to demonstrate compliance with the City's hillside development guidelines and landform grading policies. As required by the GDP, the SPA Plan includes a refined grading program (Volume I, Chapter IV) which is more sensitive to the overall landform characteristics and natural features of the San Miguel Ranch GDP grading concept plan. The SPA Grading Plan and policies have been designed for consistency with the GDP guidelines and City policies for landform grading and hillside development. The SPA grading plan reduces the overall earthwork by 20%, from 9,8 million cubic yards under the GDP, to 7.7 million cubic yards under the SPA grading program. The SPA program will preserve a nwnber of visually prominent slopes, features and environmental resources within OS-I, -3, -6. -7 and -9. These include the western half and eastern tip of Horseshoe Bend, the western flank of Gobblers Knob, and the prominent eastern ridge line which forms the project's boundary with Rolling Hills Ranch. The vast majority of the grading impacts occurring to the central portion of Horseshoe Bend are the direct result of SRI25 grading. The SPA Plan also employs a design which works with the site's underlying contours, through extensive use of curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs to allow street and lot grades to follow the topography, and thereby minimizes the extensive sheet grading and related impacts characteristic of the GDP grading concept. The result is a better landform relationship so that where high points in the topography occur, there are high points in the design. As a result, the San Miguel Ranch SPA will have a greater nwnber of streets with significant slope percentage than any of the other eastern master planned communities. Parks. Recreation, Trails and Open Space Consistent with the requirements of the City General Plan and the GDP, the SPA plan provides for a public Community Park, private neighborhood-serving park, and several private pocket parks within individual neighborhood areas. With regard to the public Community Park site, staff continues to work with the applicant to maximize the amount of net. useable acres which will be provided within the 21.6 acre gross site. Due mainly to I()~/q Page 20, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 grading considerations, a preliminary tentative map indicates an approximately 15.66 acre net usable site. Information from the City's pending Parks Master Plan (PMP) is needed to aid determination of the facilities to be sited at the San Miguel Ranch Community Park. As a result, a SPA condition of approval has been included which requires that the park facilities and design for the Community Park be consistent with the PMP that will be adopted by the City. In addition, and as discussed under the Land Use Consistency section of this report, a portion of the project's required CPF acreage will be satisfied through the provision of additional, net useable acreage in conjunction with the community park site. Any such acreage will be above and beyond the 15.66 net acres currently proposed for the community park, and will not be credited towards meeting any public park requirements. The SPA Plan also establishes an extensive trail system within the project which provides required linkages with other City trail systems in the area, including a portion of the City's Greenbelt Trail system. The trail system also provides for internal project connections between neighborhoods and the parks, the school and the commercial area to encourage walking. Because of the project's location adjacent to the Sunnyside area, the SPA also provides equestrian trail connections along Proctor Valley Rd. and a portion of Mt. Miguel Rd., through the Community Park site and to the project's eastern boundary with the Otay Water District property. These connections continue existing linkages to equestrian trails on Mother Miguel and San Miguel Mountains, and in eastern Proctor Valley and along Salt Creek. The SPA Plan also provides for significant open space totaling approximately 245 acres, or about 33% of the 743 acre SPA area. This encompasses both open space required to preserve environmental resources, including approximately 38 acres of Otay T arplant preserves, as well as open space associated with landform preservation. This acreage is in addition to the 1852 acre North Parcel which has been set aside in permanent preserve. All totaled, only approximately 19% of the original GDP land holding is proposed for development. Schools The SPA Plan includes a site for an elementary school consistent with the General Plan and GDP. According to the Chula Vista Elementary School District, the site will provide capacity to house all 418 elementary school students generated from the development, as well as for students in the existing Estancia subdivision and the future Bonita Meadows project area. The Sweetwater Union High School District indicates that the 446 middle and high school students generated from the project will be housed at Bonita Vista Middle and Bonita Vista High Schools. The ability for the Districts to provide sufficient capacity to meet the projects enrollment demands are the result of the applicant's voluntary commitment to provide for full mitigation funding for schools through a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. Public Facilities and Services (transportation, water, sewer, drainage, schools, parks/recreation, library, fire/EMS, police) The proposed San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis (PFFPIFIA), which is presented in SPA Volume 6 (Attachment 9 to this report), analyzes the impacts of the San Miguel Ranch project and identifies the required facilities f{r fees to j{;-;J-U Page 21, Item_ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 mitigate the impacts, pursuant to the Threshold Standards under the City's Growth Management Ordinance. The finance section addresses the costs of the facilities and the obligation of the developer to pay for the mitigation. SPA Volume I, Chapter VII, includes a complete summary of requirements and a description of all public facilities proposed to meet the needs generated by the project. There were no significant impacts to public facilities or infrastructure identified by the PFFP that were not subject to conditions of the project. All facilities and infrastructure required of the San Miguel Ranch project will be constructed by the developer, and financed through either subdivision exactions, payment of Development Impact Fees, or formation of community facilities districts. Conclusions of the PFFP and the project's EIR which necessitate either SPA or Tentative Subdivision Map conditions of approval include: The project cannot construct more than 675 EDUs of development within the area east of SRI25 until after SRl25 is constructed. This is to ensure that City streets (namely East H Street) will operate within Threshold requirements, and that the project will not create significant impacts to existing conditions on County roadways in the Bonita/Sunnyside area prior to the time that SRI25 is available to handle traffic flows from the project. Since the Mt. Miguel Rd. bridge over SRI25 is to be built by CTV, Mt. Miguel Rd. will not be connected westerly to Proctor Valley Road until after SRl25 is built. The applicant must complete a more detailed Water Subarea Master Plan (SAMP) as required by the Otay Water District prior to approval of the tentative map. The SAMP is the equivalent of a water facilities improvement plan. similar to other more detailed facilities plans required by the City in conjunction with tentative maps. Although not a direct requirement ofthe San Miguel Ranch project, it should also be noted that the City has entered into an agreement with the Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) to provide a proportionate share (determined to be $100,000) of the costs to repair sags which were found to exist in the SVSD"s Frisbee Trunk Sewer. The City's Proctor Valley sewer which will serve the San Miguel Ranch, and also serves the Salt Creek I and neighboring areas, connects to the Frisbee Trunk Sewer which transports the flows to the Spring Valley Outfall Sewer. The sags in the Frisbee sewer effectively reduce the line's design capacity. Under the agreement the SVSD must be fix the sags within three years, and City flows will be able to continue during the repair period. As also required by the Growth Management Ordinance, the FIA analyses the costs and revenues associated with project over time, and at buildout, and identifies whether projected revenues generated by the project (e.g., property tax, sales tax, etc.), will cover the cost to the City to serve the project area (e.g., police and fire service, parks and recreation, street maintenance, etc.), As initially indicated in the Discussion section of this report, due largely to property tax revenue sharing under the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement which applies to areas to be annexed, the project is forecast to operate at an annual, net fiscal deficit of$125,100 at buildout. As a result, a condition of SPA approval has been added requiring the developer to negotiate with the City a fee program in conjunction with the tentative subdivision map to offset this projected fiscal deficit. which program must be approved prior to annexation, /0 - :J-I Page 22, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 B. Low and Moderate Income Housing Consistent with the requirements of the City General Plan Housing Element, and the GDP, the proposed San Miguel Ranch Affordable Housing Plan (AHP) (presented in SPA Volume 5) (Attachment 9 to this report), requires that the project provide a minimum of 10% of its 1349 total units, or 140 units, as affordable to low- and moderate-income households. A minimum of 70 of those units will be for low-income households. As required, the AHP establishes proposed sites for those units (Neighborhoods A and B), and obligates the applicant to enter into an Implementing Agreement with the City in conjunction with the tentative subdivision map approval, which will identifY the specific phasing requirements for the affordable units in relation to ongoing development entitlements for the overall San Miguel Ranch project. C. Project Consistency with General Plan As presented in preceding sections of this report, the proposed San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan has provided for all necessary components of the development pursuant to the approved GDP and the requirements of the City General Plan. The SPA Plan's land uses are consistent with the General Plan Land Uses as presented through the approved GDP, and the project's circulation system, public facilities, affordable housing, growth management regulations, open space areas, and its parks and recreation facilities, are all consistent with the provisions of the respective Elements of the City General Plan. D. Project Consistency with Growth Management Ordinance The City's Growth Management Ordinance requires that the project be analyzed at the SPA level to determine whether approval of the project will have an adverse impact On the adopted Threshold Standards and other applicable growth management provisions. A review of the project's SEIR, PFFP/FIA and other supporting SPA documents provides evidence that the project is, or will be, consistent with the adopted Threshold Standards of the City subject to conditions on the project. An analysis of the Thresholds is contained in the environmental document SEIR-96-04, and in the PFFP/FIA (SPA Volume 4)(Attachment 9 to this report). With the proposed construction of required public facilities, and the payment of Development Impact Fees, the San Miguel Ranch is consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance, E. Implementation Planned Communitv District Regulations The proposed San Miguel Ranch Planned Community (PC) District Regulations provide standards and regulations to guide the development of the San Miguel Ranch project to ensure its consistency with the policies and provisions of the GDP and the SPA Plan (see SPA Volume 2) (Attachment 9 to this report). These regulations are to be applied in conjunction with the Design Guidelines. / 0 /" ? j}- Page 23, Item _ Meeting Date: 10/19/99 Design Guidelines The proposed San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines (SPA Volume 3)(Attachment 9 to this report), incorporate criteria and guidelines to provide continuity and consistent implementation of the adopted community theme through controls for landscaping, streetscapes, fencing, signage, lighting, trails. architecture, entries, street furniture, scenic corridor design, etc. Residential design guidelines for both single family and multiple family neighborhoods are provided, as well as for non-residential areas. and landscape standards for streets, slopes and open space. CONCLUSIONS: For the reasons stated in this report, as well as the recommendations of other agencies and entities, staff has concluded that the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and required, related documents as described and evaluated in this report, reflect sound planning principles and are consistent with adopted plans and ordinances of the City of Chula Vista. In order to ensure consistency and compliance with requirements, staff has also prepared SPA conditions of approval as part of the City Council Resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) for the San Miguel Ranch Project is part ofthe Public Facilities Financing Plan document (see Attachment 9, Volume 4). The FIA concludes that the project will result in a net. annual fiscal deficit of$125,1 00 at buildout. In order to offset this deficit, a condition of SPA approval has been added (#22) requiring the developer to negotiate a fee program to the City's satisfaction in conjunction with the tentative subdivision map, which program must be approved to the City's satisfaction prior to project annexation to the City. This fee program will be similar to the "reserve fund" established in conjunction with the Otay Ranch project. Attachments 1. Locator Map. 2. Adopted General Plan Designations 3. Adopted Horseshoe Bend GDP 4. Proposed SPA Site Utilization Plan 5. Proposed Planned Community District Regulations Excerpts 6. Citizens Review Group Issues/Questions Table 7. Sample Petition from Estancia Residents 8. Disclosure Statement 9. San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Package- Volume 1 - SPA Plan Volume 2 - Planned Community District Regulations Volume 3 - Design Guidelines Volume 4 - Public Facilities Financing Plan / Fiscal Impact Analysis Volume 5 - Affordable Housing Plan Volume 6 - Air Quality Improvement Plan Volume 7 - Water Conservation Plan IA:\DR-CC-RP.Al i) /0//3 ATTACHMENT 1 .....--'--. I ' / /' // I I I I ) , SAN M1~~~l INCH (North parj) I I ~// I /1 / , i I I i ~ ~' t= J- " ! ; , i I i , I i 1 CH U LA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT TRIMARK PACIFIC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (!) APPUCANT: SAN MIGUEL, LlC. SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PROJECT San Miguel Ranch PLANNING AREA (SPA~LAN ADDRESS: SCAlE RLE NUMBER: Request To approve a SPA plan for the 740 acre South Parcel NORTH No Scale PCM - 96-04 h:\homelplanninglhector\locatorslpcm9604.cdr 8/30/99 / ~ ~ -< '" u oc: ~ ~ c o U c ~ '" ~ ." ~ -e ;:) u => ~ ~ ;::5 QC -< ;z -< ~ ~ ~ .., z ~ .~ ~ '" ."= c = . . . e ~_::! v'_ u -:;::c:cv ~~~ ~u~ -'~ Q) ~ a::-:= '" ~'" QC ~u '" "" ~ ;;: i ~ :!: u ~ ~ ~ I. I u ~~ "? "? :::J I ......,......, .,,= = ~ ~ ~ -< ~ - f~; ~:~ -~ ~ !~i~ ~~!] <-;;;~... -=-1l9i= ;:;:;...:r.:: '" 30i~~ mt U'":I;;Z:",u ..,.,..... %_......U.......u,.1-- .~ ~ .. go .~ ~ 0 _. -.;::~... g o....c:: Q.> ""=:; 0;1 t:n>--- .2.:!! -e:i: :; ~ -.,., U"> :;; ~ ~ ~.;; ~ -g,'c ~'>..i:; ~;; :c:..:~u:::;i.o:.:: ~ ~ :; ~CI..::ge ~'. .-=g~ -a... ;~ ~." ~ e 0._::< e e;:gC;~",,;: Q c> "" I-- .....::::: U";;:; ",~ii:"'" . :z II.> "'_ ... ~~~.;;;-g~~ ~~~~!!~.~ u...............~<..::Il.:)~ o..i!~. : 1,- ATTACHMENT 2 !z It) .: !l! I!! "" ::> ~ 01 !l!~ "" z :l .. ... ~a lUl z,. ~\t" ;; ~ '" . ~ ~ ... 0", ~ '~ 'j:: -" <:; -< ~ :::E LU >- ~ >- ~, 'F' ~ . ... -~ ..... ~..... ~~:; .8 ~ <i.> c:: ... :;:: ~ -E..!! .;;-~ .........e::l':u u z o j::: -< -" => u "'" u +1 II,:~ '" ~ ~ 00 ..... J'") => ~ -< ;:: ;< :::l ;z 0 ~ ~ z: c < ~ ~ -' ~ ',"", -- ... '" '" E E ~ _.:: oc: u '" ~ ~- .., ." u ~ ~ c~ ~ .0 ~ C "'" .., ..c .~:; -J:: - ~ ...~ ~ 0 E E "" W-o ~ -'- ~ ~ ~~ '" '" '" ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ :::;; :::;;"" ~ ~ :!: 2 ~ c ~ ~ "'- ~- U._ C ~ "'.- ~_o ",- U .- ~ ~ .:!: i ' ~ .., '--J:: ..c ~ -E :!: V._ c: c ~ ::c~ '" ~ U ;<= '" ..,,,,, "" u 0 ~ 2." ~Ett;l ",'" ... -< ~ ~ 0 0,- "'.- ~ '" ..c ~ ~ 00 ~ '" ~ ~> ::E :::;;::<: :E: ~ ~ >- ;;: ~-< >- C1C:.::i::e <.:>-= u ~ ~O 0 ~QC ~ ::E ~ ::::; z 0 ri1 "1 ; I ::E . I I ::> ""I I I I I ! ! c ' , = ~ , 0 ~ I , ;z = '-' u ,- ~ 0 \Ii' '\11;, . "- \-." J ,'(-V',,\ \~. I: '," ) <:v J:: " oc: "'- '=fl \ "'~ " ~~ .. "'J '" ~ tI . (/)- 1li ,C---" '> " ~ ) i I II) "'-'--' ) .;l!O.....lIloi'" ..,..,.~' 0 ~) . --' ...:\1li'" ~..'1'Ii!J:j" ,r 4 (f) o e ~.~ . 08 !3',c EhJl = "~ ..1:0 ii ' - ~ i" Ef~(j~ ;g ~,.a: ~ .~~; ~ ~EU ,J ~.Jj ;;l~j~~ ~~~.e i;;; l (f) o 0> ::2: --' .3 o o . ::2:'::2: --' ... '0 I;: !II III <II i:!: \'; -':~' ~ ~ ~ ::> ;~Sl!i ! ... .. 12 I := ai~:!s ; ~~; J~ , "I ~a ~ l\l q;ai Ollila t)~~ r~ """l9I g;: ..c. l: (JI oF I\iJ 0.2 ~ t:.._ _ .....@>>@.. C ~ @OOI 0 b .... tUe. @..g~o:8 -.,&: ~ III ~ @i @._ .!!! @ ~~ Cl)'i; ~b@l :Je. OJ @ ~ mE db ~ ._ a. "l9I ~::g ..,= lU "" @jj .. "l9Ib c~ ~@l _w ~ II;; 'v ~~ en r--- -~ l H"G.ii ~~~af l i i ~D~~~ ~~] .. ! ~~~~. J n li~ ~ j BfH jU L ~'~~j &-.. J 1 J. r j 1)-,3:>3 lijelll !&wl') III ! ,! ! 0 . .. ]0-: . ~ '" "" :5 ""jij fa . - - ~ 0 0 i I- l- I ~~G :!l ~l U~ j~ &11 ~ ATTACHMENT 3 "1 I- _ ~ ~ I x _ ill ~ a.. o CD, o~ w:l: >~ o~ a:E! a..e a..~ <(~ ! w ~ zV~ ~ ...... ll) 51 . .-l ~il' :;Eg t:l ~ clj .Ir/.)~ ( 3 ~- i~ IIi Iii z o ~ z CJ ii'i l!l ~ ~ ~ :3~!i C t;; ~ !;!1 Z Iii Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ W - ~ ~ ...J ~ ~ ~ JLO~ - " : jr '"". .. ... ,.; ~ ;;; :;; ~ 1 ;;1 ": "'! . .. ... '" .. ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ :: I I I I I: I I I ;:: I E ~ ~ :: 8 '" ... I .. .. :: ... . ::: ! I e !'i ~ : - . . E - n .c -I !I i 5. ~ =-1 ~ ! ~ t ~ iU J I Ii I ~il " . ;H~ ~~~3~ai ,I: I ::: I I I,' ~ ~ ~:J '" .. ,..:::!".~" ~~....., .. :: " :! "1 "! '" .. N":::,.;~iia E ~ 1 ) i. I-I! ! ~ . 0 ~ ~ el , ~ !i' I ~hl ~ ~ ~ ~ P ! Iii P U I II a, ili ! <! d~ II <1"1' ~ · 00 ~ I .: 4 1,111-1 ill I u' q~<_J III l1i ~ Ii; l!; I ~ :! "3. a . . . i ! i in~!n . . i i ~ ~ . . i . , J I ... '" .. u Cl ... . . . < ! z e ~ ~ a... z o ~. .....J I- ::) W I- CI) A~ TACH~ENT 4 ~ '!. - ~ ~111 ~ ..:1 .1 ~ ~ ~ ZV" I> .-I ~ ~ ..... ::E..c:l u aa r/1~ i ~ i ~ I u !hiUI i~p~u~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ! i i i I w "'I!' C} !i&!5~!i:~~m w ..J ~ ~ !3 S ~~~~~~~ ~ l.!lJ ~ ~ UUUI ~ Ii: ~ ~ ~ If 'if Cl'JmfnU)0f1)(fJ ATTACHMENT 5 (10f4) a: :i;s o o ~ ~~ "< ~> z .. ;i; <:t: ~ ....J 1 '" c.. IJ: ~ " () g a: I- Cf) o w C/) :J o z ::i u. :1;< ~'t"'?/;~ 'C --/.--/.'::-- - a: ...~ -:7::.' (- ~-~ -, :i;~ o z o ~ !'l ~~ ~:i ,,!Ii i1l!i! 0- ~~ ~ ~ ! U z^~~ u v d: j ~ I-;-;z - mo (!) o ;:i OJJ ''''; ~i! ~~ I~a a a .Ir/)~ 0- ATTACHMENT 5 [20f4. Table 2-1 Chart of SPA Land Use Districts -- --- ---- - - --- ---- - - ~- --- -~------ - ---------< ~t~~~~~~=..o,T,:,-','~~~ ~,-c~. :;~~ 't: ? :-~;' =.?'~ '~_~:~f~:L-'-:'~:~~~;;::~"'9' ,p' ,-~>--"'..;;,-" - - , ~. ~ , ,,' ,I I~€A~.~=' ~~>~~-'_ ~~_ ~,~:'~.~...:.,,..:... :-~,,__~~_~~~>,~_ .~~~ '_.':~.;:;: __..__<__~'""~_ -"._~. '~_' - , Single-Family Detached Homes on 1arge lots. Standard mirrinnnn lot size is 20,000 SFE Single Family Estate L,K sf, except that up to 25% of the total number of lots, may be a minimum of 15,000 sf, if an average lot size of 20,000 sf is maintained. SFI Single Family One J Single-Family Detached Homes with minitmnn lot size of 7,000 sf SF2 Single Family Two I Single-Family Detached Homes with minimnm lot size of 6,000 sf SF3 Single Family Three F,H Single-Family Detached Homes with mmiTmnn lot size of 5,000 sf SF4 Single Family Four E,G Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot size of 4,500 sf Single-Family Detached Homes with SF5 Single Family Five D minitmnn lot size of 4,000 sf, attached homes or townhomes, B Single Family attached units such as townhomes or condominiums. Single Family attached units such as SFA Single Family Attached townhomes and condominiums or high C density single-family detached units such as patio homes, zero-lot-line, courtyard, or cluster units, or detached condominiums. Multi-family housing dwelling units for MF Multi-Family A sale or rent with a density not to exceed 18 units per gross acre. CR Retail Connnercial N Retail shopping center for uses serving the connnunity and neighborhood CPF Community Purpose M Community PUIJlOse facilities Facility ES Elementary School S Elementary school CP Community Park CP Conmmnity park facilities NP Neighborhood Park NP Private neighborhood park facilities OS-PR Open Space - Habitat OS-I,OS-6 Natural open space areas - habitat Preserve preserves OS-TR Open Space - Tmils 08-2 to OS-5 Natural and improved open space areas and Recreation OS-7 to OS-9 with trails or other recreational uses ~ StJ.. Migud JlJl..ch SPA PIlI.. Trimark Pacif'" San Miguel LLC Page 5 Val"",e 2 August 27, 1999 - PubUc Hetlring D",/I ATTACHMENTS ("30f4) Table 2-3 Development Standards Residential Districts SFE SFt SF"Z SF3 SF4 SF5 SFA MFl Min. Lot Area (square feet) 20,0001 7,000 6000b 5,000 b 4,500 b 4000b SP N/A 15,000 a , , Min. Lot Width (feet) C Measured l00d 60 55 · 50. 50. SP SP N/A Knuckle or cul-de-sac 40 35 35 35 35 SP SP N/A frontage Flag lot frontage 20 20 20 20 20 SP SP N/A MID. Lot Depth (feet) C 120 100 90 90 80 SP SP N/A Maxinmm lot coverage 35 45 50 55 55 SP SP SP Front Yard Minimum Setback f To house C" 25 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP To direct entry garage 25 20g 20g 20g 20g SP SP SP To side entry garage 25 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP To porch 20 17 17 17 15 SP SP SP Side Yard Minimum Setbacks (feet) f, h To adjacent residential lot 15/101 10/5 I 10/5 i 515 515 SP SP SP To adjacent street 20 10 10 10 10 SP SP SP (exterior side yard) Rear Yard Minimum Setback (feet) f, h To housei 25k 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP To garage with minimum 30- 25i 15 5 5 5 SP SP SP foot driveway Building Height Maximum 28 ft 'I 28 ft '/ 28 ftll 28 ft II 28 ft'l 28 ft 'I 28 ft'l 45 feet! (feet/# stories) 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories Parking Required (Off-Street 2 garage 2 garage 2 garage 2gara8,'i 2gara8,'i 2gara8,'i 2 1.5-1BR spaces per Unit) m spaces spaces spaces spaces spaces spaces assigned 2.0-2BR spaces 2.5- min I 3BR+ covered Guest- Guest- 0.331 0.331 unit 0 unit 0 7 SIUI Miguel Rallch SPA PIIUI Trimark Pacific SIUI Miguel LLC puge 13 Volume 1 August 27, Il199 - PubIU: Hellrillg Draft ATTACHMENT.5 (40f4) Table 2-3 Development Standards Residential Districts (Continued) ~ a. Within the SFE Districts, including Planning An:as K and L, the S1lIDdaId nUn""nm lot size is 20,000 square feet, however, up to 25% of the lots may be a mi"imnm of 15,000 squue feet, provided that the overall average lot size wi1hin Planning An:as K and L is not less than 20,000 square feet. b. Minimum lot area applies to the graded pad area of the lot (exclusive of slopes) in the SF3, SF4 and SF5 Districts. Mi"imnm pad area wi1hin the SF2 District shal1 be 5500 square feel C. Lot widths and depths are typical D1i"imnm. but may vary slightly with irregularly shaped lots and site specific conditions. Such variations are subjeet to approval of a variance, except where the variance requirements can be fulfilled by site plan review required by other provisions of these regulations. Minimnms such as lot width and depth may not be used in tandem where they would result in lot area which does not meet the lJ"Iininurmlot area requirement. d, The minimnm. lot width in SFE areas may be reduced to 90 feet for lots which are less than 20,000 square feet as allowed by Note Ua" above. e. For lots with minimnn widths of 55 feet or less, the mininurm width standard shall apply to the level pad area (exclusive of any side slope within the lot) and for pllIpOses of this provision, the minimum width may be measured at the building line at the front yard setback. f. AIchitectura1 featmes, such as eaves, awnings, chimneys, niches up to 12 feet in length, bll1conies, steps, stairways, or bay windows may projeet not more than four feet into any required front or rear yard area, and not more than two feet into any required side yard. g. Maybe reduced to 18 feet with use of roll-up garage door, except that in no case shall the distance to the nearest edge of sidewalk be less than 20 feet. h Building sethacks shal1 be measured per Figure 2-3, which includes the following provisions: . The minimum level area within any side yard shall be 5 feet to top or toe of slope or base of wall for lots with intema1 slopes. . The maximum height of a retaining wall in a side yard is 3 feet. . The maxinmm height of a retaining wall in a rear yard is 5 feet, and where a retaining wall is greater than 3 feet high, a minimum 4-foot horizontal separation is required between the retaining wall and a freestanding fence or wall. . The rear yard setback shal1 be based on the level pad area, measured from the top or toe of slopes for lots with internal slopes. i. Where there are slopes wi1hin the side yard of a lot, building setbacks shall be measured per Figure 2-4. j. In situations where the lot configuration has irregular angles, or otherwise results in an odd-shaped lot or building pad, these ",inimnm. may be reduced subject to approval by the Director ofP1anning and Building. k. The mini"",m rear yard setback is increased to 50 feet for all lots in Planning Area L whose property line(s) abut the SPA boundary of Son Miguel Ranch. 1. Building Height may be increased to 35 feet with Site Plan approval. m Parldng standards for Senior Citizen or "affordable" residential development may be reduced from those specified in the District in which it will be located. Such a reduction shall be at the discretion of the City Council through the Conditional Use Pennit procedure (CYMC 19.14.080), and subjeet to a parking study prepared by a registered traffic engineer to ensure adequate parking will be provided. n. Guest parldng is encouraged to be provided for single family products, in addition to onsite driveway spaces, either on the street where width allows, or in designated parking bays. o. Required guest parking spaces shall be marlred and clearly identified as guest parking. The guest parking spaces shall not be permitted to be assigned to individual dwelling units. 25 StIlt Miguel J/Jmclt SPA PIJut Trimtuk Pacific StIlt Migllel LLC Page U Valll...2 Allg_ 27, 19fJ9 - Pllb]ic Hetlrilfg Draft '" '" ~ '" '" Cl:: <: ~ '" , '" 1;l 0, '" <= '" 0, o .... o .~ ~ '" <= OIl .- ~ ~'" ~~ <= 'S N o '" N 5 '" ::s -=0 .- >- "'~ ;h ~ o a:: '" ~ Cl:j .~ ~ ~ 2i:i5 -< " ""' '" "'~ ." "0 -5 a c...l o <= g '" " o > .c .... '" " .~ a:i .... '"""' " ~ ~ is .;!Z :B .c '" Eo-<:I: = c .- ~ '" '" ::s C;I - '" ::s '" '" .... c.; Cl:: U d '(ii 8 " .... o ~ if) N - P=: '" .... o ~ '" '" " -5 .... o <= '" " .... '" " g 0, '" c " Q. o o s Ot; ~ '" '" " '" ",.!:l ~"O '" 0 .... 0 2.c = is ,,~ U.c Q) 00 bD ::3 .5 '4) .~ 8:: c :go"g I: ~ (Ii " '" >tZl]o ~"Ouo .....c......c:: '" " U .8>.5'" .-=: Cl) E >. (l) = 0 ~ VJ~~E ::I'" U Q) .... " 8 0.. o.~ .- t) 8 ~ b 0 c.. CIJ .... , - .~ 0...5 ~ u 0 Cl)'S aJ.......c I- .so....... l?- I-< 'r ~ I: o...p ...., ._ 11) l.+-. "C G,) -5 0 1l-5 0:....... c C ~ o .S ~ -d o"5~P::: 'C ~.5"iJ 0.... ::s .~~ 0 ~ 0 ~ co 8 U '" ~ 11) VJ.::S .s ~- .::S ....:; . il .c :g .5 'Sr-- "C ... = .:!Z Q.,""; ro lr) (l) C ....... N-=~~ ~"8~~ [/) '" .::!'::I:: ~ I:I:I~ 00 t;; c ~ '0 ro O,"c~ Cl).~ -5 '" ...."0 o '" ~~ is "0 a .S '" ~ o P=: -", ... .8.8 IS .... ""' .... o .;::: Q. ~= - 8" P=:Q. '" 0 :€ ",.g " " i) 0 tj~ '" .- 0,5 u:.= E ~ '""0 .... <= Eo-< '" '" -'" .... '" 0, o 'S ::s 8 8 o U "0 a q p. ..... O"C iU '- eLl . __=~I-<COeo::l"C CI)~g.....~~cc~ C Q) ~ OJ:) ~ I .9.9. >. .9 u ~ C ""'"........... CIJ 1:) ~UJ~ >.~ ~ g::::: ~~6-tg~~tE> CCl)'-=cooo..o~.8""" o > I:C'- U - .8 u~:3ooQ)c.ocu bDl-u~..sCl)!3.~8 .5 0 =::s ...t:: ~ u 0.. "C u........c::r--~!1>'- .- ~ ~ u ~ - 0 6gctlu:E B~..... 0.:0 ~ S ~ ~ 1:) -5 ~ >. ro .- Q) I:':l d) 0= C I- ~ P::: '0' Q) t:i .- eo::I at....... 0-.. ~ I- ::I :-;::::: 00 0 >. 0\ I- 0...5.--, JS~~~-J2Q)VJ~ _ -0 c S.5 00 o:S ~ ~ ctl C CIJ := ~ .~ .S _ CIJ 8 ~ ].- .... 'd..c:: Q) ~ .-u "CO.3.-=:..c..... 0.0 CI'l(1)~VJ~"""'...... ~.q~-g..c>"Ct3 ~ .oU .ug~~Q,)...... ;::l Ql "C C ...... U I- C Vi V':J 0::'-"" _ (l) 0 = ,"-5 =~"''t",o u "t:l '0 ~ ~ ~ 0...E2:~ ~ ~ 6h..o - .=:: Vj"";.:: o .- ~ 0 ~.- "0 .....V)~~(1)U'"CB.g ~~ ."t:l.;3=~"Otn ~e;j~~u~]~~.s ~ en QJ .. 0.0 >. en~ ~-=-> ':g-~B ;::: _ en ".0 e :;.. = o -.~ ~ .. 0 ~ .- u u ~ (\) 0.. . ,,10 ::s._~>' 8......-(1) .~ tI1 >..~~, ::E 1: a tI1'u S.;3..c 1-;":::""" '"O.~ ~..... - 0 0.0 c:::: ~ :=:...... 8 ~ "0 ~ .C ~ -~I-;~==o"- tl.u =o.P CI':l ~._ 1-;-= ;::t~ -~ ~-::lo 0.0 _ '61 >. _ "0 e "5 ..;::: .- ~ Q) cd i:U QJ> ::s ~ .- ~ '" .... '" OJ) " ~ 0..:::"0 1-;0 8~""" a . ,..., - Q... I-; ..... '5iJ g ~'C 0: 0 a - ~etn..O"~u~t.'Q: "'" ... Z r-l ::;;: = u ~ <: '0 ... ... ... ~ -< 0.. >."0 B"3 - 0 .;; '" ....'" ON t)- O~ ....VJ ""''''' o 0 ~- <= '" .9 (\) - '" frl-ci s~ 0" ~ ::s ;::t.~ .li:g - .~ ..... ,,:g >"" .,C 0 '" ~ E; . ~ c..-g ""; ~ 2 "0 -5 0 '" " " O.c '" ~ ~... 4-< .... 0 o " '" c::-2 :; o '" w .~ S ~ .au"", '" ..... >"0 0 ~~'" ::;- 00 E- -< "" en N c:> p:; u 6 p:; u ~ ~ ~ $ 0"> 0"> 0"> - 0" '" >. "3 -, cr "'0 1-0 dJ d.) .8 ~ = B .8 ~ -5 _ 15 .9 ~!l c= ~ 0.3 'CJ~lf'i]-'-O I-; c..N ~ ~U : ~ ~.....-l 0 Q) d.) ~.= ~ ('f').......::::: > '-Or.ng:~f-l~ 1::lS.s'-0 ..2 .~~~~~.8~ ..... '0 d.) ... 0"0 0 ro > C).c;)..... Q)"'" 1lllg~"2-g~ ::: r-- co Cl:I Q) 0''''' ::s =dJ=9<~ u :..!:2""" "'~.... ~vill)~.b~c.2 g"S! co ..... 1U o w Vl 5 U ll) ;.., ..... 0 CIl'';:: "0..0 ~ (I) ~ ~..... = = CIl "c;>.U"'Oclj'-1-< QJ c::: ~ :c 5 >. ~ ';j r/} 0 --= Q) u""" = '+-" = w>.....=o iE>ou:=.....~ ~ 11.) ,-,"'" Cl:I o.~ Cl:I U'.I U 0 Q) Q..U "'0 = QJ l-<.......::O S =.:2 =:: 8. g C'd''''' ~ 8 t -<",i5::15Sf-<",O ~ Q) :9;'" > 0.. oo~"O.bB ".::::2 Cl:I ~ ..... ~.c Cl:I 0.. .Q., ~g~] ~ 5:=03-:Cl::::::s~ o ';2;~ i:5l..... >. U .t: ~ Cl:I -€ Cl:I ... = _ -!.+-<-"Oo ~-3--"~~oOBu ocaC':J<u"'O~.8 ~ ~o -g ~ ~ 'e; ~ o~2c..t: 0. E >. c.. Vl 'S "C """ 15 ~ g.:E ~ ~ B"'C Q.) .....:::. ....... b.oa..o~~ 8ii .~ ~ 9 ] .~ .2 ~.~ ecuo>.'--'~::31-< 0..-5 N ..... "'0..... 0 dJ ~ l-< ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~t8 ~u~:2 o..~ d/l ., ;:l OJ) ~ " 00 '" " o '" ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ '" U OJ) ~ E = 0' E!'a - ~ '" '" -0 = ~.~ ~ a ....,ali3 " ",-5 i:l: ~ '-> ~~ "''" ....> '" '-< ~B '" U 5 e U~ <O~.s.8~ Il.)~ ~- e5<-og (lJB~~~ bl)"O 0) ..... Q) ;; ceo blJ "=(l;lU..o~ ~ ~....., ~'ca ..... "'0 I:U..... 1-0 "'O.gt::(1)"O lI) lU ~ Z tU '~8ue.s ~X=O~ 4-< (1)..... I-< 0 0..... CIll,j..o Q) r.t:l 1) 0 15.s ~ ~ .s~:B~eS ll) ~ "0..0 c.. 11) ~ CIl 5 = ::;l ..;:: "3 Q) U.S: ~ tf 00 e 00 15 .~ ~ ~ ;::j.S Bo..o 0"'011)011) .8>g"O-...~ '" '" "" lP.::"3 QOOL.l_"'ObO "t;j !;:.5 "'0 0 e ]C~iUOI-o lU''''' ;::....= Q) Q~~o~..c .S ~ d) S ,.0 t: ~g.Bcn-:::ntE .......... ctl ctl -.. B ~ -e ..= "i} ~ ~~ ~ t; Z ctl 'i' ctl c::::... Q B (l) ll< 0'- U Ocr P.. ~ d) -d 's Q ~ 0 ~ Q::; 1-0 0...., "-0_ "" M':;::l tI:I 11) QJ en ~ .g .s .~-5 ~tI'l_ ..~t) o~ut;;~ 0... 0 Q) 11) . ctl e ~ "e g. ~ ~ o..d.lo..iU<.;... ..... CO Cl) 1-0 0 Q u co..= 00 1-0 (l) C ......... ..c B 'S''''' ....... >-. '5 Vl I-oEjg.~oa.l ~-o.,U",'" "'0 (!) ;.... (l) C ; ~ ;> ctl CI':I o'~ ]~-6] 5 tJ .g ;:j U '" >>u 0-5 Q) bI.l ~o-€c >--~ -.5 ro 0 .~ en -5 0 ] '" 0 "" O~e .Qr;::: >. ctl ~ a.~ ~ "'3ctlgt:: .~ .5 d) C t: E! > ~ OO-o_yo ""_"<>-0 00 ";i d.) ..... E ~ g~.2~ c...J:: 0 u S - :> .- e '-' "'0 Q) ;::::l "0 C 8 OJ)VJ~ ctl ~~oJ28 'a ..:= 11) 6 ~xaseu .. g::; u U ctl euz-.~ e E '""' E ....... C':t 8 B ~ G " OU C"-o o $-; (l) 1-0 u~--g,g '" - ~ .~ iU ""0 0 -5 00 '" ~ e' e"'O c 8 ctl H ~ Q) c-uog 'in 1! >< " 0 ...... Q.)~ () -d'..co~~ ~ ~ c'a ~ lUOV":lO'- ~..='- tI'l 0 o~~e:= """"-o~ bOo ~ g" ...... bO c: .- ~ en Q.) t;; ....... .- ~ E 4J ~ -5~.s~g B 00 Q) 1-0 1-< .~ c: [;..Vl (l) ~'~"9C>-S (/).- Q) ~ 1-0 O><....u '" '" 0. -0 ~ B...... ~.t;j ctl ctl -::: Q Q-:::'O 11) 0 .v) 50""'" "0 u 15 (l) 11) co = .... ., S .- ~B-:.cn~ -S] ~ ~ ~ B cO 0-= cn .~_'- "0 11) tn cd U tU OJ) '" ~ ctl "O.s ~ f3 .S Vl tI'l ......- ct!'- ctl .. "0 .t; E,.o ~.5 Q) ctl etl~ CI:l ..c ~ ....... "0 ctl ............ ::l I-o..c ..c: Vl 0 ctl 0 .~ go -5 ~..c '" ,,'-": '" "'.- '" . g~~E= ctl,.o > ctl C'C "'8"'0 lU e ~ o ~ ~ ~ 0.. ~ &-5 ~ ~ '" 0 ;> I:: ;... 0 0 ~ _ 0.. cn"O....... .Q~ .~ :: a3 e.5 (1) 1-0 (l) Vl :::U-sl5 ;::l ...._ u 0 Cl:l ro 1r"l"U-S...c:: Sj80gp p:::P-;cn8 CI:l 0 C':l oS ""0 c= ~ .- - = ..... ..",.;; oo"'O~ 1-0 C':luCl:l"'O ""'O~ 00 - 0 l1.l ::I (1) = ~ ~\9 en '-< '" ~Ei~o .t:i..... "'0 =oo"'O..s:::: d) ::s: ~.~ uo"'O..s:::: "'''''00", 't",od.l..... <1) l:: ..0 u -s ~"'O.~ ;...., d"3 e o..uOp., d) @: -5 0) -5"<1",,-5 '- CI) .- '- o 0 ~ 0 >. Q).tJ cd .~..s:::: l:: ~ b ......:2 cd ,~o..... lI.) c:d ..... I:: Ol) Een~;...., " '" 00 d)-ca"'O- ~-o-<g 10 .... 0; 0 .... u '" 0 -0 '-< .v.; Q.. ,,-0 o " u 00 ~ B o "V; -o~ -0 16 ~ 'S .... 0"" ~ '" -0" '" - _::: ..c: g.gp '" 0 .... .... ",-5 00 .... '" 0 tl.8 '" " .s.- .... " c..'~ '" .... :.2"'0 -., '->s -0 0. B 0 "'., '" > OJ)", 00-0 " .... .ca u ....., -o~ ~ 0 " S ~ 0 ......::: SC/).:J '" ~ l:l ., 0 .... f-<""U o - OJ) " 'a 'Oi .... -0 '" .!l :=: 'u <lO! '" OJ) '" " 'Oi .... -0 OJ) .S ~ '" 0;;: '" ,.; '" ~ .!l .:. :> " "'-0 .... '" 9 .... <9 -0-", ~ '" ~ ~ g.u '" .... .... 0 >>u ~ 0 .- .... u~ "'" Eo-< Z r-l ~ := u '" -< '0 E-< N E-< ~ < &; -g ;:l <9 ~ '" '" 1'1 o " -i:i '" ~ '" '> '" .... '" >> '" :> .... ;:l '" '" U .~ o "0 ~ c--. '" ::: '" " o -0 ~ 00 U .9 ~ o gf .~ o '-< .... ;:l a:l .s '" ...... :i "" f- <<: ~ <n N ~ ~ ,,: u 0:: :;: ~ $ cr-- cr-- cr-- - o '" >> "3 ...., OJ '" i '" ~ < ~ 00 d)..cc;G:)~ = t:: ~ u ~ 00 0 0 1-0 t'3 ~Z'~~.g O..:Z-S'" I;'j c 0 = ~ ~ E .~ ~ ~ .2 "'o1J:::E ~ .- ~ I:: tl.O s:: C ..... .. --- ...- Q -.....00.0:> ~~ -0 .. Q 1l '~ U 11.)C':I';:l ..c @: ~ I+-t 13.-::: .ooo.o~ = 0 .......~ ...... r:n.'p ~...... c ~VJ ~ 0. '5 ~ ;>-. l-o Cfl en._ = ~ ro (l) ~ 5 5 858 u u ~ ~ .~ Q.) a:l CZl iU...... -S :> 0 1:;.s eo (l) ..c b. ~~ ~ go ~ '0 1-0 ......>2 .!:: a c l-o ...... a CI) ~ ~ la _llal5.S ......';:ll-o 0.. .- Q)...... 0 ~E,,"~"il cEc-;> '" 0 ._ E< v '.'li: E<",,'" 0 o v E- . o ;> >>-- .5 t S '9 "'0'" 'S: ~ .0 .... 0.. (l) "'0 ~ bO 0 o <E '" =~'"';'" .~ (I'J ~o "il- ~~ ~~ '" v .... .. .0 " '" ~.o U- '" 0 :::E~ "'.0 . u co .- .. Ui:<: .~ ... '" v o Ci - v :> '" '" - "" .. v ~ '" '" 0.0 "":> 2", ""~ vu -S", .~ :::E "" '" ~ ~c o d g ..::iu ~ '" ...0 v - ~-5 .g .~ '" p., U '" :::E (.; I:l:: U - o E .~ '" o o o u o_ s -2 ".;:j .9- '" 0 ~~ ~ 0: ... a ~ 8- U Q) d ~ ;> C':l ~~i5: '" '" . '" ~ ....- -ep., "0 <IJ . ~ ~ -s g '2i _ s::'~ ~ I 0 00 1-0 U') 0.._ u S~'@-s ~BCfl] ro ~.g ro = ;0 .;;;: -d :g~8B .~ "" "" g o..~..c:"O ctl C':l.~ S :::E.o.o u (l).~ ~ = tfJ..c:: Cfl Q.) ::>~V1:l ~ t; .~ ~ ...Jca~jg a .~ ~ i5:s=~ -< .~ ~ E< ~ C'j'- ro '" i:: ~ E- o lI) ll.l >. o~.sg "'0 t1...c 0 .g "i)'-::: Q) :>u~-SPi ] ~ C l-o- tl)Q..Q)tEP-J ro-5~~"~ ~ 1-0(1) _'OJ> u I:'d 0 1-0 I-o.~ V Z bO "0 t: 0 -< Cfl t5. ~:: ~.~ lU __~",.o ~.g l::Q 6 ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ] -o..ctI......(l)"t::! 1-0 I:: C':l U ;::l ctl._ ';> ~ u ~ "t lU I:: ~ '9 ~ !5'- _"'o.",.