Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2001/08/14 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 14, 2001 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CI'IY OF CHUIA VISTA City Council City Manager Patty Davis David D. Rowlands, Jr. Stephen C. Padilla City Attorney Jerry R. Rindone John M. Kaheny Mary Salas City Clerk Shirley A. Horton, Mayor Susan Bigelow The City Council meets regularly on the first calendar Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. and on the second, third and fourth calendar Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m. Regular meetings may be viewed at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays on Cox Cable Channel 17 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 47 AGENDA August 14, 2001 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Horton. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY · OATH OF OFFICE: THOMAS BREWER - CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION · INTRODUCTION OF THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE STUDENTS FROM ODAWARA, JAPAN, BY FRAN LARSON, CHAIRPERSON OF THE INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION: CHIHARU SATO, TOMOE KANEKO, AYA KOSAO, MASAE HARADA CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 7) The Council will enact the staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed afier Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 1. 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 August 7, 2001, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed. 2. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH FISCAL DEFICIT FEE AS A BUILDING PERMIT-BASED FEE TO PROVIDE PERMANENT FUNDING FOR THE PREPARATION OF 15 ANNUAL, FISCAL REVIEWS FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT, AND FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY FISCAL DEFICITS IDENTIFIED BY THOSE ANNUAL REVIEWS, AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE 2829, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH FISCAL DEFICIT ACCOUNT (SECOND READING AND ADOPTION) In conjunction with Council's approval of the project area's annexation to the City on December 19, 2000, Council also approved Ordinance 2829, which established the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Account. Among its various provisions pertaining to the required fifteen annual fiscal reviews of the project, and payment to the City for any identified deficits, Ordinance 2829 also required that prior to approval of the first Final Map for San Miguel Ranch, the applicant (NN~?-Trimark San Miguel, LLC) establish the permanent funding mechanism to pay for the annual fiscal reviews and any deficits. The Ordinance will establish fees to be paid in conjunction with building permits for all residential units in San Miguel Ranch. (Director of Planning and Building) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption. 3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES ON THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT On August 1, 2000, Council approved an agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc. (HPI) for Construction Management/Constructor (CMC) services on the new Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard. During the course of construction, a number of !ssues have arisen which have caused approximately seventy-four days of delay, resulting ~n the need to extend the anticipated completion date of the project, and amend HPI's CMC contract. HPI and City staff have worked to reduce the impact of these days to require only an additional forty-five days to complete the project. This resolution approves the first amendment to said agreement, thereby extending the life of the agreement by forty-five days to complete the corporation yard project, at an additional cost of $162,433. Under this amendment, the City will also compensate HPI for the coordination of work involved with the installation of the owner-furnished equipment at a cost of $22,498. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC AND THE OTAY PROJECT, LP TO AMEND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS WITHIN VILLAGES TWO AND SIX OF THE OTAY RANCH AREA, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAiD AGREEMENT McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC and Otay Project, LP are currently conducting a land swap within Villages two and six of the Otay Ranch area. Staff is currently processing a lot- line adjustment parcel map reflecting the new ownership boundaries on Villages two and six. The proposed land swap will provide for better planning and development of these two villages. Adoption of the resolution will approve an agreement to amend the legal descriptions of certain recorded agreements that run with the land owned by each developer. The proposed agreement will make those existing agreements consistent with the new ownership boundaries. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 2 - Council Agenda 08/14/01 5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROViNG A FREEWAY MAiNTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING STATE ROUTE-54 The State of California, Department of Transportation has requested that the City of Chula Vista enter into an agreement in order to clearly define the limits of freeway maintenance responsibility by the City of Chula Vista in connection with State Route-54. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $7,788.62 FROM THE BULLETPROOF VEST GRANT, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 POLICE BUDGET, AND APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE iN THE AMOUNT OF $7,788.62 FOR BODY ARMOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) On April 27, 2001, the Police Department submitted an application for funding of vests under the Bulletproof Vest Program. In May 2001, the Chula Vista Police Department received notification that the Bureau of Justice Assistance had approved the application. The grant award is for the amount of $7,788.62 to pay for 50% of the cost of bulletproof vests. This grant will partially fund 44 vests; matching funds will come from the Police Department budget. (Chief of Police) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDiNG THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 BUDGET BY TRANSFERRiNG $33,000 FROM THE SUPPLIES AND SERVICES CATEGORY TO THE CAPITAL CATEGORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEASiNG TWO ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND PURCHASiNG ONE NATURAL GAS TRUCK FOR THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM The Special Operations Program includes programs such as Residential and Business Solid Waste Management, Household Hazardous Waste, Used Oil Recycling, Watershed Education, Energy Conservation and Climate Protection/Alternative Vehicle. The funds for these programs are generated primarily from an Integrated Solid Waste Management surcharge placed on bimonthly refuse bills and a number of grants solicited on behalf of the City. Grant funds for these programs this fiscal year are estimated to be approximately $800,000. The requested vehicles will be used primarily to carry out the Energy Conservation, Residential Retrofit, Oil Recycling and Solid Waste Management Programs. (Special Operations Manager) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 3 - Council Agenda 08/14/01 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons speaking during Oral Communications may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, p[ease fill out a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 8. CONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A USED CAR LOT LOCATED AT 201 BROADWAY The project applicant was proposing to establish a used car dealership on the site of a previously existing gas station located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Broadway and E Streets (201 E Street). The Planning Commission raised serious concerns regarding this request at its meeting of June 27, 2001, and voted 7-0 to deny the request. The applicant filed an appeal to that decision. Since that time, the applicant has withdrawn the appeal. (Director of Planning and Building) Staffrecommendation: Council cancel the public hearing. 9. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAKE III, CHULA VISTA TRACT 01-09, INVOLVING 1,440 SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS, FOUR SUPER LOTS WITH A CAPACITY OF 612 UNITS, SEVEN OPEN SPACE LOTS, THREE PUBLIC/QUASI PUBLIC, AND TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS ON 748.3 ACRES, LOCATED EAST OF THE EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II AND THE EASTLAKE TRAILS NEIGHBORHOOD, BETWEEN PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD AND THE OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER (PCS 01-09) The applicant, The EastLake Company, has submitted an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map known as EastLake III, Chula Vista Tract 01-09, in order to subdivide and develop 748.3 acres. The tentative subdivision map consists of 1,440 single-family lots and four super lots, with a capacity for 612 dwelling units (2052 total dwelling units). The tentative map also includes seven open space lots, a 12.8-acre community park site, two school sites, two community purpose facilities sites, two commercial sites and several specialty lots (i.e. slopes and landscape buffer areas). (Director of Planning and Building) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the following resolution: Page 4 - Council Agenda 08/14/01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FSEIR 01-01), FOR THE EASTLAKE III WOODS AND VISTAS REPLANN1NG PROGRAM, AND APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAKE III, CHULA VISTA TRACT 01-09 10. CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, CONSISTING OF A 66-FOOT-HIGH LIGHT STANDARD, SUPPORTING NINE ANTENNAS, AND AN ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT BUILDING AT AN UNLIT BASEBALL FIELD WITHIN ROHR PARK, 4548 SWEETWATER ROAD (APPLICANT - COX/SPRINT PCS) CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 7, 2001 Cox/Sprint PCS is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an unmanned cellular communications facility at 4548 Sweetwater Road (Rohr Park). The project will consist of a 384 square-foot equipment and storage building, and a 66-foot high light standard, supporting nine antennas. The light standard location is proposed to be in the right field of a currently unlit baseball diamond in the park. The City will use revenue generated from the antennas to purchase and install five additional lights at the ball field. (Director of Planning and Building) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PCC-00-58) TO COX/SPRINT PCS TO CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 4548 SWEETWATER ROAD (ROHR PARK) ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS A. Scheduling of meetings. 12. MAYOR'S REPORTS 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Page 5 - Council Agenda 08/14/01 CLOSED SESSION 14. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDiNG EXISTiNG LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) · Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chula Vista (case no. GIC 758620) · City of Chula Vista v. Barnhart Construction (case no. SDSC GIS 3859) · Itam Plastering, Inc. v. City of Chula Vista (case no. IS 5571) 15. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 · City Negotiator: City Manager · Employee Organizations: Chula Vista Employees Association, Western Council of Engineers · Employee Groups: Executive, Senior-Management, Mid-Management, Confidential and Unrepresented ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of August 21, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Page 6 - Council Agenda 08/14/01 CI'IY OF CHUIA VISI'A OFFICE OF THE CI'FY A]-FORNEY Date: August 8, 2001 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 8/7/01 The City Council of the City of Chula Vista met in Closed Session on 8/7/01 to discuss: · CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 City Negotiator: City Manager Employee Organizations: Chula Vista Employees Association, Western Council of Engineers Employee Groups: Executive, Senior-Management, Mid-Management, Confidential and Unrepresented The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula vista met in Closed Session on 8/7/01 to discuss: · INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(c) Possible challenge to California Energy Commission (CEC) approval of RAMCO Peaker Plant, Unit No. 2 The city Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from the observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. JMK:lgk 276 FOURTH AVENUE - CHULA VISTA · CALIFORNIA 91910 · (619) 691-5037 · FAX (619) 409-5823 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA .V,I,.,ST~k~R2qIA ESTABLISHING THE SAN MIGUEL RA~(~It~I2A~ DEFICIT FEE AS A BUILDING pERMIT BASED FEE T~"i~ROVIDE PERMANENT FUNDING FOR THE PREPARATION OF 15 ANNUAL FISCAL P~EVIEWS FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT, AND FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY FISCAL DEFICITS IDENTIFIED BY THOSE ANNUAL REVIEWS, AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE 2829 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH FISCAL DEFICIT ACCOUNT WHEREAS, the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan/Fiscal Impact Analysis (PFFP/FIA) were approved by the City Council on October 19, 1999, by Resolution No. 19631; and WHEREAS, the PFFP/FIA identified that the San Miguel Ranch Project would operate at an armual net fiscal deficit to the City; and WHEREAS, condition no. 22 of Resolution 19631 required the project applicant to establish a mechanism to mitigate that deficit to the City's satisfaction prior to annexation of the project site; and WHEREAS, on February 29, 2000, the City Council approved a Master Tentative Subdivision Map for the San Miguel Ranch project by Resolution No. 2000-068; and WHEREAS, condition nos. 95a. & b. of Resolution No. 2000-068 further specified the Applicant's responsibility to establish an account to finance the preparation of annual fiscal reviews and deficit analyses for the project, and to establish a permanent mechanism, prior to approval of the first Final Map within the project, to pay the City for the ongoing preparation of the annual reviews, and for any fiscal deficits identified by the annual reviews; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2000, the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) adopted a Resolution (Reft No. R099-42) approving San Miguel Ranch Reorganization subject to conditions, one of which reads "Pursuant to conditions regarding a forecasted annual fiscal deficit, contained in the SPA and Tentative Map, the property owner will establish and fund a mitigating mechanism to the City's satisfaction"; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2000, in conjunction with actions on annexation of the San Miguel Ranch project area, the City Council approved Ordinance 2829, establishing the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Account; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 3 and 5 of Ordinance 2829, the Applicant (NNP-Trimark San Miguel, LLC) ( "Applicant" ) shall, prior to approval of the first Final Map within the project, establish and fund a permanent mechanism