~ oou"".. -S " o '" v -S o o '" '" ..s E '" .e!l - 's o - "" v v o "" ~ '" >> v > .... " '" - o .. e. .. E- . >>"il .. ~ - '" Op., ~~==.,g "E~~gE- <) t;; ~ ~ :E ...... > Cl:i ~~g8~ cIj .......~Q..Cl:I rLl ~ e s u clj "'0 c..._ 11.) C -00 (l) e '0' 'a ~ -5 t Q. ~B~~~ _ 0 0 "'0 00- ..2 "Sa ~ c - 1-0 a:J >. 'S: ~ t.8 ~ lU C':l Cl:l ~ ...... o...c 11.) ro C;~~l-o...... :> Q ';;;'2 Q)...... 11) 0 '""'s.......'"O!:Q .8 11.) t::: Q) u ;> ;::l..c (l) OOI-;r---5 .... .... " p., "" u bOSUV) .5 .- 0 Sj r;;l1.)o~ .~ '5 c CIJ Q) 0"''0 '0 ca~3..... .:; 0 r.n '" >> ~ ~ QJ v..... r.n .~ ~ ~ ~ ] 45.5 s ~ ~ .~ ~""'QJ --~ .Q "5 :> ~ ~ -0 - e -;:: ........- .~ '0 0.. ~ c: u .:: '2i S'- 0 1:l Cl 0.- ~ ~ = 01) ~..c ::s '0 8 .2..c g g ~'ea G).~ r.I) :::.~ "'" ol)..c 0"'0..... .S ~ en.- (1) = blJ ..... I-< c:d C __"E: u 0...- ~ r.n ~ 2 0 l::l >.a3'"O~~~ - u ~ Q '" g. o 2a ~ 8.~ v - u v",. .= 0 8 0 0....0 u ... v o a '" 0 ~ u '" -s g '" ~ v o '" v '" .o~ - '" g?s 0"" ~ ~ ""i:<: ~"ii i:<: " bO >>.- .E:::E "' . :>~ b~ t) Q o v .... > p., v bOO .S a.> - "" '" 0 '.. ol) .S '" ~ S U ~ ... o - Q v 8 ..: ,,"'" o .- - >< v '" >- v ""v; ~.s.~ ;j .... v - e= ~:E.ct:: ~oucS .- 0: " ;g.- S B '0 ~o J:: "" E "Cl~8~ c: 1-<'- ~ Q) 0 > ~ ..c~~ t:.sCl:l~ o ::l' ~ QJ ~ 00= ..... r.n~::: .. v 0 ~ oS .2 ~ ::: 0 > ~ a.> ..... e ~ r.n c.. 00 4-< "t:l =:l 00'- ~ ~ .s >. o 0..'"0 ~ ""so~ o ::s ~ t5.. 0.. ~--g B]~~ ~=::::... 0'- r.n 0 I;:: ~ 0 ......r.n8"t:l c~ Q .;;: 0 B dJ ~~ol)t:!. 6n--:OdJ o ;rl'u; ~ =.S ~-~ ~ Q: ~ -- U .-ci"" '"OE~~ ...; ~ g.v ~.~ Ol-<::l'-l::l o..oobO~r.n 2 &~:> 'i3 p.. 0 . I-< ...... bl)..... ..... 0 ~ .S B :::E t) S 2 dJ ~ 8 ~ o.g.a~~ Z~~.S~ ". 10' ~ "il o o ...., bO o o "' '" .~ - .... v g. .... "" B v u ':;: .... v '" .... v ~ v '" v .0 v .... .s - ~ (/ ~ v v I:l;I o.o.~ v .... '" o..(Ij~ oo-5l.i-1 . '" 0 u ~ 0.0 V .~ 00 ,_S 2.s 00 0.. ~.~ ~.DQJ ..... ~ ~ ~-.D "'.0 .... e u ~ u:.a (Ij ~ ~ :J ~~~ .E i; .~ .~ QJ ~ v; .5 ..c _0 .~ t; 5 '" 0 bO ~ .9 = 'U;..... 0 (ljc:d"O .D ~ I-< C "0 .e- .9 Q) ~ -.Q - ~~...... t) .~ """'"" QJ S ~ .s..o ~ --:.a -: >. c 5 ~8..c t;:) 0.0 = o '" ~'p ~ 00 ea.~..s::: = = ~ ""'.9 'C; QJ lZl..... "'" I-< tIJ:.a Cl~~;::: Q.l o.~ 8 -5lZlt)'"O I-< ~ ~ 0 v 0 > 0 p.,1;::,,1;:: v >> -s 0 <<: S o '" J:: 0 o Q.l '.0 f?;.ei .. 0 .0 0 u u v '" '" .- '"0 ~ '"0 0 ~ .... 0 u ~!;:: .S ~ g? ~ ..s '" 4-< 0.- o ~ . = 0..;::: .S ~ a ~ ;::::I tIJ .... 0 > ;:l ~ i5 """,.0 "'O.s I-< V '" V lZl (Ij:t:: ~.D ea ti: c E .s.g g o ~ B =- o:S ~.9 E v ., bObO v '" 0 u 0 0 c'(T3 "0 o .... .... u"" "" 'oC .... :z: "'" ::;;: == u'" <'0 ....'" .... ~ < &: ::l co f- ..,: '" "0' N " '" u 6 '" u ~ ::;: ~ ~ 0<- 0<- 0<- - o r<; >> '2i ...., '" ! ., ~ < =- 00 13 =~ 5 .5 = .9: '.0 ~ T9cu~,r.. 1::'- c:: ~ 'a goo ~ IZl U ',;::l t:< Vl""" C Q) COd = !1) ..0 v:I ~ ~ l-< ~I-< ;>. "'CI .s ~ .~ ca ._ ~ U..c:: CI) 0 CI) 0.0 o "E ::l -S'"o "t:l 0 . I-; ~..=~-s 'S v'P """ 0"05:5 ~ (I) U U ;..; ;..; cO U Q) 0 ~ 0 ~-Q)- ...... o..c:._ .~.~ 8 ~ f.fJ a 0 u .~ .J:: s::: ~ tn 0.0 ca -.~ I:: c:: 'u ',...-=:_'- ~ ~ :t:: c:: (I) ~ '-E';j bO~ " S '" (I) " ,...0 ';j.~ IZl .... ,,- 00 ::l " ....s-l:l ~ S'U; - 0 (I) ~=c{~),- ~ t::e'd-:S C'd '- >. Q) ~O.o!3 'en =0;2 ., C'd .- -0 ~ .0 <. S i:i ::l 00 0 "u '" (I) ..c:: - " .g .s ~ .~ "'B . '" " .8 .9: "E '" 0 8 0 >1.lU B '" 6- (I) ..; -g~ _ 0 '" _. -5 !;' (I) 00 .s -5 '[i; y= .=(1) o S .... (I) ""(I) (I) !;<. -5~ .~"';3l1.J>,~Q) "'>,VJ .8 S -5 ~ -5 ~ ] --g ~ E.5 CI) o~ ==,..d:.a c:: c:..c:.~ IZl ~ Q) t d) U .~ .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ cO 0 ~ ...... .~ .s.s 0.. B;S~..995-bOOd.l '::= <1.)..... ...... = r.n..c Q) ;> ~ - VJ cO 0 .- :::: ,,'00:5 e 1Zl..t::";j"g.s : -d 6.. ~ "'0 8 -; Q) aJ.5 ..8i:1:i 8-5] ?J.:.~:s:!..c: "'C Cl::l..... 4-< '"" tf)..... .~ ~ "'0 ~ Q) u 0 "'0 c: S ....;= Q) C':i c'~6..b08 c .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8: o.S Q) (l.l t5"'- ~.9: a=.:o ~ ~ -B .- 1-<'- ...... ;::s cO r.2 I:: IZl B "'08~eeEC'dsca_ -ouo"O.$:-a.>l'-I ...... 'oJ _ _...... U '.J"::< o '"'" Cl:$ .- ;;.s = < :; Q) ~ ~ B ~!1) C'd 0 c ~-6B8~.sB~~~ -5 -8 'r;; El..c:: ~ ~ ~ ~"O _ " .=- 00..c:: 0" "oV ~ cj.c en c:: _ Q) CIJ '"'" """'" ";,' +=< - Q) i."d '"0 "'0 -d C'd ;>. .... 04-<'"0 ... c:: C':i....... ~.!!:!: t/) tt:: o""O"'Eb C'd C I-olol 0..- " ""::l' '" ,.. ""~ O(l)OO._ctloCl)VlCl)O~ .-..0 ...... ctl = '"'" '""' gs VJ.5 a1000 >-. t:t:I "'C 0 ~S-5 ooo-;::>ou .~ ~ l5 ~ ~-5 =E l5 ~ 8 "'OrJjo......~o~t)ot:l. ~-~u ~ ; ~ :S"""o 8 -S ~ ::I u ...... - - 0- 0 t:l. I:: ] < 6 '00 ~ ~ -5.s ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~:a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0!2?j 8.~ ~~ c:~-5 go ~ t:t:I a > - :::: 'i::::: I:: b..9 S - ,,] ~ ~ ~ ~ .............oor.r.iu:=13~o:S~ o ;::'S: ::l 8 ~ c (,j...,oo 4-< " ~ /1):'= 0...... OJ) 0 /1) I-< rJj ..... S - ~ 000 "'0 11)...... 8~~~~~~~~.s '" "0 o ..c:: u '" o - - " (I) u '" '5' '" ....00 ~ e 4-< " 0-5 .... 00 '" c8 a ~ ,.. . u :<,: ~ t:t:I u~]~ .s ~ .:;,.. "'C'-u~ tU 0 ::l ca I:: 0. rJj > .9 S "'C .:5 /1) B I-< ll.)..c etl .9 0.::: g g /1) etl- I-< ~ c.Qt:l. ..cO-I:: rJj'V;: a1 0 "E:'S: t: ...... ll.):.a ;:j g :E..ou ~ ::l.~-g I-< Vl...... ro '" 0 0 .- 1:: 0 c g..... "5 .9 etl "'0 rJj VJ "in ll.) 11) '>- >..c:: ~o_:.a, ll.) S ~..o -5 ll.) ll.) ::s '-..o..oVJ o 0 ~ (I) ~"""/1)-5 oB~.9 0\'00 '"5.- a g] "'8 -5..=",,, ll.) u ll.) ...... I-< VJ C! .S o tU S /1) :::::-5..c::.o -00 ::l '" 02 - .... (I) (I) OIl> o J:: _ fl II " o 00 '" - " ]~ .... '" ~~o ..c::_ .... 0 B..c: 0- u '" '" '" 00""_ (I) u '" ~~ -5 '00 ~ 0 ~ t:l Vl (I) '" ,..- ~ .0 ~ rJj"'O:.s ~ ~ g ~ o.U ~ 05 -5_ (I) 0 !3 " '" ~ ~ '" ,.. '" ~ s (I) - .- '" .... ,.. 00 '" - '" u .t: - '" :.a rJj '" .s g BCi. ~ ~ 0-5 00 0 (I) - .o'El .~ .S' "'0 ~ 'S ~s a S u 0 ,;:: U 4-< .... '" (I) l:l-5 .... ,2 00 '" .~ 0; u 2 00 " '" .... ..s ,.. - '2 a .... . 0 " "" bO,," 'Cii 0 " (I) 00..c:: (I) - .~ ..0 rJj .~ "0 ~ .8 " u <:: ~~ ..c::- .;~ 00'1:: =:.:::: ~o a I'>:: -00 ~ a 00 '" s .~ ~(I) ~ >>(1) .~ ~ u '" (I) ~ -" '" E-~ 1:2.- u"'oo 'Vi 1U ~.~ "''' - .c~cc I-< 0 C ll.) ::l ",_ o ll.)""" etl 4'< a e- i:i o 0 co:t ll.) .5-:~~ B 5 8 ~ ~ Sos: ...... a ~ ii o~ co:t ll.) I-< .... " rJj Vl C'd..c C'd I:: /1) - ~.2 > 0 C'tl ~ I-< I-< ~ 0 VJ ~ 'g ~ B ~ [ ~ o.!S'g Vletl-gr;l)ll.) := rJj._ ll.) ~ /1)~~o:S"'C 0.. C..c >-. ll.) o~'tI..ot)(,j...,o~ ......Oc.....rBo U Q.) etl ..... '- .~ E ~ ~ etl .c 2 .,g B'; -5 ~ 0.. ro ~.- ~ ~"8 ~'c; ::: o 0 " a " ..c:: (I) 0 = I-< 0. /1) 'U; ~ 2 0..0 ~ t:<..c"'2 0 u ~.::9__c-- .~ etl ll.).- (l) "'0 C c 5 ~ I-< etl ca I:: 0.. Ij,) a ::l';; ",-g ooooS"" 0';:: >.. &::::::: ctl:.a::: O'.;::::l (l).5 u...... CfJ u '" '" .... = 1-<'- ~ r,I) 0 :: I-< o.~.::: ~ ~ ~ l5.~ c ]! .B .~ ~ g t> ll.) ...... ~~~-5..J::S: ?'UctloE--? '" (I) .... u '" r- r<) 0, N .~ '" (I) .... '" 0; - 8 '" - , VJ o - , VJ o .8 '" (I) .... u '" \0 00 " '" \0 , VJ o .8 ., (I) .... u '" .... 00 - r<) '" (I) > .... (I) '" " .... =- ~ p. .... '" ... S o 4-< o (I) N U3 ". 00 (I) bO '" " '" S :: (I) -5 4-< o ..c:: " o '" - '" ::l ....., ~ ~ -'" .... '" ~ (I) -'" '" d '" '" >1.l o:l 5lo :E a VJ (I) -5 - '" .::'. ..c:: ! ..c:: u " '" I'>:: ,.. '" o ..c rl bO.... 5 ~- .... " ..c:: '" ~'s ~b. '" 'C; ~ .... '" .... E:C 0::9 (l) --'" ~j ::l- - '" &:~ 23 i:Ci ,g "0 I'>:: .8 " .S - '" - '" " (I) ~:2 ~ '@ ;; .... '" :g ...... u ~ ~ '" (I) (I) ;; " " (I) Z-5 4-< 4-< o 0 J:: " .S .S - - '" '" 3.3 - ..c:: ~ ,., ... z ~ ~ == U ~ -< '0 ~ ... ~ ~ -< c. :::; o:l f- -< "- en N ~ u 6 ~ u ~ :::s '!J ~ 0'> 0, 0, - <:> '" ,.. " ....., .. '" = is. '" .. ~ < ~ r:n '" '" ::l ... " ... '" ... ~<E "'", " " 8 '" ';:a ;:S rJ] ~ 0 ... - ~.n OIl'" " " :9- ~ 0..0.. t)-" " .S: ... .::! .. - '" .5 " 5 ;:l "0 > .5 '" " '" .s ~ ~ "'.= " '" '" 0 .=: " ~ ;::l '" g-c: 0 ~ ~ u ;E~-'~ .~ "'0 4 o " ~ ... 5 '" B'- "0 "'.::! a >u_ ?-".... >,1>:: 0 '" '" " o ~.s: &~ a'S 2 "t:: >- ~.~ " .S ... '" .. ::l Ci - .. ::l '" '" .... ",. '" " 1A ~ ;:l u~ ... B '" ~ '" " 8 '", " ~ I - ~ ~E~ _8;; '" "'- " .- ~ '" ~ g.c=~ -"'", '" '" ;:l '-~- 08 g ~ u'Q; ......2.0 ",-- =00= ~ ~ ~ 0.."''' .s .5 di "''= ,.g.t;~ - OIl ~'.8 c '" '" '" 8 .~ ~ '" " u o..B~ " " '" .;=;'- ~ "'", _ OIl" .~ ~'B "'.D :.a 0 " .D '" ~ ;::l u:=: 2 .- - ~ '" ",'~ o~c=g. ~ ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ I:)l).- !1) ">- ",....,. c= (1) :.a ...... 0.. .0 ~ ..... <Zl ::s .t;ia~tI) ~ s t5 (l) ..... c.. O.=:: ~ 0 u ..... u - l-< (Q c=U.2d-= o > Clj (I) U~~E- :-Eoo~ o ~ eo > 0 " ~ l-< 'a B~.a '" 0 ... .....t>~ " '" ... s ~ g " 0 ~ ~ 2 "Sc 8 cu ~ ~ "0 ~ ~~8 c vi' ~ &.~ 00 ~ o I-< co::I ..... ll..l C ~ ~g.o== o I-< ...... 0 l-< c.. ~ ~ ~ u'- ~ :::: S 00 ~ 00 l-< (I) ~ <U._ ~ 0 0..'2 1-1 ,=.S :::i B 0 ~ 5 "'1::.D5 ~ '" 0 0 g",u E '5' a .~ o cu Q.) :::s ~.9~~ _ VI i=: lI) 8ti:S.s ~ ~ ~ B o 5 0 " u._ u 0 '" '" e "t;I --g 8 '" " 0.. '" u '" "t;I ]r;:;- ,,- ~ ~ - 8- .~ . "'''' " .~ e .D ;:l "0 ll> ...~ "t;I~ ~o -d'~ "a, ",a, ;:l '" OIl1;\, .~ 8- .D . .~ - " 8 8 C'j-':3 ... - 000 0> o..~ " . 'Vi ~ ] ~ " 5 .S .- - u ~ ".:l t).s '" '" < 1;j '" '" -= u ;:l '" '" 5 " :D o ... 0.. 1;bci '" " .5 '9 '" '" .t; ~ "t;I ~] e.;3 :g .~ '" 8 " .;;; '" ",.D "8 ~ .= t: ~-5 '" ... -d '" 0 ~ ''::: o fii o - ....l ~ '" '" '" u '" " "0 " o "t;I '" ~ o <;:: ... " S 0.. o v > " "t;I , - '" o 0.. - '" .= ... o '" '" '" " '" .~ ~ '" 0 ~<;:: jg e .- " gj Ei .0 0' ,,- .9 ~ E~ B' o ~ ~~ "C lU 0.....0 .~ <<1._ .."u S S " ,,0.= -= '" - E- -5 >, ._ .0 r-~", ... " '" " ~ c: 'a '" 0 _ 0..'- C ~ ~'a '" 'G 8 " 0 a~";;;' ;:l <:l o l-< @' > :!J " ."_ ~ OIl 0'" " " "25'" ~ 0 ~ ~ ::r: !1) "'0 ;>-, ~ '" .D 0.. ~ 15 00 ... " '" " 00 .~ g. "0 .... '" '" " '" us '" - u il a-v " '" " E~ 13.) 'a cu g 8 .. iO' [i ~ ~ Ee~ 'a cu 0 ~"Or.b '" ,,- Q) ftib g. ?i 'C u "O.~ i~:o .. ;:l ~t5c ~ o <;:: " OIl '" " '", .... "t;I 5 '" " .... ... '" " ~ o "t;I '" '" '" " o - '" " '" " " " '" - " " 5 " > o .... 0.. .5 5 '" " ... - '" :3" ",. .", " " "rg " '", 5 " .0 OIl " .~ u '" .", " .::! .~ ~ o :I: ;;),..-:. V") '" ,,- OIl" '" OIl 0..", ..,. - "", 5 " ;::l S - ;:l 0_ ~>o ... ~> - .~ ~ :g -~ _'_ u - " di olf: OIl"''' '" '" OIl c.. g..S N b.. ~ " 5 " 5 0 ~ ;:l ... '" C54000Cl;l >-"" ~ u > '" " ~ .0..... ...--= C';l ll) ~ '" '" .. "'" 0 '" ,,- t/5C';l= _ 00" " ,5 S " - - 5 '" '" 0.."'3 ll) o-ot:: - " " ~ ;::I 0.. " '" '" "....., ..... u ""' " '" ,,' 0.."0 - 0 " B;c;;:l "O..EBS ::; b!) Cl;l ;::I o '-'C S ~ ~ g.'S "0 ;... ..... ....l .~ 15: 5 -< ~ C'j <( -g;;"t; o ~ c Vl ...c: C';l 0 ..... t5..t::..;: .!2 .J::J "0 'v.j ..c-c~ .~ 6 f .::; ll)..t::.....c = Vl r .g r.o "0 -O'v.j " " '" ~t':I.!:::l1-< "0 ~ca CD ll) ll) ;....5 =.5 a ~ i) - C';l..... ..t:: >-5 K Z t:.t:.-...ll)oo o ll) C'j l!) " g-,,-5~ gfa~B:E o ll);'" ;::I ca...c:uVlO _ - o.~..t:: = c ..... ..... r.I.l ll) I=< 00 l!) iU 8o",-5u ~ rl:: 0 ~ ~ ll)~OOC'jv.; baliU"'O:.s ~.o~a-j :.a t) en ll) C';l C';lOO-o-.o I-< lU C ~ t) 0.0 ctI 00 00 13 ""C:l ... '" ~ .... <E " 8 o u .~ 2l '", "' o " OIl .", '" o .... " 0.. o ... 0.. '" -5 OIl " o .. '" " .", .;; o ~~ '" > .o~ a~ ~ S 0" :.= 0 'u '00 ~ .;; a.l:.a 00.0 ~ ~ .ca lU -6-5 <01 " .?: - '" OIl " " ~ ""C:l '0 ~ 8 " g- o;;; ... <E o :.= vi .- - al.9 ""'- ~.g '" " " " 'ca :E ... '" "t;I " .... Boo '" " &.~ .g 'f;< '" " " 0 "t;I- .- - > u 0<2 ~~ ~~-g- .9 ..... ~ [; l!) t'd._ ..c:: '3-5: ~C';lC';l I-< 0 ~ ~:: ;::I ._ =..0 " " " o 5.0 N - 0 .5 a'3 ~ "'Ol::t; ; ~ ~ ~ ~~oo-g -0 ~ .- C'j a.s ~ ~..J I:T (I) .. "" .... .... '" ~~<= c.......~C';l ~",o(I).g ~~^(I) ~('f') ~ ~ .-..... .s::: ~ en ~= l-< (I) C';l .- o fJ' 0.. ~ C c.. .. en o '" '" "N S S ~";:l.8 .8g"O] "'-> .. -"o~ ~>~ll) .. u '" ..0 .~ lU '0 t)tn1fjc en tn (l) ;... 0011)01:)(1) C 0.0 C ~ ._ C';l._ ~ t:: c.. c "'" o ,,- :;.......~B " " u C';I E ~ 11) 11) :::s l-o 5' O"-~""iii o..2~'- CiS C..o 0 "" Eo- Z f;I;l ~ :I: u '" -< '0 ""' or> Eo- ~ -< c::: v S " ::<: '" " " '" " " ..... 8 - " " g '5' '" " OIl .;;; '" .", - ..s "t;I " '" ~~ ~~ e:o 00'';::: .... '" o ~ .9< 0 -= u ~ ~ .9 ;::I - '" '" " V .- 1>::8 :;- ~ .,; "- en N ~ Y o "" u 0<: :2 ~ :s- a, a, a, - o '" ..Q ::l ..... .. ... Q) "0 "'s-'='lij l1)._ - EOj:;:::~ .E g ~ OJ 0- 5 b G.~'~ Z3 l' oS ~ t-J.s :.as '" ....0." .,,- '" 0- 0 c:: o etI u..... ..c ~ Ol) Ei ~ "8 .S ~ :=: ~ S t) 0.0 v:;._ "0 .- 5 I:i '" Q) .... 0.0 ~]U- OJ ..... .~ .,., 0 ~N(1)13~ = ~ ~ I: Cl:j <= '" -u .~ ~ ~ ~"O ..1:l gf~." a ~ 0 Q) ;;... Vl <<;1::015 g... OJ) ~.S ~ t/.) .5 ~ "E .0 c:: c.. 0 ~ (lJ ........ U 0 ~ L U = U ['""'"""' c:o 00 {I) U OO'cn Q) -00 = Q) Cl.C::~"'O ~~=fc--E- 2 {/'J'::: 00 C'C1 "Oro-e [;J U 2l._ ~_o.=:: CJ".I c: :; :;l ~~-:....~ o ;; u ..... ..!:: U .~Q) ~ 8 g clj--.P..'t;j ~("f')Q)"O ---5(1) <: ~.,,"2 ;> ~[a~tJ B ." ~ .... ~ " .... 0. " g. u '" ." o $:I = .s "t:) 1il [;J III ::I '" 0'5 ~ .... " " ::I -'=' '" '" , .... o c.; .~ ~ - U g:, .", 's .g '" ;::l o u oj '" := oj .b~ <;I oj U ~ g ~~ ea 0-; ;> ..c;> .... Ol):>. .9 5,9 U'C; '"'" 0 8.=-5-- "" '" 001;; 00 '" oj = ~ 'u Q) oov"O '"Eiea :; e O..c o u - bU>'5 c:: ~ "i: Vj C':l "0 E ~ 'C ro VJ c:: ..... 0 clj .- a3...... Q) 0 :::I ""'" Q) c.. 0"';>...... 0 Q) ~ ~..... (I) - =- en .c C'C1 Q) en .... > 0 8 tn '"'" ...., u ~ 0 VJ Clj o t) t:: ;...., ..co~~ "'......... _~ Q) I-< r-.... 0 \Ocu~:-E ll.) > g '-' 00 0 _ l5 tt~...s u ."""S: ~ -]o>e 8on~u ..=Sja;_ o e::::.a tI') ~ >- en. I-< o'S -'''0 0..... > c:: cu 8 >. 1-0 Cl:l IZI ........ Q) ts: 8.. ~ ~ ~ o..c g.~ 'c;; ~..... .... - ..... S o..B E---cioo~O <cOoca"O e;~O~[;J "'$l ~ '; .... .... ~- ~ca 0." ."..s oj 0-5 I:l:: .~ :>.~ ,.!,l = '" 0 >.~ .... c .8::a U .... o 0 .... 0 p. " 00.... .S <2 - .~ "0 >< '" '" '" Ol)Z = o ~..g .s 0 5~ .... "'i) v5 .; 6b t:: b'- ~ [;J::E'O> 'C':;:: Ol.l 1;; "'.5 1J :J a 0' > oj DJo"a III .::: - oj := ..... o " '" ;::l " .::: '" o " - >< " '" " ." ;::l "0 .S - '" :J - c oj is: .... .s '" '" '" oj ~ ::E '" '" ..... cd ~ a:; ~ 0 'S ro..S, .... 00 Cl..";sC:: 2! s'~ clj ',;:l <I) c ';;) '> $:I a ~ ~b~ a:: ...... ~.S e 5 ~ 3 U.:S u Q) i).~ ft~>. u 8 .~ ~_u [;J[;J] ....l 0.E-- ." " 5 o U 0) ~ .~ '" 00 .S - o oj 0. ";;j o .~ - .<;; [;J .... - .S '" - o oj 0. " .::: - oj := " '" ~ '" '" ~ ." , "r- "'- '" '" " " .... Ol) ." '" --go. ~(<) oj " " 5 0Il;::l ",- S1;; 't;; .5 .... 0 ..s ~ '" 0 ,,~ .S CIJ die.. ." " 'S g 000 c U 00" "U; ~ " 0 000 .<;; -d>> " t; '" c &~ -d o . ~ P..~ ;::I "0 ~~ := '" 0 Cl)- c::....... .... . '" ctl ('f")'- v;cu"i) 'E:E~ '" ;::l ~ 5 - t'. ::J ~.~ o " '" 00", 5 00- to t:: e ~.@ ~ oj .- 0.00. " '" N "'..oN ";;j := .~ .<;: '" o oj t; '" '" "'" '" - '" " .ell '" " "'" <;I .... 2 -5 .~ " ;:e - oj S- o U - o o '" oj " .... oj '" ~ U '" ." ] .5 '" - o " 5 a S ..; ......s o g " .... '" oj ~-5 .~ 15 .~ ""0 " c .~ ~ ~ .S g. ;> ~ E--2! u$:I ""'..... c 0 "'- '" " c > '" " ....- -= " "'- u~ $2- U "2 ~ .~ [;J .... .s " ." " .... ;::l '" o " ~s :=c ~ g '" 0 l:iu E2! '" '" 1>C .... .- s-c;, .~ ..0 on." N" -." ~ ~ '" c 3 I:i " '0 "" 00 c '6 .... '" 00 " .... ." '" ~ " .;;; '" .... " -'=' o - '" ." " " '" o U on oj ~.~ ~- '" g .... '" c.8 'S: 00"'" .S [;J ~ i!!n ~ ~ ." := ~ 'a ....l-t; /y ~ '" -5 5 o <l:: - " ~ o on '" ..0 o - .~ ....l ." o o ..0 .... o ..0 ..0 00 '" Z '- o '" ~ :>. - .... " g. .... 0. C .... " -5 .... o c .... ..s -" g -5 " '" .... '" "'..... ~ 0 .~~b ......to: Ei o ~ ::l ~ Ei 'E: Q.,'a ~ -E 's .::::a ~ ~ &:::lUCIJ Cl) .....DO ....log lI) '"0: .. .s~.;..lO ctl.9N .e-~Q)8 0. ..0 '" ~~~ ~ o 0 oj s.8~ & .... '" VJ 0 VI ..~ "o..oC'l..... ~ ~s'~ ='Q) Q.,...... .- z ~..s :>.0....!J. ....... c.S ~ 0': ctl "'Oo:U ,-:." ~:: ~ f(-g~:; N.5Q.)~ \U ~ o:S ~ ~c-=o C ~ .~ .s oo~ E~ "E~;:l.s C':l-S"'O "0 11.>'- Cl) t:: ~.5 "'0 ,9 -'" Ei';;; '" '" 0 .....~:9 t5. ~ ctl '- 0- S '':::;: Vl ~ o..t::o 00 o~oo ~';:;)O..o >d.lOO QJ~Nv1 0:: ~,...., ~ ... Z r-1 ~ := U "" < '0 ... "" ... ~ <( 0:: '" "" o "' '" -5 '" '" 5 o ..0 '" .... B <2 o - .s oj - '" " ";;j .... ;::l .... , 's " '" " :5 o .... '" 0. o .... 0. ." .s o o '" > o ~ 5 o <l:: -" g -5 " '" ..... o -5 0. '" o o 'c;; - o 'c;; 5 o - ;:; co f- ...,: "- cr> N i;2 Y o p:: u 0:: :E '9 :5 0"> 0"> 0"> - on N - ~ '" ..... o - '" " ~ '" oj ~ '" .S '" .... " " .~ ~ .... o.a ....l U o '" :>. -a -. ATTACHMENT 7 Subject: Concerns for the new San Miguel Ranch School site . Conclusions from the neighborhood meeting held on the 261h of September: 1. We the residents of the Estancia neighborhood, which adjoins the propOSed.San Miguel Ranch School site. believe that the increase in .traflic,will~elI ~ve impact on O1.1I;,~/to,tJ:aveI.freely and 'isarely~~nt<i;'andoufofolJineigbbOihoott ~,' <, . ., 2. Evidence indicates 1his traffic congestion will occur 30-minutes prlorto commencement of daily cJassesand 3<kninutes before and un1il2<Hninutes after conclusion ofdaily classes. Other concerns include: · Traffic increase :from after school activities. '.' Traffic increase from weekend activities associated with. the new school grounds. 3. Residents of the Estancia neighborhood conclude that the school :shOuld be placed inside the SanMiguel Ranchneigbborboodacross the street ftomthe pro~ed nP-ighborhood parle. The recommended ;,; , " .re!oca1ion,6f:the proposed schoolsitC Will rero_trafficfi'om t,::',' ..,........ :..'.,..."::;:n..;..;.----<~J"...l1..;.rroad.Gftd onto theJ",-,--,"''''4-':Migue'' "l,~..:IThis "--:.'i_"'-'-~...~,;;':_".I"~i,.~l'""',,:"'~\-'.-" :.:1t~~~~_,:'~!~J" _ .' ~ '..a.QL5~;:.L!..u... _ ":J.\RIU.._ ,- ' :.~"",L t.' '-, ,.;-:";..,. . ~_'. '.~'.:',.: ".",",'''L ,."' _,..C-'''''' -, ',' .", c.. " " -'. _ .co-':- - ,_. .- _ ".. J';'L',- . _" ..," 'i; :';;'!.'.;, ."'f',enables the1:OOreased traffic :flow to be Controlled for safudrop-off ' orpick-up of children. Name: Address: ~jj; !-- .d <J- Signature: .~ RECEIVED ". jlJL - 6 tWI I PLANNING L ;s- .~ Appendix B THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or fmancial interests. payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will required discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other offiCial bodies. The following information must be disclosed: ATTACHMENT 8 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor. subcontractor, material supplier. Trimarl< Ventures. Inc, Cllf!lill Financial Services 2, If any person* identifies pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership. list the names of all individuals owning more than 10",4 of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership, Clinton R Ste_son Jono landau SteDhen E. Hesler c-3. If -8nyperson* identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profrtorganization or a trust, listthe names of any person serving ass director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions. Committees, and CounCil within the past twelve months? Yes _ No-1L- If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or inclependent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. SIeohen E Hesler Ann Gunler Mark McGuire H Skill Hi1m' Hunsaker & ~ san Diego, Inx. GiIesoie Design 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents. in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes_ N02- If yes, state which oouncilmember(s): Date: q -8 ~~q (NOTE: ATTACHADDtTlONAL.PAGESAS ~~ ill _ Sig re f contractor7lPplicant ~'v...__ ""\;..'Je&~r Prin or type name of contractor/applicant . ~ i. de[met! us.. "Any intl/vidwll. rum, <~, joiJll _e. _allDn, """i,,1 club. ["""""" argani:alian. e<nportllioll. utlJle. lnut, reco/_. syndicDIc. this and any 01'- count)/. cily and <011III)I. ciIy "",,,iciptllity. disrrict. ar ollwr poIili<:,,1 subdivis/DIt, or (lilY (ltho:r VOIIf' or comblnalu,,, QCltng as u utili. .. I~ ATTACHMENT 9 SAN MIGUEL RANCH SPA PLAN PACKAGE Attachment 9 includes the following documents: Volume 1 SPA Plan Volume 2 Planned Community District Regulations Volume 3 Design Guidelines Volume 4 Public Facilities Financing Plan / Fiscal Impact Analysis Volume 5 Affordable Housing Plan Volume 6 Air Quality Improvement Plan Volume 7 Water Conservation Plan 17 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN WITH PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, DESIGN GUIDELINES, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN/FISCAL IMP ACT ANALYSIS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM, AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 743 ACRES LOCATED EAST AND NORTH OF PROCTOR V ALLEY RD., SOUTH OF SWEETWATER RESERVOIR AND THE SDG&E MIGUEL SUBSTATION, AND WEST OF ROLLING HILLS RANCH I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Resolution are diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A", a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and hereto incorporated herein by this Resolution, and commonly known as the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area, and for the purpose of General description herein consists of 743, I acres located east and north of Proctor Valley Rd., south of Sweetwater Reservoir and the SDG&E Miguel Substation, and west of Rolling Hills Ranch ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, on September 11, 1997, Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC (Owner) filed applications with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista requesting the following approvals: a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan with Planned Community District Regulations, Design Guidelines, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan, Water Conservation Plan and an Affordable Housing Plan for 743.1 acres known as the San Miguel Ranch ("Project"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of a prior General Plan Amendment, and a General Development Plan resulting in the current land use designations on the Chula Vista General Plan and the Amended Horseshoe Bend General Development Plan, previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 18532; and, D. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on /0 ,- f1 ~ I Resolution Page 2 October 6, 1999, and voted unanimously (7-0) to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed Sectional Planning Area (SP A) Plan, Planned Community District Regulations, Design Guidelines. and associated regulatory documents for 743, I acres known as San Miguel Ranch. The proceedings and all evidence introduce before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this project held on October 6, 1999, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom. are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and, E. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project applications and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the Project Site at least ten days prior to the hearing, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PREVIOUS FEIR-90-02 AND SUPPLEMENTAL FSEIR-95-04 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED FINDINGS; APPROVALS The City Council of the City ofChula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, :Jpproved and certified FEIR-90-02 and FSEIR-95-04; and, III. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council certified by Resolution No. FSEIR-97-02 in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council exercised their independent review and judgment with respect to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 97-02) in the fornl presented and has determined that said document was prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista. V. SPA FINDINGS! APPROVAL A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH IS IN /o~ /1/ J- Resolution Page 3 CONFORMITY WITH THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH AMENDED HORSESHOE BEND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN, The San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan ret1ects land use, circulation systems, and public facilities that are consistent with the San Miguel Ranch Amended Horseshoe Bend General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan, B, THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan is consistent with the proposed San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan/Fiscal Impact Analysis, Air Quality Improvement Plan, and Water Conservation Plan and will, therefore, promote the orderly sequentialized development of the involved Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan area. C. THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY. The land uses within the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan represent the same uses approved by the San Miguel Ranch Amended Horseshoe Bend General Development Plan, and will not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation, or environmental quality. D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVER-ALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE. The proposed San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan does not involve areas planned for industrial or research uses. E. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER SIMILAR NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT. /O-f}/3 Resolution Page 4 The location of the proposed community park site is consistent with that of the approved GDP, and is located along 4-lane Mt. Miguel Rd. and is also fronted by a residential street on its east side which connects with Mt. Miguel Rd. to ensure appropriate access from the community and surrounding area; the location of the elementary school is also consistent with the approved GDP and is placed within the eastern core area of the site where the majority of the project's residential units will be, and it is provided with access from both Proctor Valley Rd. to best accommodate bus traffic, as well as from within the project to improve vehicular and pedestrian access to the school and decreased traffic demands which would be placed on a single access; the community purpose facility and neighborhood commercial center sites have been located across from each other along 6-lane Proctor Valley Rd. east ofMt. Miguel consistent with the approved GDP, and where traffic demands can best be accommodated, and where the uses are accessible to the larger surrounding area which they will serve. That portion of the community purpose facility acreage which will be provided through an expanded community park site, and the provision of a multi-purpose community meeting building therein, is also well located and accessible to the entire community and is consistent with the type of facilities and function typical of a community park. F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan proposes a circulation system consistent the planned circulation system depicted on the General Plan Circulation Element and therefore, the circulation system will be improved in accordance with the General Plan concurrent with the proposed development. With regard to anticipated phasing of the street system, the San Miguel Ranch PFFP has identified that a limit of 675 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) must be placed on development within the Project area east of future SR125, until such time as SRI25 is built and Mt. Miguel Rd. is connected to it. This phasing limit will ensure that the project will not cause a Traffic Threshold Standard violation on East H Street prior to the opening ofSR125. G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE mSTIFIED ECONOMIC ALL Y AT THE LOCATION(S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION(S). The San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan incorporates a 14,3 acre neighborhood commercial center at the southeast comer of East H Street/Proctor Valley Rd. and Mt. Miguel Rd. Consistent with the adopted General Plan and GDP, This center is the only such center in the area, and will serve existing and future residential neighborhoods not only within San 10.-11-1 Resolution Page 5 Miguel Ranch, but also within the Salt Creek I, Rolling Hills Ranch and EastJake Woods. H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. The proposed SPA Plml is consistent with the previously approved plans and regulations applicable to surrounding areas and therefore, said development can be plmmed and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in light of the findings above, the City Council does hereby approves the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in the form presented and attached, and subject to the conditions set forth below: VI. SPA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council does hereby approve the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan, and associated documents, subject to the following conditions: A. GENERAL CONDITIONS I. All of the terms, covenants and conditions cont:Jined 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 the purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean "Applicant". 2. 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 and all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. 3. The dwelling unit total of 1394 units for the SPA area is approved in principle. The ultimate total, resulting from more specific Tentative Map and Final Map planning and analysis, and/or the Site Plan review process, may require a reduction in these numbers, 4. Approval of the San Miguel Ranch SPA does not constitute approval of the final lot configuration. grading, and street designs shown within the SPA plan. Modifications may be made by staff, the Planning Commission or City Council during the tentative subdivision map process, /0-/1--7 Resolution Page 6 5. These conditions of approval apply to all land areas located within the boundary of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan. 6. Within 20 days of the City Council's action on the SPA Plan documents, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Building Department 45 sets of all final SPA documents, each set in a 3-ring plastic binder and in a format as prescribed by City staff. The Applicant shall also provide 15 comb-bound sets of the same documents. B. ENVIRONMENTAL AND OPEN SPACE 7. The applicant shall implement all environmental impact mitigation measures identified in FSEIR-97-02, the candidate CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project. 8, The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game. the California State Water Resources Control Board, the u.s. Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 9. Prior to approval of the first tentative subdivision map within the SPA area, the Applicant shall have commenced the preparation of the necessary Otay Tarplant Preserve Management Plan and shall have sought input from the Wildlife Agencies regarding the Content of said Plan, The Management Plan shall include, among other things, the timing of conveyance of the Preserve Areas as required by the City and other provisions as may be set forth in the City's MSCP when adopted by the City, Prior to the City's issuance of any grading permits for the Project, the Applicant is required to have an approved Otay Tarplant Preserve Management Plan, approved by the City and any other appropriate entity if applicable. In no instance shall any clearing or grading permit be issued by the City for any area within the SPA until said Management Plan has been approved. 10. Applicant agrees to establish and fund an endowment to finance the ongoing management and maintenance of the project's Preserve areas. C. PUBLIC FACILITIES, UTILITIES AND PHASING (Streets, Transit, Sewer, Water, Recycled Water, Dminage, Water Conservation) 11. The applicant shall install all public facilities in accordance with the PFFP, or as required to meet the Growth Management Threshold standards adopted by the City, The City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement jO-f}-ff Resolution Page 7 construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. The Applicant further agrees to comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management Ordinance) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said Chapter includes but is not limited to Threshold Standards (19.09,040) Public Facilities Plan Implementation (19.09.090) and Threshold Compliance Procedures (19.09.100). 12. Prior to the approval of the first tentative subdivision map within the SPA area, the Applicant and the City shall determine whether detached sidewalks (parkways) will be allowed on select residential streets within the project, and under what conditions as determined by the City. The Applicant shall process whatever, if any, SPA amendments are determined by the City as necessary to allow the detached sidewalk configuration to occur. Any said amendments shall be completed and approved prior to the approval of the first final map in any area that includes a residential street with said detached sidewalk configuration. 13. The installation of transit facilities along East H Street/Proctor Valley Rd. shall be concurrent with transit service availability. Since this may not coincide with project development of the adjoining area, the Developer shall deposit funds associated to the subject transit improvements in the amount determined by the City's Transit Coordinator, or make other equivalent guarantees acceptable to the Transit Coordinator, to insure that these facilities are installed when requested by the City. Said guarantees shall be in place prior to approval of the first final subdivision map within the SPA area, 14. The Applicant shall comply with City Council Policy 570-03 adopted by Resolution 17491 for any sewer pump stations that are proposed. 15, Prior to approval of the first tentative subdivision map within the SPA area, the Applicant shall provide written evidence from the Otay Water District that the Applicant has submitted, and the District has reviewed and approved, the required Water Subarea Master Plan (SAMP) for the project. To comply with the requirements of the PFFP, any water system facilities outside of a particular SP A phase which the SAMP identifies are necessary to support that phase, shall be constructed by the Applicant, or as arranged between the Applicant and Otay Water District. The Applicant shall provide the City with 6 copies of the approved SAMP. 16. Prior to approval of the first tentative subdivision map within the SPA area, the Applicant shall provide a Revised Detention Basin Study which analyzes the relocation of the detention basin from the west end of Neighborhood "L" /O~fJ-, Resolution Page 8 to the northwest comer of Neighborhood "K", Said Study shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to tentative subdivision map approval. 17. The Applicant shall modify the San Miguel Ranch Water Conservation Plan (WCP) as necessary to incorporate new water conservation measures, and/or to participate in pilot projects to evaluate new measures, such as graywater systems, as adopted by the City Council, and comply and remain in compliance with said provisions. The City shall review compliance in conjunction with each final subdivision map review, and the Applicant shall be required to modify the WCP to incorporate those new measures which are in effect at the time each final map is approved. The new measures shall apply to development within that, and all future final map areas, but shall not be retroactive to those development areas which received final map approval prior to the effect of the subject new measures. D, PARKS AND RECREATION, AND TRAILS 18. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is in the process of preparing and adopting a City-wide Parks Master Plan. In order for the City to approve the Project prior to the adoption of the Parks Master Plan, Applicant hereby agrees to comply with the provisions of said Plan when adopted as it may affect facility and other requirements for the San Miguel Ranch Community Park. 19. Any additional, net usable acreage to be provided at the community park site in satisfaction of a portion of the project's Community Purpose Facility acreage as presented in condition #24, shall be above and beyond the 15.66 net acres currently proposed for the community park site, and shall be reflected on the project's tentative subdivision map prior to the map's approval. The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the purpose of this additional acreage is to provide a multi-purpose community meeting building and associated parking sufficient to a accommodate Community Purpose Facility uses in order for Developer to be in compliance with Section 19.48.025(B) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Developer further acknowledges and agrees that such improvements will be required elements of the San Miguel Ranch Community Park Master Plan as approved by the Director of Planning and Building, 20. Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map within the SPA area, the Applicant shall coordinate with the City to determine the final alignment and connection of the required Greenbelt Trail (equestrian/pedestrian) within 10/ff- g Resolution Page 9 and/or adjacent to the San Miguel Ranch project site, with the Otay Water District property portion of the Greenbelt Trail system. The City's preference is for the San Miguel Ranch portion to remain on-site to the eastern edge of the property, and make a connection to Otay from that point. 21. Submit and obtain approval by the Director of Planning and Building, and the Parks and Recreation Commission of a master plan for the San Miguel Ranch community park site, Park acreage credit may be revised as a result of the final approved park plans as deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning and Building. E. AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL 22. Applicant acknowledges that the Fiscal Impact Analysis identifies that the project will operate at an annual fiscal deficit to the City at buildout, and that the Applicant shall be responsible to mitigate that deficit. A "reserve fund", or other appropriate mechanism to the satisfaction of the City, shall be established prior to annexation and/or approval of the first tentative subdivision map within the SPA area. The Applicant shall then provide the funding as prescribed, F, AFFORDABLE HOUSING 23. Prior to, or concurrent with approval of the first final subdivision m:Jp within the SPA area, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, specifying the ph:Jsing of required affordable housing units in relation to ongoing development entitlements for the overall San Miguel Ranch project, and guaranteeing the provision of affordable housing units in accordance with the San Miguel Ranch Affordable Housing Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. H. LAND USE 24. The Applicant and the City acknowledge that the Applicant will not be able to satisfy the project's entire 5.76 acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF) requirement (pursuant to Section 19.48,025(B) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code) at SPA Plan area "M" due to site characteristics and topographic constraints. Prior to approval of the first tentative subdivision map within the overall SPA area, the Applicant shall provide a final, net useable acreage site at the primary CPF site (SPA Site Utilization Plan area "M") , which shall be between 3.0 and 3.5 net acres to ensure a viable site for such facilities, and shall be reflected on the tentative map. The difference between that final net, /O'-fJ~? Resolution Page 10 useable acreage at SPA Plan area "M" and the required 5.76 acres ofCPF, shall be provided by the Developer at the Community Park site through equivalent expansion of the current net useable acreage of the community park of 15,66 acres. The resulting total net acreage and configuration of the community park site shall be reflected on the tentative subdivision map, and the multi-purpose community meeting building and related parking requirement included in the tentative map conditions of approval. 25. Applicant acknowledges that pursuant to Section 19.48.025(B) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, alternate forms of compliance for required CPF acreage, such as presented in condition #24 above, must be approved by the City Council as part of its action on the SPA Plan, and predicated upon guarantees that other community purpose facilities are made available to the public. Attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein, are errata pages from the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan presenting necessary changes to the final document to assure that adequate CPF acreage and facilities will be made available. VII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to the their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of shall future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigate or compel their compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by Developer or successor in interest by the City approval of this Resolution. VIII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon enforceability of each and every term provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the city so determines in its sole discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be revoked and no further in force or in effect. IO~f1-CJ Presented by Resolution Page II Approved as to Form by -0-- ~~ John Kaheny City Attorney Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning (ll \j IUMHPI ANNIM;\ED\:;AN-MIG.A:.(( _RSDO(') j(j-I}-;O Resolution Page 12 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SAN MIGUEL RANCH RELATED TO SPA APPROVAL The Property Owner shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained in Resolution No. , and will implement same to the satisfaction of the City. Upon execution, this document and a copy of Resolution No._ shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed stamped copy returned to the City Clerk. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirty days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the Property Owner/Applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Property Owner Date /J~fJ-/1 I @J !i il ! , '- , '- '- "- I! !! ~QtI. . . ~ . . " -, . " ; " , , , , , . " M . M . . , , , , , U . . " . ~ , . . = " . 5 0 . ~ . , ! ~ , , , , , , - . . . " . . , , , , " ~ . " - , 0 " . . ~ : , " ~ ,; : " . . a , . . . . " ~ ] " = ,; , . - . . " " " " " ; " mID ~ g S !~ o. = t.if_ .u . oc I 0 H~> :; . - = j :; i i ~ . ..1 I . ~ ~ , , 0 & ~ . = ~ ~ H~ ~b . . ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ . ~ , , , ;~ . . . , 0 b e e ~o = ~ . ii , . . ~ -;;;- . z VI ~ III ~ i if = I . > ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ . 8 " Ii j" . . . . , . ~.<"W~ . > ..J:Z: * :J:. ~ . ~ . ~ , . " ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ dpd~~ , ~ . 0 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~l1: ~~o~ !. ~ 1= b j' 1 I i 8 i5ol1lu~ J , 0 I 0 , , :; ;! 2 . , i . ! r-;- . " , ~ ! z . 1:1 ~ . . en . w U . . ! ~~ . z . 0 0 . '. w . I s z ~c . .,.-::':>' .-..- .--;:-- z o !;;: z t!l in w c U'i ~ t!l z Z z :3 a. .... ~ ii: !:; U'i o 'OS > - :3 ~ o Iii z Z ll! ~ W t; a. (!) ~ ~ W ii: ii: ...J 1= 1= JLO@1 ---.:::: .....-I Q) .~ /O--/J~ IJ ~~ ~~ !I il VJ.~ E.KfI~ T A , f . . . I '1 ~ . 5 CD u: z' ::s n.. Z o ~ ...J f- ::J w I- U) ... '" . I!l,' as.,:,' ~ .~ o. ' > ~il' ~"d .! ~ '" ~ zV" l> EXHIBIT B Errata Pages from the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Reflecting Necessary Revisions Regarding Community Purpose Facility Acreage Requirements /0- If - (3 Chapter I Introduction As a result of refinements in street alignments, open space limits and grading requirements, there are minor changes in the acreage of the various planning areas between the GDP and the SPA Plan. A comparison between the GDP and the SPA Plan is shown on Table 1-1. The non-residential land uses in the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan, which include the Retail Commercial, Community Purpose Facility, Elementary School, Community Park, Trails, Open Space and Utility Easements are consistent with the land use designations shown on the GDP map. A portion of the reQuired Community Pumose Facilitv acreage will be provided through an expanded Communitv Park site. In addition, the GDP required provision of a 3-acre private park facility within the Medium Residential area, which is shown on the SPA Plan by the Neighborhood Park designation. 1.6.2 Circulation Element The GDP designates the Circulation Element roads which will serve San Miguel Ranch, including the extensioll.QLE,ll~l)LStre~~ril1le Arterial. - ..6.Janes) the extension of Mount Miguel Road (Class I Collector - 4 lanes), and the approved alignment for SR 125. Mount Miguel Road as designed will be a hybrid road classification, combining elements of a Class I Collector and a 4-lane Major Road, including a planted median for a portion of the road, and an expanded north-side landscape easement. There are detailed cross sections in Volume 1, Chapter III of this SPA Plan for both of these roads which identify the required lane configurations and modifications in the median and parkway configurations for San Miguel Ranch. A traffic analysis, prepared by BRW, Inc., titled "San Miguel Ranch SPA Transportation Study" and dated March 3, 1999, details the necessary improvements to the circulation system based on the phased development of the project. The San Miguel Ranch SPA includes each of the Circulation Element roads analyzed in the traffic impact analysis as delineated by the GDP. A transportation phasing plan, consistent with the City's Growth Management Element has been incorporated into the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and is addressed in more detail in the PFFP. The SPA Plan also makes provisions for bicycle lanes along East H Street and Mt. Miguel Road, with extensive trail and pedestrian circulation routes throughout the plan area. 1.6.3 Public Facilities (Community Purpose Facility) The SPA Plan includes a Community Purpose Facility site as shown in the GDP, located at the northeast corner of Mount Miguel Road and Proctor Valley RoadlEast H Street. A portion of the required Communitv Pumose Facility acreage will be provided through an expanded Communitv Park site. The other public facilities needed to serve the project are identified and evaluated in the San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan. /0--A-14 San MiguelIWnch SPA Plnn Trimark Pru:ific San MiguellLC Page 15 - Errata Volume 1 August 27, 1999 - Public Hearing Draft Chapter I Introduction Table 1-1 Land Use Comparison Table for San Miguel Ranch GDP vs. SPA Gross Acres DU'S/Gross Acre R-L - Low 132.3 122.7 184 157 1.4 1.3 R-LM - Low Medium 165.8 164.1 624 680 3,8 4.1 R-M - Medium 67.5 62.9 473 428 7.0 6.8 R-MH - Medium High 7.8 7.2 113 129 14.5 17,9 Subtotal 373.4 356.9 1,394 1.394 3.7 3.9 CP - Connnunity Park 19.0 21.6 NP - Neighborhood Park 3.0' 3.5 OS - South Parcel / Natural 213.2 244.3 E - Utility Esmts/Parkways 15.4 6.3 Subtotal 247.6 275.7 SR 125 Right-of-way 51.9 49.6 Major Roads 31.5 28.3 Subtotal 83.4 77.9 PROJECT TOTAL 738.2 743.1*. 1394 1394 1.9 1.9 . The 3.0-acre Neighborhood Park was included in Medium Residential land use acreage of 67.5 acres. .. Includes Pacific Bay Homes Parcel of 4.35 acres. ... Fi= reflects re<1uired net useable acres. ADDroximatelv 2.26 to 2.76 acres of this requirement will be Drovided throu~h an eXDanded net connnunitv Dark site of aDDroximatelv 17,92 to 18.42 acres, IO~(f{/5 San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan T,i",ark Pacific San Miguel LLC Page 16 - Errata Volume 1 August 27,1999 - Public Hearing Draft ~ II ('" d O~, ,- ),," I II ~ ! 15I I! II I> Iii ill I I i Ii II II I') :'ii~Oi'-~~-~" ~ " ~I ....... ..; ~ ; ~ ~ ' ~I:' " , . " . ~ ~ .::i ~ ~ ; ~ ~ z ~ ~ e ,I, 0 . "'."! -r- ~ , 'l 0 I" " , . . ~ :g a ' , , , , 1- ~ ~ ! , , tB m~ ;j"!" en .. S E ~a~3~~i , , , w ge , , . , , Q .c ::: ro ; a , , , ~ '1 .. iIi 1- ~ .. ~ i;:2:l:"l""" a: .. m 0 ! N N"'~~i~ Cl ~p " - I I ~ . z ~ . J ~ -I. z ~o ~ Ii; t>; ~ ~ ':' '7 Jl 0 J z III !:;lj; ~ ~ ~ ~ j :s ~~ S ~ .' iI "~h. ~ ~ 50 ~. : 1 ~ !i' . . 0 ~ t ~ · , , , , id ~ : . ~ e ~ l ~ !2 i II. I -u' ~ 12 It . t , U! . . . i~.qn . ~~~Ud 0 , . 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ g ! ' . . . 'j! ..... J - . " . -' III c' E if. . w I . ~nnd;~ ~f c . f . . . . i ~ .nud ~ ,~ - ~~ III,: J~ " . I I"-or . . I ! . w , J ".: I" ...~"..i~1 I OJ U z ~ 11 J !:i iIi ~ a: :s ~ Zc /jj ~ a: Z W In ~ C) ~ .... ~ W 2 ~ .. ...J ~ ~ ~ ~O@J ! Z ~ ::s u: CL Z o ~ .....J I- ::J W I- (j) ... '" ~ '" 8: ~ g ~~~I ~~a ., !I Table 1-2 Land Use Summary Table San Mhmel Ranch SPA Plan I PROPOSED USE I nR";:T~~~TmN I Tl SPA PRODUCT ~~~~~ I nm ~ISTRICT &i~~;~~t DU'S/AC Residential- Low (0-3 du/ac) A MF 7.2 129 ]7,9 7.2 129 17.9 ~56.9 1394 3.9 ''''~i{~''~';1 \i~ ;;".;;;,~;, N 143 - - S 13.7 -- -- M 4.6'" -- -- OSI-8 2443 -- -- E-I 63 -- -- CP 21.6.... - - NP 3.5 - - SR-125 49.6 -- -- -- 283 - -- 386.2 - -- Includes Pacific Bay Homes Parcel (4.35 acres) Streets include Mount Miguel Road, Proctor Valley Road and the extension of East H Street as Proctor Valley Road. This site shall nrovide between 3.0 and 3.5 net usable acres. Anv chamzes necessary in the QTQSS acreaee envelone ofPlano;n. Area "M "would be taken from the adiacent ODen soace and will be identified at the Tentative Man level. A oortion of the oroiect's reauired net usable acres for conununitv DUfrose facilities will be orovided within an exnanded net usable community Dark site. The nrovision of this additional Dark acreaee may reauiTe some area from Plannin{! Areas H and/or I which win be identified at the Tentative MaD level. L-a L-b L K Subtotal Residential- Lo....Medium (3-6 du/ac) LM-I LM-2 LM-2 LM-3 LM-3 LM-4 J H I C D F Subtotal siilenliaI=7JIetliflm(6C11 ilWaCj . M M M B E G Subtotal Residential- Medium-High (11-18 du/ac) MH Subtotal RESIDENTIAL TOTAL C' COMMERCIAL USES' RC INSTITUTIONAL USES ES INSTITUTIONAL USES CS OPEN SPACE USES OS (South) SDG&E EASEMENTS E COMMUNITY PARK CP NEIGHBORHOOD PARK M CIRCULATION USES 125 ROW CIRCULATION USES Major Streets" NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL* Grand Total** . .. ... **** SFD SFD I SFD SFD SFD SF AlSFD SFD SFD SF AIMF SFD SFD 62.2 71 1.1 60.5 86 1.4 122.7 157 1.3 50.5 162 3.2 33.2 137 4.1 31.7 118 3.7 13.1 100 7.6 22.9 116 5.1 12.7 47 3.7 164.1 680 4.1 .-.- 11.4 219 19.2 29.7 141 4.7 21.8 68 3.1 62.9 428 6.8 743.1 /Jif/7 San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Trimark PacifIC San Miguel LLC Page 29 - E"ata Volume 1 AURust 27,1999. Public Hearin1! Draft Chapter V Open Space, Trails and Parks 5.4 Required Park Land and Improvements All new development in the City of Chula Vista is subject to the requirements contained in the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance. This Ordinance establishes land development fees for the acquisition and construction of parks and sets standards for dedication and establishes criteria for acceptance of parks and open space by the City of Chula Vista. The San Miguel Ranch parkland dedication requirements for San Miguel Ranch is 12.5 acres. The Community Park site within San Miguel Ranch exceeds this requirement. The fmal determination of net park acreage will be determined through the pending Parks Master Plan. The San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan (V olwne 4 of the SPA Plan package) includes an analysis of parkland dedication requirements for the project and park phasing. Community Park - Public The community park will be located to serve the residents of San Miguel Ranch and the surrounding communities. The community park will be connected to the natural open space area that borders the northern boundary of the park and will link the city's gr-ooDll sit Syst6l1.1. . ~~- -.-- The facilities to be provided in the community park are dependent on the approval of the City of Chula Vista's pending Parks Master Plan, which is currently being prepared. Once the facilities are established, an appropriate park design can be prepared and the size requirements for the park may be refined. A site specific master plan for the San Miguel Ranch Community Park will be prepared based on the citywide Parks Master Plan. In addition. the community park is to provide expanded. net usable acreage to satisfY a portion of the proiect's Community Pw:pose Facility requirements. The expanded net acreage is intended to accommodate the provision of a multi-pw:pose community meeting building which would be available for Community Pw:poses Facility uses. along with ap-propriate parking. The amount of additionaL net usable acres to be provided beyond the 15.66 net acres currently proposed for the community park will be equal to the amount of the 5.76 net acre Community Pw:pose Facility reQ.uirement which is not provided at SPA Site "M". These final acreage amounts will be determined prior to tentative map ap.proval for the proiect. The multi-pw:pose community meeting building and related parking will be a required component of the facilities to be provided in the community park through the San Miguel Ranch Community Park Master Plan. Neighborhood Park - Private A three-acre private park will be provided in the central portion of the project. This park will provide a mixture of recreational uses for the nearby residents and will be owned and maintained by the appropriate homeowners association within San Miguel Ranch. The park may include a recreation center building, play equipment, courts, V lighting and recreational open spaces. / () - /1- /0 San Miguel Raach SPA Pilla Trimark Pacific San Miguel LLC Page 75 ~ Erratll Volume 1 August 27, 1999 - Public Hearing Draft c z w CJ W ...J f!l " " Z .. 0 U 5 ~ " fi D Q,. ~ w i:: D Q,. a: ~ -J i i ; ~ !i ~ I ! ~ ~ &J > ~ ;;I .. m .;, .;, l:: Htl~dq ~ !i ffi !Ii ~ ~ ~ ill ~8~8i~~m "'I!: u..lta:CLa.~chU) :Eooozoow c: :;;~ o fil ~ ~ ~ 1= f!l < ~~~~~~~ nnn~ "l~~~~~~ ~~~~~~z in Ui w en ;n en 0 ~u:~~:lfif cncncncncncnU) ". .,-,; -Ii .~I ..,---;.:--~- -:;:.>" I~ It) 10 ,m LLa ~ en :I ~ ~ a ~ . , \\\,," o . fSfi t1ii 00 rr:.t ., 1L.< ~ /0 // jtl .....-I Il) ;:i OJ} .~ ~II~ ~.g ~.d ~ ~ .1 \11~ ~ ~ ., Z o ~ " zm 00 ~:i " !li ili" c;!; wZ ~~ N .. " .. 66 iliili cc Jj t-;';b C/)a o " c ~. c "';;; '-~ ~.- .- . ~ _ c ~.:~ ::: .;:: o . E' .'=.;e; ~ . " ~.- ~.l::: .r '" . 5 co u: z ::s 0.. I- o a: I- CJ) o w CJ) :J o Z ::s N ~ '" . g> Q. E E ! ~ ~ zV" ~ E o Table 2-1 Chart of SPA Land Use Districts SFE Single Family Estate L,K SFl Single Family One J SF2 Single Family Two I SF3 Single Family Three F,H SF4 Single Family Four E,G sF5-' S"illgie FanniyFive D B SFA Single Family Attached C MF Multi-Family A CR Retail Commercial N CPF Community Purpose M.CP' Facility ES Elementary School S CP Community Park CP NP Neighborhood Park NP OS-PR Open Space - Habitat OS-I,OS-6 Preserve Single-Family Detached Homes on large lots. Standard minimum lot size is 20,000 sf, except that up to 25% of the total number of lots, may be a minimum of 15,000 sf, if an average lot size of 20,000 sf is maintained. Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot size of 7,000 sf Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot size of 6,000 sf Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot size of 5,000 sf Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot size of 4,500 sf Single-Family D"t"c:l1~.~ !i_oIlle". with nril!imum lot size of 4,000 sf, attached homes or townhomes, Single Family attached units such as townhomes or condominiums. Single Family attached units such as townhomes and condominiums or high density single-family detached units such as patio homes, zero-lot-line, courtyard, or cluster units, or detached condominiums. Multi-family housing dwelling units for sale or rent with a density not to exceed 18 units per gross acre. Retail shopping center for uses serving the community and neighborhood Community purpose facilities~ Elementary school Community park facilities, Community ouroose facilities' Private neighborhood park facilities Natural open space areas - habitat preserves Open Space - Trails OS-2 to OS-5 Natural and improved open space areas with and Recreation OS-7 to OS-9 trails or other recreational uses That portion of the required Connnunity Puroose Facility acrea2e not orovided at SP A Plannin~ Area "M" will be orovided through additional net usable acrea2e in coniunction with the community oark site. / ~ ~ 1/ ~ 7- 0 OS-TR . San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Trimark Pacific San Miguel LLC Page 5 - E"ata Volume 1 August 27,1999 - Public Hearing Draft CHAPTER IV COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY DISTRICT 4.1 Purpose The Community Pmpose Facility Land Use District includes the Community Pmpose Facility District of San Miguel Ranch. This area is provided to help serve the needs of the residents of San Miguel Ranch and the surrounding communities of Salt Creek Ranch and Salt Creek I. The primary Community Pmpose Facility District is located at the intersection of East H Street and Mount Miguel Road. This intersection is in a central location within the residential communities, and provides a convenient and easily accessed hub for community uses. All of the proiect's required 5.76 net acres of community pw:pose facilities cannot be provided at this primary site due to ohysical and topographic constraints. That portion of the acrea~e which cannot be provided there. will be provided at a secondary site which will be accommodated through expansion of net usable acreage at the Community Park site. This expansion wOllin accoinnioaate a multl-pw:pose cOlIununii;f6Uililmg for"CpF~uses. along with the aporopriate parking. 4.2 Permitted and Conditional Uses The land use regulations for the Community Purpose Facility Land Use District are shown on Table 2-6. These regulations are established pursuant to Sections 19.48.020 through 19.48.025 ofthe CYMe. All uses shall require a Conditional Use Permit, indicated by the symbol "C". Hours of operation for any use shall be established in conjunction with review of the Conditional Use Permit, and shall be based on the type of use and/or activities proposed. 4.3 Development and Site Planning Standards The following Property Development Standards shall apply to all land and buildings, other than accessory buildings, permitted in the Community Pmpose Facility Land Use District. The Community Pmpose Facility Land Use District is shown on Figure 2-1, and the Development Standards for the District are on Table 2-7. The use of the symbol "SP" indicates that the standard is established by the approval of a Precise Plan for site development. The property development standards that shall apply to all land and buildings permitted in the Community Pmpose Facility District shall be those indicated on an approved site plan submitted pursuant to Section 19.14.420 through Section 19.14.480 inclusive in Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. /o-!l/j-I San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Trimark Pacific San Miguel LLC Page 19 - Errata Volume] August 17,1999 - Publit: Hearing Draft Chapter IV Community Purpose Facility District L. Criteria and standards for design and hours of operation shall be addressed during review of the Conditional Use Permit and the Site Plan. M. Req..uired site acreage not provided at the primary CPF site "M" must be provided throu~ expansion of the net. usable acres at the Community Park site. The current net community park site is estimated at 15.66 acres and the CPF related expansions would be beyond that acreage. That expanded acrea~e will provide for the siting of a muIti-pmpose community building and associated parking. which can accommodate CPF uses. The building size and desi!!I1 shaIl be sufficient for such uses. and shaIl be incOI:porated into the facilities package and master plan for the community park site. / 0 / 11 / p:r San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Trimark Pacific San Miguel LLC Page 32 - Errata Volume 2 August 27,1999 - Public Hearing Draft CHAPTER V PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 5.1 Purpose The Parks and Open Space Districts are intended for recreational activities and natural open space with limited public uses. Only those additional uses, which are complementary to, and can exist in hannony with open spaces or park uses are permitted. There is no lot size limitation and it is intended that the open space districts may be applied to a portion of a lot, provided that the remainder of the lot meets the requirements for which it is zoned, The Parks and Open Space Districts are included in the SPA Regulations to achieve the following purposes. . Preserve open space for the conservation of natural resources. . Maintain the natural character of the land. ------ - . l'rov1OeTor-pulilic!quaSi~public and recreational uses. . Conserve areas of community open space for the enjoyment of future generations. . Provide for public use of land under limited development. . Promote public health and safety. 5.2 Permitted and Conditional Uses The land use regulations for the Parks and Open Space Districts are as follows. Community Park (CP/CPFJ The Community Park will be developed for active recreational facilities such as sports fields, courts, tot lots, play areas, restrooms, and parking lots as well as more passive recreational areas such as benches, pedestrian and equestrian trails and rest areas. The specific uses within the community park will be determined through a park planning process, and must be approved through the San Miguel Ranch Park Master Plan. The Community Park site will also accommodate a portion of the proiect's required Community Pm:pose Facility (CPF) acreage through provision of additional net. usable acreage and a multi-pm:pose community meeting building which can be used for CPF type uses. The additional acreage will be above and beyond that associated with the principal community park functions. and the community building and related parking will be a required com.ponent of the San Miguel Ranch Park Master Plan. Neighborhood Park (NP) The Neighborhood Park site will be developed with private recreational facilities, which may include sports courts, tot lot, play areas, swimming pool, restrooms, 1/ 'I r;z... If) - -J/ , San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Trimllrk Pacific San Miguel LLC Page 33 - Errota Volume 2 August 17,1999 - Public Hearing Draft ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS LAND USE DISTRCITS MAP. 1. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Ordinance are diagranunatically represented in Exhibit A and hereto incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and for the purpose of general description herein consist of a 743.1 acre area north and east of Proctor Valley Rd., south of Sweetwater Reservoir and the SDG&E Miguel Substation, and west of Rolling Hills Ranch ("Project Site"); and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on September II, 1997, Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC ("Developer") filed an application requesting approval of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, including Planned Community District Regulations, and Land Use District designations and a Land Use District Map, for the San Miguel Ranch Project Site ("Project"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the Project Site has been the subject matter of a General Development Plan (GDP) previously approved by City Council Resolution No, 18532 on December 17, 1996; and D, Planning Commission Record on Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said project on October 6, 1999, and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Community District Regulations text and Land Use Districts Map in accordance with the findings listed below, The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on October 6, 1999, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. E. City Council Record on Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on October 19, 1999, on the Discretionary Approval Application, and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, /~- (3- ( F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at which this ordinance was introduced for first reading (October 19,1999), the City Council ofthe City ofChula Vista approved Resolution No. by which it approved and adopted a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Design Guidelines, Public Facilities Financing Plan/Fiscal Impact Analysis, Air Quality Improvement Plan, Water Conservation Plan and Affordable Housing Plan for the San Miguel Ranch Project subject to the findings and conditions contained therein. II NOW. THEREFORE, the City of Chula Vista does hereby tind, determine and ordain as follows: A. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council certified by Resolution No._ the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SEIR-97-02 in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. B. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council exercised their independent review and judgement with respect to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 97-02) in the form presented and has determined that said document was prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. C. FINDINGS FOR P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby finds that the proposed San Miguel Ranch Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Districts Map are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and public necessity, convenience. the general welfare and good zoning practice support the proposed documents. D. APPROVAL OF ZONING REGULATIONS The City Council does hereby approve the Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map as represented in Exhibit B. Ill. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term. provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of 1~/I3~:?- Ordinance No. Page 3 competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by 0--- ~ fru-- John M. Kaheny City Attorney Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of ChulaVista, California, this 19th day of October, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk ;0--13-3 ord , V1~ lie e: No. '_ I ~ i ~ ~~e I u.. .;;. '~ z > o ~ ..J I- ::)' W I- U) I! " " , II ~~--: ~~,... i> jli III ;.00< - " . . . ~ -. ,; . " " ; , , , , . . , . . . , , , , u . - - , , ~ ;, . . . . 0 . . . . N . , N . , , , :: ~ . . . , , , , , " . . . . . , , , . ;, . 0 ~ ::; ~ N . 0 ~ . : " . . . ~ ~ ~ , :i ' . ~ . N ~ , :i ,; " , . , - , :i :i " " ! N . " g a " ~ ~~ 6~ . . .1 . I 0 "I' I 0 f- . i i . . Ii hj ~ ~ t ~ , . . ~ ~ , ~~ , . ~ . . , 5 . ~ ~ ~j . . ~ " . ~ 6; . ^ ~~ ~ ~ * . . . . . ~ 0 ", ~ I :50 . ~ . . ~.~.~ ; -;;; 0 0 . I . ! . ~ ~ " ~ ~ · 8 " ~. . . 0 , . ..J VI <C ~ w ~ .. , ~ . . . g 8 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . . 0 ~ ! ~ . ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ' . ~ ~ ~ . , * . . < ~~ ~~~~ l ~ j'" 1 . . ~ 1 . 8 ! 0 VI !::! . . g ~ . 0 s . ! I . . . N i -;- . ~ (J) I . . . . w ^ . . ~~ , . w 0 < 0 I . . . . u 0 z. " i . ~. . --.-;:.'.-:,..... z o ~ z " in w o !:; i1i i1i o !il: !il: ~ " " ..I Z Z o Iii z z Z ~ j j W en a. ~ CJ ~ ~ <3 W - ii: ..J ~ ~ JLO@l ~ !IJ,! ~~~I ~..: ., ! '" ~ ZY" I> "....., (1) ~ /o"6/~ .,~ ~ "i:;/7;,u /Tif c z w C) W ...J iii " ~ z B 5 ~ U ~ 8 ... .. lid~U ~~ri!lwn nd~~n 5iliQ;!Uili ilB8tslEoom q u.lta::D..Q.thwcn :EouuzOaw a:: ~~ o ~ oI.<;Ut ~i;, oj 11;., ., I!! ~ ~ ~ ~~~~;d~~ nnn~ LI,; 11,; II.: II.; LL _ UUUi ~~$~$~~ 1=1 10 ,< In u.o rJ) U-. :E 'y ,. ~ " . \~Il\ ,(1'.\ ',1j;,'\ \~\ A \\fJ.\,~,~,..___ ,~ ' (' \' ~ i ~" ~~',' p,o/{,~. ' ".\,.' , ..."";---- /0/ {6/ 6 E )( for, G i T B _-",e_ .-I ~ 6b ..... ~~i! ::B'5 ~~;I' ,..; ~ ~.,: ~ ro .!r/l~ z o ~ ~ ziil 00 ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ w z z ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ 00 ili ili Ij ~~ o c c .' c .. . i :- . ~ E ~ E " ;t ~ 0> l1: z ~ Cl... I- o a: ~ o UJ en :J o Z ::5 N ~ '" 1\ . ~ ! w a zv~ " .' 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, CA, in the City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building. Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, to consider the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated documents summarized as follows: HEARING DATErrIME: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: SITE ADDRESS: Tuesday, October 19, 1999, at 6:00 p.m. PCM-96-04 Trimark Pacific - San Miguel LLC A 743-acre area generally east and north of Proctor Valley Road, south of Sweetwater Reservoir and Mother Miguel Mountain, and west of the existing Rolling Hills Ranch area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan is a required, component plan under the City's Planned Community (PC) zoning, and implements the project's General Development Plan (GDP) which was approved in December 1996. Consistent with the adopted GDP, the SPA Plan establishes specific land uses districts, zoning regulations, and design guidelines for development of the San Miguel Ranch project area which proposes 1,394 dwelling units, a community and neighborhood park, elementary school, community facility site. retail commercial center, and open space on approximately 743 acres. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the San Miguel (Ref. No. EIR-97-02) was considered at a public hearing before the City Planning Commission on July 14. 1999. A Final Subsequent ElR (FSEIR) has been prepared in response to comments on the Draft, and the City Council will also act on certification of the FSEIR at the October 19, 1999 meeting. Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received in the City Clerk's Office no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project Planner Ed Batchelder in the Planning and Building Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Cliula Vista. CA 91910, or by calling 691-51 01 Please include case number noted above in all correspondence. 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 hearings. or in written correspondence delivered to the City 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 and Building Department. 9-23-99 H:\Home\Planning\Charlme\PUBNOTPCM-96-04 Susan Bigelow City Clerk ~\rt-- -r- -- ---"'" mY Of CHULA VISTA Depart:m.ent of Planning and Building Date: September 23,1999 From: Distribution List (attached) Ed Batchelder, Senior Planne~ To: Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH SPA PLAN AND FSEIR (Case Nos. PCM-96-04 & EIR-97-02) As you are by now likely aware. the City Planning Commission public hearing noticed for September 15, 1999 to consider the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and associated documents, and to recommend on certification of the Final Subsequent Environmentallmpact Report (FSEIR), had to be canceled due to lack of a quorum. Because of the cancellation, both the SPA and FSEIR items are automatically placed on the Commission's next meeting agenda which is September 29, 1999. However, as noted in the attached Planning Commission Agenda Statements, to allow ample notice and ensure attendance of project team members, staff is requesting a continuance to an October 6. 