to satisfy the Applicant's responsibility for funding preparation of the 15 annual reviews, and for payment of the project's fiscal deficits identified by those reviews; and ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS} Exhibit 2 attached hereto is an excerpt from the approved San Miguel Ranch PFFP/FIA and generally describes the forecasted annual fiscal deficit; and WHEREAS, Exhibit 3 attached hereto identifies the proposed San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Fee which will establish a permanent funding mechanism and ensure payment of said fee to the City prior to issuance of building permits, to mitigate any fiscal deficits resulting fi.om the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, based upon information presented to it in conjunction with prior action on the Project's SPA, PFFP/FIA, Tentative Subdivision Map and Annexation, that imposition of the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Fee on all developments within the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan area for which building permits have not yet been issued is necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare, to ensure the effective implementation of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan, and is reasonably related to the development of the San Miguel Ranch Project; and WHEREAS, the Project's PFFP/FIA indicates that the City's operating deficits result from residential development, not commercial, so the proposed fees are proposed to be tied to residential dwelling units, both single and multiple family; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and therefore is not subject to environmental review. No further action is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section 1. Territory to Which Fee is Applicable. The area to which the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Fee herein established shall be applicable is the same as the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan, and defined by the San Miguel Ranch Reorganization (City Council Resolution 2000-482) and reflected on Exhibit 1 attached hereto ("Affected Territory"). Section 2. Purpose. By Ordinance 2829, the City Council established the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Account. Pursuant to Sections 3 and 5 of Ordinance 2829, the purpose of this ordinance is to establish the permanent funding mechanism to pay the City for conducting 15 armual fiscal reviews and analyses, and for any fiscal deficits resulting from the San Miguel Ranch project. ORDiNANCE NO. PAGE 3 Section 3. Establishment of Building Permit Fee A San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Fee ("Fee") to be expressed on a per- residential-dwelling-unit basis, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential project with the Affected Territory. Section 4. Determination of Dwelling Units Each single family attached and detached dwelling unit shall be considered one dwelling trait for purposes of this Fee. Each multi-family attached and detached dwelling unit shall also be considered a dwelling unit for the purposes of this Fee. Commercial and other hon-residential uses shall not be charged this Fee. Section 5. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advance Payment Prohibited. The Fee for each residential dwelling unit shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time and not when the tentative map or final map was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit. The Fee shall be adjusted from time to time as the City determines appropriate. Section 6. Amount of Fee. The Fee shall be calculated at the following rates: $896.00 for each dwelling unit issued a building permit during calendar year 2001; and $922.00 for each dwelling unit issued a building permit during calendar year 2002, and $950.00 for each dwelling unit issued a building permit during calendar year 2003, and $979.00 for each dwelling unit issued a building permit during calendar year 2004, and $1,008.00 for each dwelling unit issued a building permit during calendar year 2005. The calculation of the initial Fee for the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Fee is shown in Exhibit 3. Should issuance of building permits for residential dwelling units continue beyond calendar year 2005, the fee shall be increased an additional 3% (percent) for each subsequent calendar year, and the increased fee shall be applied to all residential units issued building permits in that calendar year. The City Council intends to review the amount of this Fee annually or from time to time. The City Council may, at such reviews, adjust the amount of this Fee as necessary to assure compliance with the purposes of this Fee as set forth herein, and the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and PFFP/FIA. ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 4 Section 7. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures. The proceeds collected from the imposition of this Fee and any interest earned thereon shall be deposited into the San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Account established by Ordinance 2829, and such proceeds shall be expended only for the purposes and under the authorities set forth in that Ordinance 2829. Section 8. Revision and Refund of Fees. At such time as the City Council determines that this Fee is no longer required to be collected for the purposes set forth herein, the Fee shall be suspended. if the Fee is suspended as provided above, the Finance Director shall provide a report to the City Council summarizing the revenues and expenditures to date resulting from the Fee. lf there are surplus funds available, the City Manager shall provide a recommendation to the City Council on the most fair and equitable disposition of m~y excess Fees that may have been collected. In the absence of an alternative determination of fairness by the City Council, a refund which divides the remaining unused balance by the residential units for each developer or applicant who has paid the Fee shall be deemed a fair method. Section 9. Findings. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find that the establishment of the Fee is necessary to protect the public safety and welfare, to ensure the effective implementation of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan, and is reasonably related to the development of the San Miguel Ranch Project, for the following reasons: A. The San Miguel Ranch Tentative Map Resolution, Condition of Approval #95 requires that a Fiscal Deficit program be established to correct any annual operating deficiencies incurred by the City as a result of the development of the San Miguel Ranch Project. This program will finance the cost of 15 annual reviews and analyses of the fiscal impact of the Project upon the City, and payment of any fiscal deficits identified by those annual reviews. B. The San Miguel Ranch PFFP/FIA produces a representation of the project's fiscal impacts upon the City for any given year to the buildout of the project. C. It is projected that the City's operating deficits will result from residential development, not commercial or industrial, so the proposed fees are to be tied to residential units, both single family and multi-family. D. The amount of the Fee levied by this ordinance to fund the annual fiscal deficit analyses does not exceed the estimated cost of providing this service. E. The collection of the Fee established by this ordinance at the time of the building permit is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the purposes described in the San Miguel Ranch PFFP/FIA and in Ordinance 2829. Section 10. Fee Additional to Other Fees and Charges. The Fee established by this ordinance is in addition to the requirements imposed by other City laws, policies or regulations relating to the development of San Miguel Ranch. Section 11. Time Limit for Judicial Action. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within the time period as established by Government Code Section 54995 after the effective date of this ordinance. Section 12. Expiration of This Ordinance This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect when the City Council determines that the accounts are no longer needed for the purposes stated herein. Section 13. Effective Date This ordinance shall become effective sixty (60) days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Johnffh/(/l~al~ny Director of Planning & Building City Attorney Exhibit l: Area Subject to Fiscal Deficit Fee Exhibit 2: Excerpt from PFFP/FIA Identifying the San Miguel Ranch Project's Fiscal Deficit Exhibit 3: Table of Potential Funding Alternatives for Fiscal Operating Deficit H:~shared\planning\ sml-fiscalordinance doc) ~ Area Subject to Annual Fiscal Deficit Fee BONITA SUNNYSIDE / ESTANCIA ROLLING HIL CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESUHIFIION:  APPUCANT:TRI MARK PACIFIC~AN MIGUEL LLC. San Miguel Ranch PROJECT Unincorporated County area ad acent Fiscal Impact Review Ordinance ADDRESS: to the northerly boundary of Chu a Vista. An ordinance establish a Fiscal Impact Review Process NORTH No Scale SM-001F EXHIBIT I Fiscal Analysis handles the'maintenance of City parks and provided park maintenance costs of $8.399 per public park acre. CIC allocated the park cost on a per acre (340 acres cie_x-wide and 12.45 required acres for San .Miguel Ranch) and recreation costs on a per housing unit basis. Annual park maintenance costs allocated to San Miguel Ranch are estimated at $104.568 at build-out ($8.399 ~ 12.45). Vista Mother Miguel does not include an3' park uses. However. park costs of $8.399 X .4 acres were applied because of the cily's requirement for 3 acres of park per 1.000 population. Therefore. annual park maintenance engineering costs for Vista Mother Miguel are $3,400. Excluding the Women's Club. which is assumed to be self-supporting, costs for recreation services total $46 per housing unit. Using this multiplier, results in costs of $64,600 for the San Miguel Ranch (refer to Table A-I 8) and $2,000 for Vista Mother Miguel (refer to Table B-18). The following table details the cost allocation for Parks and Recreation. 98/99 Budget Cost Allocation Unit/Acre Parks $3,127,684 $8.399 per park acre Admthistration-Parks 374.260 Administration-Open Space 334.552 Provided by lighting & landscape district Maintenance 2,418.870 General 2,14770~45 _Marina Park 271,425 Not applicable Recreation $2.502,606 $46 per housing unit Athletics 260,720 $5 per housing unit Aquatics 516.172 $10 per hous/ng unit Senior Citizens 288.839 $5 per housing unit General t ,062.615 $20 per housing unit Administration-Recreation 374.260 $7 per housing unit Net Fiscal Impact Utilizing the previously mentioned methodologies, estimated net fiscal impacts are presented in Tables 61 and 62. As previously mentioned, ail values are in 1998 dollars. No annual adjustments to revenues or costs were utilized. The estimated annual flows of costs and revenues are primarily related to the estimated project absorption. Table 61 presents the results of the fiscal impact associated with the San Miguel Ranch. Fiscal revenues range from $219,500 in the first >,ear of development (2001) to $1,137,300 at build-out (2006). Fiscal expenditures range from $219, I00 in year one to $1,262,400 at build-om. The net fiscal impact from developing the San Miguel Ranch is a positive $400 in year one and becomes a negative $125,100 at project build-out. It should be noted that during some years the net fiscal impact will be more or less due to infrequently needed street repairs. San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Finanee Plan 4.4.14- 18 ~'~F~ I ~ I T .~-- San Mlcud Ranch consis~ ofa ~_'pical mixed land-use plan including single famit> homes. multi-family homes, neighborhood shopping center, parks and school. The homes range from S140.000 for a multi-fami]y unit to $400.000 for a single family home on a large lot. Tile median ho.using price and associated estimated household income for San Miguel Ranch are significant]>' higher than the overall ci~'. The San Miguel Ranch is expected to generate higher than average per unit property and sales taxes. Other revenues are expected To be at or above city. averages. In terms of expenditures, this project is not expected to incur any unusual or higher than average costs for city Self'ices. The primary, factor responsible for this project's negative flscai impact is primarily due to the relatively small city share of property taxes under the existing annexation agreement with the County. Because the project is currently located in the County of San Diego and proposed to be annexed into the' City of Chula Vista, the city's share of proper0.' tax is determined by the City/County Master Tax Agreement, which limits the city's share to 8.6 percent. For properties located within the City of Chula Vista. the average ciw. share of property tax is roughly 14.7 percent. If San Miguel Ranch utilized a 14.7 percent share, the fiscal impact would be posit]ye for all >'ears presented in Table 61. The last year presented based on a 14.7 percem share would be positive $98200. Table 62 presents the results of the fiscal impact associated with Vista Mother Miguel. Fiscal revenues are 532,700 in >,ear 2002 and remain the same throughout the presented development schedule, due to forecasted one-year absorption schedule. Fiscal expenditures are $34,700 in 2002 and increase to 535,000 m build-out. The increase in expenses is related to the infrequent street repair costs. The net fiscal impact from developing Vista Mother MigueI is a negative $2,000 for ali presented years except the year 2006 ($2,300), which includes street maintenance costs. Similar to San Miguel Ranch. the median housing price and associated estimated household income for Vista Mother Miguel are significantly higher than the overall cky. Vista Mother Miguel is expected to generate higher than average per unit property and sales taxes. Other revenues are expected to be at or above city averages. In terms of expenditures, this project is not expected to incur any unusual or higher than average costs for city services. This projecI is also proposed to be annexed into the city, which limits the city's share of proper'O.' t~z< to 8.6 percent. For boih ih= San Miguel Ranch project and the Vista Mother Miguel subdi~sion, the City and the developer will negotiate and establish a fee program to orr"set the projected fiscal deficits ~2zrough a condition of approval of the SPA and/or tentative subdivision map. , , , .San .Migu,elJ~aneh . 4.4.14 - 19 p,,~;, r.,,~:t;-" ........ Fiscal Analysis Table 61 NET FISCAL IMPACT OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH ON THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Revenue Sources Revenues (In Thousands) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Secured Properly Tax $60.4 5131.4 5196.5 $262.3 S314.7 5314.7 Unsecured Properb.' Tax $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.3 $3.3 Prop:try Transfer Tax $5.5 $12.0 $17.9 S24.0 $27.9 527.9 Sales & Use Tax $87.0 5188~5 5265.6 $352.9 $451.1 5451.1 Franchise Tax $4.7 $10.2 $14.4 $19.1 $30.8 530.8 TOT Tax $0.7 $1.5 $2.1 $2.7 $4.0 $4.0 UtiliD, Tax $6.4 513.8 $19.5 $25.9 541.7 $41.7 Business License $0.0 $0.0 50.0 S0.0 $6.3 $6.3 Miscellaneous Revenues $54.8 $118.8 5167.4 S222.4 $257.6 $257.6 TOTAL R.EYENUES $219.5 S476.1 5;683.3 5;909.3 S1,137.3 S1,137.3 Expenditure Sources Expenditures (In Thousands) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Government Admin. S39.8 $94.1 $137.2 $185.0 $225.6 $229.3 Planning $3.8 58.3 $11.7 $15.6 S19.1 $19.1 Police $88.9 5t92.6 $271.5 5360.7 $467.4 $467.2 Fire $36.2 $78.4 5110.5 $146.9 $180. I $]80.1 Librars., $22.2 548.0 567.7 $89.9 $103.0 $103.0 Public Works $14.2 533.5 548.7 $65.7 $77.6 $94.5 Park and Recreation $13.9 $62.9 5108.0 $I54.7 $169.2 5169.2 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $219.1 S518.0 5755.4 $1,018.4 Sl,241.7 S1,262.4 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL REVENUES $219.5 $476.1 $683.3 $909.3 $1,137.3 $1,]37.3 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $219A S518.0 5;755.4 $1.018.4 $I.24117 '$1.262.4 NET FISCAL IMPACT S0.4 (541.9) ($72.0) (5;109.1) (S104.3) (S125.1) San Miguel Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan 4.4.14 - 20 Table 62 NET FISCAL IMPACT OF VISTA MOTHER YlIGUEL ON THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Revenue Sources Revenues (In Thousands) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Secured Properzy Tzx $0,0 59.8 59.8 $9.8 $9.8 S9.8 Unsecured Propen3.' Tax S0.0 S0.0 S0.0 $0.0 S0.0 50.0 Property. Transfer Tax 50.0 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 50.9 Sales & Use Tax $0.0 $12.5 $12.5 $12.:5 $12.5 $12.5 Franchise Tax S0.0 %0.7 50.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 TOT Tax $0.0 $0. l S0.1 $0. l $0.1 $0.1 UtiliB.' Tax $0.0 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 Business License $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Miscellaneous Revenues $0.0 $7.9 $7.9 $7.9 $7.9 ..?.9 TOTAL RJEVE_Nff. SE S S0.0 $32.7 $32.7 $32.7 $32.7 $32.7 Expenditure Som~ces Expenditures (In Thousands) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Government Admin. S0.0 $6.3 $6.3 $6.3 $6.3 $6.4 Planning $0.0 $0.6 S0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 Police $0.0 $12.7 S12.7 $12.7 $12.7 $12.7 Fire $0.0 S5.2 S5.2 $5.2 $5.2 $5.2 · - Library $0.0 $3.2 53.2 $3.2 $3.2 $3.2 Public Works $0.0 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $1.7 Park and Recreation $0.0 $5.4 $5.4 $5.4 $5.4 $5.4 TOTAL EXPENDITURES S0.0 S34.7 $34.7 $34.7 $34,7 S35.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL REVENUES $0.0 $32.7 S32.7 $32.7 $32.7 $32.7 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $0.0 $34.7 $34.7 $34.7 $34.7 $35.0 NET FISCAL ][MI?ACT S0.0 (S2.0) ($2.0) (g2.0) (S2.0) ($2,3) San Miguel Ranch 4.4. ] 4 - 21 Public Facilities Finance Pla. 01,04/00 TiE t3:59 F.-'-[ g, lg 637 40:0 C I C RESEARCH I RECEIVED CIC RESEARCH, INC. ' NNING Economi: Research. Ma~eting Reseamh . Envi~nmental Resea~h . Su~ey Reseamh January 4, 2000 Mr. Ed Batchelder City of Chula Vista 3115 Fourth Avenue, Suite R Chuia Vista CA 91910 Re: San Miguel Ranch Fiscal Deficit Funding Alternatives Dear Ed: The purpose of this letter is to present potential funding alternatives for the identified San Miguel Ranch fiscal operating deficit. The fiscal analysis presents an estimated annual net fiscal impact over the proposed development period (2001 to 2005) and one year beyond, to account for some public works costs, which do not occur until after 5 years. The fiscal impact was slightly positive in the first year and negative in the 2*~ through the 6t" year. At build-out, the estimated annual fiscal impact was a negative $125,000 (current 1999 dollars). At the request of the City of Chula Vista, CIC developed two '?unding alternatives for the forecasted fiscal impact deficit. The included robie presents the~ net fiscal impact for the presented development period and an additional 25 years beyond build-out. Although very unlikely, roi' the purpose of this analysis, CIC assumed the City of Chula Vista's public costs and revenues would adjust at the same rate over the subject period. From 2006 to 2030 the fiscal deficit is assumed to remain at an annual $125,000 (FY 99/00 dollars). CIC presented different time periods for which the developer could be responsible for the fiscal deficit. Also presented in the table is the estimated annual number of housing units built and sold. This absorption period was utilized in CtC's fiscal report. The table presents ~%.vo funding alternatives for 5 different time periods. Although the identh, qed fiscal deficit could continue indefinitely, it is very difficult to forecast future revenues and expenditures. The presented time pedods range from a six year (consistent with the fiscal analysis) period to a 30-year period. The two funding alternatives include a one-time payment and a per-housing unit fee. The per-unit fee is to be paid at the same time as the building permit, based on the presented building schedule. Both methodologies utilize a discounted cash flow analysis (Net Preserit Value) of the annual deficit. In both altema(ives a net present value was calculated tr[ilizing a 3 ¢ercent Telephvn~ (619) 637-4000oFax: (5 ~9) 637-4040 ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 01,'04/00 T['E 14:00 F{X ~19 537 4049 C I C RESEARCII ~[~: Mr. Batcheider page discount rate, which assumes that the difference between inflation and interest rates is 3%~ per year. The one-time payment-funding alternative ranges from $397,000 (assumes the developer is responsible for a 6oyear period) to $2,170,000 (assumes the developer is responsible for a 30-year period). These one-time payments represent the net present values (NPV) of the presented cash flows utilizing the 3% discount rate. The per-unit fee is based on the above net present values divided by the number of units proposed and increased three percent each year to adjust for inflation. This fee ranges from a Iow of $293 (2001 dollars for a 6-year period) to a high of $1,805 (2005 dollars for a 30-year period) per housing unit, based on the presented absorption schedule. Based on discussions with City of Chula Vista's department heads, a period to include 10 years beyond the build out represents an equitable time period for which the developer should be responsible for the fiscal deficit. This represents a 15-year period from 2001 to 2015. Utilizing the two presented funding alternatives results in a one time fee of $1.2 million or a per- building permit fee, which ranges from $896 in 2001 to $1,008 by 2005. Sincerely, Mark Crooks Senior Market Analyst MCC:slf The 3% discount rat=- was calculated using a 3% inflation rate and a 6% return on funds. CiO Research. inc. 836¢ V~cker~ S~eet o San Diego, California g2111-2112 Telephone (619) 637-4000 · Fax: (619) 637.4040 01/04/00 ~L'E 14:00 F~ Gig 037 40~0 C 1 C RESEARCH Proposed San Miguel Development _ Potential Funding Alternatives for Fiscal Operating Deficit Alternative Alternative Per Building Permit Fee One-ti me 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Time Period Paym, ent (200! (2002 (2003 (2004 (2005 for Estimates . (FY99/O0 dollars) dollars) dollars) dollars) dollars) dollars) 6 Year 2001 to 2006 $396,623 $293 $302 $311 $320 $330 10 Year I2001 to 2010 $785,905 $581 $598 $616 $635 $654 L 15 Year : j 2001 to 20!5 $1,212,042 $896 $922 $950 $979 $1,008 2001 to 2(325 $1.836,993 $1,357 $1,398 $1,440 $1,483 $1,528 i: 2001 to 2030. $2,170,239 $1,604 $1,652 $1,701 $1,752 $1,805 !) Assumes 3% inflation and 6% interest (net discount rate of 3%) ~) Assumes the City of Chula Vista's public costs and revenues djust at the same rate over the subject period 3) The one-time payment fee is in FY 99/00 dollars, the per building permit'iee is presented in 2001 to 2005 dollars. Net Fiscal (000s) Build-Out Number (FYgg/00 Schedule of Years Year dollars) (units) L_ 1 I 2001 $0.41 300 j 2! 2002 ($41.9)j 350 I 3 j . 2003 . ($72.0) 266 j 4j 2004 ($109.1) 301 L 5 2005 ($104.3) 177 ! 6 2006 ($125.1) 0 ~- I 7 J 2007 ($125.1) L g 2008 ($125.1) ~' 9 2009 ($125.1) j- 10 2010 ($125.1) I 12 2012 ($125.1) j 13 2013 ($125.1) ' j 14 2014 ($125.1) - __. 15 to 30J 20..15 lo 2030 ($125.1) per year .~ :. Source: CIC Research. inc. December 1999 / ? ~ ~-~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution approving first amendment to the agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Highland Partnership, Inc. (HPI) for Construction Management/Constructor (CMC) services on the new Public Works Facility and Corporation/Yard SUBMITTED BY: Director of Pubic Works~,~?~/ REVIEWED BY: City Manager~f2;~/~" r,' t'~'! (4/5tbs Vote: Yes No X On August 1, 2000 the City Council approved Resolution 2000-275 approving an Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Highland Partnership, Inc. (HPI) for Construction Management/Constructor (CMC) Services on the new Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard. During the course of construction a number of issues have arisen which have caused approximately seventy-four (74) days of delay resulting in the need to extend the anticipated completion date of the project, and also amend HPI's CMC contract. HPI and City staff have worked to reduce the impact of these days to only require an additional forty-five (45) days to complete the project. This resolution approves the first amendment to said agreement thereby extending the life of the agreement by forty-five (45) days to complete the Corporation Yard Project at an additional cost of $162,433. Under this amendment the City will also compensate HPI for the coordination of work involved with the installation of the owner-furnished equipment at a cost of $22,498. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve a resolution approving the first amendment to the agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Highland Partnership, Inc. (HPI) for Construction Management/Constructor services on the new Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS APPROVAL: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: As Council had been previously advised, the original completion date of July 31, 2001 was delayed due to unanticipated field conditions mainly related to the presence of poor soil material requiring extensive grading and excavation work. Due to the diligent efforts of City and HPI staff; the original delays of seventy-four (74) days were reduced to forty-five (45) days and thereby bringing the completion date to September 27, 2001. The first amendment to HPI's CMC agreement indicates that HPI agrees that the entire project will be ready for occupancy by the date of substantial completion, September 27, 2001 and that all work under the agreement will be completed by the final completion date of December 25, 2001. Under this amendment, HPI will also be responsible for the coordination of installation of City furnished equipment. Specifically this amendment includes preparing for and conducting weekly specialty contractor meetings; coordinating equipment delivery, installation, inspection and commissioning (assuring everything works properly); updating the master schedule monthly, Page 2, Item: __ Meeting Date: 8/14/01 and general project management/administration and periodic reporting to City as directed by the Contract Administrator for this task. FISCAL IMPACT: HPI's full and complete compensation for performance of all services and obligations under the Original CMC Agreement and this Amendment shall be for a fixed sum equal to $1,098,932 as outlined below: Compensation consists of: Original contract amount $ 914,000 Time Extension $ 162,433 Coordination of owner furnished equipment $ 22,498 Total contract amount $ 1,098,932 Sufficient funds are available in the Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard CIP account to cover the additional costs of this amendment. File: 0735-I0-GG131 J:\Engineer\AGENDA\CorpYardHPIAgmt-SMN 1 .doc FIRST AMENDMENT TO the Agreement Between the City of Chula Vista and Highland Partnership for Construction Management Service for New Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard Recitals This First Amendment is entered into effective as of February 20, 2001, by and between the City of Chula Vista ("City") and Highland Partnership, Inc. ("Highland") with reference to the following facts: WHEREAS, City and Highland previously entered into an agreement ("Original Agreement"), dated August 1, 2000 and approved by City Council Resolution 2000-275, whereby Highland provides Construction Manager/Constructor (CMC) services to the City for the construction of the Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard; and WHEREAS, during the course of construction a number of issues have arisen which have caused approximately 74 days of delay resulting in the need to extend the anticipated completion date of the project; and WHEREAS, Highland and City staff have worked to reduce the impact of these days to only require an additional 45 days to complete the project; and WHEREAS, the City is also requesting additional assistance from Highland in the coordination of the installation of certain City purchased equipment; and WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreemeht to address the delay issue and to provide for Highland to perform the coordination efforts required to ensure proper installation of the City purchased equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual obligation of the panics set forth herein, the City and Highland agree as follows: I. Section 1 of the Original Agreement, entitled General Scope of Work to be Performed by CMC and Relationship of the Parties is hereby amended to reid as follows: 1.3.3 Achieve "Substantial Completion" (as defined in 13.1) no later than September 27, 2001, and "Final Completion" no later than December 25, 2001. 2. Section 5.3 of the Original Agreement, entitled Scope of Work, Construction Phase, is hereby amended to include: CMC duties during this phase shall include the following: Coordination of installation of City Furnished Equipment. Specifically, prepare for and conduct weekly specialty contractor meetings, coordinate equipment delivery, installation, inspection and commissioning, update master schedule monthly, and general project management/administration and periodic reporting to City as directed by the Contract Administrator for this task. 3. Section 9 of the Original Agreement, entitled CMC Fixed Fee for Service and Reimbursements, is hereby amended to delete the first sentence of Section 9.1 and insert the following: 9.1 Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, as full and complete compensation for performance of all services and obligations under the Original Agreement and this Amended Agreement, CMC shall be compensated ("CMC Fixed Fee") at a fixed sum equal to $1,098,932 as set out in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 9.1.1 CMC compensation consists of: Original contract amount $914,000 Time extension 162,433 Coordination of owner furnished equipment 22,498 Total contract amount $1,098,932 4. Section 13 of the original Agreement, entitled Contract Time, is hereby amended as follows: 13.1 CMC acknowledges and agrees that the date of Substantial Completion set forth in Sectionl.3.3 above is critical to City. CMC agrees that the entire Project wilt be ready for occupancy by the date of Substantial Completion, September 27, 2001, and that all Work under this Agreement will be completed by the Final Completion Date, December 25, 2001. 13.5 CMC shalI proceed with the work generally in accordance with the revised Exhibit 2 as attached to this Amended Agreement. 5. Except as expressly provided herein all other provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. SIGNATURE PAGE TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT/CONSTRUCTOR SERVICE FOR THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD City of Chula Vista Highland Partnership, Inc. by by Shirley Horton, Mayor J. David Gardner, Sr. Date ATTEST: City Clerk Approved in form by: ; City Attorney J:\Attomey\Agree\Highland CMC Amendment3.doc 3 }J I Ì' DESCRIPTIDN DF WORK COST April May June July Au9u,t September 1. CONSTRUCTION PHASE April - September P,.pa,. tm and Conduct Weekly Specially Cont""o, Maerings 4,936 Comdlnale Equipment Deh,e,,!, )nslallation, Inspe'rion and Comm""onlng 7,404 Update Maste, Schedule Monthly 265 Gene,,' Pm)e" Management I Admlnistcation 4,936 Subtotal 17.562 2. Periodic Reporting Periodic "ports to CI'y Stall and othees as di""ed by Conlcact Administcator 4.936 Subtotal 4.936 TOTAL - FIXED FEE 22,498 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL - EARNED TO DATE 0 SUBTOTAL - COST TO COMPLETE 22,498 City of Chula Vista Corporation Yard Construction Phase Services COORDINATE INSTALLATION OF OWNER FURNISHED EQUIPMENT AMEND CMC CONTRACT TO INCLUDE FIXED FEE - Earned as Work and Listed Deliverables are Completed Highland Partnership, Inc. Maceh 20. 2001 Hlgriland Partn"shlp, Inc. Cmp YardlChange Orde" wilh CIIyICOI - SCHEDULE OF VALUES OWNER EQUIP INSTALL.123 ij: ~ ~ ;!~! i' I III . 01 ., OIò.~i'i ~glglg. I '";'~-'i'i¡--.!-~";II~lz ~ j"- '8"..1 <, ~, .I"'I~ 81" !~lgll.i O. ,~o'Ô~. ,..,.§,'. .'1'-, i" "!I ",. ---, 11 : :H -:"~~--'-;I.¡-';'I'~I'"~lr ~!~!~ !I ~rl . !E I i I i Ii, 1 - . . " ~ nr;ll ;1 ;1 . ~: ;1 " ~I; . ~ J ~ 51 ~I ~ !I . ! . --~:I~-t¡ II 1 I. , -~[-r--,q;-~i.nI~lqlr ~~I~!I d :~.:I~~~~ ~,~~i;'~~I,.~I~I¡¡ ,gig, I' n -. .',.'.. -" .'.1"- ,-- ~ 1 i ': i ¡' I-I! ~~"-~--,.~'-~[;~-~!~.c- ,~gl~l! -if '¡§II' . ~ I ["~: ;¡[ '~I ~ gi g 'I . ~ I ~ " . .:I,', j ¡; .i' ;: or,. ;I. J!! 8'\::' ~ ;; ] ,t~: ~ .!!! ~-g1 ~ "ij;ò: ; (,) 1i "'~' . 0 Hi ~ 8;< ! õ 8 ã . '" . c :¡ c 0 0 ~ is 0 I~~~ . J :;.~~~ ~I~ ~,'~I;'~I~I"~~[ --¡"'-r-' "I rl -c- o ~i " "~I "1"1' 'I " . 'I 'I . '"1 .". . ôl" -" -. '1- .,"- §!," ô "I.": 1 :, ,.' ': i i ~I g ~ :1 : , ~ , ~ ~I ;1 ~ ~I ., , ~ ~ . . ~ § - -- -II-oil - I ~! ~" . ~. ~ ;1 ~I; ~ . . . ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ , i - - - -¡ - I - -I -~I~':!'~I; ~I~i~~:;"."~;¡ "~ ï l - - - -, 1- -i, - , ,: ~ ~ ' :1 : ~ ~ ~ ~;I ~ i::; ~ ~! ~! . ~ . § "~! g . I I I , _.~~1'~1 :;-~I;-~~I .~- ~gl~~'î i ! Õ Lq';'H~C. ~!~ .¡ I õ I i ¡ .' , I . " , , ;¡: . ; ~ £ J ~ ~1 ~ I . !! I .1 , ! 1 i'~--~ .! , Ii ~ : j II H I õ É. ~ ~. H, ~I '.~~' H~II;J;,-I! II "<'.:8il.l~ ~ji . ¡ . I I '~I';lqål, I i I -- , I I , ,I; ,I ; - læl,I., æ . ;¡ ! _I ~ ¡ , ; ~ j ~ ~ ,<, ~ ~I J ~ ~I j I ~ ~. j: t: ïi ", ð, , . 10 , ~ ' l' , ~-7 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on August 1, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 2000-275 approving the agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Highland Partnership for construction management services for the new Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard; and WHEREAS, during the course of construction, a number of issues have arisen causing approximately 74 days of delay which has resulted in the need to extend the anticipated completion date of the project; and WHEREAS, Highland and City staff have worked to reduce the impact of these days to only require an additional 45 days to complete the project, at an additional cost of $162,433; and WHEREAS, under this amendment, the City will also expand Highland's scope of work to include the coordination of the installation of the owner-furnished equipment at a cost of $22,498. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Highland Partnership for Construction Management Services for the new Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to execute said First Amendment to the Agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt JOt~y M. Kaheny~/ Director of Public Works C Attorney FIRST AMENDMENT TO the Agreement Between the City of Chula Vista and Highland Partnership for Construction Management Service for New Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard Recitals This First Amendment is entered into effective as of February 20, 2001, by and be~,~een the City of Chula Vista ("City") and Highland Partnership, Inc. ("Highland") with reference to the following facts: WHEREAS, City and Highland previously entered into an agreement ("Original Agreement"), dated August 1, 2000 and approved by City Council ResoIution 2000-275, whereby Highland provides Construction Manager/Constructor (CMC) services to the Cit~ for the construction of the Public Works Facility and Corporation Yard; and WHEREAS, during the course of construction a number of issues have arisen which have caused approximately 74 days of delay resulting in the need to extend the anticipated completion date of the project; and WHEREAS, Highland and City staff have worked to reduce the impact of these days to only require an additional 45 days to complete the project; and WHEREAS, the City is also requesting additional assistance from Highland in the coordination of the installation of certain City purchased equipment; and WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement to address the delay issue and to provide for Highland to perform the coordination efforts required to ensure proper installation of the City purchased equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual obligation of the parties set forth herein, the City and Highland agree as follows: Section 1 of the Original Agreement, entitled General Scope of W'ork to be Performed by CMC and Relationship of the Parties is hereby amended to re~d as follo~vs: 1.3.3 Achieve "Substantial Completion" (as defined in 13.1) no later than September 27, 2001, and "Final Completion" no later than December 25,200I. 2. Section 5.3 of the Original Agreement, entitled Scope of Work, Construction Phase, is hereby amended to include: CMC duties during this phase shall include the following: Coordination of installation of City Furnished Equipment. Specifically, prepare for and conduct weekly specialty contractor meetings, coordinate equipment delivery, installation, inspection and commissioning, update master schedule monthly, and general project management/administration and periodic reporting to City as directed by the Contract Administrator for this task. 3. Section 9 of the Original Agreement, entitled CMC Fixed Fee for Service and Reimbursements, is hereby amended to delete the first sentence of Section 9. I and insert the follo~ving: 9.1 Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, as full &nd complete compensation for performance of ali services and obligatiohs under the Original Agreement and this Amended Agreement, CMC shall be compensated ("CMC Fixed Fee") at a fixed sum equal to $1,098,932 as set out in Attactunent A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 9.1.1 CMC compensation consists off Original contract amount $914,000 Time extension 162,433 Coordination of owner furnished equipment 22,498 Total contract amount $ 1,098,932 4. Section 13 of the original Agreement, entitled Contract Time, is hereby amended as follows: 13.1 CMC acknowledges and agrees that the date of Substantial Completion set forth in Section1.3.3 above is critical to City. CMC agrees that the entire Project will be ready for occupancy by the date of Substantial Completion, September 27, 2001, and that all Work under this Agreement will be completed by the Final Completion Date, December 25, 2001. l 3.5 CMC shall proceed with the work generally in accordance with the revised Exhibit 2 as attached to this Amended Agreement. 5. Except as expressly provided herein ail other provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. SIGNATURE PAGE TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHI. JLA VISTA AND HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, iNC. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT/CONSTRUCTOR SERVICE FOR THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD City of Chula Vista Highland Partnership, Inc. Shirley Horton, Mayor J. David Gardner, Sr. Date ATTEST: City Clerk Approved in form by: ~' Jg, AttomeyXAgree',,H ghland CMC Amendment3.doc 3 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 8/14/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving an Agreement to Amend Legal Descriptions and authorizing the Mayor to execute said Agreement. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~ ~- ?~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ :~ _ McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC and the Otay Project, LP are currently conducting a land swap within Villages 2 and 6 of the Otay Ranch area. Staff is currently processing a lot line adjustment parcel map reflecting the new ownership boundaries on Villages 2 and 6. The proposed land swap will provide for a better planning and development of these two villages by accomplishing the following: 1) Village 2 will be under the sole ownership of the Otay Ranch Company, and 2) consistency of the McMillin and Otay Ranch Company boundaries in Village 6 with current development proposals. Tonight, Councilwillconsider the approval of an Agreement to Amend the Legal Descriptions ("Agreement") of certain recorded agreements that run with the land owned by each developer. The proposed Agreement will make those existing agreements consistent with the new ownership boundaries. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Resolution approving the Agreement to amend Legal Descriptions and authorizing the Mayor to execute said Agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None. DISCUSSION: Table 1 below lists the previously recorded agreements that need revisions to reflect the change in ownership between the McMillin and Otay Ranch Company within Villages 2 and 6. The proposed Agreement (see Attached Exhibit "A") will remove Parcel A (See Exhibit B) from the existing Otay Ranch Company agreements and will incorporate said parcel to the land encumbered by the existing McMillin agreement. The Agreement will also remove Parcels B, C, and D from the existing McMillin agreement and will incorporate said parcels to the land encumbered by the existing Otay Ranch Company agreements. Staff has reviewed the proposed agreement and recommends Council approval. Once approved, the proposed Agreement will be recorded concurrently with the lot line adjustment parcel map. The City Attorney has already approved the proposed agreement as to form. Page 2, Item__ Meeting Date 8/14/01 Table 1 Item Agreement Developer 1. Restated and Amended Pre-Annexation Development Agreement Otay Ranch 2. Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement - Poggi Canyon Otay Ranch 3. Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement - Poggi Canyon McMillin FISCAL IMPACT: None to the General Fund. All cost associated with the agreements will be reimbursed from developer deposits. Exhibit A - Agreement to Amend Legal Descriptions Exhibit B - Land Swap Areas J:\ENGINEER\LANDDEV\OTAY RANCH MCMILLIN\OR403F All3 AGREEMENT TO AMEND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS REV2.DOC EXHIBIT A Recording Requested By: When Recorded Mail to: McMillin Companies 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA. 91950 Atm_: Bob Pletcher AGREEMENT TO AMEND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS This Agreement to Amend Legal Descriptions ("Agreement") is entered into as of October __, 2000 by and between Otay Project L.P., a California limited parmership ("OP"), McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("McMillin") and the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation of the State of California ("City") with respect to the following facts: A) WItEREAS, OP owns fee title to that certain land situated in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" ("OP Properly") attached hereto; and B) WHEREAS, McMillin owns fee title to that certain land situated in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, more particularly described in E 'xhibits "B 1', "B-2" and "B-3" ("McMillin Property") attached hereto; and C) WHEREAS, OP and McMillin executed that certain Land Exchange Agreement and Escrow Instructions ("Land Exchange") dated June 2000, wherein the parties agreed to exchange the OP Property and the McMillin Proper/),; and D) WHEREAS, OP will acquire fee title to the McMillin Property and McMillin will acquire fee title to the OP Property with the recordation of Parcel Map No. ; and E) WHEREAS, OP, McMillin, and the City all desire to complete the Land Exchange as expeditiously as possible; and F) WHEREAS, certain documents have been recorded against the OP Properly and the McMillin Property, which set forth the legal descriptions of the parcels affected by those documents, which legal descriptions must be amended to reflect the Land Exchange; and G) WHEREAS, a document entitled Restated and Amended Pre-Annexation Development Agreement with Otay Ranch, L.P., dated March 4, 1997, executed by City and Otay Ranch, L.P. was recorded a~ainst the OP Property on May 12, 1997 as File No. 1997-0219970; and H) WHEREAS, a document entitled Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement, executed by Otay Project L.P. and City was recorded against the OP Property on June 28, 2000 as File No. 2000-0341829; and I) WHEREAS, a document entitled Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement, executed by McMillin and City was recorded on June 28, 2000 as File No. 2000-0341828; and J) WHEREAS, all of the documents referenced in Recitals G and H above are hereinafter referred to as the "OP Recorded Agreements"; and K) WHEREAS, the document referenced in Recital I above is hereinafter referred to as the "McMillin Recorded Agreements"; and L) WHEREAS, the OP Recorded Agreements and the McMillin Recorded Agreements are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Recorded Agreements"; and M) WHEREAS, OP, McMillin and City now desire to amend the legal descriptions of the Recorded Agreements such that the McMillin Recorded Agreements currently recorded against the McMillin Property will be removed and the OP Recorded Agreements will be recorded against the McMillin Property; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1) The legal description referenced in each of the OP Recorded Agreements is hereby amended to except therefrom the OP Property. 2) The legal description referenced in each of the McMillin Recorded Agreements is hereby amended to include the OP Proper%,. 3) The legal description referenced in each of the McMillin Recorded Agreements is hereby amended to except therefrom the McMillin Property. 4) The legal description referenced in each of the McMillin Recorded Agreements is hereby amended to include the OP Property. 5) OP and McMillin af£n-matively represent that as of the date first set forth above, no intervening acts have affected the Recorded Agreements' place in their respective chains of title as to the Property. 6) As to both the OP Property and the McMillin Property, this Agreement is intended to amend and restate the Recorded Agreements and assume the same recording pr/ority as the original Recorded Agreements. 