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Following are the resulting dates for the public hearings on the SPA Plan, and consideration of the FSEIR: Planning Commission- October 6, 1999, at 6:00pm., in the Council chambers, Public Sen'ices Bldg., 276 Fourth Ave., Chula Vista. City Council- October 19, 1999, at 6:00pm., in the Council chambers, Public Sen'ices Bldg., 276 Fourth Ave., Chula Vista. You will receive a public hearing notice in the near future for the City Council meeting. You will also receive a copy of the staff report to Council. The SPA Plan and associated documents. and the FSEIR were already provided to you and will not be re-sent. Please feel free to call me at 619-691-5005 should you have any question about the hearing dates or the project documents. (A:\SMR-PHSII 006PC .NOT) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item:L Meeting Date: 9/29/99 ITEM TITLE: REPORT: Consideration of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR-97-02), (Third Tier EIR), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the San Miguel Ranch SPA Final Subsequent EIR-97-02 was originally set for consideration by the Planning Commission on September 15, 1999 (as was the public hearing on the SanMiguel Ranch SPA), but that meeting had to be canceled due to the lack of a quorum. Agenda items scheduled for a meeting which is canceled are automatically carried forward to the next meeting of the Commission. As a result, the items must be re-agendized for tonight's meeting. Due, however, to the scheduling of consultants and other professionals associated with the project, and in order to allow ample lead time for others interested in the project to arrange their calendars, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission continue consideration of this Item to the meeting of October 6, 1999, at 6:00pm. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue this Item to the meeting of October 6,1999, at 6:00pm. (H:\HOME\PLANNING\ED\SAN-MJG\0929EIR.RPT) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 2 Meeting Date: 9/29/99 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-96-04; Request to approve the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan including the Planned Community District Regulations and Design Guidelines; Public Facilities Finance Plan; Affordable Housing Plan; Air Quality Improvement Plan; and Water Conservation Plan - Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC The San Miguel Ranch SPA Public Hearing, and the related action on the FSEIR, were originally set for consideration by the Planning Commission on September 15, 1999, but that meeting had to be canceled due to the lack of a quorum. Agenda items scheduled for a meeting which is canceled are automatically carried forward to the next meeting of the Commission. As a result, and since public hearing notices were sent for the September 15 meeting, the item must be re-agendized for tonight's meeting. Due, however, to the scheduling of consultants and other professionals associated with the project, and in order to allow ample lead time for others interested in the project to arrange their calendars, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission continue consideration of the Item to the meeting of October 6, 1999, at 6:00pm. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of October 6,1999, at 6:00pm. (H:\HOME\PLANNING\ED\SAN-MIG\0929PC.RP1) Distribution List for Memo on San Miguel Ranch SPA Public Hearing Dates: Algert Engineering. Jim Algert Bonita/Sunnyside Fire Protection District, Orville Moody BRW, Inc., Dan Marum Caifornia, Department. Of Fish and Game, William Tippets California Native Plant Society, Cindy Barriscano California Transportation Ventures, Kent Olsen CalTrans, Bill Figge Chula Vista Elem, School District, Dr. Lowell Billings Hunsaker & Associates, Lex Williman LAFCO, Joseph Convery Lighrfoot Planning Group, Ann Gunter Otay Water District, Michael Coleman (cc: Terry Kreuiter - routing form only) P&D Environmental Services, Betty Dehoney Remy, Thomas & Moose. John Mattox, Contract Legal Counsel (cc: Tina Thomas - routingform only) San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use, Thomas Oberbauer, Regional Planner San Diego County Department of Public Works. John Snyder, Acting Director San Miguel Ranch SPA Citizens Review Group Sempra Energy. San Diego Gas and Electric Co" Don Rose StarNews, Laura Mallgren. Reporter Sweenvater Authority, Jim Smyth Sweetwater Union H.s. District, Katy Wright Trimark Pacific-San Miguel LLC, Stephen Hester and H Skip Han}' United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Sherry Barrett Willdan Associates, Tom Bandy City of Chula Vista Staff: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning and Building Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planing and Building Cliff Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Doug Reid, Planning and Building (Environmental) Bill Gustafton, CV Transit George Krempl, Deputy City Manager Ann Moore, Senior Assistant City Attorney Frank Rivera, Engineering (cc: Alex Al-Agha - routing form only) Ralph Leyva, Engineering Dave Byers, Deputy Director o.fOperations, Public Works Jerry Foncerrada, Deputy Director of Parks, Public Works Rod Hastie. Fire Department (cc: Doug Perry - routing form only) Richard Pruess, Police Department (cc: Jim Zoll- routingform only) Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning Barbara Reid, Planning and Building, Environment John Krizan, Landscape and Parks Division Sunny Shy, Assistant Director of Recreation (cc: David Palmer, Library Director - routingform only) COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item I Meeting Date 10 19 9~ SUBMITTED BY: Resolution Waiving Consultant Selection Process as Impractical and Approving Agreement with RNL Design for preparation of Corporation Yard Construction Drawings and amending FY99-00 CIP budget}~ appropriating funds. Director Of Public worI<J11.-~CZJrc City Manage0 (4/5ths Vote: Yes-.X....No~ TITLE: REVIEWED BY: In November 1990, the City Council approved an agreement with RNL/Interplan (now RNL Design) for preparation of a Master Plan for a new City Corporation Yard. At that time, the City had an agreement to purchase a site adjacent to what will now be Olympic Parkway in Sunbow II. Due to the collapse of the building economy in the early 1990's, Sunbow II was not built. Subsequently, Council approved purchase of a site in Otay Rio Business Park, which was, instead, used by White Water Canyon. On September 15,1998, the City Council approved an agreement with San Diego Gas & Electric (SDGE) for the City's purchase of SDGE's South Bay Service Center at 1800 Maxwell Road. On November 17, 1998, the City Council approved an agreement with RNL Design for preparation of a Corporation Yard Master Plan update and Schematic Design drawings. RNL Design has completed the Master Plan update and the Schematic Design drawings for the new Corporation Yard and is prepared to begin preparation of Construction Drawings and other items necessary to go to bid for construction of the improvements needed for City operations. This Agenda Statement approves an agreement with RNL Design for preparation of those documents, discusses the three main construction options considered, and explains staff's recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution walvmg the City's consultant selection practice as impractical, approving the agreement with RNL design for preparation of Corporation Yard Construction Drawings and amending the FY 99-00 CIP Budget by appropriating funds to GG 131 from available balances in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee - Corporation Yard (Corp yard DIF). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: WAIVING CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS The City's normal consultant selection process consists of preparation and dissemination of an RFP; selection of a staff committee to screen and pick the final consultant; review of proposals submitted by consultants; setting up an interview/presentation process for the top four or five candidates; selection of the final consultant; developing a satisfactory agreement, and negotiating same, including compensation with the selected consultant; and ultimate presentation of the recommendation to Council. For a project such as the Corporation Yard, this process /( r. Page 2, Item___ Meeting Date 10/19/99 takes at least four to six months and is the manner in which RNL was originally selected. Since staff believes it is in the City's best interest to be able to occupy the new Corporation Yard as soon as possible and RNL Design has specialized knowledge of the City's needs and staffing as a result of preparation of the initial Master Plan, and, more recently, the revised Master Plan and Schematic Design, and has a demonstrated expertise in this specialized field (which includes Transit Operations), staff believes RNL Design is uniquely qualified and recommends waiving, as impractical, the normal consultant selection process under provision 2.56.070 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The November 17,1998, Agenda Statement indicated that this would be the process staff intended to follow. In addition to the reference checks done as part of the selection process in 1990, staff checked references for more recently completed jobs in the Southern California area. All references spoke highly of RNL Design's performance and would (and in some cases had) hire them again. Additionally, City staff has been impressed with RNL Design's ability to collect divergent requirements from staff and synthesize them into a single cost-effective and operationally effective design. In order to ensure that the City received a fair price, staff asked RNL Design to provide a list of recent projects, their cost, and both the A&E (Architectural & Engineering) and Construction Management fees as a percentage of the total construction cost. This information is included as Attachment A and clearly shows that the City is receiving a fair price. It is interesting to note that the two projects having the highest total combined fee as a percentage of construction cost were two projects where the method of selection was an RFQ followed by an "absolute" bid. Part of the reason the fee was so high in these two cases was because of complicated combined LNG/CNG fueling facilities. However, part of the reason the fee was so high was also because with an "absolute" bid, negotiations and comparisons to other fee proposals are not possible. PRO TECT BASICS Upon approval of the agreement for update of the Master Plan and preparation of Schematic Design Drawings, RNL Design and its consultants began meeting with City staff to determine changes in operations since preparation of the previous Master Plan and the likely impact of the annexation and build out of Otay Ranch. As a result of those meetings, RNL Design prepared three major options for construction of improvements at the new Corporation Yard. The existing SDGE site has about 16 net acres. Both the Master Plan prepared in 1991 and the update of the Master Plan revealed the ultimate need for approximately 22 to 23 net acres. The primary needs for additional acreage are for parking transit buses and other equipment, transit and Public Works' employees' vehicles, and space for the transit contractor's operational needs at build out (build out represents the employee and equipment space needed when the City's current Sphere of Influence is fully developed). In other words, the SDGE site does not have enough space to park all of the City's buses and employees' vehicles or enough office, locker, and meeting room space for the transit drivers, supervisors, and other employees at build out. The three major options mentioned above, all dealt with that need for additional parking and office space. Their approximate construction costs are as follows: II JJ- Page 3, ltem___ Meeting Date 10/19/99 DESCRIPTION APPROXIMATE COST * OPTION 1 Build a 3 level Parking Structure on the existing site and add about 8,300 Sq. Ft. to existing Admin BId. $37,706,480 OPTION 2 Purchase land across the street from the site on the east and build the Transit Operations' Center with parking for busses and the transit contractor's employees' vehicles on that site. $36,147,500 OPTION 3 Purchase land adjacent to the site on $34,977,500 the west and build the Transit Operations' Center with parking for busses and the transit contractor's employees' vehicles on that site. All costs are included for both Phase I and Build-out: land costs for both the SDGE & adjacent sites; Professional Services; furnishings & equipment; and construction. City staff has reviewed all three options and determined that from both an operational and funding standpoint, it makes the most sense to use Option 3. While from an operational standpoint, building a parking structure so that all activities are on the current SDGE site makes the most sense, the operational benefit is not worth approximately $3 million. During the Master Plan update and Schematic Design phases, RNL Design planned for two phases of construction. The first phase will provide for the facilities required at move in and the second for ultimate build out. The construction drawings being prepared in accordance with this Agreement are for the first phase. This consists of construction and tenant improvements on the current SDGE site. Future improvements on either of the two adjacent sites will most likely be required in about 5 to 7 years. The estimated cost of the first phase of construction is about $16.5 million. Total estimated costs of the first phase including a 5% construction contingency, A&E fees, Construction Management, Furniture and casegoods, and Telecommunications/Data System costs are $20,683,300. A comparison of the total land and construction costs for the SDGE site as opposed to buying and constructing a completely new site, shows a savings of about $10 to $15 million using the SDGE site. The following italicized paragraphs are from the scope of work submitted by RNL Design and give a basic description of what can currently be found at the site and what work will be done under the first phase of construction. Introduction The City of Chula Vista has purchased the former South Bay Service Center from San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDGE). The facility consists of an administrative office building, warehouse building and vehicle maintenance If - 3 Page 4, Item___ Meeting Date 10/19/99 building on a 25 (Net 15.9) acre site. The site also contains a fueling island, employee and visitor parking area, and yard areas for vehicle parking and equipment. The City intends to utilize the SDGE site for the Public Works Department Operations Facility and Corporation Yard. The facility would house the Administration, Sewer, Streets, Traffic, Vehicle Maintenance, Building Maintenance, Parks Maintenance, Communication, Soils, and Central Stores functions. Additionally, other City functions will utilize the facility, such as Transit. Project will include landscaping and civil improvements to the site and the following building development: . Administration Buildina - existing 31,100 SF single story building modified to accommodate administrative and office needs of Corporation Yard . Shol1s Buildina . Renovated existing warehouse - existing 14,200 SF single story building modified by adding a mezzanine level and subdividing the building to serve various divisions. . New Addition - new 16,800 SF single story addition to shops building . Warehouse - existing 11,400 SF single story Garage building converted into Warehouse for the Central Stores division of Purchasing by removing designated equipment and making minor renovations. . Maintenance Buildina - new 42,100 SF single story large vehicle repair facility with small mezzanine. . Fuelina Island - 5,610 SF single story building and service canopy for refueling vehicles. . Bus Wash - 3,400 SF single story building and service canopy for washing transit busses. Based upon the approved Schematic Design prepared by the Consultant under separate Scope of Work, the City shall authorize the Consultant to proceed with further developing the design, construction documents, and assisting with bidding phase. The Scope of Work has been divided into four phases as follows: Phase I Final Construction Documents Phase II Permitting Phase III Bidding Phase W Construction Administration In addition to the information listed above, the fueling area will also contain a CNG fueling facility consisting of compressor equipment, cascade storage cylinders, and CNG fuel dispensers. The above is a synopsis of Phase I of the project. Phase II will require the purchase of the adjacent land and construction of the Transit Operations' facility. Some specific issues that had to be dealt with during the Master Plan update and Schematic Design phase are discussed below. II-L( Page 5, Item___ Meeting Date 10/19/99 WHY BUILD A NEW FLEET trRANSIT MAINTENANCE FACILITY? I believe the biggest question may be, "why are we turning the existing 11,400 square foot garage into a warehouse and building a new 42,000 square foot vehicle repair facility?" When the SDGE facility was purchased, staff knew that the existing garage was not large enough to maintain the City's vehicle and transit fleet and did not have the proper size bays for heavy equipment. We did believe, however, that the existing bays could be used to repair sedans and pickup trucks. RNL's first design layouts expanded the current garage in order to use what was already there. It quickly became apparent that adding on to the current garage reduced the usability of the entire site and increased circulation problems. At that point, RNL looked at uses for the current garage and places on the site to put a new garage. It turned out that Central Stores' warehousing needs fit the construction of the SDGE garage. Central Stores needed about 10,500 square feet; the SDGE garage was 11,400 square feet and had a mezzanine, which was also a requirement for Central Stores. RNL then proceeded to determine what the cost would have been to build what Central Stores needed in the existing SDGE warehouse and build the additional space for repair shops that would be displaced by Central Stores. What developed was that it was not only operationally better to build a new fleet maintenance facility but also was more cost-effective. To gain additional room, the back wall of the new fleet maintenance facility will be moved about 100 feet back into the existing slope which means that the back wall is also used as a retaining wall and the City gains usable space. This only adds about 10 percent of the cost of the actual wall itself, which is not an appreciable expense for the area gained. For Phase I, all of the heavy and light duty bays in the Maintenance Facility will not be required. However, it's not cost effective to build part of the facility and then add additional bays as needed. Consequently, when the fleet maintenance facility is first built, the City's half will contain six heavy equipment bays and six light to medium duty bays, while the transit half will contain six transit bus bays with a chassis wash and Dyno bay that will be shared by City vehicles and Transit. Since the City does not need six light to medium duty bays at move in, the Communications division will use two of those bays. During the Phase II construction, space for Communications will be added onto the back of the Central stores warehouse. In addition, Transit will not initially require six transit bays fully equipped. Since it will be more cost-effective to build all six bays at one time, all of the bays will be built but not equipped. Instead, two or three of them will be stubbed out for power, oil, water, and air and equipped as needed. AGREEMENT & SCHEDULE The proposed agreement is similar to the last agreement with RNL Design, except, of course, for the attached Scope of Work. The agreement was prepared and approved by the City Attorney's office. Staff has negotiated a price for services with RNL Design as follows (complete details will be found in Exhibit B to the Scope of Work attached to the basic agreement): 1 Basic fee for preparation of Construction Drawings, Permitting, Preparation of Bid package, and Construction Administration. $1,265,800 /1-5 Page 6, Item___ Meeting Date 10/19/99 2 Optional Services including furniture selection and specifications, Telecommunication and data services, and preparation of a complete facility maintenance manual. $138,500 TOTAL: $1,404,300 The agreement provides compensation to RNL Design based on time and materials with a not-to-exceed figure of $1,404,300. Staff believes this is the best arrangement for the City since we will pay for only what is required. As indicated earlier in this Agenda Statement, staff believes that the fee for this project is a good deal for the City when compared to fees for similar projects. Exhibit C to the agreement with RNL Design includes a revised schedule for the entire project including the work that was approved under the previous agreement, preparation and review of construction documents, and construction and final move to the new Corporation Yard. When staff brought the first schedule to City Council in November 1998, we indicated that the dates provided were preliminary and most likely would be adjusted once the Master Plan update and Schematic Design phase were finished. City review of the Master Plan update and preliminary layout took much longer than was originally anticipated. The main reason for this was that with the three options proposed by RNL, major variations in possible funding scenarios were possible. Because of this, the Special Projects Manager and other staff reviewed all three options and determined the most equitable financing arrangement between the various funds. The major completion dates are as follows: . Completion thru Master Plan Update . Completion of Schematic Design Phase . Completion of Construction Documents . Completion of Bid process . Completion of Construction and Move In March 15,1999. August 31,1999. December 31,1999. March 31, 2000 April 30, 2001. Both RNL Design and staff are committed to working closely together in an attempt to shorten up the time required for completion of this project. Staff and RNL Design have been discussing various alternatives to speed up construction. One possibility is to have various mandatory bid options requiring early construction completion. We believe this is better than paying a contractor for each day that they might finish early or charging them for each day that they finish after the projected schedule. When the award is made for construction itself, staff will also work closely with whomever is selected to ensure that City staff can move into the new Corporation Yard in as timely a manner as possible. Depending on which additional divisions (such as Engineering Construction Inspection, Open Space Inspection and some Building Inspection staff) will be located at the new Corporation Yard, it may be pOSSible to phase the construction so that some staff can safely move into the office building without interfering with the contractors working on the remainder of the site and without providing work stoppages to City staff caused by such things as power, water, and phone outages during construction. City staff will also ensure that the CNG fueling facility and parking for the 15 new CNG busses due in AugjSep 2000 is ready when needed. II-~I Page 7, Item___ Meeting Date 10/19/99 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Staff had originally planned to have RNL Design perform the construction management process. Subsequently, however, due to both the large size of the construction contract and the fact that, oftentimes, two heads are better than one, it was determined that it might be better to obtain another firm for Construction Management. That way, there is more likelihood of finding unanticipated cost savings and different value engineering methods. Staff intends to quickly prepare an RFP for construction management, advertise and distribute the RFP for as short a time as practical, and return to Council for award of the Construction Management agreement. Because of that, staff is recommending that Council appropriate the funds likely to be required for Construction Management with tonight's Agenda. Because the City will have several major building projects over the next few years, staff believes it would be beneficial to obtain the same Construction Management Firm for all projects. This should be both more cost effective and efficient since the firm chosen will gain familiarity with City staff and CIP procedures. Additionally, it is probable that the firm will be able to suggest beneficial changes to the City's procedures. Therefore, staff intends to indicate in the Corporation Yard RFP for Construction Management (CM), that it will be our intention to select a firm for the specific Corporation Yard project with a fixed fee and then attempt to negotiate satisfactory fees for subsequent projects. We are forced to take this approach since it is impossible to obtain a fixed fee that would be fair to both the CM Firm and the City without complete details of the future projects. FISCAL IMPACT: As Council has been previously informed, the Finance Director is developing a financing plan for the Corporation Yard project. The Corporation Yard financing will be for construction costs. The total funds to be appropriated tonight are $1,654,300. This represents the $1,819,300 shown below, less the $165,000 in staff costs, which will be General Fund in-kind services. The costs are broken down as follows: . Professional services from RNL Design $1,404,300 . Construction Management services $250,000 . Staff Time charges @ 10% $165,000 . Grand Total $1.819.300 The various funding sources that will be used for this project are as follows: Transit 26%; City Sewer 10%; PDIF 45%; General Fund 19%. Attachments . The Agreement referred to in this Agenda Statement is attached to the accompanying Resolution. . Attachment A Fee Comparison D:\WINWORD\Corp Yard\Construction Documents\A1l3 ConstructionDrawings & CM.doc File #: 0910-30-[ 11-1 RNL Design RNL Interplan, Inc. A California Corporation 611 West Sixth Street, Suite 350 Los Angeles, California 90017 p] 213.955.9775 f]213.955.9885 Memorandum To: Dave Byers, Deputy Director City ofChula Vista Public Works- Operations Pat McKelvey City ofChula Vista Corporation Yard From: Project Name: Project No: Date: Comments: 1-8612.01 August 23, 1999 The following details a comparison of Architectural and Engineeriog fees and Coostruction Management fees for various operations and maintenance facilities for transit and city/county public works agencies. Construction management fees, except for Chula Vista and Riverside Transit projects, are shown as an estimate since the services were provided by others. Proiect AlE Fee eM Fee Total Fee City of Cliula Vista <as proposed on9/23/99) 7.5% 1.5% 9.0% Corporation Yard Budget $16.5M Riverside Transit Agency 10.1 % 4.9% 15.0% City of Perris Facility Budget: $3.5M Foothill Transit 9.5 % 6%+/- 15.5 % Pomona Facility Budget: $8.5M Foothill Transit 9.3 % 6%+/- 15.3 % !rwindale Facility Budget: $8.5M Long Beach Transit 11.4% 6%+/- 17.4% 681h Street Facility Budget: $10.5M City of Norwalk 9.0% 8%+/- 17.0% Transportation and Public Services Facility Budget: $IIM Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines 12.5% 7%+/- 19.5 % Fuel and Wash Facility Budget: $4M Siskiyou County 10.5% 6%+/- 16.5 % Public Works Complex Budget: $6M Port of Long Beach 11.5% 8%+/- 19.5 % Hanjin Maintenance and Wash Facilities Budget: $7.5M d:\winword\corp yard\construction documentslfees-cm comparison 082399.doc 11- f A++ttchmfrd" A AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES [CITY CORPORATION YARD] This AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES [City Corporation Yard] ("Agreement") is entered into effective as of October 19, 1999 ( " Effective Date") between the City of Chula Vista (" ci ty"), a municipal corporation of the State of California, and RNL Interplan, Inc., dba RNL Design, a professional architecture and planning firm ("Architect"), and is made with reference to the following facts: RECITALS WHEREAS, the City has purchased the former South Bay Service Center from San Diego Gas & Electric Company (" SDG&E Facility") which facility consists of an administrative office building, warehouse building and vehicle maintenance building on a 25 (Net 15.9) acre site and also contains a fueling island, employee and visitor parking area and yard areas for vehicle parking and equipment; and WHEREAS, the City desires to renovate and construct new improvements ("Corporation Yard Improvements") at the SDG&E Facility for use as the City's Public Works Department Operations Facility and Corporation Yard ("Corporation Yard") which will house the Administration, Sewer, Streets, Traffic, Vehicle Maintenance, Building Maintenance, Parks Maintenance, Communication, Transit, Soils and Central Stores functions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to previous agreements dated November 13, 1990, and November 17, 1998, Architect had prepared a Master Plan for the Corporation Yard to be located at an alternative site; and has updated the Master Plan and prepared Schematic Design Plans for the SDG&E Facility; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista desires to have the Architect finalize design work, prepare construction drawings and a bid package and provide construction administration services in cooperation with City's construction manager for the Corporation Yard Improvements, all as more particularly set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they can prepare and deliver the services required of the Consultant to the City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1 /f~ 1 1. Article I. Consultant's Duties. A. General Duties. Based upon the approved Schematic Design prepared by Architect under separate Scope of Work, Architect shall finalize the design, prepare construction documents, and assist with the bidding and construction phases for the development of the Corporation Yard Improvements. The Corporation Yard Improvements include improvements to the SDG&E site and the development: landscaping and civil following building . Administration Building - existing 31,100 SF single story building modified to accommodate administrative and office needs of Corporation Yard . Shops Building . Renovated existing warehouse - existing 14,200 SF single story building modified by adding a mezzanine level and subdividing the building to serve various divisions . New Addition - new 16,800 SF single story addition to shops building . Warehouse - existing 11,400 SF single story Garage building converted into Warehouse for the Central Stores division of Purchasing by removing designated equipment and making minor renovations. . Maintenance Building - new 42,100 SF single story large vehicle repair facility with small mezzanine. . Fueling Island - 5,670 SF single story building and service canopy for refueling vehicles. . Vehicle Wash - 3,400 SF single story building and service canopy for washing transit buses and other City vehicles. The work has been divided into four phases as follows: Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Final Construction Documents Permitting Bidding Construction Administration The specific scope of work for each phase is set forth in Article I, Section B, below. (The duties of the Consultant as contained in this section herein may hereinafter be referred to as "General Duties"). B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performin~ the General Duties, the Architect 2 I ;-~ / 0 shall perform the specific duties and deliver the work described in the Scope of Work attached hereto as Exhibit A. (The General Duties and the work required in the Scope of Work shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services") Architect shall perform all of the Defined Services herein required of it by not later than April 30, 2001, and shall abide by and comply with any interim time frames and milestone dates that may be set forth in Exhibit A, and Exhibit C, attached hereto. Time is of the essence for Architect's performance of its obligations hereunder. Time extensions for delays beyond the Architect's control, other than delays caused by the City, may be requested in writing to the Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations, or his designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. The Architect hereby agrees to provide its services in a timely fashion necessary to ensure compliance with this stipulated time frame and in accordance with normal industry standards of practice. Notwi thstanding the foregoing, the City shall have the right to suspend work on the project for a period of up to ninety (90) days without suffering any increased compensation to the Architect, or any of its consultants, and this temporary suspension shall not constitute a termination of this Agreement. C. Standard of Care; Qualifications. Architect, in performing any Defined Services under this agreement, shall perform such services in a manner consistent with the high level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. Architect will design the Corporation Yard Improvements in accordance with all applicable current State and local statutes, codes and ordinances. The personnel of the Architect shall be comprised of licensed architects, registered engineers, a staff of specialists and draftsmen in each department. The Architectural firm itself is not a licensed architect but represents and agrees that whenever the performance of this Agreement requires the services of a licensed architect or registered engineer, such services within the parameters of this Agreement shall be performed under the direct supervision of licensed architects and registered engineers. Patrick M. McKelvey shall be the architect of record and the Project Manager for the project unless otherwise approved by City in its sole discretion. 3 II-II D. Insurance 1. Architect represents that it and its agents, staff and consultants employed by it are protected by worker's compensation insurance and the Architect has the coverage under public liability and property damage insurance policies which this Agreement requires to be demonstrated in the form of a certificate of insurance. 2. Architect will provide to the City, prior to the commencement of the services required under this Agreement certificates of insurance evidencing the following insurance coverages: a. Statutory Worker's Compensation coverage. b. General and Automobile Liability coverage of $1,000,000 combined single limit "occurrence based" coverage which names City as an additional insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("primary coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("cross-liability coverage") . c. Errors and Omissions insurance and Omissions coverage is Liability policy. of $1,000,000 unless Errors included in the General 3. All policies shall be issued by a carrier that has a Best's Rating of "A, Class V", or better and shall otherwise meet with the approval of the City's Risk Manager. 4. All policies shall provide that same may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City. . 5. policy endorsements reflecting additional insured coverage, primary coverage and cross-liability coverage shall be required. 