7) OP and McMillin hereby agree to indemnify and hold the City, and each of its officers (including elected officials), employees and agents ("Indemnitees") harmless from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, or other proceedings to which the Indemnitees are exposed ("Proceedings") and from and against any and all losses, 2 expenses, expenditures, costs, judgements, decrees~ and orders (including orders for the payment of attorney's fees and costs) to which the lndemnitees are exposed or which the Indemnitees incur (~'Losses") relating to, caused by, or resulting from the Indemnitees's preparations, review, approval or implementation of this Agreement ("Indemnitee's Actions"), including, but not limited to: 1) any and all Proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the decisions and determinations that the Indemnitees make in connection wtith the approval of this Agreement; and 2) any and all Proceedings contending that the lndemmtee's Actions are invalid as not roughly proportional to the impact of this agreement; or 3) any and all Proceedings asserting any other theory contesting or challenging the lawfulness or legality of the Indemnitee's Actions. 8) All other terms and provisions of the Recorded Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. [NEXT PAGE IS PAGE ONE OF SIGNATURE PAGE] 3 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, this Affeement has been executed as of the date set forth above. Otay Project L.P., a California limited partnership, BY: Otay Project, LLC, a California limited liability company, its General Partner, BY: Otay Ranch Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Authorized Member,,/ Vice President [NEXT PAGE IS PAGE TWO OF SIGNAUTE PAGE] 4 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of ~-,,~,4/~.,~-~'~ On J,-~,-¢ ~,,~,~, , before me, personally appeared ~rsonally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory to be the person(e-) whose name(.s-) is/e~e I L----~'~ MARCLUC~ANOLOVATO subscribed to the within instrument and 'r~ ;~~.f¢~ ~ acknowledged to me that he/s.b.c/thc~ executed the same in his/h.~ authorized ] ~ Son Diego County ~ capacity(~e_~), and that by his/h~m/th~r ~ signature(~ on the instrument the person(~-, or ~ the entity upon behalf of which the person(~ ~ acted, executed the instrument. WITI)~L"S~ my hand and office, iai ~eal. OPTIONAL Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: Corporate Officer -- Title(s): -Partner-- ~ Limited F~ General Attorney in Fact - Other: Signer Is Representing: 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the date set forth above. McMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC A Delaware limited liability company By: McMillin Companies, LLC A Delawar~Jin3j~ liability company Its: / ! Its: [NEXT PAGE IS PAGE THREE OF SIGNATURE PAGE] 5 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California COUnty of ~C~q 'kJ~ ~ 0 J On~' ~ ~ ~ J _, before me, personally appeared ~:~,~ ~ personally known to me -- provoO to me on tho basis of satisfacto~  to be the person(s) whoso namo(s) is/are sugscriDe~ to the within instrument and Z OTARYPUSUC.CAU.On¢,A m acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed ~~ ~ the same in his/her/their authorized ~ and that his/her/their by signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. T~SS my hand. nd offcial seal OPTIONAL Description of A~ached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ids) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ~ Corporate Ofl~cer~Title(s): Pa~ner ~ ~ Limited ~ Genera ABorney in Fact ~Trustee Other: Signer Is Representing: 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the date set forth above. CITY OF CHULA VISTA By: Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney 6 ,'_' ~Js :1 /El iB:oo F.~I. 619 291 4165 RICK ENGINTE~ING COY?ANY --- CITY OF CHL'L~ VISTA ~002,004 EXHIBIT "B-1" All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 18481 in the City of Chuta Vista, on file in the Office of the County Recorder cf San Diego County, State of California, described as follows: Seginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Parcel 1; thence along the Northerly line thereof North 62°O0'21" East 47.96 feet; thence North 61 °03'OO" East 48,55 feet; thence North 73°14'35'' East 100.63 feet; thence North 61 °56'50" East 207,78 feet; thence South 73°25'24'' East 8.34 feet; thence leaving said line South 28°29'51" East 52.50 feet to the beginning of a tangent 4332.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly; thence Southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 03~30'05'' a distance of 264.73 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 4334.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly to which a radial line bears North 53°59'33" East; Thence Southeasterly along the arc beginning of a non-tangent 4336.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly to ~,hich a radial line bears North 67°59'57'' East; thence Southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 09°18'54" a distance of 704.94- feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said Southerly line and the Westerly line of said Parcel I South 71 "57'24" West 477.40 feet; thence North 17~51'21" West ~ 195.97_ feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 13.265 acres, more or less. Robert G. Schoettmer L.S. 4324 .r~.z0~ J-13597 EXHIBIT "B-2" All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 18481, in the City of Chula Vista, on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California described as follows; Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said Parcel 1; thence along the Easterly line thereof South 17°52'24'' East 1308,44 feet; thence leaving said line South 71 ~57'24"' West 90,19 feet; Thence North 38°02'38'' West 1278.92 feet to a point on the Northerly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said Northerly line the following courses: North 53°42'04" East 67.66 feet; thence North 52°39'34" East 15.29 feet; thence North 59°57'05" East ] 5.73 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 2,737 acres, more or less. Robert G, Schoettmer L.S, 4324 ~'.r~ -/,,-/z ~2 c)~,ol IHL' 16;oi FAX ~19 :t~l 4165 RICK Et, GIb'EERi?,G COM?.~NI ~- CITY OF CEULA VISTA ~_oo4,oo4 J-~2597 EXHIBIT "B-3" All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 18481 in the City of Chula Vista, on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, described as follows: Beginning at an angle point on the WesTerly line of said Parcel 1, being the Northerly terminus of that course North 18°39'52" West 3867.45 feet as shown on said Parcel Map; thence Norz:h 71 °57'24" East 42,36 feet; thence South 18°02'36'' East 757,61 feet; thence South 52°14'52" East 423.20 feet; thence South 57°41'44" East 39.90 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 600.O0 foot radius curve concave Southeasterly, to which a radial line bears North 58°41 '28" West; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 40~35'48'' a distance of ~-.25.30 feet; thence South 09°18'16" East 295,14 feet; thence South Sl °01 '34" West 39.80 feet to a point on said Westerly line; thence along said line North 18=39'52" West 1787.95 feet to the Point of Beginning. ConTaining 3.85 acres, more or less. Robert G. Schoettmer L.S. 4324 EXHIBIT B 'arcel A Parcel B Parcel C J / ?arcel D ~Villa~e 2 I Existing Ownership Boundary ~ ~ Proposed Ownership Boundary Boundary Between Village 2 and 6 $C.v~J.E; 1'=1000° RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY CIVIL ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS. PLANNERS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF 5620 FRIARS ROAD, SAN D~£GO PARCEL 10FP. M. NO. 18481 CA. 92110-2596 PHONE: (619) 291-0707 ANDPARCELS3&$OF P.M. NO. 18471 DATE, JANUARY :~4. pnn,~ ..... , .......... RESOLUTION NO. 2001- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH McMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC AND THE OTAY PROJECT LP TO AMEND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS WITHIN VILLAGES 2 AND 6 OF THE OTAY RANCH AREA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC and the Otay Project LP are currently conducting a land swap within Villages 2 and 6 of the Otay Ranch area; and WHEREAS, staff is currently processing a lot line adjustment parcel map reflecting the new ownership boundaries on Villages 2 and 6; and WHEREAS, the proposed land swap will provide for a better planning and development of these two villages by accomplishing the following: 1) Village 2 will be under the sole ownership of the Otay Ranch Company, and 2) consistency of the McMillin and Otay Ranch Company boundaries in Village 6 with current development proposals; and WHEREAS, this resolution will approve an Agreement to Amend the Legal Descriptions ("Agreement") of certain recorded agreements that run with the land owned by each developer and will make those existing agreements consistent with the new ownership boundaries. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an Agreement with McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC and the Otay Project LP to Amend Legal Descriptions within Villages 2 and 6 of the Otay Ranch area, 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 for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt John~.~K~h~ny Director of Public Works City Attorney [J/ATTORNEY/RESO/Amend Legal Descriptions (August 9, 2001 (811AM)] Recording Requested By: When Recorded Mail to: McMillin Companies 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA. 91950 Attn: Bob Pletcher AGREEMENT TO AMEND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS This Agreement to Amend Legal Descriptions ("Agreement") is entered into as of~ - I tt~o Oemo~cr---7~, ~OO0 by and between Otay Project L.P., a California limited partnership ("OP"), McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("McMillin") and the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation of the State of California ("City") with respect to the following facts: A) WHEREAS, OP owns fee title to that certain land situated in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" ("OP Property") attached hereto; and B) WHEREAS, McMillin owns fee title to that certain land situated in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of Califbrnia, more particularly described in Exhibits "Bi", "B~2" and "B-3" ("McMillin Property") attached hereto; and C) WHEREAS, OP and McMillin executed that certain Land Exchange Agreement and Escrow Instructions ("Land Exchange") dated June 2000, wherein the parties agreed to exchange the OP Property and the McMillin Property; and D)WHEREAS, OP will acquire fee title to the McMillin Property and McMillin will acquire fee title to the OP Property with the recordation of Parcel Map No. .; and E) WHEREAS, OP, McMillin, and the City ali desire to complete the Land Exchange as expeditiously as possible; and F) WHEREAS, certain documents have been recorded against the OP Property and the McMillin Property, which set forth the legal descriptions of the parcels affected by those documents, which legal descriptions must be amended to reflect the Land Exchange; and G) WHEREAS, a document entitled Restated and Amended Pre-Armexation Development Agreement with Otay Ranch, L.P., dated March 4, I997, executed by 1 5/-/5 City and Otay Ranch, L.P. was recorded against the OP Property on May 12, 1997 as File No. 1997-0219970; and H) WHEREAS, a document entitled Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement, executed by Otay Project L.P. and City was recorded against the OP Property on June 28, 2000 as File No. 2000-0341829; and I) WHEREAS, a document entitled Desiltation and Maintenance Agreement, executed by McMillin and City was recorded on June 28, 2000 as File No. 2000-0341828; and J) WHEREAS, all of the documents referenced in Recitals G and H above are hereinafter referred to as the "OP Recorded Agreements"; and K) WHEREAS, the document referenced in Recital I above is hereinafter referred to as the "McMillin Recorded Agreements"; and L) WHEREAS, the OP Recorded Agreements and the McMillin Recorded Agreements are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Recorded Agreements"; and M) WHEREAS, OP, McMillin and City now desire to amend the legal descriptions of the Recorded Agreements such that the McMillin Recorded Agreements currently recorded against the McMillin Property will be removed and the OP Recorded Agreements will be recorded against the McMillin Property; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1) The legal description referenced in each of the OP Recorded Agreements is hereby amended to except therefrom the OP Property. 2) The legal description referenced in each of the McMillin Recorded Agreements is hereby amended to include the OP Property. 3) The legal description referenced in each of the McMillin Recorded Agreements is hereby amended to except therefrom the McMillin Property. 4) The legal description referenced in each of the McMillin Recorded Agreements is hereby amended to include the OP Property. 5) OP and McMillin affirmatively represent that as of the date first set fbrth above, no intervening acts have affected the Recorded Agreements' place in their respective chains of title as to the Property. 6) As to both the OP Property and the McMillin Property, this Agreement is intended to amend and restate the Recorded Agreements and assume the same recording priority as the original Recorded Agreements. 7) OP and McMillin hereby agree to indemnify and hold the City, and each of its officers (including elected officials), employees and agents ("Indemnitees") harmless from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, or other proceedings to which the Indemnitees are exposed ("Proceedings") and from and against any and all losses, expenses, expenditures, costs, judgements, decrees, and orders (including orders for the payment of attorney's fees and costs) to which the Indemnitees are exposed or which the lndemnitees incur ("Losses") relating to, caused by, or resulting from the Indenmitees's preparations, review, approval or implementation of this Agreement ("Indemnitee's Actions"), including, but not limited to: 1) any and all Proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the decisions and determinations that the Indemnitees make in connection wtith the approval of this Agreement; and 2) any and all Proceedings contending that the lndemnitee's Actions are invalid as not roughly proportional to the impact of this agreement; or 3) any and all Proceedings asserting any other theory contesting or challenging the lawfulness or legality of the Indexnnitee's Actions. 8) All other terms and provisions of the Recorded Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. [NEXT PAGE IS PAGE ONE OF SIGNATURE PAGE] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the date set forth above. Otay Project L.P., a Califomia limited partnership, BY: Otay Project, LLC, a California limited liability company, its General Partner, BY: Otay Ranch Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Authorized Me~..~ Vice President [NEXT PAGE IS PAGE TWO OF SIGNAUTE PAGE] 4 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ~ ss. County of ~-,4-.,¢ Z~/~'~'o On ./~,~ M__~.~ , before me, /~,¢~'(~ ,~-.~.~o ~,~/.4-~o.~ ,~o~:-~"'~h~ ,"~'~'~ Name and qqtle of OfCicer (eg , 'Jane Doe Notan/ Public') personally appeared ~ ~ Name(s) of Signer(s) '~rsonally known to me J proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~s,-) whose name(.~-) is/ere  subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shc/th~-:~7 executed the same in h is/h"er-CtCf~'t~~ authorized  capacity(~--~), and that by his,~,~,-,';.i ,~i,' signature(¢ on the instrument the person(aC-, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s.) acted, executed the instrument. WIT~ my hand and office, iai s~eal. OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by/aw, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent ffaudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another documenl. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: .... Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Oapacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: i I Individual Top of lhumb here I Corporate Officer-- Title(s): i i Partner---ti Limited ii General I ! Attorney in Fact ii Trustee : i Guardian or Conservator Ii Other: Signer Is Representing: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the date set forth above. McMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC A Delaware limited liability company By: McMillin Companies, LLC A Delawar~o~im~ liability company Its: / its: [NEXT PAGE IS PAGE THREE OF SIGNATURE PAGE] CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ~ ' / ss. County of - ) On 2-Z~_~)i .. before me, /~,~/~.~/~'~P'(~"~,. personally appeared ~( h~.O~9~ _~,~ I~ ~t ~ ¢1,)~. rh~x Name{s) af S~gner(e ~personally known to me !~i proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence  to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and z ~OT^*~VpU~UC.C^U~ORN,,~ O~ acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed ~~c?u~ ~°~~ ~ the same in his/her/their authorized ~ and that his/her/their by signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. V~i~'N~ESS my hand..~nd;,official seal. OPTIONAL Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: ....... Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ................ ~; ..... I~ Individual [ ] Corporate Officer -- Title(s): F~ Partner -- i: Limited L J General I J Attorney in Fact L ! Trustee ~ J Guardian or Conservator I J Other: Signer Is Representing: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the date set forth above. CITY OF CHULA VISTA By: Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow City Clerk Approved as to form: City(/~tt~mey' Agreement to Amend Legal Description 8/14/01 6 ~ J-13597 EXHIBIT "A" All that portion of Section 10, Township 18 South, Range 1 West, San Bernardino Meridian, of Official Records, in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: Beginning at an angle point on the Northerly line of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 18481, being the Westerly terminus of that course North 71°57'24" East 2200.56 feet as shown on said Parcel 1; thence along said Northerly line North 71 °57'24" East 577.63 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said line North 25037'39'' East 1119.41 feet; thence South 65°58'15" East 423.70 feet to the beginning of a tangent 1500.00 foot radius curve concave Northeasterly; thence Southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 19°01'45" a distance of 498.18 feet; thence South 85°00'00'' East 193.76 feet; thence South 00°20'00'' West 192.91 feet to a point on said Northerly line; thence along said line South 71 °57'24" West 1622.93 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 16.390 acres, more or less. J-13597 EXHIBIT "B-1" All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 18481 in the City of Chula Vista, on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Parcel 1; thence along the Northerly line thereof North 62°00'21" East 47.96 feet; thence North 61 °03'00" East 48.55 feet; thence North 73014'35'' East 100.63 feet; thence North 61 °56'50" East 207.78 feet; thence South 73025'24'' East 8.34 feet; thence leaving said line South 28"29'51" East 52.50 feet to the beginning of a tangent 4332.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly; thence Southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 03°30'05'' a distance of 264,73 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 4334.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly to which a radial line bears North 63°59'33'' East; thence Southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 02°59'44" a distance of 226.59 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 4336.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly to which a radial line bears North 67'~59'57" East; thence Southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of O9"18'54'' a distance of 704.94 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said Southerly line and the Westerly line of said Parcel 1 South 71 "57'24" West 477.40 feet; thence North 17°51'21" West 1195.92 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 13.265 acres, more or less. Robert G, Schoettmer L.S. 4324 Il' N0. ~_004324 II EXp. 6-30-2004 jb/, 3597.003 ~0:' , E',! J-13597 EXHIBIT "B-2" All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No, 18481, in the City of Chula Vista, on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California described as follows: Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said Parcel 1; thence along the Easterly line thereof South 17°52'24'' East 1308.44 feet; thence leaving said line South 71 °57'24" West 90.19 feet; thence North 18°02'36'' West 1278.92 feet to a I~oint on the Northerly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said Northerly line the following courses; North 53°42'04'' East 67.66 feet; thence North 52039'34'' East 15.29 feet; thence North 59°57'05'' East 15.73 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 2.737 acres, more or less. Robert G. Schoettmer L.S. 4324 jb/13597.003 J-13597 EXHIBIT 'B-3" All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 18481 in the City of Chula Vista, on file in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, described as follows: Beginning at an angle point on the Westerly line of said Parcel 1, being the Northerly terminus of that course North 18°39'52" West 3867.45 feet as shown on said Parcel Map; thence North 71 °57'24" East 42,36 feet; thence South 18°02'36'' East 757.61 feet; thence South 52014'52" East 423.20 feet; thence South 57°41 '44" East 39.90 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 600.00 foot radius curve concave Southeasterly, to which a radial line bears North 58°41 '28" West; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 4OC'36'48'' a distance of 425.30 feet; thence South O9°18'16" East 295.14 feet; thence South 81 °O1 '34" West 39.80 feet to a point on said Westerly line; thence along said line North 18°39'52'' West 1787.95 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 3.85 acres, more or less. Robert G. Schoettmer L.S. 4324 ~t0. t004324 EXp. jb/13597.003 ~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 8/14/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving a Freeway Maintenance Agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation regarding State Route 54. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (~!~ (4/Sths Vote: __ No X The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has requested that the City of Chula Vista enter into an agreement in order to clearly define the limits of freeway maintenance responsibility by the City of Chula Vista in connection with State Route 54. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation regarding State Route 54 and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSION: None. DISCUSSION: In order to formalize and clarify the division of maintenance responsibility as to separation structures, overcrossings, undercrossings, City streets or portions thereof, and landscaped areas within the free;vay limits, the State of California, Department of Transportation has prepared a freeway maintenance agreement with the City of Chula Vista for State Highway Route 54 (SR- 54). Said agreement, titled "Freeway Maintenance Agreement", includes a portion of State Highway Route 54, within the Iimits of the City of Chula Vista (attached). The purpose of this agreement is to clearly define the area of maintenance for each jurisdiction and define the City of Chula Vista maintenance area along SR-54, particularly the area south of the on/off ramps to SR- 54 along 4th Avenue (Exhibit A, Sheet 2 of 3) and the southerly half of the bridge area along north 2nd Avenue (Exhibit A, Sheet 3 of 3). The forn~ of this agreement is similar to previously approved freeway maintenance agreements, Interstate-5 and Interstate-805, which were prepared and approved in the past by Resolution 7293 and Resolution 8247, respectively. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The City of Chula Vista has been maintaining the areas defined by the "Freeway Maintenance Agreement". No estimate of specific costs is available. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibits ~br SR-54 (3) Resolution 7293 dated May 7, 1974 Resolution 8247 dated July 13, 1976 File: 0140-30-LY072 J:\Engmeer~AGENDAk54maintagre.jcm.doc IdlS OLUTI ON NO. 7293 ]oESOLUiION OF TNE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, ALPROVING AGREE.,'.iSNT BET~<EEN TNE CITY OF CtiULA VISTA AND TNE STATE OF CALIFO?S[!A FOR FREEWAY :,2~!NTENANCE FOR iNTERSTATE ROUTE 5 %<ITHIN CHULA VISTA AND i:UiNORIZING THE I,S~YOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGPd2E!.~2NT The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby reso!.~e as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PSSOL\~D that that certain agreement between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, and The State of California, for freeway maintenance for Interstate 5 within Chula Vista iated the 7th day of May , 197~ , a copy of ~.hzc~ is a~=~chea hereto and incorporated herein, the same as though - _1~ s_~ ~sre_n be, and the same is hereby approved._ ~E IT FURTHER P~SOL\rED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form bt; Lane P. Cole George D. Lindberg, City Attorney Director cf Public Works ADOPTED ~D APPROVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFO~IA, this 7th day of Hav , 19.74, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Egdahl, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde NAYES: Councilmen None ABSENT: Counci !men Scott , ~ Mayor of the City of Chula Vista AT T E S T ~. ~ '~ City C1 e~k STATE OF CALIFOP~NIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ss. I,~ , Cfty Clerk of the CSty of FPc~EWAU ~?:!NTE:.:~:CE AGF~Ei-~-ENT TN. IS AG!CEE:.tENT, made and entered into, in duplicate, t~'d.S iZ~±¼ clay of t~aV , i97z% , by and between t_he Stake of california, acting by ~nd through ~he Deponent of Transportation; hereinafter for convenience referred to as "~e State," ~nd ~e City of CHUL.~ VISTA , hereinafter for convenience referred to as "~he City," wi~nessa~h: ~EP~S, on iTOVE.{BER !? , !9 6~ , a Freeway Agree- m6nt was ~ecuted between the City ~nd ~.e State wherein City agreed ~nd consented to certain adjus~ents of ~he City S~eet system required for ~e development of that portion of State Highway Route SD-{ , wi~in ~e 1Mrs of the City of CNULA VISTA , as a freeway, ~d ~i~, said freeway has now been ccmpleted or nearing co~Dletion~ ~nd ~ne p~ties hereto mutually desire to clarify the division of ~intenance responsibility as to sepa- ration structures, ~d city s~eets or portions ~ereof, ~d l~dscaped ~eas, wi~in ~he freeway limits, ~d W~S, ~der ~e provisions of ~e ~ove Freeway Agreement, ~e City will resume control and ~intenance over each of ~e relocated or reconstructed city streets except on ~ose portions ~ereof adopted as a part of ~e freeway proper. NON '.UHEP~EFORE, IT iS AGF~EED: 1. ROADWAY SECTIONS The City ~-ill m~intain, at City e~ense, all portions of C[3~y Streets ~nd app~ten~n~ structur-~s ~d bo/daring areas, ~'z. tnmn ~ne ~ :=- 2 though ~ ~..~.c~d area on ~' ~.=~ ~n__~s of the ~,ttached map marked EY~iDIT "A" and made a part hereof by ~is reference. 2. %~H I C b~ O%~?DSSINGS ~!e State will maintain, at State e~snse, the entire st~c- t,lre be!cw the dado s~faca e::cept as hereinafter provided. ~ne Cit-~ ~ci!i maintain, at City expense, ~e deck ~nd/or surfacing ~nd sh~l perfo~ such work as ~y be necess~y to ensue ~n imperious and/or o~er~ise suit~!e s~faca. The Cit!, will also m~int~n all portions of ~.e st~ct~e ~ove ~ne bridge deck, as ~ove specified, including lighting instal- lations, as w~!l as all traffic so,ice facilities ~at may be re~ired for the benefit or contel of City' S~eet traffic. 3. ~HI C5~R ~DERC~SSINGS The State will main~in ~e s~ucture p~par. The roadway sec- tion, including ~e traveled way, shoulders, curbs, sidewalks, W~!S, drainage installations, lighting installations, ~d traffic so,ice facilities ~at ~y be required for the benefit or contel of Ci~ Street ~affic will be ~ntained by ~e City. st~ctu~e ~ove~concrete deck s~face, ~nd s~ll ~erform~ an~ otherwise suit~e 's~face. ~e C~i!! ~s~ ~tain ali traffic se~ica faci!~es provided for control of pedas~i~n ~affi~ . ~ae ~ate will maint~n ~he s~t~e from a s~uct~al zns ~.~-.~i~.Nnd wz-i -- .espo;m~le zNal! c.emn_ng and ~ainting ~s ~re~ired to keep ~e st~ct~e free of c~ris ~d 6. ~NDsc~ED .~ ~A~NT TO C~SS!NG STRU~UP~S L~dscaped ~eas within ~e l~i~s rese~ed for freeway use, including ~affic interch~ges ~d on ~nd off r~p areas but exc!u~ing frontage road areas, will be maintained by ~eS~at_ at S~te e~ense. ~1 plantings or o~er types of roadside develo~ent lying outside of ~e area res~ed for freeway use will be maintained .by ~ne City at City expanse. 7 ~ It is .~derztccd ~.d agree'~ that neitlner ti~.e State, nor any officez o~ employee ~ereof is responsible for ~y d~age or li~)[!ity occurring by reason of ~ny~ning done or omitted to be done by ~e City un,er or in connection wi~ any work, au[~crity or j%~isdiction delegated to ~e City under the Freeway Agreement ~nd this Freeway ~inten~nce Agreement. It is also %mndezstood ~d agreed that pursuant to ~ver~ent Co~a Section 895.4, the City shall fully indemnify ~d hold ~e staee hapless from any d~age or li~ility occurring by reason cf anything done or o~tted to be done by ~he City ~%der or in connection wi~% ~y work, au~ority or'j~isdic- tion delegated to ~he City under ~he A~e~ment. it is understood a_nd agreed that neither the City nor cfficer or ~p!oyee thereof, is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of any~--hing done or omitted to be done by ~ne State under or in connection w~'th any work, aut2~orit? or j~isdiction not delegated to t-he City under -~he Freeway Agree--merit s_nd this Freeway ~inten~nce Agreement. It is also understood and agreed, that pursuam~t %o the Govern-n- merit Cod=- Section 895.4, t~he Department shall fully indenunify and hold the City ha~--m!ess from any damage or liability occurring by reason of ~nything done or omitted to be done by the State u~nder or i~ connection with any work, authority or j~urisdic~ion not delegated to the City under the Freeway Agreement and this Freeway Maintenance Agreement. ~' '~ ~-- ~- .- ~ ' ~ '~ ~ tke ' ' of its ~nl~ ~!_~.:e.,~nt shall be ..... c~-ru u~on ~a'ae execu- taon hy the State~ it bein~ ~nda_~_o~ a~reed, however, .that ~he execution of this Agreement shall not affect ~ny pre- c~=~a~=o.~o.of ~"~ C~ty to na~n'~a~n d~si~nated ~r.aas pursu[u~ to prior written notics from the State ~at ,',¥o_~z.. in such s/eas, ~nlch ~h~ City has agreed to maintain pursuant to th~ terms of ~e Fraaway Agreement, has been ~mp!eted. CiTY OF CHULA VZSTA Approved as to form, and procedure Cz~y A~crney P:ayo :. DEP~RTMEf~'T OF TRAFJSPORTATION ,:l ~ , .