6. Deductibles on general liability and errors and omissions coverage shall not exceed $25,000. II. Article 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation. City shall regularly consult with the Architect for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Work and to provide direction and guidance to accomplish the Work. In addition thereto, the City agrees to provide the information required by the Architect and to use good faith and best efforts to make Public Works staff available to the Architect when requested, to provide information regarding staffing, operations, and future programs, with the further understanding that delay in the 4 I /-1 ~ provision of this information will constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Architect's performance of this agreement. B. Compensation. City shall pay the Architect for the Defined Services on a time and materials basis in an amount not to exceed One Million, Four Hundred Four Thousand, Three Hundred Dollars ($1,404,300.00) Compensation shall be payable in monthly progress payments on an hourly rate basis plus reasonable expenses approved by the City. Architect's hourly rates and an estimate of expenses are set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, payments made for work attributable to each phase of work shall be limited to the following maximum payment amounts: (1) (2 ) (3 ) (4) Phase I: $983,010 ( 70% of Maximum Compensation) ; Phase II: $ 70,215 ( 5% of Maximum Compensation) ; Phase III: $ 70,215 ( 5% of Maximum Compensation) ; Phase IV: $280,860 (20% of Maximum Compensation) . In addition, City shall withhold ten percent (10%) of amounts otherwise due for each monthly billing. Retained amounts shall be due and payable within fifteen (15) days after City's receipt and approval of the final deliverables for the applicable phase. The compensation provided herein shall be considered full and satisfactory consideration for all the Defined Services provided herein, including any and all related services necessary to perform the Defined Services in accordance with industry standards. No additional compensation shall be due Architect hereunder for services performed except as expressly authorized and request by City as "additional services' in accordance with Article II, ~ection D., below. C. Reductions in Scope of Work. City may from time to time reduce the Scope of Work by the Architect to be performed under this Agreement. City and Architect ~gree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the fee associated with said reduction. D. Additional Scope of Work. In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Architect to perform additional consulting services related to the General Duties and scope of Work ("Additional Services), and upon doing so in writing, Architect shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth on Exhibit B. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. 5 II - /3 III. Article 3. Administration of Contract. The City hereby designates the Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations, or his written designee, as its representative for the review and administration of the work performed by Architect herein required. IV. Article 4. Term. Subject to the terminations provisions set forth elsewhere herein, this Agreement shall terminate when all parties have complied with their obligations hereunder. V. Article 5. Financial Interests of Architect. Architect represents that neither he, nor his immediate family members, nor his employees or agents ("Architect Associates") presently have any interest, directly ,or indirectly, whatsoever in the property which is the subject matter of the Project, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of the property which is the subject matter of the Project, or ("prohibited Interest") except as listed on an attachment. Architect represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant in connection with Architect's performance of this Agreement. Architect promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Architect agrees that neither Architect nor his immediate family members, nor his employees or agents, shall acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement. Architect may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Architect's responsibilities under this Agreement. VI. Article 6. Hold Harmless. Architect shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) arising out of or alleged by third parties to be the result of the negligent acts, errors or omissions or the willful misconduct of the Architect, and Architect's employees, subcontractors or other persons, agencies or firms for whom Architect is legally responsible in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for (i) those claims arising from the sole 6 lj-N negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees or other persons, firms or agencies for whom the City is legally responsible, or (ii) with respect to losses arising from Architect's professional errors or omissions, those claims arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, employees or other persons, firms or agencies for whom the City is legally responsible. Architect's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Architects' obligations under this Section shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Architect. Architect's obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. VII. Article 7. Termination of Agreement for Cause. If, through any cause, Architect shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner his/her obligations under this Agreement, or if Architect shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, in addition to any and all other rights City may have at law or in equity, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Architect of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Architect shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Architect shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Architect's Qreach. VIII. Article 8. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City. City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Architect of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Architect shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Architect hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 7 .//- /5 IX. Article 9. Assignability. The services of Architect are personal to the City, and Architect shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City, which the City may withhold in its sole discretion. Any purported assignment in violation of this Section shall be void. X. Article 10. Ownership, publication, Reproduction and Use of Material. All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement ("Instruments of Service") shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No Instruments of Service produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use or copyrights by Architect in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City; provided, however, Architect may utilize any of the constituent parts of the documents on any other project, except for any unique or distinctive architectural or engineering components or effects which taken independently or in combinations would produce a project with substantially similar features. Architect shall also be permitted to retain copies of all work performed under this Agreement, including reproducible copies and shall be permitted to prepare standard marketing information regarding the Project for use in brochures, proposals or displays. City shall have unre- stricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute, and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. Notwithstanding City's ownership of the Instruments of Service, the Instruments of Service shall not be used or provided by City with respect to other projects, for additions to this Project or for completion of the Project by others unless the Architect is determined to be in default under this Agreement, or this Agreement is otherwise validly terminated as provided hereunder, except by Agreement in writing and with appropriate compensation. Any non-Project related use of the Instruments of Service by City shall be at the City's sole risk, and City agrees to indemnify Architect for any claims arising out of such reuse, including reimbursement of any reasonable out-of- pocket expenses. XI. Article 11. Independent Contractor. City is interested only in the results obtained and Architect shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Architect's work products. Architect and any of the Architect's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under 8 J(-/& this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury, leave or other leave benefits. XII. Article 12. Architect's Designated Representative. Architect hereby designates that Patrick M. McKelvey shall be Architect's representative ("Project Manager") to the Project for the duration of the Project. No substitution for this position shall be allowed without written approval from the City. XIII. Article 13. Resolution of Disputes; Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. A. Resolution by Mutual Agreement. All claims, disputes, or other matters in controversy between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Dispute(s)", shall be decided if possible by mutual agreement. The initiating party shall communicate such Dispute in writing to the other party within a reasonable time after initial observance or discovery of such Dispute. Such written notice of a Dispute shall be as comprehensive as possible, given in detail the facts and contentions of the initiating party so that the resolution process may be more expeditious and the issue clear. The parties agree that time is of the essence in the resolution of all such Disputes, and agrees to diligently pursue resolution of such Disputes through negotiations, meetings, observations, testing portions of the work as applicable, or such other methods as the parties may agree. If a mutually acceptable agreement resolving such Dispute;cannot be obtained within 10 days after the written notice given by the initiating party as above provided, then either party may refer the matter to mediation in accordance with paragraph B., below. B. Mediation. Any disputes, which are not resolved in accordance with Paragraph A, above, shall be submitted to non-binding mediation in accordance with the American Arbitration Association's Construc- tion Industry mediation Rules, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. The Mediator shall be promptly selected by the mutual agreement of the parties and the expense of the mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. The time, place and date of the mediation shall be determined by the mutual agreement of the parties, on consultation with the Mediator. In the event that the parties can not agree on the selection of a Mediator within fifteen (15) days of the request by either party that non-binding mediation be used to resolve any disputes, then, upon the request 9 ./1 ~ / 7 of either party, a mediator shall be appointed by the American Arbitration Association, in accordance with its then pertaining Construction Industry Mediation Rules. The parties agree to be bound by such Rules with respect to all aspects of the non-binding mediation. The mediation shall be deemed to be concluded when there is an agreement to resolve the disputes or when either party, or the Mediator, reasonably concludes that the parties have reached an "impasse". The parties may resolve all or part of any dispute, without prejudice to its right to proceed to exercise any and all other rights it may have under this Agreement, at law or in equity, with respect to any other disputes that remain unresolved. C. Administrative Claim Required. No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the city in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. XIV. Article 14. Attorney's Fees. Should any dispute, as referred to in Article 13 above, result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the defense of the claim, including costs and attorney's fees. XV. Article 15. Statement of Costs. Archite9t shall include in any bill submitted for the project a statement of the numbers and costs in dollar amounts of all contracts, subcontracts and expenses relating to work performed for which Architect is requesting compensation. XVI. Article 16. Miscellaneous. A. Architect Not Authorized to Represent City. Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Architect shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Architect is Not a Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman. Architect represents that neither Architect, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices. 10 .l/~/~ All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. Architect: RNL Design 611 West Sixth Street, suite 350 Los Angeles, Ca. 90017 Attn: Patrick M. McKelvey, AlA City: City of Chula vista 707 F Street Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 Attn: Dave Byers, Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations Copy to: City Attorney D. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the city of Chula Vista. 11 ./1-/1 G. Exhibits. All exhibits and attachments referred to herein are incorporated herein by this reference. [End of page. Next page is Signature Page.] 12 .I/~7-0 Signature Page to Agreement for Architectural, Engineering and Construction Services Administration Services with RNL/lnterplan [City Corporation Yard] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Architect have entered into this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF CHULA VISTA RNL Interplan, Inc., dba RNL Design Shirley Horton, Mayor Patrick M. McKelvey, AlA Associate Principal Attest Susan Bigelow City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney H;\home\attorney\agr~e\construc rnl 13 II- 2-1 EXHIBIT A CITY OF CHULA VISTA CORPORATION YARD SCOPE OF WORK Phase I Construction Documents The purpose and objective of the Final Construction Documents Phase is to develop the approved schematic design into more detail to fix and describe the size, character and quality of the project as to civil, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, equipment, telecommunications, and landscape systems and materials. The Construction Documents will consist of drawings and specifications in sufficient detail to permit competitive bidding by General Contractors for the work. Architect shall exercise best efforts to design the project in order to allow its completion within City's budget .of $17,706,600 for project construction costs, furniture and case goods, and telecommunications/data systems ("Initial Cost Estimate"). The specific work of Phase I will include: A. Final Design Work. Architect shall meet with city staff as City deems reasonably necessary in order to review and refine the Schematic Design documents and to prepare final design guidelines for the Corporation Yard Improvements. B. Prepare Construction Drawings. The Architect will prepare detailed construction drawings under the direct supervision of an Architect and Engineers licensed in the State of:California, which will include architectural, interior design, structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape architectural, maintenance equipment, and telecommunications disciplines. Drawings will be prepared utilizing AutoCAD Release 14 software. Specific work will generally.include but not be limited to: . Architectural drawings including site plan, floor plans, building elevations, building sections, wall sections, building details, roof plans, room finish schedules, door schedules and details, window details, millwork details, etc. . civil engineering drawings including grading and drainage plan, utility plan, geometric layout plan, site details, calculations, etc. . Landscape Architectural drawings including landscape plan, irrigation plan, plant material schedule, planting details, site furnishings, exterior signage/details, etc. A-1 11--7-;)- . Structural engineering drawings including foundation plans, floor framing plans, roof framing plans, lateral bracing, details and schedules, calculations, etc. . Mechanical engineering drawings including HVAC plans, plumbing plans, mechanical room layout plan, mechanical schedules, plumbing riser diagrams, HVAC details, fixture/equipment schedules, etc. . Electrical engineering drawings including power plans, lighting plans, one-line diagram, light fixture schedule, telephone/computer outlet locations, panel schedules, etc. . Equipment drawings including equipment layout drawing, utility coordination drawing, etc. . Interior design drawings including interior elevations, interior finish plans, interior details, etc. . Telecommunications drawings including telephone, communications, and data systems infrastructure requirements. B. Specifications The Architect will prepare the Technical Specifications for all elements of the project prepared in the CSI 16 Division format. The specifications will identify a minimum of three products or manufacturers, if required, except where it has been determined by city to benefit the project to select a proprietary or sole- source item. C. Project Manual The Architect will prepare the Project Manual in coordination with the city's Project Manager and Construction Manager including Invitation to Bid, Instruction to Bidders, Bid Form, Bid Bond, Sample Construction Contract, General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions, and the Technical Specifications. The city's standard forms, contracts, bond and other standard material will be used as required. D. Cost Estimate, Necessary Revisions. The Architect will prepare an Estimate of Probable Construction Cost on a line item/unit cost basis for the entire project. This estimate will be prepared when the documents are at a 50 % and a 100% completion status and will be submitted for review by the City and the Construction Manager. If at either point Architect's or the Construction Manager's project cost estimate exceeds one hundred six percent (106%) of the Initial Cost Estimate for the corresponding items, then, City may require A-2 /1-;)3 that Architect (without additional compensation) (1) develop one or more design alternatives that would allow for revised cost estimates that are consistent with the Initial Cost Estimate; and (2) upon city's selection of a desired alternative or alternatives, revise the Construction Documents accordingly. E. Conduct QC Review The Architect will conduct a quality control review of the Construction Documents. This review will be performed on all disciplines including architectural, civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape, telecommunications, and maintenance equipment, and will be performed by the Architect's Technical Review Group. F. Geotechnical Investigations and Report The Architect shall retain the services of licensed geotechnical consultant to test the soil conditions of the site and prepare a soils Report with recommendations for design of the foundations and structure of the proposed buildings. G. Telecommunications and Information Systems Design Telecommunications and information systems design services, provided by a specialty consultant to RNL Design, shall include layout and design of the infrastructure and specification of the voice system. Infrastructure design includes voice, data and radio system conduit and cabling design to be included in the construction contract documents. voice system services include: analysis of existing system at SDG&E facility, assessment of city needs, specification for new or expanded voice telephone system, analysis and evaluation of existing and/or new vendor recommendations, and assistance in city procurement of vendor provided system. Data system services include: analysis of existing LAN system at city Corporation Yard, specification of relocation to new facility and assistance in procurement of vendor relocation services. Radio system services include: analysis of existing system, coordination with current vendor, specification of relocation to new facility and assistance in procurement of vendor relocation services. H. Furniture Selection, Specification and Bid Package The Architect will select and specify furniture for the office areas of the Corporation Yard including casegoods and systems furniture. Bid package for the furniture will be prepared for c9mpetitive bidding. Installation plans, take offs and final quantities will be prepared by the furniture vendor(s). A-3 11-;A~ I. Subconsultants. The Architect shall be responsible for coordination of all the work and payment associated with the consultants listed below, involved with the project. Maintenance Design Group Maintenance Equipment/Process Piping/CNG Fuel Syt. Consulting Burke & Wong Structural Engineering Randall Lamb Associates Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Engineering Burkett & Wong civil Engineering Environs Landscape Architecture Yuang Tai, Inc. (MBE) Cost Estimating Geotechnical Investigations and Report (Design Services) GeoCon Telecommunications ORB COM Furniture Selection and Specifications RNL Design Facility Maintenance Manual Maintenance Design Group The fees associated with these consultants shall be paid by the Architect out of Architect's compensation hereunder. No other consultants shall be engaged by Architect to perform work hereunder without City's prior written consent. Deliverables; . Construction Drawings . Project Manual including Specifications . 50% Cost Estimate . 100% Cost Estimate . Furniture Bid Package . Geotechnical Soils Report II. PHASE II PERMITTING. The purpose of the Permitting Phase is to allow the Architect and Consultants the necessary time to ensure that all design work conforms to the requirements of each governmental or regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over the project. The work of this phase actually begins in Phase I of the project and is continuous throughout the design, but has broken out as a separate phase to call attention to the significant effort that is required to complete this work. The specific work of this phase includes: A-4 H~5 . Meet with governmental and/or regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over the project as City deems necessary to update them on project status throughout the course of the project. . The Consultant will meet with the Planning Department in order to facilitate the required planning and zoning approvals including Plan Review and Planning Commission meetings, if required. . Submit the completed construction drawings to the appropriate regulatory agencies for permitting. Attend public hearings and answer questions of the regulatory agencies as necessary. . Revise drawings, specifications and other construction documents as necessary until final approval has been granted by the required regulatory agencies. III. PHASE III BIDDING. The purpose of the Bidding Phase is to assist the City of Chula vista in selecting and contracting with a reputable General Contractor based upon a competitive bidding process. The specific work to be performed will include: A. preparing the Bid Package. To the extent not previously completed under Phase I, Section G, above, the Architect shall assist the City in the preparation of the necessary bidding information, bidding forms, conditions of the contract and the form of agreement between the City and the general contractor. B. Attend Pre-Bid Conference The Architect will attend the Pre-Bid Conference for all interested bidders in an effort to familiarize the bidders with the proposed project, and to answer questions as necessary. C. Provide Interpretations, Clarifications and Addenda The Architect will provide written interpretations and clarifications during the bidding period as necessary. In addition, the Consultant will prepare written addenda as needed for the project during the bidding phase. D. Review and Evaluate Bids The Architect will review all bids, will tabulate the bids and will provide a recommendation to the City and Construction Manager regarding the bids and award of the contract for the Corporation Yard Improvements. The Architect shall advise the A-5 11- ;)~ City of any adjustments to previous estimates of construction costs indicated by changes in requirements or general market conditions. E. Construction Document Revisions If the bids received are such that the City or Construction Manager determines that the project cost estimate exceeds one hundred six percent (106%) of the Initial Cost Estimate for the corresponding items, then, City may require that Architect (without additional compensation) (1) develOp one or more design alternatives that would allow for revised cost estimates that are consistent with the Initial Cost Estimate; and (2) upon city's selection of a desired alternative or alternatives, revise the Construction Drawings accordingly. F. Cooperation with General Contractor Once a general contractor is selected, the Architect agrees to cooperate with the chosen general contractor and any of its various subcontractors during the preparation of the contract documents, and to assist in compliance with the stipulated budget for construction of the project, in accordance with normal industry standards of practice. Deliverables: . Bid tabulation and recommendations. . Construction Document Revisions (if necessary) IV. PHASE IV CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION The purpose and objectives of the Construction Administration Phase is to endeavor to provide the City of Chula Vista with assurance that the project is constructed in accordance with the approved construction documents. The Architect shall be a representative of and shall advise and consult with the city during construction until final payment to the Contractor is due and for limited purposes thereafter as provided below. The Architect shall have authority to act on behalf of the City only to the extent provided in this Agreement unless otherwise modified by written instrument. A. Cooperation with Construction Manager. It is envisioned that the city will retain a qualified Construction Manager to assist with the pre-construction and construction phases of the project. The Architect agrees to provide technical assistance to and to cooperate with the chosen Construction Manager and to provide him with any specific information or clarification that may be required for the construction manager to complete his or her responsibilities. ((/;)1 A-6 B. Pre-Construction Meeting The Architect will attend the Pre-Construction meeting to establish the coordination/communication policies and procedures. C. Construction site visits Architect will make regular weekly visits to the site for the purpose of observing the progress and quality of work. Architect's site visits will average 8 hours per week for a duration of 12 months. In addition, each of Architect's consultants (civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, landscape, maintenance/equipment, telecommunications) will make site visits at the appropriate stages of construction for their particular discipline. Architect shall endeavor to guard City against defects and deficiencies in the work. The Architect shall review the work and recommend, to the City that work be rejected or modified if the work does not conform to the contract documents. Whenever the Architect considers it necessary or advisable, the Architect will have authority to require inspection or testing of the work in accordance with the provisions of the contract documents, whether or not such work is fabricated, installed or completed. D. Attend Construction Coordination Meetings Architect will attend weekly construction coordination meetings in conjunction with the General Contractor. Each of Architect's consultants will also attend coordination meetings at the appropriate stages of construction for their particular discipline. E. Attend Consultation and Assistance During Construction During the construction of the project, the Architect will provide interpretations and consultation as needed to the city and the Construction Manager. In addition, the Architect will render decisions as needed in a timely manner in an effort to assist the and General Contractor to maintain the timely completion of the project. F. Review Shop Drawings and Submittals The Architect will receive, review, and take appropriate action on all required submittals made by the General Contractor including shop drawings, material samples, mix designs, product literature, etc. The Architect's action shall be taken with reasonable promptness as to cause no delay in the work or in the construction of the City or of separate contractors, while allowing sufficient time in the Architect's professional judgment to permit adequate review. A-7 11- ;)'1 G. Review Pay Requests, Change Orders, etc. The Architect will review all the Contractor's pay requests, change orders, field orders, claims for additional time and other such data and will make recommendations to the city and Construction Manager for action. Based on the Architect's observations and evaluations of the Contractor's Applications for Payment, the Architect shall review and certify the amounts due the Contractor. The Architect will not provide exhaustive cost analysis of change orders and claims under this scope of work. H. Conduct Punch List and Final Inspection The Architect will conduct a "punch list" inspection prior to signing off on the Certificate of Substantial Completion. The "punch list" will identify work items which must be corrected or completed. Upon successfully correcting and completing all the items on the "punch list", or making satisfactory arrangements for their completion, Architect will execute the certificate of Substantial Completion. Architect will then conduct a Final Inspection at the appropriate time to ensure that all "punch list" work has been completed. I. Record Drawings Following the completion of the Project, the Architect will prepare a reproducible set of record drawings, showing the significant changes in the work made during construction based upon marked-up prints and other data furnished by the General Contractor. Such drawings shall include the dimension and location of below grade utility lines. Computer disks of the record drawings will be provided in AutoCAD. J. Facility Maintenance Manual Following the completion of the Project, the Architect will prepare a.facility maintenance manual which details the required maintenance procedures and schedule of activities for all components and equipment at the facility. The Architect will collect the operation and maintenance manuals from the General Contractor and compile the facility maintenance manual. This manual will detail the routine maintenance requirements and schedules for each piece of building system equipment and the major pieces of maintenance equipment, the location, the supplier/vendor, etc. K. Post-Acceptance of Work. For a period of twelve (12) months following City's acceptance of the work, the Architect will provide advice to the City in A-8 11/)-1 conjunction with the Construction Manager regarding any apparent deficiencies in construction. If remedial or additional work is required to mitigate such deficiencies, through no fault of the Architect, remedial or additional work deemed necessary by the City shall be provided by the Architect at the discretion of the City. Payment for said work shall be "additional services" entitled to additional compensation hereunder based on time and materials in accordance with Exhibit B. Deliverables: . Construction Reports . Copies of Construction Related Documents . Record Drawings . Facility Maintenance Manual Information Required of the City · Topographic and Utility site Survey in AutoCAD R14 Electronic Format . Drawings of Existing Buildings and site . Environmental Services (if required) A-9 /r~30 . /1/3/ Exhibit B City of Chula Vista Corporation Yard Basic Compensation The following Basic Compensation for the architectural and engineering services for the City of Chula Vista Corporation Yard is based upon the comprehensive Scope of Work. Basic Compensation by Firm RNL Design Project Management, Architecture, Interior Design Maintenance Design Group Maintenance Equipment/Process Piping/CNG Fuel Syt. Consulting Burkett & Wong Structural Engineering Randall Lamb Associates Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Engineering Burkett & Wong Civil Engineering Environs Landscape Architecture Yuang Tai, Inc. (MBE) Cost Estimating Subtotal of Fees Expenses (Estimated) Total of Fees Labor Fee $565,000 $116,000 $169,800 $252,500 532,500 $46,000 $24,000 $1,205,800 $60 000 $1,265,800 Optional Services: Geotechnical Investigations and Report (Design Services) GeoCon Telecomunications ORBCOM Furniture Selection and Specifications RNL Design Facility Maintenance Manual Maintenance Design Group Total Optional Services $8,500 $51,000 $49,000 $30,000 $138,500 Additional Services work to be performed for a fixed fee by the RNL Team based on the following hourly rates. Hourly Rate Schedule Principal/Project Director Principal Engineer Project Manager Maintenance Planner Project Designer Project Engineers Project Architect Estimator Design Engineer Facility Design Specialist Sf. Draftsman TechnicallCADD Clerical /(--31 $130 $125 $115 $110 $100 5100 $90 $85 $90 $65 $75 $65 $50 " 0. <: :- ::E ~ " "" ;; ~ 0 '" 0 " '" > 0 Z '0 0 0. " C/O "" " <: ~ 0 .=: i:' ::E ~ <: ~ ~ :a ~ ::E 0 '" .~ " ~ " " ~ " :5:.... Q E "" ~-:~ ...l " ~ _0 Z 0.0 0 ~ 0: " 0 . C/O '" ~ ~? ." 0 " Q > 0 Z u .. :c :c ... ~ - 0 0 0. " C/O "" " <: >, -,; ~ " 0 " ~ >, . ::E " 0. <: :a ::E .&> " "" '" '" 0 ~ -" 0 " Q ~ > '" :': 0 z . " " E E . " 0 " 0 0 ~ 2 " Cl E . .. E ~ 'C " 0. 'C 0 '" ~ " u ~ 'C E " " 'C 0 " .~ Z 0 0: " . " . 0 " -'l 0 f c ~ . ~ 0: 0 .= 0. " " C/O ., '0 B .. E " " . "" ~ " ~ ~ <a ~ _ .~ QJ)"O C <tI '" a . 2 0.._ .S <: z .. '7 =? Y""i' ... .. <II :; "'Cl 'C <II ; ~ ;;.. '" ~ . .. " ... 0 <II 0. '0' 2; ... u P. .!! t;; '" . c -,; :~ ~ "il 0 ... :c p. U " o 0. !;! " " ~.~ c 8- ~:; ~ E ~ :g~g~ <u:.=u"@ C Oll'g -g ~ ._ c: I..:.. <tI =E'~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ;g .~ .~ = ~ "E ~ u.. ;~~c] ff~q~ 0 . 0 c: " 0 0 -,; .~ " .9 'C " -;; " C/O . a ~ ~C: 0 " '" 0 E '2 " " " c "ij 0. "ij . c: ::E ~ ::E lJ ~ ~ ~ Vi . . . 0. 0. 0. 0 ~ " " 9 .,. <\= <\= " o '2 c . c: " t: .:: '" o " E lJ E . 0 'E ~ w fa " ~ o " u .;; ~ ~ e-:c 0;: y ~ . .. .. " 0 " . 0 c c: 0 " 0 '-a .~ .~ 0 " '" Q " 'u .~ Cl " .~ 0. . -;; C/O E " " E .8 .. " " .. "5 0 '" '" 0 c ~ e . . ~ 0. 0. . " " .. <\= <\= .. " " E ~ 5 .E ~ UJ a " ~ 0-" u > ~ ~ 0. >, " - 0;: y " " " " " E " " E " " 0 0 /1- 33 Q 0 Cl 0 c 0 ~ .g .9 " " '0 c >, " ~ ti 0. ti " c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ u .g 0 u u 0 ~ 2:S ;. " .;:; ;; " .~ :.a 't;:; ~ ~ 0. ~ " 'C 0 0 . <\= " . ~~f .. .,. .. .. .. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL AND APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH RNL DESIGN FOR PREPARATION OF CORPORATION YARD CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND AMENDING FY 99- 00 CIP BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS WHEREAS, in November 1990, the City Council approved an agreement with RNL/Interplan (now RNL Design) for preparation of a Master Plan for a new City Corporation Yard; and WHEREAS, at that time, the City had an agreement to purchase a site adjacent to what will not be Olympic Parkway in Sunbow II, however, due to the collapse of the building economy in the early 1990's, Sunbow II was not built; and WHEREAS, subsequently, Council approved purchase of a site in Otay Rio Business Park, which was, instead used by White Water Canyon; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 1998, the city Council approved an agreement with SDG&E for the City's purchase of SDG&E's South Bay Service Center at 1800 Maxwell Road; and WHEREAS, in November 1998, the City Council approved an agreement with RNL Design for preparation of a Corporation Yard Master Plan update and Schematic Design drawings; and WHEREAS, RNL Design has completed the Master Plan update and the Schematic Design drawings for the new Corporation Yard and it is now necessary to prepare Construction Drawings and other items necessary to go to bid for construction of the improvements needed for City operations; and WHEREAS, since RNL has specialized knowledge of the City's needs as a result of preparation of the initial Master Plan, and has demonstrated expertise in this specialized field, and is therefore uniquely qualified to provide the architectural, engineering, administration and construction services necessary to implement the project, staff recommends waiving, as impractical, the normal consultant selection process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED based upon the facts set forth above, the city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby waive the consultant selection process as impractical in accordance with Section 2.56.070 of the Chula vista Municipal Code. 1 (/--3tJ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve an Agreement with RNL Design for preparation of Corporation Yard Construction Drawings and related services, in the form submitted with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the authorized and directed to execute said Agreement of the city of Chula vista. Mayor is hereby for and on behalf BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 99-00 CIP Budget is hereby amended by appropriating $1,819,300 to GG131 from available balances in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Corporation Yard (Corp Yard DIF) . Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works a ;rohtt-~. Kah U , H;\home\lorraine\rs\rnl agr 2 (1/35 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 1,/ Meeting Date October 19. 1999 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CITY'S FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS, APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE LEGAL FIRM OF REMY, THOMAS & MOOSE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE OLYMPIC PARKWAY ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY: Director of Pl~ and Building ;?It REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NolO Many aspects of the process for obtaining environmental clearances for Olympic Parkway have been quite complex. During the preparation of the CEQA document and then with the processing of the 404 permit, it became evident that the expertise of the law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose would be needed. This resolution authorizes the Mayor to execute an agreement with Remy, Thomas and Moose for these services. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopts the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: Remy, Thomas and Moose has provided special counsel to the City over the years on particularly complex projects with regards to CEQA compliance. The City Attorney's office has solicited Statement of Qualifications (SOQs) from a number of law firms throughout the State. The SOQs were used to determine which firms had the most expertise in various types of law. Due to their reputation and past performance, it was determined that Remy, Thomas and Moose has the greatest expertise in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the types of projects the City processes. This expertise was demonstrated during their work on the Otay Ranch project. It was also determined that Remy, Thomas & Moose have expertise in the processing of various types of environmental permits such as Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act 404 permits (AcoE 404). During the completion of the CEQA process, it became evident that the processing of the 404 permit through the Army Corps of Engineers as well as the other Resource Agencies would become very complex. It was determined that their expertise would be crucial to our on-going interactions with Corps staff and the other Federal agencies involved. Initially it appeared that Remy, Thomas and Moose's services would not exceed $50,000, however due to the protracted negotiations involved in the processing of the AeoE 404 permit, it has now estimated that their services will be approximately $80,000. This will cover all of their services through the approval of the ACoE 404 permit, plus leave a contingency for any ( ;)-- ( Page 2, Item Meeting Date /96 other services that may be needed as we implement the conditions of the 404 permit. FISCAL IMPACT: The contract extends through June 2000, and it is not anticipated that it will be extended. The CIP budget for this project, STM33l (attached), shows $1,500,000 for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. Attachments: Exhibit A - Agreement Exhibit B - CIP # STM331 Capital Improvements Program Detail H:\SHAREDlPLANNING\RemyStmt.doc I;}-/'~ Agreement Between City of Chula Vista and Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP For Legal Consulting Services Re: Oympic Parkway This Agreement ("Agreement"), dated " 1999 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has determined that it is in need of specialized legal services for review of the legal adequacy of certain environmental documentation required for the Olympic Parkway extension; and WHEREAS, the project site consists of the extension of Olympic Parkway (Orange Avenue) from the eastern boundary of the Sunbow property to a point east of SR-125. This portion of the Olympic Parkway extension traverses the Sunbow, Otay Ranch, McMillin-Otay Ranch, New Millennium, and EastLake developments. The developers of these projects, as well as other potentially effected developers, have been meeting regularly with City staff to address the financing issues and design issues as they relate to the project. In addition to the design and related environmental documents being prepared for the extension, a financing study has also been prepared. WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the legal services of a law firm that specializes in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are necessary to ensure that the environmental documents are fully prepared in accordance with CEQA, and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the legal services of a law firm that specializes in the processing of various federal and state environmental clearances (i.e., 404 permit, 1603 streambed alteration agreement, etc), are necessary to ensure the timely issuance of said clearances by the wildlife agencies. }:J--" 3 Page 1 H :\shared\planning\remythoma-olyphlys.agr.doc 10/14/99 WHEREAS, the law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose is known throughout the State of California for their expertise and experience regarding the California Environmental Quality Act, and WHEREAS, the law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose is known throughout the State of California for their expertise and experience the processing of the necessary federal and state environmental clearances, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.070 that competitive bidding is impractical, and waive the normal consultant selection process because of Remy, Thomas and Moose's historic significant time and effort advising on the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report of the General Plan, retention as counsel on related litigation, and historic significant time and effort processing of the necessary environmental clearances, and reasonable fees, and WHEREAS, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions 0 this Agreement. WHEREAS, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties. A. General Duties. Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, .Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope-of-Work and Schedule. In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled "Scope-of-Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this Agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope-of-Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined H. \shared\plannmg\remythoma-olypkwys-agr doc 10/14/99 (? / Page 2 Services." Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope-of-Work. City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services. In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph II (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. E. Standard of Care. Consultant, in performing any Services under this Agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. Insurance. Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against .the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City and Applicant as an Additional Insured, H :\shared\planning\remythoma-olypk\vys-agr.doc 10/14/99 (d-~5 Page 3 and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof ofInsurance Coverage. (l) Certificates ofInsurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. H. Security for Performance. (1) . Performance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond," in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled H: Ishareu\planninglremythoma-olypkwys-agr.doc 10/14/99 }d-'- Page 4 "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit," in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. I. Business License. Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City. A. Consultation and Cooperation. City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this Agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files, and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide . the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this Agreement. B. Compensation. Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph H: \shared\planning\remythoma~olypkwys-agr.doc 10/14/99 /)-~ Page 5 11, adj acent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subj ect to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract. Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this Agreement. 4. Term. This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages. The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure. to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor Id~~ Page 6 H :\shared\planning\remythoma-olypkwys-agr.doc 10114/99 portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant. A. Consultant is designated as an FPPC filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, .Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or ifnone are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPL filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this Agreement. D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's H: \shared \p lann ing \remytho ma -0 I ypb'lys-agr .doc 10/14/99 I?r ~ Page 7 which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 6. Hold Harm1ess. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 7. Termination of Agreement for Cause. H: \shared\planning\rcmythoma-olypkwys-agr .dol.; 10/14/99 (:) -/D Page 8 If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 8. Errors and Omissions. In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this Agreement. 9. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City. City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives. any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 10. Assignability. The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants." II. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material. H :\shared\planning\remythoma-olypkwys-agr.doc 10/14/99 [)--I/ Page 9 All reports, studies, information, data, statIstIcs, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 12. Independent Contractor. City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 13. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures. No suit or. arbitration shall be brought arising out of this Agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose ofresolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 14. Attorney's Fees. Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. H: \sharcd\plannmglremythoma-olypkwys-agr.duc 10114/99 /d-~{.~. Page 10 15. Statement of Costs. In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. 16. Miscellaneous. A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City. Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman. If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices. All notices, demands, or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties. H :\shared\planning\remythoma-olypkwys-agr.doc 10/14/99 I:J ;,/?J Page 11 Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. [End of page. Next page is signature page.] H:\shared\planning\remythoma-olypkwys-agr.doc 10/14/99 I ~ r /0/ Page 12 Signature Page Agreemeut Betweeu City ofChula Vista and Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP For Cousultant Work Re: Olympic Parkway IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms. Dated: Dated: City of Chula Vista Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP By: Shirley Horton, Mayor By: Tina A. Thomas, Partner Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Exhibit A H:\shareJ\planning\remythoma-olypkwys-agr.doc 10/14/99 /:; -I? Page 13 Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Remy, Thomas, and Moose, LLP For Legal Consulting Services Re: Olympic Parkway 1. Effective Date of Agreement: March 1, 1999 2. City-Related Entity: (X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the .State of California () Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California () Industrial Development Authority of the City ofChula Vista, a ( ) Other: form] , a [insert business 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth-Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: Remy, Thomas, and Moose, LLP 5. Business Form of Consultant: () Sole Proprietorship (X) Limited Liability Partnership () Corporation H: \shared\p lanning\remythoma-ol ypkwys-agr.doc 10/14/99 Id~/6 Page 14 6. Place of Business, and Telephone Number of Consultant: 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95814 Voice Phone (916) 443-2745 Fax: (916) 443-9017 7. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. General Duties: To the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator, review, for legal adequacy Olympic Parkway Environmental documents; prepare Draft Findings of Fact in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on behalf of the City of Chula Vista; and Consult on issues and provide legal advise related to obtaining environmental clearances for the project, including, but not limited to, a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department ofFish and Game. 8. Schedule, Milestone, Time-Limitations within which to Perform Services. Date for Commencement of Legal Consultant Services: ( X ) Same as Effective Date of Agreement Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. I: Comments in the form of margin notes on environmental documents, Draft Findings of Fact, Overriding Considerations and Draft Responses to Comments. Deliverable NO.2: Permit Clearances: Issuance of Environmental Clearances by the agencies. Dates for completion of all Legal Consultant services: June, 2000. 9. Contract Administrators. City: Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Projects Manager 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5707 H: \shared\planning\remythoma-olypkwys-agr.doc 10/14/99 ;;)r/1 Page 15 Legal Consultant: Tina A. Thomas Remy, Thomas, and Moose, LLP, Attorneys at Law 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-2745 10. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (X) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. (X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. () Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included m Commercial General Liability coverage). (X) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $1,000,000 (not included m Commercial General Liability coverage). II. Compensation: A. (X) Time and Materials For performance of the General and Detailed Services of Legal Consultant as herein required, Applicant shall pay Legal Consultant for the productive hours of time and material spent by Legal Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth herein below according to the following terms and conditions: (X) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Legal Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Legal Consultant agrees that Legal Consultant will perform all of the General and Detailed Services herein required of Legal Consultant for no more than $80,000 including all Materials, and other "reimbursables: ("Maximum Compensation"). Rate Schedule Category of Employee of Legal Consultant Name Hourly Rate H :\shared\planning\remythoma-olypkwys-agr.doc 10/14/99 f )- ~ / ? Page 16 Attorney - Partner Senior Associate Tina A. Thomas John Mattox $195.00 $150.00 () Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after December, 1999, if delay in providing services is in the opinion of the City's Director of Planning and Building, caused by the City. 12. ( ) FPPC Filer () Category No. I. Investments and sources of income. () Category No.2. Interests in real property. () Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property, and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. () Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale ofreal property. () Category NO.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. () Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. .( Category No.7. Business positions. () List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 13. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 14. Permitted Subconsultants: H :\shared\planning\remythoma-olypkwys-agr.doc 10114/99 I:) / /1 Page 17 None. 15. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's billing to be submitted for the following period of time: (X) Monthly () Quarterly () Other: B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: (X) First of the Month ) 15th Day of each Month ( ) End of the Month Other: C. City's Account Number: STM33l 16. Security for Performance () Performance Bond, $ () Letter of Credit, $ () Other Security: Type: Amount: $ (X) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: (X) Retention Percentage: 10% H:\shared\planning'.remythoma-olypkwys-agr,doc 10/14/99 /;)~;;? Page 18 () Retention Amount: $ Retention Release Event: (Xl Completion of All Consultant Services H:\shart:d\planning\remythoma-olypkwys-agr.doc 10/14/99 Page 19 IJ-'-~I ~ i '" +-' .~ .D . ..<:: x u.J . . 1 . . .... <C I- W C =< <l:iii I-Cl !!!o >g: :5<1l :::>1- J:Z UW I.I.=< o~ >0 1-0: -0- u!!! .... <l: l- e: <l: u . . 1 . . . . ] . . . . ",- S ~ aia: ~,. 'ad; . - w'" -- w . ,.-c - '" ~:! en.!:! < m:g.; ~o.'" i:i ~ a: '" ~ fa '" O.:;~ cna5:: >:!.... ::i~frl ~<-, ....0.0 ~~g: > . 3 ~ . 0. . 1: , :I: .s . , . . > '" . . 'j; > ." "'~ . - :em . E ~ !:! .~;. : Ollll;: , 3 c _.w.t:: c( :; t:: ;::a..~ ~-aE .:IE E! ..- ~ = lIlOw ~ w 0: '" 2 :5 0. > .... Z ci..~ 2w a..~::: __0 U....U lIl.... 22 !2w ...I~~a:: ct_~< bfuW i-O:::l> 0:0: 0.:I: ~.... .... frl;;! ..,.... 00 0:.... 0. ... o M o o N > ... M o N o o N > ... N 9 ~ o o N > ... ~ o 6 o o N > ... o o a. '" '" ~ it .;; w .... '" :! ;:: III W .... III o U o o o o o o o C> . 'c . . ii: > S . ~ c. o Ii: -' o o o o . c ." ';; '3 C" u '" ." . . -' o o o o . C> ';; o o o o o o o 6 o on :;; o o o 6 o on. . o ." u = ~ w . o U ;:i o 0 o 0 o 0 o ci on on o o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 on on o o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 on on o o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 on on o o 0 o o 6 o "l. ~ o o o o oi ... '" - o o 0 o 0 o 0 ai .oj ... ... Le 0 '" o . o ." ~ . 'c E ." '" -;;; ~ . o to :> o o o oi ... '" :;; III -' '" .... o .... .;; w U 0: '" o III to 2 U 2 '" 2 it o o o 6 on o o o o o on o o o o o on o o o o o on o o o o 6 o on - o o o o ",' ... M ~ o o o o oi ... o '" o .5 ~ c. o 0; > . ." > .c ." . . 3 .c E .~ . .c 'j; o o o '6 o on o lIl_ 2- ",1:2 0:0 teO -> 0... o o o 6 on o o o o o on o " .t- ! ~ r~~r.r:+~ .--T' ~ -",""..:.,.. '~ :1"-f~: ~; ~'~~~- ~ ~~~~.. ~ ~~ &~';-t> :dl\ ___ (~ti~~_ ~, "VM~. 11~. ~____<'i -k~ ~ ~~~-=!~~ o o o o on o o o o o on o o o o 6 o on '" > ~ ~ ~U " > Ole; .50 " . .. . u: - o ~"t:l . " " ~ E" (I) c..~ CD 00 g. as C. >- ~ 6;! m CD "C co ::: "C Q)"'C ~ >- :s 0 C'l:l.,C ...E 0..-0 .2E S ~ "C 8 3 g ~ ~ :I:'::' OJ... o \- .S 0 ... 0 ... l: CD _ .~ c: ::::I In X ro c += CD u CD.g ..: is"'C ~ ti &- ~ e:CCU"CC::: c...ai~c '~a;E~g, ;g~~.~~ ~ CD '0'''0 CD~c.m-a E C'l:l ..; s: ca _~-gc:tiC1 o ~ m Q) c c:; CD G:i OIVcnc:"" ';; ~ c: 0 U 0 'w -g 2 Q) 0 c: ca ~~~~1D 8 Q,) C CD ~ > Q) >-... >CDEcocn co"'C c: s: S:a.g~j: ~ :J > ro... co 0 c a.. (I) a..... Q;l () lU 0';;: en'- W "5. CD ~ E . E..c t3 >- en 2:'9 5 CD o ~ ~ '15 ~.-g~i:i'E S"C :g.2 Ql '+=-5o~~ 'l:.5'i==1i3 ~ ... .... '; .... C1l o.!2 ell en C.s.~~~ o o o oi ... '" ~ o o 8 oi " o '" o III -' '" .... o .... to 2 U 2 '" 2 it , ~J is ~ ~ ~g. a'" Ita <~ ~.g ~~ (,) Q) Q) Q) Q) en o~ .5~=~t: en..c S:..J ...J Q) U) a.. >-.... <_ en; 0 ... rc ~ CI] .Q0 -g$:~-;t5 'S -g ~ = CO.~ ~ c' "C 2- _0) allD:o~ vi u.. N en .5 ~ 0 CD Q) Q) .5~ ~g5:t5~ ~ ~ -00 <!)o~_Q. ex) ~~ 5;~~~ ~ ~ C.Cl 'fl~Q).!S: :c~~ E> 2~c:a..-t EQ)~ 8u.. 1ii<'~.~ acnE en E c: Q) >Q; C1) Co I'a C'.! 8.5"0 Q).;,e. Q) 0 e s:co "C s: ~~j uo:;; >C"":l c>al_ti ~~!U "C 0 . <<I"'C n:l <-~et:t; '-oEcn ~ u.. O'J- CD C'l:l C'l:l >- Q)'- ttl c: ~ - c: ... EwE rc .... t; s: ~Q)E'i:~Q)ooS:.S!Q) ."'co Q):> > ....iii~ a.cn 0. oa..c . Q,)Q)eoc..raE'-:.: >a.~.5 Ul c.... .n.. 0 Cl== ......_ClceQ)wlDu.5E == ::1>_ i g.--5 E1:: c:".g-~ :e.E ~c: c:e:::l.c::.... ~.' ~.._ Q).... ro . (tI_J:> en U)iu~a:U'l ;;>_<1> Q)~"Cro O....O....Q) E > Q) .c:: E 'ij) s: Q) c: .... .0 S -E a.. Q) CD.:.t. III Q) .....- a....!) Cl "'roE~"" .,2ca;J <<J~l'lJa.. '.. Ole ~.~ t;Q ~U1~ E ~~ffi'~g -8.-c: EN"'EE~....UiO'? o ~ 8 >-0 0'7 5 - Q.E 0... II) ~ 0 0 ...a..Q) IDa::J:Ul.-Q) UllOO ~I ~~ ! ~ ~I~ ; ~ ~ i ~ 21~ E"CooQ)::I~os: oWO .2.l!.!!.:;;~iii~a~E :.:.:.~ o 0 E _ ~ > ro E m E E 0 e >cna..=Q.<(a.._a.._O._Z Co " . ~ ~ -5 > ~ ;: "t:l ~ e B "t:l " ~ .. " .2 ';ij " .0 ~ /J-~J} ~ o . . ,- > ;, RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CITY'S FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS, APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE LEGAL FIRM OF REMY, THOMAS & MOOSE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE OLYMPIC PARKWAY ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, environmental clearance according to the California Environmental Quality Act is necessary to proceed with construction of Olympic Parkway; and WHEREAS, specialized legal services are required to assist in the complex environmental permit process; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the city Council waive the formal bidding process for the selection of legal services, as defined in section 2.56.070 of the Municipal Code, citing the following findings: 1. There is a necessity to expedite the environmental clearance process to begin construction on Olympic Parkway, to meet community needs in the new master planned developments. 2. There are limited firms with specialized expertise in obtaining wetland permits. 3. The legal firm of Remy, Thomas & Moose has performed satisfactory contract services for the city in the past; and WHEREAS, funding for the legal services comes from the Olympic Parkway Development Impact Fee (STM-33l). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby waive the formal bidding process for the selection of legal services. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council does hereby approve the Agreement between the city of Chula vista and the legal firm of Remy, Thomas & Moose for $80,000 for legal services related to the Olympic Parkway Environmental Clearance, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the city Clerk. BE Chula vista agreement on IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of is hereby authorized and directed to execute said behalf of the City of Chula vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning and Building ~~f\L..~-J-- Jo M. Kaheny, CCity Attorney / IJ J--?J COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item .'3 Meeting Date: ]0/19199 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement between the City and Otay Project, LP to provide for the maintenance of certain improvements in the Poggi Canyon Channel and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement. Resolution Approving the Desiltation and Maintenance agreement between the City and McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC to provide for the maintenance of certain improvements in the Poggi Canyon Channel and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement. Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Detention Basin and Siltation between the City and McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ryyvI REVIEWED BY: City Manager Gro/ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No_XJ The Tentative Map conditions for the proposed developments in Otay Ranch SPA One require compliance with certain requirements regarding maintenance of the proposed Poggi Canyon improvements. In addition, Council Policy No. 522-02 requires the developer to maintain the drainage improvements for 5 years. Currently, the Otay Ranch Company and McMillin are processing mass grading plans with the City for a portion of their project draining to Poggi Canyon and issuance of the grading permits is anticipated shortly. The subject agreements delineate the developers' responsibilities for maintaining the proposed Poggi Canyon drainage improvements and establish the security requirements to ensure their performance. Tonight, Council will also consider amending an existing agreement with McMillin for Telegraph Canyon which will exclude all areas located within the Poggi Canyon basin previously included in the agreement. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve: 1) the resolution approving the Desiltation and Maintenance agreement between the City and Otay Project, LP and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement, 2) the resolution approving the Desiltation and Maintenance agreement between the City and McMillin Gtay Ranch, LLC and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement, 3) the resolution approving the First Amendment to the Detention Basin and Siltation agreement between the City and McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. -4T /3 - / Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date 10/19/99 DISCUSSION: 1. POGGI CANYON AGREEMENTS Council has already approved four tentative maps for the properties in Otay Ranch SPA One (SPA One) draining to Poggi Canyon, as follows: Otay Ranch Company's Tentative M:ws * Tentative Map No. 96-04 (TM 96-04) approved by Council on March 25, 1997 for a portion of Villages 1 and 5 of SPA One. Tentative Map No. 96-04A (TM 96-04A) approved by Council on May 4, 1999 covering only Phase 7 of SPA One. Tentative Map No. 98-06 (TM 98-06) approved by Council on August 17, 1999 for Village One West. * * McMillin Otay Ranch's Tentative M:w * Tentative Map No. 98-04 (TM 98-04) approved by Council on June 9, 1998 for the McMillin Otay Ranch project (portions of Villages 1 and 5). Certain conditions of approval of these tentative maps require compliance, prior to issuance of a grading permit, with certain requirements related with the maintenance of the proposed drainage improvements in Poggi Canyon (see Exhibit A). The developers (Otay Ranch Company and McMillin) are currently processing mass grading plans for the construction of: 1) Olympic Parkway from Brandywine Avenue to SR-125 and, 2) the Poggi Canyon Channel located within the Otay Ranch from Sunbow to SR-125 (see Exhibit B). The grading plans also propose the construction of a runoff detention basin immediately upstream of the Sunbow project. Approval of these grading plans and issuance of the corresponding grading permits are anticipated shortly. Both developers propose to enter into separate agreements covering the maintenance of the improvements to be constructed by each developer. McMillin will maintain that portion of the Poggi Canyon channel located within their property in SPA One. Otay Ranch Company will maintain the remaining improvements to be constructed between SR-125 and Sunbow. Following is a discussion on how the developers propose to satisfy the applicable tentative map conditions: 1.1 Condition # 54(a) of TM 96-04. Condition # 55(a) of TM 96-04A. and Condition #48( a) of TM 98-04 and Condition # 62( a) of TM 98-06. These conditions require the developers to guarantee the construction of a permanent naturalized channel and detention basin in Poggi Canyon. Said detention facility shall reduce the 100-year frequency peak flow from the development to an amount equal to or less than the pre-development flows. As mentioned before, the City is currently processing mass grading plans that include constructing the Poggi Canyon Channel from SR 125 to Sunbow. Said plans also include the construction of a runoff detention facility immediately upstream of the Sunbow project (see Exhibit A). The proposed agreements require both developers to submit bonds guaranteeing the construction of the drainage improvements prior to issuance of the grading permit for the construction of the drainage facilities. ---IF / 3 --;1 Page 3, Item_ Meeting Date 10/19/99 1.2 Condition # 54(b) of TM 96-04. Condition # 55(b) of TM 96-04A. and Condition # 48(b) ofTM 98-04 and Condition # 62(b) ofTM 98-06. These conditions require the developers to prepare a maintenance program of the proposed drainage improvements for approval by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Building, and the applicable resource agencies. The developers propose to satisfy these requirements as follows: * Temporary Maintenance Pro!:ram: The developers have already submitted a Temporary Maintenance Program (Exhibits C and D) which includes guidelines for the inspection, monitoring and maintenance of the proposed improvements by the developer. The program excludes the mitigation areas which are covered by the environmental permits. The total annual maintenance costs have been estimated at $61,800 for the Otay Ranch Company and $12,000 for McMillin. The Temporary Maintenance Program has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. * Permanent Maintenance Program: In consideration that the City is processing the environmental permits for construction of the drainage facilities, staff recommends that the City should be responsible for preparing and obtaining approval by the resource agencies of the Permanent Maintenance Program as part of the ongoing process. The agreements require the developers to fund the preparation and approval of this program (the Otay Ranch Company will provide $7,500 and McMillin $2,500 prior to issuance of the grading permits). This program will provide an operations manual for maintaining the drainage improvements after the City takes over the maintenance. It should be noted that Council has already formed Community Facilities Districts No. 97-1,98-1, and 98-2, which would provide a combined annual budget of $34,400 for maintaining the channel and detention basin improvements after the developers' maintenance obligation is over. The special taxes levied by said CFDs may be adjusted every year to keep pace with increases in the maintenance costs due to inflation. 1.3 Conditions # 54(c) and 54(d.1) of TM 96-04. Conditions # 55(C) and 55(d.1) of TM 96-04A. and Conditions # 48(c) and 48(d.l) of TM 98-04 and Conditions # 62(c) and 62(d.l) of TM 98-06. These conditions require each developer to enter into an agreement with the City and the applicable resource agencies, where the developer agrees to provide for the maintenance of the proposed drainage improvements until maintenance of such facilities is assumed by the City or an open space district. In compliance with these requirements, the developers agree to the following: * Maintenance Pro!:ram. In Section 2.f of the agreements, the developers agree to perform the activities delineated in the Temporary Maintenance Program until the later to occur of: 1) acceptance of 100% of the maintenance of said improvements by an established Maintenance District, or 2) five years after City's acceptance of any open space landscaping required for the drainage improvements, not including the habitat mitigation, in accordance with Council Policy 522-02, or 3) acceptance by the Resource Agencies of the habitat mitigation. The developers have also agreed to post the required maintenance bonds prior to issuance of the grading permit. 11= /3 --3 Page 4, Item_ Meeting Date 10/19/99 * Environmental Mitigation: The environmental permits for constructing Olympic Parkway and the Poggi Canyon improvements have already been issued. Said permits are attached to the proposed Poggi Canyon agreements. It is important to note that Section 2.f.iii of the agreements stipulates that the developers shall be responsible for implementing, at its sole cost, all the requirements imposed by the environmental permits (i.e., Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit, Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification or Waiver, Endangered Species Act 4 (d) habitat loss permit, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement). 1.4 Conditions # 54(d 2) and 54(d.3) ofTM 96-04. Conditions # 55(d.2) and 55(d.3) of TM 96-04A. Condition # 48(d.2) and 48(d 3) of TM 98-04. and Condition # 62(d.2) and 62(d.3) of TM 98-06. These conditions require the developer to enter into an agreement, where the developer agrees to provide for the removal of siltation (attributable to the development) in the proposed detention basin and naturalized Poggi Canyon channel. Section 3.a of the proposed agreements stipulates that the developer would provide for the removal of siltation (attributable to his development) within the proposed drainage facilities until the later to occur of: 1) all upstream grading within the development is completed and erosion protection planting is adequately established, or 2) five years after City's acceptance of the maintenance of the applicable drainage improvements. As security for complying with these obligations, each developer is required to submit, prior to the issuance of the grading permit, a cash bond in the amount of $30,000. This deposit may be used to pay for the cost of any removal of siltation in case of default by the developer. 1.5 Council Policy No. 522-02 (see Exhibit E) requires the developer to maintain natural drainage facilities (which would ultimately be maintained by an open space district) for a period of 5 years. The policy requires a security bond in an amount equivalent to 5 years of maintenance. The environmental permits would require the developers to maintain the mitigation areas (which include the bottom as well as the side slopes of the channel) for a minimum of 5 years after completion of the wetland mitigation installation. Also, the 404 CORPS permit requires submittal of a bond securing the installation, monitoring, and maintenance of the mitigation areas. Section 2. f.iv of the agreements requires the developer provide security bonds as required by the resource agencies and to maintain the bond in full effect during the developer's obligation period. The agreements also requires that the City be named as additional obligee on all bonds required by the environmental permits. Staff considers that by: 1) entering into the proposed Detention Basin and Siltation agreements, 2) entering into the 5-year maintenance agreements with CDFG, 3) posting of the 5-year bond with the Corps (approximately 1.9 million for both developers), 4) posting of the 5-year maintenance bonds with the City ($309,000 for the Otay Ranch Company and $60,000 for McMillin), and 5) posting of the cash bond ($30,000 each developer) guaranteeing the removal of siltation, both developers comply with the requirements of Council Policy No. 522-02. =If /3-Lj Page 5, Item_ Meeting Date 10/19/99 The proposed agreement stipulates that the City may withhold building permits for the project if the City determines the developer not to be in compliance with the terms of the agreement. The form of the agreements has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Both developers have already signed the proposed agreements. 2.0 AMENDMENT TO TELEGRAPH CANYON AGREEMENT On March 31, 1998 by Resolution No. 18934, Council approved a Detention Basin and Siltation agreement with McMillin to provide for the construction and maintenance of certain drainage improvements in the Telegraph Canyon Channel. Said agreement encumbered properties located within the Telegraph Canyon basin as well as properties located within the Poggi Canyon basin. By approving the proposed amendment, Council will limit the agreement to those areas of SPA One draining to the Telegraph Canyon. The balance of the McMillin property draining to Poggi Canyon is addressed in a companion agreement also presented tonight to Council. The proposed form of the amendment has already been approved by the City Attomey. McMillin has already signed the proposed amendment. Council has also approved a similar agreement with the Otay Ranch Company providing for the construction and maintenance of certain drainage improvements in Telegraph Canyon. This agreement needs to be revised to only include the properties draining to Telegraph Canyon and to incorporate the Village I West properties. At the request ofthe developer, this amendment will be brought to Council at a later date. This would allow enough time to gather the required signatures from all successors in interest of the properties encumbered by said agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: None. All costs associated with the construction of the proposed drainage facilities in Poggi Canyon will be fronted by the developers. At the request of the Otay Ranch Company, the City is currently processing Community Facilities District No 99-1 to finance the construction of a portion of these improvements. The developer will be responsible for maintaining the proposed improvements until said maintenance is assumed by the existing open space districts. Exhibits: A - TM Cooditions of Approval B - Poggi Canyon Drainage Improvements C - Temporary Maiotenance Program - Otay Ranch Company D - Temporary Maintenance Program - McMillin E - Couocil Policy No. 522-02 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \POGGI_ 2.LDT File 0600-80-0R 14\ G & 0600-80-0R221 G October 14. 1999 (9:26am) -ff )3-5 , " ;=X HISI! ;-, #/3 Partial Conditions Of Approyal For Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04 Otay Ranch Spa One Condition No. 54 54. Prior to approval of (I) the first final'S" Map or grading p-'...mUt for land drEining into the Poggi Canyon or (2) the first final'S" Map or grading p-'..mUt which requires construction of Stnta Madera b::tw= Telegraph Canyon Road and Morgan Hill Drive ("Temporary Roadway"), the deveiop::r shall: &. G.laf2Iltee the construction of the applicable d..-ainage ~ty, urllesS othe",,".5e approved by the Ci:y Engineer as follows: 1. Runoffderemionldesilting basin and na=iilized channel in Poggi Cz.."lYOl'~ or Runoff detemion Basin in T eleg:-aph Canyon Chann=l ... 7:'1: Ci:y :ngiae:: m!y approve that these fa:iliri:s are COI'.5'"J'U=ted at f. late:- :i..~: if :'1: :ieve1:lp:r pro\icies priva!: t~"!l?:1;'2..J1 nL.,off" o""-ntion basins or other fa~ti::s: a??roved by L,e Ci:y Engineer, whicil wouid re:i:J~ th: quantity ofI'U.t.'1orr :om t..i-:1e development to z..i z..-nount egual to, jess than t.~e present 1 D:l y::ar DO\\". Sci:i tempo;-ary facilities shall comply whh ell the provisions of the National ?oliu:s.m Dici.arge Elimination S}'stem (l'.1J>DES) and th: Clean Water Program. Prior to isSUz..ice of any gra:iing permit which ap?roves any temporary f~"iijty, the d::veiope:- shell enter intO an agreement with the City to guarantee the adequate: operation and maintenance (0 & M) of said facility. Tne d::velop::r shall provide se::urity satisfactory to the City to guarantee tne 0 & M activities, in the event said facilities s.:-e no: mai.itained to City s-.andards as determined by the City Engineer. Tne developer shell be responsible for obtaining all permits and agre=ents v.ith the environmental regulato!)' agencies required to perform this work. b. Prepare a maintenance program includillg a schedule:, estimate of cost, operations IIWl'..lal and a financing mechanism for the maintenance of the applicable facilities. Said program shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer, the Director of Parks and Recreation, and the applicable environmental agencies. c. Enter into an agreement with the City of Chula ViS'.a and the applicable environmental agencies (Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife) wh::rein the parties agree to impleme.'1l the maintenance program. d. Enter into an agreement with the City where: the developer agrees to the: following: 1. Provide for the mamtenance of the proposed detention basin in Telegraph Canyon and the proposed naturalized channel and detention b2.Sin in Poggi Canyon until such time as maintenance of such filcilities is assumed by t.lJ.e City or an op-'..n space district / 2. Provide for the removal of siltation in the Telegraph and Poggi Canyo:! Channels (including detention basins) until all upstream grading within the development is completed and erosion protection planting is a.:iequ8!e.iy established as.determined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks ll.,d Recreation. H 3. Provide for the removlll of any siltation in the Telegreph and Poggi Ca.rlYo:! Channels (mcluding detention basins) attn"butahle to the development fa: a minimUm period offive year-sailer maintenance ofthemcility is asS'..1II1ed by the City or an op-..n space ciisoict . . Partial Conditions Of Approval For Chula Vista-TraCt No. 96-04a Ouy Ranch Spa One, Phase 7 Condition No. 55 ... '" ?:ior 10 .a??I"D\.aj oi tb: 5.:-sr :final 1f31111ap or ~ri';'ng p:::m.i! for land ~~l':"':~~g i:1t~ ?Dggi C2!Jyon or ~~~~~ !",-.l..u.1ll wbi::h r:quir:s =or.srru~~on or the ?oggi Can)'on CD.anneL v.,rhi=he\'e; is ::z:-li=~ th: &v:lop:r shall: 2.. Gua.""2IItee the CO=u....""!iOD of the applicable ci.'2.in.age fa...--ility, unless o:l:::;-,,'ise a?proved by the City Engin= inc:lwiing a runoff d=t=tionidesilting basi:1 2:I:i na=lized channel in Poggi Canyon; Tne City Engin= may approve thar lh= fa...--iliti::s are con=::red aI a laIer:i:::e if the develope:r provid::s private temporary runoff detention basins or other facilities, approved by the City Engin=, which would reduce the quantity of runoff from :.'le development to an amount equal to less than the present ] 00 year :Bow. Said temporary faciliti::s shall comply with all the provisions of the National Pollw.am Discilarge Flimin~rion Sysr...'"lIl (N""PDES) and the Clean Ware;- Prog=Il_ Prior to W.laIlt:e of any grading p=rm.it which approv::s any temporary fa::iliry, the developer sh3ll enter into an agreement v.ith the City to gulU""2II!ee the adequate operation and n:aintenance (0 8:. M) of said fa~ility. Tne developer shall pro\ide security sarisfa...""tOry to the City to gua.""2IItee the 0 & M activities, in the event said facilities 2:e not maintained to City standards as determined by the City EngiIleer. Tne develope:r shall be responsible for obtaining all r...nnits and agreemems ",ojili the environmental regulatory agencies required to perform this wo:-)~ z D. ~re?-.::_~__~~inle~Ce ?fOg:-a.."!l ir.::luc.in~ ~ s:h~.:iule. es:imale of ::OSL Cl?:::llions manual and a fmancing mecha."'lis:D for 1.h: maintenance of ,he a??licabi: faciii,ies. Said program shall be sub.i:::, 10 appro\'c.] oj 1.he CilY =.ngin~r. me Di~:::lOr of Planning and Building. a..'1d l.......e a??ii:abie en\"ironm::m.al ag::n:ies. c. =-nl.::r into an agre::m::m ",iili m:: CilY of Chula Vi5"~ and 1.he ap"ii::abJe en\"ironm::m.al agenci::s (Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife) wher::in t.~e parties agr-: 10 impJ=ent 1.he maint=:e program. d. =-nt.::r into an agr::::m::m with the City where 1.he d:v::lop::r agr-:s to the following: (J) Provide for the maint::nan::e of the proposed na.."1lraiiz.::d channeJ and detention hasin in Poggi Canyon until such rime as maint::rum::e of s'.l:h facilities is asSllID::O b\' the CiI\' Dr an open soa::e cii5!ri:L . .. .. ~.:) havid: lwT th: r=moi."al ofsih.ari:m ~ m: Poggi Canyon Chz::J...'"1:1 (m::lu,,;;"'g det::ntion basiIl.s) mill all ups:r:z.."'!1 ~cii."1g 'within !be o:=v::lopm:nt is -D'r":"'l""'J"''T~'':; ':I. no' ~ro'J'on ~-O"""""""~D- .......an~;!"lO ;::: a.:5."""':;a"-J'\, -~';t'Dl;sr....-1 ':.l~ _ __:-' _.._..,l....... ....... ~; ..__~ ...J .....J. ;..u._:...> -~ ~-. _.:>_.. .....-_ ~ del::rmiried oy th: City =.ngin~::r End Dire::loT of?}?..,..,;ng and 3cil...;;"'~, .-) " ,- Provide for the r=o\"al of any siltation in the ?oggi Canyo:l Channel (in:luding d=nnon O?"i.,,) anrio'.r.zDle to the d:::veiopm:::m for a ,.,.,i.,;",,= D:Dod of five V~'rS 2.J."i.:r mainlen2Il::~ of the fa::i.!.irv ~ a::::e:nted bv me Cirv . ~ .. . . ... or an open spa:::: dis1ri=t. Partial Conditions of Approval For Chula Vista Tract No. 98-06 Otay Ranch SPA One Village One West Condition No. 62 ='2. - -~ :-"rio~:o approvai ::;f :he first final "3" map or gracing permit for land drainin:: irl:o the ?D~;Jj Canyon or grading permit \!l/hic:h requires cOi!stru:::ion of the ?o;r;;T C:ajr~.'o;l Channel. whichever o::curs first.. the developer shall: a. GuaranI!",I:1e construction of the applicable drainage faciiiIy, unless otherwise approved by the CiIy ::ngineer including a runoff derention/desilting basin and ~at~ralize~ channel in Poggi Canyon. The City Enginear may approve that these 7acdltles are cOllslructed at a later time if the developer provides prIvete temporary runoff oetenti::m basins Dr o-;:her fa::::iiities. approved by the City "7 -.::::; =ngineer. \vhl:::h would re::iu::e 'Lne qU8:l:I:y of rUn07! Hom tne :Jevelo:Jme~t to an amOU:i: e~ual to less i:han the present 1 DO-year fiow. Said temporary faciliTies s:<211 comply wiTh all The provisiorls of ene rX2'rional Pollu,an: Discharge Elimination SysTem (N?DES) and the Clean Water Program. Prior!D issuance of any grading permit which approves any Temporary faciiiry. the developer shal! enter into an ag~eement vvith the City to guarantee 'Lhe adequate opera'Lion and Jnaimenanee (0 & fvi) of said facility. The developer shall provide seeuri,y satistacto:-y TO the City to guarantee the 0 & fJ! activities, in the event said facilities are not maintained to City s,andards as determined by the Ci,y Engineer. ihe developer shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and agreements with the environmental regulatory agencies required to perform this work, except as provided for in the Olympi:: Parkway ;=inancing and Construe,ion Agreement approved by Council Resoiu,ion No. 1941 D. c, Prepare 2 maimenan::e program including a schedule, estimaTe Df cost. operatio~5 manual and a financing me::hanism lor the rr,aintenan::e of the appiicable f"eliities. Said program shall be s:Jbjeet ,0 approval of the City =ngineer, :i1e Director 07 ?ianning and 3uildir.;. and :h: a:lpii::able environme:-l:ai agencies. =~lT=r 1~7:: a:i 39reemen: with the CiTy :i~ ':nu;a \.i!St= w"l.'he!'"efn rne ::s:-ries agree :D i!"':"1~f=:-::=~l Tn: rTiali1~enan::e :Jr:J~;-3m. 5:.J::~ agreement ITi?y m::i:.;je envirD:I:-n=~:a! ag3!l::ies '";;')= CiTy 0; Chu:s ViSLe ::!eer:;s ne::essar\, D3:::ies t~ s:..:::h agreeme:l:. =ni:er i:1:c an agreeme.n: ~vith 'lhe CiTy V\.rne.re :he developer agrees 'to the followin;: (j) ?r:wide lor the maintenance of :he naturalized channel and detention basin in Poggi Canyon until such time 2:5 maintenan=:e OT su::M fa:iiities is 2,Ssumed by tn= City or an DDen space disrri:t. (ii) Providefor the removal of sii,aTion in Poggi Canyon -Channeis (including de:emion baSinS) until all upsrream grading within the developmer., is completed and ercsion protection planting :5 adequateiy establ:shed as de:ermined by tn" CiTY Engineer and Director of Pianning and 3uildinc. iiiiJ ?rovide for the removal of any siitation in the Poggi Canyon Channel (in::iuding oetention basins) z'"C:ributabie to the developmenT Tor 6 minimum period of rive years afTer mainterlan::e of the 'fa::iii'lY :s a:::e;ned by the :i!y :x an open spa::e oiSHi:::. 4 I ~ ~ c ; ! r . ;;.. . . ,e. -;; " I I! ~ r;' r ~ , < n .. ~ 'J < ;: i ;- , , :- ~- - , ~ ! :;:: .~ .~ ';' =- ~ -~ ~, "' --~~ _ "'i." m ~~f~ "'l - ;.,' --~ ~ GS OG Ii Jl~ ;;~~ ~;!~ -", ., $Ii.--. .i :.;- uH' .- ~.'~ -' - 'I~ ~, u'., _." ;111 :F [;J ......... ~ ;..... .+:-X~~~ ~ ~ DTAY RANCH COMPANY SPA 1 POGGI CANYON CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PLAN September 22. 1999 w.o. 0025-271 ~ HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, INC. PLANNING . ENGINEERING . SURVEYING 101i9 Huennekens St. . Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 PH: (619) 558-4500 FX: (619) 558-1414 o \, ........ c.... JH:r.c r.:\D::25\'99\l\t,~~.gll= -, OTAY RANCH COMPANY SPAI POGGI CANYON CHANNEL MA!NTENANCE PLAN September 22, 1999 Prepared for: Otay Ranch Company 350 West Ash Street Suite 730 San Diego, CA 92101 Prepared by: Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. -10179 Huenn-ekens Street San Diego, CA 92121 W.o. 0025-271 7 :l-.; ~~ r..\D:~5'.'";~\l:~.,_OO~ ?oggi Canyon C~annel Maintenance Re~:Jrt TABLE OF CONTENTS ,iNTRODUCTION m....mmm.._......._:m..mm.....m_......m......m.....m.m.......m_......_..mmm,I CHANNEL DESIGN.......mm.....m................_m.mm..m.........m._.....m........m......._..._......2 CHANNEL MAINIENANCE.m.mmmm....._._.......mm.mm.........m...._.......m.._m....__...__..3 CONCLUSION " OPINION Or: PROBABLE COST FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE 5 OPINION Or: PROBABLE COST FOR 50-Y:=.A.R ::VENTmm._.__..m..mmm.....mm.__.6 FIGUKES FIGUKE 1 - VI::;It~iTY flliA.? OTAY P.A,NCH S?L, I. ?OGGI CANYON CriANNE'- FIGU?E 2-" OTA,Y KANCH VILLA.GES 1 ANJ5, L.A, MEDIA ROAD DETENTIOI~ 3.L.SII~ ? DK kd K'\O~ZM'~!l9\r.5',.oo~ w.L o:z:-.:;"- " ?099j Canyor1 Criannel Maintenance Ke~:>1 INTRODUCTION The Tollowin;!ls <1 m-aintenimce plan required by the City of Chu-Ia Vista for Poggi CanV:l~,. The plan pmvides maintenance guidelines fm the reach appmximately 2,400 feet upslrea;r-, of. the East Palomar Street crossing to 300 feet downstream of the East Palomar Sm?e: :::rossing and 450 feet downstream of the La Media Road crossing to 4,050 feet downstream of the Paseo Ran:::hem Street cmssing (see Vicinity Map). Within this rea:::h the creek flows in a westerly direction adjacent to Olympi::: Parkway. The channel includes culverts at ::asl Palomar Street and Paseo Ranchero and crosses from the north side of Olympic Parkway 1;) the south side of Olympic Parkway 1,500 feet upstream of Paseo Ranchero. A detention basin is located between 3.000 and 3.900 feet downstream of Paseo Ranchero. This sectioil :Sf the Poggi Canyon Channel was designed by Hunsaker & ,b.ss8::iates (H&..L.'), The H&.l>, design oroposed a trapezoidal channel with droo stru:::tures and silt fences, which aliow adjusrment of the creek bed elevations to prevent adverse s::our 0:- ae::>Dsition. :n= following ex~;ains the channel design and presents maintenan:e gUldeiines Tor the :::ilanneL c; PH:~d t ~C::"5\19..!h,.5.._cc~ .... ~ o::!-:'. " ?099; Canyon Cnannel fJlaintenance Re:>ort CHANNEL AND BASIN DESIGN I ne Poggi Canyon Channel was designed as a n-atural trapezoidal channel with moo structures located at intervals within the channel. The drop structures were constructed of rip rap and contained by concrete cut-off walls at the upstream and downstream edges_ A silt fence was placed. along each upstream cut-off.wall.The.siltfence consists of chain-link fencing attached to steel poles anchored in the upstream cut-off wall. This design aliows the channel slope to adjust as the channel matures and the roughness increases. Over time the sediment is trapped upstream of each silt fence. The rate at whi:::h this occurs depends on fa:::tors such as the frequency and intensity of storm events and the build-out of the watershed. The trapped sediment reduces the channel bed slope upstream of each silt fen:::e, whi:::h, in tum, reduces fiow velocities and increases channel stabiiity. The net result is that the :::hannel bed is adjusted to a stable geometry between drop structures with step at each drop structure. This stepped pattern results in greater channel :::apacity downstream of each drop structure than upstream since the downstream channel :ross-section is naturally larger. ..!l..s discussed previously, the creek !s adJa::::ent to Olym;1i:::: Parkway. I ne channel an::i rcadway are designed so that the road would not be inundated during 1 DO-year storm flOWS in the channel. The critical design points are at the upstream side of each drop stru:::ture At these locations the channel bed elevation is high and the channel capacity is iow, whi:::fl causes a high water surface elevation. The 1 DO-year water surface eievations were determined at these 10catiDns assuming the ultimate channel configuration with a fuliy vegetated channel. The road elevations were then set with at least one foot of freeboard above the computed water surface elevations. The detenticln basin i"s-Iocated .south of OlympiC: Parkway just upstream Df the Otay Ranch/SunbowBoundary. The detention basin is designed to detain post-development f1Dws to be equal to 6r less than pre-develDpment flows at the Brandywine culvert. The basin is designed to provide a minimum of one foot of freeboard during 1 DO-year storm ~ flows. A-double-barrelbDxCculvert and spjJlwayser:ve as _tbe control st~uctures for the basin. /0 O'''..,kd k:'Dc:!snillll".~~.lI": ... t D::;:>:.-:7 ~ ?oggi Canyon C~annel Maintenan::e Re~ort CHANNEL AND DETENTION BASIN MAINTENANCE Semi-armual inspections. of the. drop struclures~ culverts, silt fences, channel and detenll:l~ basin shall be performed by a registered civil engineer specializing in river hydraulics. ihe engineer must identify problems and recommend: 1) Repairs in the rip rap drop structures. . cut-off walls, silt fenCing, culverts and steel poles: and, 2) Any maintenance activity required to conserve the hydraulic performance of the channel and basin. As discussed previously, sediment will deposit upstream of the silt fences. When the sediment level reaches the top of the silt fence, the chain-link fencing should be removed but not the steel poles. Following removal of the chain-link fencing, annual inspections should be extended to the channel bed area upstream of each drop structure. If channel bed scour is evident in this area, then the chain-link fencing should be replaced until the channel bed again aggrades to the top of the silt fence. On the other hand. if deposition in excess of 0.5 feet occurs in this area after fence is removed, then sediment must De removed upstream of the drop structure. In order to preserve the vegetaTed aiJpearance 0; the channel, sediment should be removed from one half of the channel fi:-s: i8 the eievati:li, of the top of ine silt fence. After vegetation begins to reestabi!sh on this half. then sedimenl :an be removed from the other half of the channel. However, sedimentation and vegetation removal must be in conformance with the permit n~gotiated between the City and proper resource agencies:-.. Note that sediment does not need to be removed immediately downstream of the drop structures since the channel capacity in these areas in mucr, greater than u:Jstream. rinally, if the channel bed elevations upstream of a drop structure do.not show scour of deposition after a 3-year period with normal rainfall, tne STeel poles can ~e removed. r:<.emoval shall only be accomplished by cutting off the poles so they are flush with the top of the supporting cut-off wall. Detention Basin maintenance will de limited to the area upstream of the basin outlet outside of the mitigation area. ihe channel maintenance activities shall inciude, but are not limited to the bliowing. 1) Inspection, trimming and removal of vegetation, operation and repairs 0; sil: fences, drop structures and cutoff walls. 2) Inspection, trimming and removal of vegetation, and removal of dedrislirash and silt from channel inlets and outlets of all culverts and storm drain outiets. ihe detention basin maintenance activities shall include, but are not limited to the following: 1) Inspection, trimming and removal of vegetation, operation and repairs 0; the droo structure, rip rap, and outlet structure and spillway. 2) Inspection, trimming and removal of vegetation, and removal of debris/trash and silt from basin outlet culvert and upstream area outside of mitigation easement. II DH:I<C t.:1O::=5\'91l11l"'~., oc~ w.L c::!,--:.,.. Poggi Canyon Ciianne! Maintenance Re:.1ort CONCLUSION This report has presented a maintenance pian for the Poggi Canyon channel. Otay Kancn Company is responsible for ensuring that the maintenance plan is implemented until maintenance is accepted by the City in acc::>rdance with the "Desiltation and Jv\aintenance Agreement with Otay Project, LLC". After acceptance by the City, the maintenance will be the responsibiiity of the City of Chula Vista through the C::>mmunity Facilities District 97-01, 98-01 and 98-02. The maintenance plan includes guidelines for the drop structures, silt fences, and channel areas upstream of the silt fences. The maintenance plan recommends that a registered civil engineer be retained to perform annual inspections of the channel and detention basin. The inspection results should be reported to Otay Ranch Company and the City of Chuia Vista to ensure that any maintenance concems are adequately addressed. I~ :lH.k~ 1;.\O::~5n99g\l".!...,CC: w c c::::.-;;?~ Poggi Canyon Chzn:lel I~~aintenance ~e;J::J~ ~ S'Cl1i<1ER J'- ~r)r ..../~ ~~~~ .~ '" "'" ~ .:;;- . . ";) f/ ~. ~". t;/' I ""~ """'" "''' _' ~~ ; (. I5aN:lR . r) .is' . ISA=U. W... ,(-- ~ " .,\ ',V----' \ ~ r-:;.J lmS C'" . "?~ \"\\.,...,.., 2 ~,..,.,v., :r ,r='~. ~'fS 1Wt~ I I PROJECT .<<. '- ~~T1:; ~-~ } ~s. ~~ ."" "1 lTT,I'" \FV. Fe: -"'U " ~~ \ \ ~S'O-"" ~ VICINITY MAP G DK'kC r.IO-:25\'999"S;;Il~: '\~ 0::',.:,:" ?oggi Canyon C:iannel Maintenance Repo:-t PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR BONDING PURPOSES OTAY RANCH POGGI CANYON CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PLAN u CITY OF CHULA VISTA . ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. Semi-annual ::ngineer's observation/ evaluation (Assumes no maintenance) 2 ::A@S 1.000 = S2.000 ~ Annual Maimenance (Trimming, cieaning. etc.) ~ ::A@S 40,000 = $40.000 ~ Annual maintenance of detention o2sin =$19.800 TOTAL ANNUAL MAINENANC::: COST" = S61 ,800 . Security Bond shall be 5 times the annual maintenance cost ($309,000). /Lj OH:kC '- \O::5',19~~9~.~= ....t. D:~:7~ ?09gi Canyo:: :~a:1nel Maintenance ~e;Jo~ PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR BONDING PURPOSES - OTAY RANCH - POGGI CANYON SILT REMOVAL ITEM CITY OF CHULA VISTA No silt is anti:;j;Jated, but if erosionisedimentaii:m c:J~irol faciiiiies ;ail assume: TOTAL 4.ssum:Jtions: 50-year even! a: 2.0DO c\r silt S15.00/CY 1 o:;currence 0, Gradual Sedimentation 2.000 CY ai 15.00/CY /5 UNIT QUANTITY PRICE 2.000 CY@S 15.00 TOTAL = S30.000 =530.000 :l~:id r.\O~S\1999,,9~.cc~ .... t. (Y.:~~~7~_ ,. . . II . . . .. . .. .. .. II .. .. IJ .. II L " ,t ExH/$/r V McMll..LIN'S OTAY RANCH SPA I - PHASE 3 POGGI CANYON CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PLAN JOB NO. 13126-Y OCTOBER 4, 1999 Prepared for: McMillin Project Services 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 91950 (619) 477-4117 Prepared by: Rick Engineering Company 5620 Friars Road San Diego, California 92110 (619) 291-0707 /0 It I .. . . . I I I r . It II II I II [I ,. n TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 CHANNEL DESIGN .......................................................................................................................2 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................4 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE.........................................5 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST FOR 50-YEAR EVENT ..........................................................6 FIGURES: FIGURE 1 - LOCATION MAP McMILLIN OTA Y RANCH SPA I - PHASE 3 POGGI CANYON CHANNEL FIGURE 2 - OTAY RANCH Vil.LAGES 1 AND 5, OLYMPIC PARKWAY CHANNEL October 4, 1999 CGP:rh\13126\rcport\99002.doc /7 II I . I I . I I I . . I . . I I . I I INTRODUCTION The following is a maintenance plan required by the City of Chula Vista for Poggi Canyon. The plan provides maintenance guidelines for the reach from approximately 2,300-feet upstream of the La Media Road Crossing to approximately 46O-feet downstream of the La Media Road Crossing (see Vicinity Map). Within this reach the creek flows in a westerly direction adjacent to Olympic Parkway. The channel crosses under La Media Road within the McMillin property. This section of the Poggi Canyon Channel was designed by Rick Engineering Company (Rick). The Rick design proposed a trapezoidal channel with drop structures and silt fences, which allow adjustment of the creek bed elevations to prevent adverse scour or deposition. The following explains the channel design and presents maintenance guidelines for the channel. I October 4, 1999 CGP:rh\13126\report\99002.doc /% ~ I .. . I I I . I r I I I I . I I I ! CHANNEL DESIGN The Poggi Canyon Channel was designed as a natural trapezoidal channel with drop structures located at intervals within the channel. The drop structures were constructed of rip rap and contained by concrete cut-offwalls at the upstream and downstream edges. A silt fence was placed along each upstream cut-offwall. The silt fence consists of chain-link fencing attached to steel poles anchored in the upstream cut-offwall. This design allows the channel slope to adjust as the channel matures and the rouglmess increases. Over time sediment is trapped upstream of each silt fence. The rate at which this occurs depends on factors such as the frequency and intensity of storm events and the build-out of the watershed. The trapped sediment reduces the channel bed slope upstream of each silt fence, which, in turn, reduces flow velocities and increases channel stability. The net result is that the channel bed is adjusted to a stable geometry between drop structures with a step at each drop structure. This stepped pattern results in greater channel capacity downstream of each drop structure than upstream since the downstream channel cross-section is naturally larger. As discussed previously, the creek is adjacent to Olympic Parkway. The channel and roadway are designed so that the road would not be inundated during 100-year storm flows in the channel. The critical design points are at the upstream side of each drop structure. At these locations the channel bed elevation is high and the channel capacity is low, which causes a high water surface elevation. The 100-year water surface elevations were determined at these locations assuming the ultimate channel configuration with a fully vegetated channel. The road elevations were then set with at least one foot of freeboard above the computed water surface elevations. 2 October 4, 1999 CGP:rh\13126\report\99002.doc /9 I I I I I I I I I I I I , J ! I CHANNELN.UUNTENANCE Semi-annual inspections of the drop structures, silt fences, and channel should be performed by a registered civil engineer specializing in river hydraulics. The engineer must identify problems and recommend repairs in the rip rap drop structures, cut-off walls, silt fencing, steel poles, and any maintenance activities required to conserve the hydraulic performance of the channel. As discussed previously, sediment will deposit upstream of the silt fences. When the sediment level reaches the top of a silt fence, the chain-link fencing should be removed, but not the steel poles. Following removal of the chain-link fencing, annual inspections should be extended to the channel bed area upstream of each drop structure. If channel bed scour is evident in this area, then the chain- link fencing should be replaced until the channel bed again aggrades to the top of the silt fence. On the other hand, if deposition in excess of 0.5 feet occurs in this area after the fence is removed, then sediment must be removed upstream of the drop structure. In order to preserve the vegetated appearance of the channel, sediment should be removed from one half of the channel first to the elevation of the top of the silt fence. After vegetation begins to reestablish on this half, then sediment can be removed from the other half of the channel. However, sedimentation and vegetation removal must be in conformance with the permit negotiated between the City and proper resource agencies. Note that sediment does not need to be removed immediately downstream of the drop structures since the channel capacity in these areas is much greater than upstream. Finally, if the channel bed elevations upstream of a drop structure do not show scour or deposition after a 3 year period with normal rainfall, the steel poles can be removed. Removal shall only be accomplished by cutting off the poles so they are flush with the top of the supporting cut-off wall. The channel maintenance shall include, but are not limited to the following: I. Removal and trimming of vegetation, operation and repairs of silt fences, drop structures, cut off walls, head walls and rip rap pads. 2. Removal and trimming of vegetation, removal of debris, trash, and silt from channel. Including inlet and outlets of culvert at La Media Road. 3 October 4, 1999 CGP:rhl13126\repon\99002.doc ;!.c II I . I I I I . I ,-. I I . I II II II R g CONCLUSION This report has presented a maintenance plan for the Poggi Canyon Channel. McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC is responsible for ensuring that the maintenance plan is implemented until maintenance is accepted by the City in accordance with the "Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement" with McMillin Otay Ranch, L.L.C. After acceptance by the City the maintenance will be the . responsibility of the City of Chula Vista through the Community Facilities District 97-01. The maintenance plan includes guidelines for the drop structures, silt fences, and channel areas upstream of the silt fences. The maintenance plan recommends that a registered civil engineer be retained to perform annual inspections of the channel. The inspection results should be reported to McMillin Land Development and the City of Chula Vista to ensure that any maintenance concerns are adequately addressed. 4 October 4, 1999 CGP:rb\13126\rcport\99002.doc 2/ I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I II III fa McMIL.UN OTAY RANCH POGGI CANYON MAINTENANCE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST RIO< ENGINEERING COMPANY Sll2ll FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO. CAUFORNIA Q2110 (81&)2111.0707 101<Wll JOB NO. 1312S-1.. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE = 1. SEMI ANNUAL ENGINEER'S OBSERVATION/EVALUATION (ASSUME NO MAINTENANCE) EA. 2 1,000.00 2. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF CHANNEL DOES NOT INCLUDE SILT REMOVAL EA. 10,000.00 TOTAL 5 :2~ CGP:m\ 13128\excellcosl\QllOO2.xJo 2.000.00 10,000.00 $12,000.00 - . ~ , ~ I I ~ I I , I I ! ~ .. ! I ! , , I i I , I I I I I .. I I McMILUN OTAY RANCH POGGI CANYON SILT REMOVAL FOR 50-YEAR EVENT OPINION OF PROBABLE COST RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 5e2D FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 921,. (619) 2111~707 101<1ll1l JOB NO. 1312e-l. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE NO SILT IS ANTICIPATED. BUT IF EROSION! SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITIES FAIL ASSUME: C.Y. 1 OCCURRENCE 50-YEAR EVENT AT OR GRADUAL SILTATION 2000 CY SILT $15.00/CY ;<3 6 --------------------------------- ---- - - 2.000 15.00 30,000.00 CGP:rt1\131211\excellcost\99002.x1s I III TEl.EGIl~PH \. PROJECf LOCATION ;;2.1 LOCATION MAP McMILLIN OTAY RANCH T:'T"'T TnT" ... .,.~ '1jI, - , ",' ,I',' , , " , .,. ! . \ ~ ~ . , I <....l =:"';..:.J "'z ~~ U- :z;U :5>- -< >-$ ~::s ~< ~- g N '~:. ;~ w ~ < Vi I ' I. , l~~~,'i'! . \ \. ~ '.- - .- i \ . ' I ,II ,I :\ ~\ \, \' 1\ \ 1... ~ --.-., " ~S2N ""'-:::3 ::::S@5 :;:;>- ., u....:l"--' ;;:O~ "--'-- / ! ',,{' ., j/ \ I '"I r Ii !il , ~I: Ii!: , \ ':I "I' ,: '-' , '. ' a. ;;- ~~ ~..,~ ~ :;:: ,., G3 Z 131 ! ~ as III - ;,G C' u ,;::;> > - '. . < , > . , . '" ',", i '/ /, - !' I I ,'. /"};c: ; :~//: il:'-;\\.\~~\~""/"'/ : ~'-'-- ''';''\~-~ :, >~, - , " , / . : / , '-" ',or' ., ,': " , ,. .-, '-- \..- ~-~ ,',:" ~'~,~i~~~~~;;~~,\~; J.,.:-......:.J;!. iJ:.' If: i;, i i i... l I , ~, :~. i' , ' .: ,;, , ~ .~. ,':1:- ;~ _....~.; E-..:.....: ~ ''-',. I ''''E'' SUBJECT: DRAlNAGE - KATIJRAL Cl-'.A"IGES WlTI-nN OPEN SPACE COUNCil. POllcY CITY OF CHUL~ VISTA POLIcY NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE PAGE ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 15869 522-02 09-14-90 1 OF 1 I DATED: 09-14-90 BACKGROUND At the meeting of September 5, 1989, Counc:i1 adopted Ordinanc:e 2331 which revised the proc:edures fo: establishing open spac:e disDicts in the City and provided for the maintenance of improvements in open spac:' areas. Although Council adopted subjec:t ordinanc:e, it direc:ted staff to return with provisions to require th, developers to assist in providing financ:ing for the maintenanc:e of natural drainage ways. PURPOSE Establish a Counc:il Polic:y whic:h outlines the responsibilities of the developer regarding maintenanc:e 0: natural drainage ways. I POlJCY I The Counc:il establishes the following policy for the mainten,aIlc:e of natural drainage ways: 1. Wnen a developer requests formation of an open spac:e disDic:t which includes a naru..-aJ a.-au channel as pan of an open space Jot, the developer shall maintain the natu.-aJ drainage fac:ilities for a period of five years. The five year maintenanc:e period by the developer will stan when the City Council accepts the open space landscaping. _ 2. The maintenanc:e shall be guaranteed through a bond to the City in an amount equal to the estimated five-year c:ost. At the request of the developer, the City may allow the bond to be reduc:ed annually by 10% per year and released completely after five years. 3. The disDic:t shall be formed and assessments levied during the five year period while the full cost of maintenance of the channel is being born by the developer. This provides a reserve amount to be utilized in case of emergency. 4. The upstream property owners may be required as a condition of approval of future development to pay I their fair share of the maintenance Costs of doWnstream natural drainage facilities which are within, and maintained by, other open space distriers. ./ ., II :<b RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE DESILTATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND OTAY PROJECT, L . P . TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE POGGI CANYON CHANNEL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Tentative Map conditions for the proposed developments in Otay Ranch SPA One require compliance with certain requirements regarding maintenance of the proposed Poggi Canyon improvements; and WHEREAS, in addition, Council Policy No. 522-02 requires the developer to maintain the drainage improvements for 5 years; and WHEREAS, currently, the Otay Ranch Company and McMillin are processing mass grading plans with the City for a portion of their project draining to Poggi Canyon and issuance of the grading permits is anticipated shortly; and WHEREAS, the subj ect agreement delineates the developers' responsibilities for maintaining the proposed Poggi Canyon drainage improvements and establish the security requirements to ensure their performance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement between the City and Otay Project, L.P. to provide for the maintenance of certain improvements in the Poggi Canyon Channel, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE Chula Vista Agreement on IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of is hereby authorized and directed to execute said behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works ~ctnt(~ John . Kaheny, City n torney /_5/1// RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE DESILTATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND McMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE POGGI CANYON CHANNEL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Tentative Map conditions for the proposed developments in Otay Ranch SPA One require compliance with certain requirements regarding maintenance of the proposed Poggi Canyon improvements; and WHEREAS, in addition, Council Policy No. 522-02 requires the developer to maintain the drainage improvements for 5 years; and WHEREAS, currently, the Otay Ranch Company and McMillin are processing mass grading plans with the City for a portion of their project draining to Poggi Canyon and issuance of the grading permits is anticipated shortly; and WHEREAS. the subject agreement delineates the developers' responsibilities for maintaining the proposed Poggi Canyon drainage improvements and establish the security requirements to ensure their performance. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement between the City and McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC to provide for the maintenance of certain improvements in the Poggi Canyon Channel, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works W:Jm'~ John Kaheny, Cit Attorney 11[5--/ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DETENTION BASIN AND SILTATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND McMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on March 31, 1998 by Resolution No. 18934, Council approved a Detention Basin and Siltation agreement with McMillin to provide for the construction and maintenance of certain drainage improvements in the Telegraph Canyon Channel, and WHEREAS, said agreement encumbered properties located within the Telegraph Canyon basin as well as properties located within the Poggi Canyon basin; and WHEREAS, by approving the proposed amendment, Council will limit the agreement to those areas of SPA One draining to the Telegraph Canyon; and WHEREAS, the balance of the McMillin property draining to Poggi Canyon is addressed in a companion agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the First Amendment to the Detention Basin and Siltation Agreement between the City and McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE Chula Vista Amendment on IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of is hereby authorized and directed to execute said behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works ~~'~ John . Kaheny, Cit11Attorney H;\home\attorney\reso\poggi des /3G-j , . E;<H18ft -#/3 , {, Parrial Conditions Of Approval For Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04 Otay Ranch Spa One Condition No. 54 54. Prior to approval of (I) the first final'S" Map or gradirlg p"'...rmit for land draining i.'1to the Poggi Canyon or (2) the first final 'B" Map or grading p"'..rmit which requires construction of Santa Mad=ra betw= Tel=.gmph Canyon Road and Morgan :Hill Drive ("Temporary Roadway"), the deveioper shall: eo. Guarantee the constrUction of the appii::able d.~ge facility, llIIless otherwise approved by the CITy Engineer as follows: 1. Rllnonderemiorv'desilting basin and nz.=aiized channel irl Poggi Cznyon; or 2. Runon detention Basin irl T degraph Canyon Chanm:1 Tn: Ci:y =.ngi,=:- may approve tha! these fa::iliti::s are co~..ru=ted at a lat=.- ti...,,: i:"'the cievebp::r provicies private t~"Tl?:1=-a.")' n4iOrr ci~~tion basins O~ om::: fa::iliti::~, z.ppr::wed by the Ci:y Engineer, v.'hi:h wouid reOu::e the quantity of nL."1::lJ! from t...'1: development to all emount equa110 less than the present 10:> year fiow. Sci:: temporary facilities shall comply wr-.n all the provisions of the National Poliuta!lt Dici,uge Eiimination System (NPDES) and the Clean WIl1er Program. Prior to issua.'1ce of any g;-a:iing permit which approves any temporary fllCiiity, the develope:- shall enter into an agreement with the City to glJllTantee the adequate operation a.'1d maintenance (0 & M) of said facility. Tne developer shall provide se::urity satisfactory to the City to guarantee the 0 & M activities, in the event said facilities are not mai:ltained to City s-..andards as determined by the City Engineer. Tne developer shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and agreements \\~th the environmental regulatory agencies required to perform this work. b. Prepare a maintenance program including a schedule, estimate of cost, operations manual and a financing mechanism for the maintenance of the applicable facilities. Said program shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer, the Director of Parks and Recreation, and the applicable environmental agencies. c. Enter into an agreement with the City of Clrula Vista and the applicable environmental agencies (Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife) wherein the parties agree to implement the maintenance program. d. Enter into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to the following: 1. Provide for the mamtenance of the proposed detention basin in Telegraph Canyon and the proposed natUralized channel and detention basin in Poggi Canyon until such time as maintenance of such fAcilities is assumed by the City or an Op"'..D space ciistri=t.. I 2. Provide for the removal of siltation in the Telegraph and Poggi Canyon Channels (including detention basins) until all upstream grading within the developm:nt is completed and erosion protection planti:'lg is a.:iequa!e..~' es+.ablished as _ detennined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks a.,d Recreation. 3. Provide for the remDval of any siltation in the Telegraph Imd Poggi Canyon Channels (mcluding detention basins) attributable to the develDpment for Eo minimUm period of Dve years after maintenance of thefacili:y is asS'.1me:l by the City or an open space distri::t Partial Conditions Of Approval For Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04a Ot2Y Ranch Spa One, Phl!Se 7 Condition No. 55 - '" ?:iOr-1D appl"C1\".a.1 of m:- -:;51 nT'i?i "3't 1\1ap or p,,;~""g p::mil for laD': :':--'l;o:~~g ln10 ?~gg:i Canyon or ~iii,..,~ :---...J.J.J.it whi::h requ.iJ.-es =O~::"J.OD of !he Poggi Canyon Cr;?~p'.'eL ~~thi=b.=\'= is ...o;>>-i;...- i~'" "'-\'-j' 0.......,.. -~~ 11- .-::--..--.. ~- ~ - :--~. 2.. Gua.-antee the cOIlStl'U..."'!ion of !he applicable d..-ain.age fa..--iliTY, unle.ss 0ti:::::-..1se approved by !he Ciry Engin= inc:iuding a runoff oer...-ntiDnidesilting ::asi:l ud ~ channel in Poggi Wnyon; The Ciry Engineer may app,Dve ti:ta1 th= fa::ilities are cons=::r::d ar a l=:i=Je if !he develope:r provides private t:ID.porary runoff d:t:ntion b~ or o!her fa::iliries, approved by the Ciry Engineer, vmic:h would reduce the quanti:}' Df runoff fro:n :he development to an amount equal to less than the present 1 DO year DDW. Said t=porary facilities shall comoly with all the provisions of !he National Polhr.znt ~ . ... .. ~ Dis::harge Elim;n~rion SYSL...-rD (Nl'DES) and !he Clean W= Program. Prio, to issuance of any grading pamit vmic:h approves any temporary fa...-iliry, the develo~ shall enter into an agre-..ment v.i!h !he City to gua.-antee the adequate ope:ation and rr:zintenance (0 &. M) or said facility. Tne developer shall provide se::uri:y sarisfactory to the City to gua.-antee!he 0 &. M a...'"ti\ities, in !he event said faciiiries are not maintained to City standards as determined by the CiTY ::.ngi.neer. Tne developer shall be responsible for obtaining all r...rmits and agreemems v.i!h the enyironmentaJ. regulatory agencies required to perform this wo:-k.. 2 D. ?r=p-.re a mainlenanc: prog:-3..."n in:luding ~ 5ch::dul:. :stir:l31: of ::ost. D?::-3tions r:13.t,u.al and a finan:ing rne=ha.~sm for th~ mainl:nanc: Df L~= a?pii:able fa:ilities. Said progra.'!l shall be subj:=:t to appro\"::2 of Li1~ CiTy ;:ngin~r. th~ ~i;:=:lOr of Planning and Building. a!1d m: appii::abi: ::D\"irOll.ln::maJ ag::n::i::$. ~. :::m::r uno an agre::m::m v.iili !he City of Chula Vis-.2. and !he appii::abl: ::l1\1ronm::mal ag::n::i::s (Fish and Gam:, Fish and Wildlii:) wn:r::in m: parti::s ag:r:::: to impl=::nlm~ maint:n.an::: program. d. =.m::r imo an ag:r=m::m wim m: Ciry wh::..-: me d::v::loper agr::s to the following:: ") , , ,- Provide iar in:: mzm~::: of m: propcs::.d nanraliz::d chz!m:l and d::tention basin in Poggi Canyon until su::h ,-;""e as maint:n.an::e of 5u::h faciiities is assumed by ~= CiTy 0;- :an op=n spa::: ciis=i:L r:1 ?:-ovid: for!b: :r=mo....":al 0: sih.auo:; in m: Poggi Ca.:.iy:m Ch.a:1..."'1::1 (in::luciing cel:nuon b2.S~) untiJ all ups:r::a:n g;adi...,g v.i6..in G: c.::v::lop!'D:nt is , . ,. ......,.., , ::n:J.?lele.:J a..'"'lD. erCSlon :prol~=ll::l:J pl:anung 15 a~:::;U2.1::1Y es-..a:>J..!S:lec as d~l""~~'I"'O""~ ....y In' ~ Cl'7Y =Df'T;'I"'O--- ~"., !\ir~...tor ofPl<;l..,..,;nn zn"; ':{n'l' ,..;~nn .... _..J............_i.l Up .... '. _ .=-.LI...._.... ......._ ~ __ . _ _~ _ _....... _.=" .") " ,- Provia: for m: r=oval of any sil:arion in m: Poggi CanyoD Ch=:l (in::lu::iing d=nuon basins) an:cibU'.zbl: 1D me d:v:lo;lJD:m for a .,.,.,i"';m= - ?:riod oi five y~a.T'S ~~ mainten?.D::e oi the fa::iliry ~ a=::::pt::d by the CiLY or an op:n sp<e: disci::-:.. Partial Conditions of Approval For Chula Vista Tract No. 98-06 Otay Ranch SPA One Village One West Condition No. 62 52. ?rio:'" ';:0 approval :;f the firs'L final "S" map or grading p)ermii: for land Qrainin: i;1:0 lhe ?D2~j Canyon Dr grading permit vvhic:h requires cor-:sIr:.;c:iDil of 7he ?D~;;T ......anyo:! Channel, whichever o:;curs first, the developer shall: c. Guarantee !:1e consuu::!iDn of the applicable drainage facility, unless o,:1erwise approved by the City ::ngineer including a runoff detention/desilting D2sin and naturalize::: :hannel in Poggi Canyon. The City Engineer may approve that 'these facilities a.re constructed at a later time if the developer provides DriVel: temporary rU:-1off detention b2sins Dr :::r~her ra:::iiities. approved by 7he Ci'L)' -3 Engineer. whi::h would reduce ~ne qua:1:i:y or runoff from the deveiopme;-n 'to an amOU;"i: equal to les.s than the present 'j DO-year fiow. :::'810 temporar-y facilities s;;all comply with all the provisio;-,s of the r~ational Pollutan: c)ischarge :::liminatior1 System (N?D:::S) and the Clean Water Program. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which approves any temporary facility. the developer shall enter inTO an agi"eement vvith the City to guarantee the adequate opera!ion and _ ____maintenance (0 & tv.) of said facility. The developer shall provide security satisfaclory lO the City lO guarantee me 0 & tJI aClivities, in the even: said . . facilities are no! maintained to City s:andards. as determined by the City :::ngineer. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and agreements with the environmental regulatory agencies required to perform this work, except as provided for in the Olympic Parkway Financing and Construel;on Agreement approved by Council Resoiution No. 19410. D. Prepare 2 maintenance program including a schedule, estimate of cost, operatior.s manual and a financing me:::hanism for the maintenan::e or the appiicabiefaciiities. Said orogram shall be subject "to approval of the City ::ngineer, ~he DireCtor Df Planning and 3uildir.~. and the 3;Jpii::able environme:-l:al agencies. =:iler i:l:: ari agreeme:i: wirh the Ci:y :)7 ::nLl;2 \/!S:2 vllherem the i:i3ities a:Jre~ 10 ir.l::He:7le:ii: :ne IT',ali1:enail::::e ;:Jr:>;Jrarn. 5~:::-: agreemen: rilEY in:::i:.J::!e enVJrO:1iTlen::al aor:n::ies Tne ':IT\' ::)'f Ch:;]a \/!~a ,",=~-... S n:>....~~sa.\' -a"'";=:oc:"-""" l:'" '....n. _ ...._..... ........__ , >.J' ..__ .-' ...._..... agreeme:1:. =nter irr:-o an agreemen:. vvith the Ci:y vvhere tt'le deveio~er agrees to the iollowin;: fil ?r::>vloe for the maintenance of the naturai;zed channel and detention basin in Poggi Canyon un:il such time zs maintenan:::e of s:Jch 'fa::jijties :s assumed by Tn: City or an open space district. (ii) Provide for the removal of siltation in Poggi Canyon Channeis (including detention basins) until all upstream grading within the development is ::o:npieted and ercsion moteet;on planting is adequateiy es,ablished as Determined by "the City :::ngineer and Director of Planning and 3uiiding. iiiil Provide for the removal of any siltation in the Poggi Canyon Channel lin:Juding detention b2Sii:s) arrri~utabie 'to the development for c: i7llrllmum period of five years arrer mainter.an::e of the fa:::iii':.:y is c::epted by the :i:y or an opeil spa:::e disrn:::t. 4 ~ , ~ " i n ~ ~ i < . ~ ~ : ~ ~ - - , < ; ~ .:~ ~ : I . .i ; i' . " t 1; i- ;; ;: 1, . " e ;' ~ . ~ : ,- ~. _ 0:- ;:; --+ ~ ,.~ " ;;..;. =r -~ t. "if I "~~{~ ~'g- -~~ ;., w -~ ~ ~ ~ G~' r-J..-~ .~ ~ @ ~ - ~ 2wG m~ ~ ~.~ i~ ~;., l>l-' fl::': lilE U.~,: I: :1 - :p ~ -+=--,.( ......., ~ ~ ~ T OTAY RANCH COMPANY SPA 1 POGGI CANYON CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PLAN September 22, 1999 w.o. 0025-271 .HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES ~l SAN DIE GO, I N C . PLANNING . ENGINEERING . SURVEYING 10179 Huennekens St. . Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 PH: (619) 556-4500 FX: (619) 558-1414 f{) \'\. ''- C ~:k~ ..:\D::25\'iIl9\r.~~ 00: OTAY RANCH COMPANY SPAI POGGI CANYON CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PLAN . SeDtember 22, 1999 Prepared for: Otay Ranch Company 350 West Ash Street Suite 730 San Diego, CA 92101 Prepared by: Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. -1 0179-Huenneketls Street San Diego, CA 92121 W.o. 0025-271 7 :",",.1<.= r \O:~f>\lllll~\l'.~'1 D~: =>oggl Canyon Channel Maintenance Re;J:)it TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION CHANNEL D::SIGN..,..,mmmm..,.......................,..,....,.m..m...._m..m.....m.m....._..........,2 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE...........mmmmm.m..m..,...m..mmmm..n.....mmm....,mm....3 CONCLUSION 4 OPINION 0;= PROBA3L::: COST FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE 5 O?INION 0;= PROBABLE COST FOR 5D-Y::AR ::V::NT.....mn....n.....mmm............5 FIGUR::S ;=IGUR:: , - VIGINiTY IIIiA?, O,AY ?,C"NC,., S?L, I. ;:>0,3'3] CANYON CHANI~::L FIGUR:: 2c: Ci?.Y ?-ANCrl VILL,C"G::S 1 ANJ 5. !_A M::DIL, ROAD D:::T:::NTION B.L.SIN ? DH K~ ,."\O:;1SIUllllllr.!>",.co: w.t.O:2!.-:7" " ?oggi Canyon ::hannel Maintenance Re:J:l:1 INTRODUCTION The following IS am-aintenimce plan requirEd by the - City of Chula Vista for P099i CaCll'D~. The plan provides maintenance guidelines for the reach approximately 2,400 feet upstream of. the East Palomar Street crossing to 300 feet downstream of the East Palomar Slreet crossing and 450 feet downstream of the La Media Road crossing to 4,050 feet downstream of the Paseo Ranchero Street crossing (see Vicinity Map). Within this reach the creek flows in a westerly direction adjacent to Olympic Parkway. The channel includes culverts at ::ast Palomar Street and Paseo Ranchero and crosses from the north side of Olympic Parkway to the south side of Olympic Parkway 1,500 feet upstream of Paseo Ranchero. .14, detenti:m basin is locate::! between 3.000 and 3,900 feet downstream of Paseo Ranchero Th!s seciion 07 the Poggi Canyon Channel was designed by Hunsaker & Associates (i"'-]&L,,'!. The H&A, design prooosed a trapezoidal channel with drop structures and silt fences, which aHow adjuslment of the creek bed elevations to prevent adverse scour Dr deposition. ihe foliowing exn:ains the channel design and presents maintenance gui::Jeiines for the :hanileL 9 DH:kCUO::-,S1'9&9....,S..,CC; ....,t D:"!.-:~~ '. ?ogg; Canyon Channel Maintenance Reoort CHANNEL AND BASIN DESIGN Ine Poggi Canyon Channel was designed as a natu,al t,apezoidal channel with C1ro;J structures lo:::ated at intervals within the channel. The drop structures were constructed of rip rap and contained by concrete cut-off walls at the upstream and downstream edges. A silt fence was pla:::ed_along each upstream cut-off_waII.The_siltJence consists of chain-link fencing attached to steel poles anchored in the upstream cut-off wall. This design allows the channel slope to adjust as the channel matures and the roughness increases. Over time the sediment is trapped upstream of ea:::h silt fence. The rate at which this occurs depends on factors such as the frequency and intensity of storm events and the build-out of the watershed. The trapped sediment reduces the channel bed slope upstream of each silt fen:::e, whi:::h, in turn, reduces fiow velo:::ities and increases :::hannel slability. The net result is that the channel bed is adjusted to a stable geometry between dra::> structures with step at each drop stru:::ture. This stepped pattern results in greater channel :::apacity downstream of each droo stru:::rure than upstream since the downstream channel ::ross-section is naturally larger. ,!l.s discussed ;Jreviously, the creek is adjacent to Olym~i:: Parkway. J ne channel an:: madway are designed so that the road wouid n::>t be inundated during 1 DO-year storm flows in the channel. The criti:::al design points are at the upstream side of each drop stru:::ture. At these lo:::ations the channel bed elevation is high and the channel capacity is iow, whi:::h causes a high water surface elevation. The 1 DO-yea, water surface eievations were determined at these locations assuming the ultimate channel configu,ation with a fully vegetated channel. The road elevations were then set with at least one foot of freeboard above the computed water surface elevations. The detentic,n basin is ~ lcicated south of Olympic Parkway just upstream of the Ola" Ranch/Sunbowi3::>und~ry. The detention basin is designed to detain p::>st-deveiopment flows to be equal to or less than pre-development flows at the Brandywine culvert. The basin is designed to provide a minimum of one foot of freeboard during 1 DO-year sto,m f1ows~ A-double barrel box-culvert and spillway serye as the control structures for the basin. /0 D~:kd k:\DC::!5\'1I119\1".!....DO~ w.~ O:::!~:'7~ ?:>ggi Canyon C:;anne! Maintenan::e ~e;:J:);-t CHANNEL AND DETENTION BASIN MAINTENANCE Semi-aimual inspections of the drop structures; culverts, silt fences, channel and detenilJ" basin shall be performed by a registered civil engineer specializing in river hydraulics. The engineer must identify problems and recommend: 1) Repairs in the rip rap drop structures. cut-off walls, silt fencing, culverts and steel poies; and, 2) Any maintenance activity required to conserve the hydraulic performance of the channel and basin. :S.s discussed previously, sediment will deposit upstream of the silt fences. When the sediment level reaches the top of the silt fence, the chain-link fencing should be removed. but not the steel poles. Following removal of the chain-link fencing, annual inspections should be extended to the channel bed area upstream of each drop structure. If channel ::led scour is evident in this area, then the chain-link fencing should be re::liaced until the channel bed again aggrades to the top of the silt fence On the other hand. if deoosition in excess of 0.5 feet occurs in this area after fence is removed, then sediment l7IL.!st be removed upstream of the drop structure. In order to preserve the vegetated appearance of the channel. sejiment shouid be removed from one half of the channe! fi;s~ t~ tns elevati::J!"', :Jf the top of tile silt fen::e. After vegetation begins to reestabjjsh on this haf then sedimenT can be remove: from the other half of the channel. rlovvever, sedimen'Latio;-" and vegetation removal must be in conformance with the permit negoti::He:J between the City and proper resource agen:ies-.- - Note that sediment does not need to be removed immediate\~! d:lwnstream of the drop structures since the channel capacity in these areas in mucn greater than U:lstream. Finally, if the channel bed elevations upstream of a dmp structure d:l.not show SC:lur of deposition after a 3-year period with normal rainfall, the steel p:lles can be removed. Kemoval shall only be accomplished by cutting off the poles so they are flL2sh with the top of the supporting cut-off wall. Detention Basin maintenance wi!: :,e iimited t:l the area upstream of the basin outlet outside of the mitigation area. The channel maimenance activities shall include, but are not limited to the followl:];; 1) Inspection, trimming and removal of vegetation, operation and repairs of sil; fences, drop structures and cutofLwalis. 2) Inspection, trimming and removal of vegetation, and removal of de::,ris/trash and silt from channel inlets and outlets of all culverts and storm drain outlets. The detention basin maintenance activities shall include, but are not limited to the following: i) Inspection, trimming and removal of vegetation, operation and re:;airs of the dro:; structure, rip rap, and outlet structure and spillway. - 2) Inspection, trimming and removal of vegetation, and removal of debrisltrash and silt from basin outlet culvert and upstream area outside of mitigation easement. II :;'H:kC r.:\OO:!S\'1I9111i"'!'~.llc, we 002~:", ?oggi CanyoIi Channel 't.aintenance Re;J;Jrt CONCLUSION This report has presented a maintenance pian for the ?ogg( Canyon channel. Otal' Ka:lC:l Company is responsible for ensuring that the maintenance pian is implemented u:ltil maintenance is accepted by-the City in accordance with the "Desiltation and Maintenance ,CIgreement with Otay Project, LLC". After acceptance by the City, the maintenance wil! be the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista through the Community Facilities District 97-01, 98-01 and 913-02. The maintenance pian includes guidelines for the dro;) structures, silt fences, and channel areas upstream of the silt fences. The maintenance pian recommends that a registered civil engineer be retained to perform annual inspections of the channel and detention basin. The inspection results should be reported to Otay Ranch Company and the City of Chula Vista to ensure that any maintenance concems are adequately addressed. /2- =>H'K'" t,IO:l:::!5\'\l9\l\l:~~ e~: W,e C:;!c.-:7. Poggi Canyo:l Chanilel Maintenance Re;:J:l:-t ~ ~ ..L , "'-' "- ! SEnIo\ER J '--: ~,...,.,)r \ f;.f'/~ ,~ '" "'" ( €J~( ~ i \ _;.-,.;_ \.. _"',. ~ !' """) """'" cr~, """-'~' 'J""""""" \-<:"~ """/<'~::"") I ~ ~ -. ~..b.=I.- ;; \ ' WtJV';; - " '-0~ ':;:~\ ~~S"".. ~;; ...;'\ '\ ~ ~~. .I.. \) _.~ C\~ f i~~' >a \ ~ \~:r \ ~ _ lIlN<rr'ODE\A _ ::::'\pASUlIW!:o€RO r' ~ '''' f PROJECT """ ;., \.: :;n~ ~ I ~\ \ I ~s. ~~ '1 ". , \ \ ----- \Ji"'i s-:.u w= VICINITY MAP G :I~ KO r..IOC2~\19>19"~~.c::;: "",' c O~2o.-:~. Poggi Canyon Channel r...1aintenance Re;:Jo~ PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR BONDING PURPOSES OTAY RANCH POGGI CANYON CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PLAN . CITY OF CHULA VISTA ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1. Semi-annual Engineer's observation! evaiuation (Assumes no maintenance) 2 EA@S 1,000 = S2,000 -, Annuallv\aimenance (Trimming, cleaning, etc.) 1 EA@S 40.000 = SodO.OOO 3, Annual maintenance of detention basin = 5;1B.800 TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST' = S61 ,800 . Security Bond shall be :; times the annual maintenance cost ($309,000). /Lj D~:KO ~:\O::~5';19'i1!i\'S;.c=: "'_~ O::~:7~ ?09gi Canyon S~a:l:lel Maintenance Re:):l~ PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR BONDING PURPOSES - OTAY RANCH' POGGI CANYON SILT REMOVAL ITEM CITY OF CHULA VISTA No silt is antici~ated, but if erosion/sedimentation co~trol facilities fail assume: TOTAL .Assum:>tions: 50-year event 3t 2.000 C'1' silt S15.00/CY 1 :x:currence 0, Gradual Sedimentation 2.000 CY at 15.00/CY /5 UNfT QUANTITY PRIG::: 2,000 CY@S 15.00 TOTAL = S3D. DOC! = $30,000 :I".K;:t\O:l::>S'.1QgQ'.;&::.CO: ""CO:l::>o:.-:7" . . . . . . II .. . .. II .. 1\ .. II IJ II II _L " ... EXH/$/T 'D McMll..LIN'S OTAY RANCH SPA I - PHASE 3 POGGICANYONCHANNEL~NANCEPLAN JOB NO. 13126-Y OCTOBER 4, 1999 Prepared for: McMillin Project Services 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 91950 (619) 477-4117 Prepared by: Rick Engineering Company 5620 Friars Road San Diego, California 92110 (619) 291-0707 /& II . . . I I . . . r I .. . I I II [II II 1'1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION "",.,,,.........,.,.....,.,....',,,,.....,.."..".......,...."..".',,,,,,,.'""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,'.............,,,,,.,, 1 CHANNEL DESIGN ",........,....,".",,,...,,,,'.',,,..,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"..'.".".",,,,,,,...,,,,,,,.....,,....,,....,,,,,,.......2 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE ...,..""..,......................................,.,.,.,..""...""..........._."",,,,,,,.........3 CONCLUSION .........""""".,..,................_.............,..........."........."....""............".,...""."...."..."....4 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE ........."..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,...,,5 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST FOR 50-YEAR EVENT ,,,,,,,...,m,,...,..,,,,,,,...,,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,m,...6 FIGURES: FIGURE 1 - LOCATION MAP McMILLIN OTA Y RANCH SPA I - PHASE 3 POGGI CANYON CHANNEL FIGURE 2 - OT A Y RANCH VILLAGES 1 AND 5, OLYMPIC P ARKW A Y CHANNEL October 4, 1999 CGP:rhI13126\report\99002.doc /7 II I . I I I I I I I I I . I I I II I .. INTRODUCTION The following is a maintenance plan required by the City of Chula Vista for Poggi Canyon. The plan provides maintenance guidelines for the reach from approximately 2,300-feet upstream of the La Media Road Crossing to approximately 46O-feet downstream of the La Media Road Crossing (see Vicinity Map). Within this reach the creek flows in a westerly direction adjacent to Olympic . Parkway. The channel crosses under La Media Road within the McMillin property. This section of the Poggi Canyon Channel was designed by Rick Engineering Company (Rick). The Rick design proposed a trapezoidal channel with drop structures and silt fences, which allow adjustment of the creek bed elevations to prevent adverse scour or deposition, The following explains the channel design and presents maintenance guidelines for the channeL 1 October 4, 1999 CGP:rhI13126\reponI99002,doc /% . . .. I . I I I I , . II I I . I I I ! CHANNEL DESIGN The Poggi Canyon Channel was designed as a natural trapezoidal channel with drop structures located at intervals within the channeL The drop structures were constructed of rip rap and contained by concrete cut-offwalls at the upstream and downstream edges, A silt fence was placed along each upstream cut-offwalL The silt fence consists of chain-link fencing attached to steel poles anchored in the upstream cut-offwalL lbis design allows the channel slope to adjust as the channel matures and the roughness increases, Over time sediment is trapped upstream of each silt fence, The rate at which this occurs depends on factors such as the frequency and intensity of storm events and the build-out of the watershed. The trilpped sediment reduces the channel bed slope upstream of each silt fence, which, in turn, reduces flow velocities and increases channel stability. The net result is that the channel bed is adjusted to a stable geometry between drop structures with a step at each drop structure, lbis stepped pattern results in greater channel capacity downstream of each drop structure than upstream since the downstream channel cross-section is naturally larger. As discussed previously, the creek is adjacent to Olympic Parkway, The channel and roadway are designed so that the road would not be inundated during lOO-year storm flows in the channeL The critical design points are at the upstream side of each drop structure, At these locations the channel bed elevation is high and the channel capacity is low, which causes a high water surface elevation, The IOO-year water surface elevations were detennined at these locations assuming the ultimate channel configuration with a fully vegetated channeL The road elevations were then set with at least one foot of freeboard above the computed water surface elevations, 2 October 4, 1999 CGP:rb\ 13126\report\99002.doc /7 J I I I I I I I I I I I , , I CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Semi-annual inspections of the drop structures, silt fences, and channel should be performed by a registered civil engineer specializing in river hydraulics. The engineer must identify problems and recommend repairs in the rip rap drop structures, cut-off walls, silt fencing, steel poles, and any maintenance activities required to conserve the hydraulic performance of the channeL As discussed previously, sediment will deposit upstream of the silt fences, When the sediment level reaches the top of a silt fence, the chain-link fencing should be removed, but not the steel poles, Following removal of the chain-link fencing, annual inspections should be extended to the channel bed area upstream of each drop structure. If channel bed scour is evident in this area, then the chain- link fencing should be replaced until the channel bed again aggrades to the top of the silt fence. On the other hand, if deposition in excess of 0.5 feet occurs in this area after the fence is removed, then sediment must be removed upstream of the drop structure. In order to preserve the vegetated appearance of the channel, sediment should be removed from one half of the channel first to the elevation of the top of the silt fence, After vegetation begins to reestablish on this half, then sediment can be removed from the other half of the channeL However, sedimentation and vegetation removal must be in conformance with the permit negotiated between the City and proper resource agencies, Note that sediment does not need to be removed immediately downstream of the drop structures since the channel capacity in these areas is much greater than upstream. Finally, if the channel bed elevations upstream of a drop structure do not show scour or deposition after a 3 year period with normal rainfall, the steel poles can be removed. Removal shall only be accomplished by cutting off the poles so they are flush with the top of the supporting cut-offwalL The channel maintenance shall include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Removal and trimming of vegetation, operation and repairs of silt fences, drop structures, cut off walls, head walls and rip rap pads. 2, Removal and trimming of vegetation, removal of debris, trash, and silt from channeL Including inlet and outlets of culvert at La Media Road. 3 October 4, 1999 CGP:rh\13126\rcpon\99002.doc ;2C 11 I . I I . I . I ,.. I I I I I I II II II CONCLUSION This report has presented a maintenance plan for the Poggi Canyon Channel. McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC is responsible for ensuring that the maintenance plan is implemented until maintenance is accepted by the City in accordance with the "Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement" with McMillin Otay Ranch, L.L.c. After acceptance by the City the maintenance will be the . responsibility of the City of Chula Vista through the Community Facilities District 97-01. The maintenance plan includes guidelines for the drop structures, silt fences, and channel areas upstream of the silt fences. The maintenance plan recommends that a registered civil engineer be retained to perform annual inspections of the channel. The inspection results should be reported to McMillin Land Development and the City of Chula Vista to ensure that any maintenance concerns are adequately addressed. 4 October 4, 1999 CGP:rh\l3126\report\99002.doc 2/ I I I I I I I II . I I . II I . I II I ;1 McMILUN OTAY RANCH POGGI CANYON MAINTENANCE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY !5G4ll FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 92110 (819) 291-0707 101<199 JOB NO. 1312ll-L DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNITPRICE TOTAL PRICE ----------------------------------- ------ 1. SEMI ANNUAL ENGINEER'S OBSERVATION/EVALUATION (ASSUME NO MAINTENANCE) EA. 2 1,000.00 2. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF CHANNEL DOES NOT INCLUDE SILT REMOVAL EA. 10,000.00 TOTAL 5 :2':< ------ 2,000,00 10,000,00 $12,000,00 CGP:rl1\1312618xce1\COSl\9. - , I III I i I I I i , ~ I I I I I 1 I I II ! I I ! . I I 1 I 1 III I I McMIWN OTAY RANCH POGGI CANYON SILT REMOVAL FOR SO-YEAR EVENT OPINION OF PROBABLE COST RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 5ll2O FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92110 18'9) 291-<l707 - --------- DESCRIPTION 'OI..-sl1l JOB NO. 131~ UNIT QUANTiTY UNIT PRiCE TOTAL PRICE NO SILT is ANTiCIPATED. BUT iF EROSIONl SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACiLITIES FAIL ASSUME: C.Y. 1 OCCURRENCE 50-YEAR EVENT AT OR GRADUAL SILTATION 2000 CY SILT $15.00/CY ;<36 2,000 15.00 30,000.00 CGP:rl1\13'28\excel\co$lI99OO2.xJo I III ~ \. PROJECf LOCATION ~1 LOCATION MAP Mc:MILLIN OT A Y RANCH ~""TTT'\~ .. l "~ ~ '~:.. '" o o N w w < u ~ 'I '\ ',-~R,. ' ;\".\\',~ 'I: '.1) i 1\ :1 I I" ".\'" " .~, . \ \ \ \ .'---.- '\ ;.\ , . 1 , .<1. Ii.... " /. II;.., I~ ' JI f I' ' {!-J'" ~ I I , I ' Iil/\],/!) \', t. II:';':').. / " ;'1 \' I '~"<./'JL:-:, !, '!': ,~~,">'.-- " ./ I I;' \',~:~,: :' '<..X".,;, ':',. j.--.,-,,\,,~, J .'!':t'~, --..' ~~'~'....:. '''':'''\'~'''~ i - 1 <-' I ;:...~ "'z i ~~ I u- ~~ " If. -< !; ;-S; :<:::; ,. i: '""':;~ ::Eofi: '.i ~l ; :t ~\: . i l... l ! - 0';- ~~ ~..~ ~ "" .., ~ f Ci J! I r ZlIj ~:: ::e~11 I - ;,.,: ~~ U,.g -~- -,~~>~ I COUNCIL POUCY CITY OF CHUL~ VISTA = SUBJECT: DRAINAGE - NATURAL CHANG~ WITHIN POUCY EFFECTIVE OPEN SPACE NUMBER DATE PAGE 522-02 . 09-14-90 1 OF 1 ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 15869 I DATED: 09-14-90 BACKGROUND At the meeting of September 5, 1989, Council adopted Ordinance 2331 which revised the procedures for establishing open space districts in the City and provided for the maintenance of improvements in open space areas. Although Council adopted subject ordinance, it directed staff to reru.:TI with provisions to require the developers to assist in providing financing for the maintenance of natural drainage ways. PURPOSE r=; '- -' . -;'2 . "E" I Establish a Council Policy which outlines the responsibilities of the developer regarding maintenance of I natural draiIlage ways. i I !'OUCY I i Tne Coun:i.l esrablishes the foHowing policy for :he maintenance of natural ch-ainage way$': I '1. When a developer requests formation of an open space district which includes a naru.:al cirai channel as parr of an open space lot, the developer shall maintain the natura] drainage facilities for a period of five years. Tne five year mainten,mce period by the developer will starr when the City Council accepts the open space landscaping, 2. Tne maintenance shall be guaranteed through a bond to the City in an amount equal to the estimated five-year cost. At the request of the developer, the City may allow the bond to be reduced annually by 10% per year and released completely after five years. 3. Tne district shall be formed and assessments levied during the five year period while the full cost of maintenance of the channel is being bom by the developer, Tnis provides a reserve amount to be utilized in case of emergency, 4. The upstream property owners may be required as a condition of approval of future development to pay their fair share of the maintenance costs of downstream natural drainage facilities which are within, and maintained by, other open space districts, 2b