- , ' ll-SD-5 5. ~°3-9.07 M'.~A ll-$Og9 ~,:r. J~kn ~. Thomson City [;anazer m ..... - .... , 92012 Attention: Lane F. Cole Dear Sir: Transmitted here~.,~th for execution by the City are four (],) co'sics of a Freeway [.;aintenance Agreement co .... n6 ~,~. ,¢o. ~mon of Inte~st~e Route 5 between South '*~ * -' ' ~tf ,~m~ts and ;;orth City Limits of Chula Vista. ¢. r~VL9W CZ Zhe subject areas, as sho,,,~ in ........=~-',-~-~-~. "A" -,-:~s held recently between [.:essrs. Eon H., [CcKenzie ann :,r. ?~iq~r, Rooens of your office and L~s,s. J. V. Dickey Cna John A. donas of the State. U3on aop, o%al o_ th~ A~,eem~nt olease have it e~:ecuted by'the ~ity and return three (3~ ~igned copies together v~_%h three (~) certified cooies of the City Council , Resolution ~"=~ ~' ' ..... uo~mzmng the signing of the Agreement. ?Such fully executed by the State, an original a~reemen% an~ as many conformed cooies as requested will be furnished for your files. Very truly yomrs, J. D~ District Director of Transportation ~RGINIA S~ ~H Maintenance A~inis~ra~ive O%~icer JAJ: c a c ~: AS ch~ann AGE~'4DA ]'I'E~,} NO. [ 10 ] CIiUL~, I]S]'A C1T', COU:iC]L :,!E£T~kG OF: May 7, 2.974 ITE~I TITLE: Resolution - Approving Freeway Maintenance Agreement for Interstate Route 5 Within Chula Vista INiTiATED BY: Director of Public Works/City Engineer~ BACKGROUXD The widening and improvement of that portion of I-5 Freeway within Chula Vista is now completed. Under the terms of the original Freeway Agreement executed in 1965, the City is now to resume control and maintenance over each cf the relocated or reconstructed City streets crossing the freeway and within the freeway right of way. This maintenance agreement clarifies the division of maintenance responsibilities for the various overcrossings, undercrossings and landscaped areas. The form of the agreement is practically identical to several previously approved maintenance agreements. ATIACHED: Resolution,'[X] Ordinance [ ] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ] See EXHIBITS [X] No. 1 Financial Statement: City will reassume cost of maintaining streets crossing I-5 Freeway. Such cost is expected to be of the magnitude which existed prior to construction of the freeway. No estimate of specific costs is availab] Commission-Board Recommendation: N.A. Department Head Recommendnlion: Form Ne. 342 Rev. 2/76 P~SOLUTI ON NO. 8247 RESOLUTION OF TPiE CITY COUNCIL OF-T~"CT~Y OF C~ULA VISTA, A-DPROVING AGREE.W~ENT BETWEEN THE CiTY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE STATE OF CALIFOP~IA FOR FP~EEWAy MAINTENANCE FOR INTERSTATE ROUTE 805 BETWEEN OTAY VALLEY ROAD AND AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ~CUTE SAID AGREE.~NT The City Council of the City of Chela Vista does hereby solve as fol!u%~s: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R~SOLVED that ~hat certain agreement between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, and THE STATE OF CADiFOP~NIA, Department of Transportation, for freeway ~intena.nce for Interstate Route 805 between Otay Valley Road and the northerly City limits hzed the ]3th day of 0u].v , 19 76 , a copy of ~'h'-sh !s attache~ hereto and incorporaued herein, ~2ne s~me as though fully set forth herein be, and the same is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Zhe Mayer of the City of Chu!s ~reament for ~.~ on behalf of ~ne city uf Chu!a Vista. ?resenued by Approve~ as to form by ell!ism J. Robens, Director of George D. Lindberg, City Attorney Public Works ADOPTED .~ND ~_DPROIrED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA ~,~iSTA, C_~IFOP~N!A, this ]3th day of 0u]y , 19 76 , by AYE£: Councilmen N0be], Cox, Ham~]t0n, I~AYES: Coun si!_men None .... N_. Councilmen Hyde ~ayor bf the City of Chula/~ista ~ j'~/~epu~cy¢ ' ~- £O~.Ty OF SA~ DIEGO) ss. CiTy OF CHULA VISTA) I, City Clerk of the City of Chu!a Vista, California, DO HEREBY ~ER~IFY that t-he above is a full, %rue and correct copy of Resolution No._ _, and that the same has u~ been a~ende~ or repealed. DATED 3 0 R I G I N A L lZ-S09 FREEWAY mAI:~TE~'¢-~,~ AGP-EE-~NT THIS AGPSEt~NT, m~de and entered into, in duplicate, ~nis !q~ d~y of ~___, 19~, by and between the State of c~lifoz~.ia, .~ Dy and through the Department of Tr~nsoortation, h~reinafter for ccnvenience referred to as "the State," ~nd the city of C_hula Vista , hereinafter for convenience referred to as "~ne City," witnesseth: WqIE ~REAS, on July 1~ 1968, a Freeway Agreement was executed between the City and t~he State wherein the City agreed ~und consented to ~e~ ~ain adjustments of the City Street system required for +-he ~velopment of that portion of State Highway Route 805, within the l~its cf t2~e City of CL~.u!a vista, as a freeway, W~ ~REAS, on December 7, 1971, a Freeway Maintenance Agree- m~nt was executed between the City and tke State ~overing ~he deve!- I~ant of t~nat potion of State Highway Route 805 between P.M. 3.5 6.06 within the !iraits of t2ne City of Chu!a Vista, and W~:REAS, said freeway between the south city !~_~its and n0r~dn city limits of the City of Chula Vista has n~w been completed or 15 nearing completion, and subse_cnaent modifications to State Highway ~ute E05 have be_eh constructed within the Chula Vista City L~mits, and W~P~AS, t_he parties hereto mutually desire to clarify the division of ma/~ntena~ce responsibility as to separation structures, and city streets or portions thereof, and !~ndscaped areas, within the ~reeway !ira/ts, and W-~EF~3, this Freeway Maintenance Agreement includes super~e~es T_ne Freeway ~aintenaa~-ce Agreemen~ ~ove referre~ t~ rovers ~%e area DeCween ~ne south city li~ts ~d ~ne north city !i~s of ~e City of ~a Vista, ~nd ~der ~e provisions of the ~ove Freeway A~eement, ~e City will res~ control ~nd ~inten~nce over each of ~e relocated or reconstructed city streets excep~ on ~ose portions ~ereof adopted as a p~t of ~he freeway proof. ~0%'~ THEP~PO~, iT IS AG~ED: 1. RO~WAY SE~IONS The CiSy will ~intain, a= City a~ense, all portions of City streets ~d appurten~t struct~es ~d bordering areas, within ~na shaded ~reas ~ sheets ~ ~.rough 11 of the attached ~p ~rked E~iBI? and ~de a part hereof by this refersn~e. 2. l~Ei CU~ O~RCROSSiNGS The State wit! ~Lntain, at SCare e~nse, ~ne entire s~ructure below ~ne deck surface except as nerezna~er provided. The City will rmin- 5ain, au City a~ense, uhe deck ~d/or surfacing ~d shall perfo~: suTn work as r~y be necessary to ensue ~n impervious ~d/or other- wise suit~le s~face. The City will also ~intain all portions of ~e s=ructure ~ove the bridge deck, as ~ove specified, ~ well all traffic se~-ice facilities ~at may be required for ~e b~efit 0r conurol of City street traffic. 3. ~HiCU~ ~2{DERCROSSiNGS Tea State will ~tain ~ue structure proper. The roadway section, ~c!uding ~e traveled way, shoulders, curbs, sideways, walls, ~a~age installations ~nd traffic service facilities, will be ~in- =a~ed by ~e City. 4. L~2~DSCT~DED ~-P--~; ~- ADJACENT TO CRDSSING STRDr 'URES Landscaped areas within ~he 15mJts reseI-ved for freeway use, including -Jfi interchanges ~und on and olf ram. o areas but ex~±ualng frontage road ~reas, will be maintained by tine State, at State expense. Ail planzings or other types of roadside developn~nt lying outside of the ~ea reserved for freeway use will be maintained by the City, a~ city expense. _ 5. SCP~ENING OF OVEP_oASSES At such locations, as shall be determined by ~ne Department, screening shall be m!aced and determined on State freeway overoasses on which pede'suri~ns are allowed (as directed by Sec. 92.6 of the Streets Highways Code). All screens under ~nis progr~.m will be maintained by ~ne S~ate at S~ate expense. 6. P~ SPOi~SIBiLITY iU is '~--ndersUood and agreed that ~'~' ~ -~' n_lwn__ t/ne State, nor any ozzlcer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of ~nything done or c~itted to be done by the City under or in co.~nection witLn any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ina £iuy under the Freeway Agreement and furtiner clarified by tJnis .... ~-, Maintenance Agreement. it is also ~nderstood a_nd agreed ~nat pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, tina City shall fully indem- nifv ~nd hold flue State harmless from ~ny damage or liability occurring by reason of ~nything done or omitted to be done by the City ~nder or in co.~ection -~-ith any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the City under tine Agreement. it is '=nderstood and agreed t_hat neither the City nor a.ny officer or amp!o_vee thereof, is responsible for any damage or liability occurring Dy reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the State under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to tine City under the Freeway Agreement and further clarified by this Freeway Maintenance Agreement. It is also %Lnderst_ood ~.nd agreed +~nat, pursu~ant to Govel-r~.-~en~ code Section E95.~, ~ne State shall fully inaemnify ~nd hold City harmless from ~.ny damage or liability occurring by reason of anyt. hinc~ done or o-~.~ed to be done by the State under or connection wi~h any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to the City under the Freeway Agreement and further clarified by this Agreement. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement shall be effective upon the date of its execu- tion by the State; it being understood' and agreed, however, that the execution of this Agreement shall not affect any pre- existing obligations of ~he City to r~%intaLn designated areas pursuant to prior written notice from t_he State that work in su.~n areas, ~.'hich ~h. City has agreed to maintain pursuant to t2qe t~l-~ of t_he Freeway Agreement, has been completed. CITY OF CItULA Approved as :9 form pro:edure: By ty Clerk (as directed) STATE OF CAL!FOP~NIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION C. E. FORBES C~IEF ~N~IN~ER CITY OF CHULA VISTA ITEM NO. 6 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT FOR'MEETING OF: - - ~ iT£MT1TL£: Resolution ~8247 - A~nroving Freeway Maintenance Agreement fcr In~g-rstate Y, oute 805 between Otay Valley Aoad and the Northerly City Limits S~MITTED BY: Director of Public Works/~ity ~ngineer ~]~ ITEM EX~ANATION: Per the freeway agreement dated July 1, 1968 between tko City of Chula Vista and the State of California, the City agreed to accept control and maintenance of certain street facilities along the freeway. Per Council Resolution No. 6283, the City agreed to accept maintenance of certain street facilities between Otay Valley Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. This new agreement supersedes this freeway m~intenance agreement and now covers the area between the Southerly ~ity Limits to the Northerly City'L~mits. The State Department of Transportation ~s prepared this agreement to formalize and clarify- ~e division of maintenance respDnsibility As to separation structures, City streets or portions thereof, and land- scaped areas, %ithin the freeway limits. inspection of tke various roadway se~ents h~s been conducted by the Department of Public Works and were found to be acceptable to the fit)-. We ~ve reviewed the attaaSed agreement and find it to be acgeptab: STAFF RECOMMEhDATION: Approve agreement BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED by the COUNCIL ACTION: City Council . Chul~ Vista, Ca!i£ornia RESOLUTION NO. 2001- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A FREEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING STATE ROUTE 54 WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has requested that the City of Chula Vista enter into an agreement in order to clearly define the limits of freeway maintenance responsibility by the City of Chula Vista in connection with State Route 54; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this agreement is to clearly define the area of maintenance for each jurisdiction and define the City of Chula Vista maintenance area along SR-54, particularly the area south of the on/off ramps to SR-54 along 4th Avenue and the southerly half of the bridge area along North 2nd Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve a Freeway Maintenance Agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation regarding State Route 54, 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 to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt ~M' Kaheny Director of Public Works /kSty Attorney 11-SD-54 PM 1.35 FMA 11-8215 FREEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into in duplicate, effective this , day of , 20~, is by and between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "STATE," and the City of Chula Vista, hereinafter referred to as "CITY". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on June 2, 1967, a Freeway Agreement was executed between CITY and STATE wherein CITY agreed and consented to certain adjustments of the local street and road system required for the development of that portion of State highway route 54, within the jurisdictional limits of CITY as a freeway; and WHEREAS, said freeway has now been completed or is nearing completion, and the parties hereto mutually desire to clarify the division of maintenance responsibility as to separation structures, and local CITY streets, or portions thereof, and landscaped areas lying within or outside the freeway limits; and WHEREAS, under Section 3 of the above Freeway Agreement(s), CITY has resumed or will resume control and maintenance over each of the relocated or reconstructed CITY streets except on those portions thereof adopted as a part of the freeway proper. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED: 1. When a planned future improvement has been constructed and/or a minor revision has been effected within the limits of the freeway herein described, which affects the parties division of maintenance responsibility as described herein, STATE will provide a new dated and revised Exhibit "A," which will be made a part hereof by an amendment to this Agreement when executed by both parties, which will thereafter supersede the attached original Exhibit A and which will then become part of this Agreement. 2. VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSINGS STATE will maintain, at STATE expense, the entire structure of any vehicular and pedestrian overcrossings below the deck surface except as hereinafter provided. CITY will maintain, at CITY expense, the deck and/or surfacing (and shall perform such work as may be necessary to ensure an impervious and/or otherwise suitable surface) and all portions of the structure above the bridge deck, including, but without limitation, lighting installations, as well as all traffic service facilities (signals, signs, pavement markings, rails, etc.) that may be required for the benefit or control of traffic using that overcrossing. 1 Screening shall be placed at such locations (as shall be determined by STATE), on STATE freeway overpasses on which pedestrians are allowed (as directed by Sect. 92.6 of the Streets and Highways Code). All screens installed under this program will be maintained by STATE (at STATE expense). 3. VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN UNDERCROSSINGS STATE will maintain the structure proper of all vehicular and pedestrian undercrossings of STATE freeways while the roadway sections, including the traveled way, shoulders, curbs sidewalks, wall surfaces (including eliminating graffiti), drainage installations, lighting installations and traffic service facilities that may be required for the benefit or control of traffic using that undercrossing will be maintained by CITY. CITY will inform STATE District Transportation Permit Engineer and obtain the necessary Encroachment Permit for any proposed change in minimum vertical clearances between the traveled way portion of the under-roadway surface and the Structure that results from modifications to the under-roadway (except when said modifications are made by STATE). If the planned modifications will result in a reduction in the minimum clearance within the traveled way, an estimate of the clearance reduction must be provided to (the State) District Transportation Permit Engineer prior to starting work. Upon completion of that work, a clearance diagram will be furnished to (the State) District Transportation Permit Engineer that shows revised minimum clearances for all affected movements of traffic, both at the edges of the traveled way and at points of minimum clearance within the traveled way. 4. SOUNDWALLS Responsibility for debris removal, cleaning and painting to keep CITY's side of any soundwall structure free of debris, dirt and graffiti shall lie with CITY and not with STATE. 5. LANDSCAPED AREAS ADJACENT TO CROSSING STRUCTURES Responsibility for the maintenance of any plantings or other types of roadside development lying outside of the area reserved for exclusive freeway use shall lie with CITY and not with STATE. 6. INTERCHANGE OPERATON It is STATE's responsibility to provide efficient operation of freeway interchanges, including ramp connections to local streets and roads. The maintenance and energy costs of safety lighting, traffic signals or other necessary electrically operated traffic control devices placed at ramp connections to CITY streets and roads shall be shared between STATE and CITY. Timing of traffic signals shall be the sole responsibility of STATE. 2 7. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: A. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to tlfis contract or affect the legal liability of either patty to the contract by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of STATE highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. B. It is understood and agreed that neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code section 895.4, CITY shall defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. C. It is understood and agreed that neither CITY r~or any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code section 895.4, STATE shall defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY and all of its officers and employees fi'om all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. 3 8. EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement shall be effective upon the date appearing on its face, it being understood and agreed, however, that the execution of this Freeway Maintenance Agreement shall not affect any pre-existing obligations of CITY to maintain designated areas pursuant tO p~ior written notice from STATE that work in such areas, which CITY has agreed to maintain pursuant to the terms of the Freeway Agreement, has been completed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHULA VISTA By Mayor City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JEFF MORALES Director of Transportation By City Attorney District Director 4 Slope Easement 16858-3 By Ci~ Of Chula Vista COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING $7,788.62 FROM THE BULLETPROOF VEST GRANT, AMENDING THE FY 01 - 02 POLICE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,788.62 FOR BODY ARMOR. SUBMITTED BY: Chief ofPolic _~~'/' REVIEWED BY: City Manager/r~.(,.c~.~,~I'~'''' (415ths Vote: Yes X No __) On April 27, 2001 the Police Department submitted an application for funding of vests under the Bulletproof Vest Program. In May 2001, the Chula Vista Police Department received notification that the Bureau of Justice Assistance had approved the application. The grant award is for the amount of $7,788.62 to pay for 50% of the cost of bulletproof vests. This grant will partially fund 44 vests; matching funds will come from the Police Department budget. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept $7,788.62 from the Bulletproof Vest grant, amend the FY 01 - 02 Police budget and appropriate unanticipated grant revenue in the amount of $7,788.62 for body armor. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A BACKGROUND: The Bulletproof Vest Partnership is a program of the U.S. Department of Justice administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The program is designed to pay for up to 50% of bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers. DISCUSSION: On June 16, 1998, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 was signed as law. The purpose of the Act is to save the lives of law enforcement officers by helping States and units of local government equip their law enforcement officers with armor vests. To facilitate the process BJA has established an on-line application. In the spring of 2001 the Police Department applied for funding for vests under the Bulletproof Vest Program. In May 2001, the Bureau of Justice Assistance notified the Chula Vista Police Department that the application was approved. The grant award is for the amount of $7,788.62 to pay for 50% of the cost bulletproof vests. This grant will partially fund 44 vests; matching funds will come from the Police Department budget. Page 2,Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/01 This is a highly competitive grant, funding was based on the following priorities or statutory requirements: at least half the funds will be provided to units of local government with less than 100,000 residents; jurisdictions displaying greatest need for armored vests based on the percentage of law enforcement officers in the department who do not have access to vests; jurisdictions who have or will institute a mandatory wear policy; jurisdictions with a violent crime rate at or above the national average; and jurisdictions that have not received vest funding through the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program (LLEBG) funding. Chula Vista has a population of over 174,000, a mandatory wear policy in effect and although we are fortunate to receive LLEBG funding for three years in a row, no monies have been specifically earmarked for vests. Based on the above criteria, the Department received 20% of the application request. The Department submitted an application for funding of 110 vests, reflecting both the need for new officers and for normal replacement. Vests have a life span of five years. The Department has developed a replacement cycle for expired vests and has identified funds for this need. LOCAL MATCH: The program is designed to pay for up to 50% of the cost of National Institute of Justice approved vests. A local match is required to pay for the remaining costs of the vests. The grant further stipulates that both LLEBG and BVP funds may not be used to purchase vests during the fiscal year in which LLEE~G funds were awarded. Sufficient funds have been identified in the Police Department budget to meet the local match requirement. FISCAL. IMPACT: The $7,788.62 will be used for the purchase of bulletproof vests; funds have been identified to meet the 50% local match requirement. Resulting in no net impact to the General Fund. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING $7,788.62 FROM THE BULLETPROOF VEST GRANT, AMENDING THE FY 01 - 02 POLICE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,788.62 FOR BODY ARMOR. WHEREAS, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership is a program of the U.S. Department of Justice designed to pay up to 50% of bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers; and, WHEREAS, the Police Department has applied for funding of vests under the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program; and, WHEREAS, the grant requires a 50% loc'al match which has been identified in the Police Department budget; and, WHEREAS, the Police Department was awarded $7,788.62 for the purchase of bulletproof vests; and, WHEREAS, acceptance of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant will allow the Department to purchase forty-four vests; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept $7,788.62 from the Bulletproof Vest grant. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 01 - 02 Police budget is hereby amended to appropriate unanticipated grant revenue in the amount of $7,788.62 for body armor. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Richard P. Emerson J~'~ M. Kaheny ,~.,/ Police Chief ~,ify Attorney H:\cityclerk\bulletproofVest Rase Council Agenda Statement CHUIA VISTA Item No ~ Meeting Date Tuesday, August 14, 2001 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget by Transferring $33,000 from the Supplies and Service Category to the Capital Category for the Purpose of Leasing Two Electric Vehicles and Purchasing One Natural Gas Track for the Conservation Program. SUBMITTED BY: Special Operations Manage~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ,4 ~)~ (4/Sths Vote Yes X No ) BACKGROUND: The Special Operations Program within the City Manager's Office includes programs formerly provided by Conservation and the Environmental Resoume Manager including; Residential and Business Solid Waste Management Programs, Household Hazardous Waste and Used Oil Recycling, Watershed Education, Energy Conservation and Climate Protection/Alternative Vehicle programs. The funds for these programs are generated primarily from an Integrated Solid Waste Management surcharge placed on bi-monthly refuse bills and a number of grant solicited on behalf of the City. Grant funds for these programs this fiscal year are estimated to be approximately $800,000. The vehicles requested will be used primarily to can'y out the Energy Conservation, Residential Retrofit, Oil Recycling and Solid Waste Management Programs. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution and transfer fimds in the Special Operations Program in Administration from Supplies and Services to Capital. BOARD AND COMMISION RECOMMENDATION: The City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element contains a detailed list of goals and objectives for the City's Recycling Education Program and that Element was reviewed and approved by the Resource Conservation Commission prior to submittal and approval by the State. DISCUSSION: The Special Operations Program has four full time permanent staff and approximately eight (8) temporary and part-time staff. At least two full-time and all the temporary part time staff spend a majority of their time in the field providing recycling and energy conservation service to the public. When the existing two Special Operations vehicles are not available Staff use pool vans and cars or their personal vehicles and are eligible to request mileage reimbursement. The natural gas pick-up truck that is being requested may be used for early morning recycling patrols, the delivery of supplies for the household hazardous waste and used oil-recycling programs and for special events. The two electric vehicles will be used in Chula Vista to conduct residential and small business energy audits and energy retrofits. They may also be used in the afternoon by Recycling staff to do waste audits for businesses and help them set up their business recycling programs. Additionally, when available the Page 2 Item No Meeting Date 8/14/01 · electric vehicles may be used as alternative pool cars for local trips by City Staff. Finally, the City will display the electric cars at local and regional special events highlighting the community's commitment to clean air and alternative fuel vehicles. The compressed natural gas (CNG) pick-up is expected to cost approximately $5,000 more than a comparable half or three-quarter ton pick-up. Staff is applying to the local Air Pollution Con~'ol District for a grant for all or part of the difference in vehicle cost. The annual replacement cost for the truck will be approximately $5,000 which will be included in future Special Operations annual budgets. The electric vehicles are part ora Ford Pilot Program. The City has requested two of the first 30 "Think City" vehicles being shipped to San Diego under a special program that offers the vehicles for lease at $200 per month for up to three years. The vehicle charger is being provided at no additional charge and the service fee for maintenance is approximately $250 per year per vehicle. Previously, highway legal electric vehicles have leased for $500 to $600 per month and charges cost between $800 and $2,000. The vehicles will he returned to the dealer by the end of the lease. Staffwill use the lease period to determine whether or not these or comparable electric vehicles can meet staff's needs for local transportation and whether or not an additional lease or comparable purchase is appropriate. A hriefbrochure outlining the vehicle specifications is attached for your review and information. These three vehicles will help the Special Operations program and the City make the transition to a clean fuel fleet. In addition to the fifteen new CNG buses the City has three CNG vans, and a CNG Honda currently in its fleet. If you have any questions please contact the Special Operations Manager at extension 5870. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no impact to the general fund. The recommended adjustment to the Special Operations Program budget is fully funded under the 2001/2002 budget adopted by Council. The replacement costs for the CNG track will be included in future annual budgets for the Special Operations Programs. RESOLUTION NO. 2001- RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 BUDGET BY TRANSFERRING $33,000 FROM THE SUPPLIES AND SERVICE CATEGORY TO THE CAPITAL CATEGORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEASING TWO ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND PURCHASING ONE NATURAL GAS TRUCK FOR THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Special Operations Program includes programs provided by Conservation and the Environmental Resource Manager including Residential and Business Solid Waste Management Program, Household Hazardous Waste and Used Oil Recycling, Watershed Education, Energy Conservation and Climate Protection/Alternative Vehicle Programs; and WHEREAS, the funds for these programs are generated primarily from an Integrated Solid Waste Management surcharge placed on bi-monthly refuse bills and a number of grants solicited on behalf of the City and grant funds for these programs this fiscal year are estimated to be approximately $800,000; and WHEREAS, the two electric vehicles and one natural gas truck requested will be used primarily to carry out the Energy Conservation, Residential Retrofit, Oil Recycling and Solid Waste Management Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget by transferring $33,000 from the Supplies and Service Category to the Capital Category for the purpose of leasing two electric vehicles and purchasing one natural gas truck for the Conservation Program. Presented by Approved as to form by Michael Meacham ~ M. Kaheny ~ Special Operations Manager "'City Attorney CHUIA Vb-T~ DeparUnent of Plan~t~g and Building DATE: August 9, 2001 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: David D. Rowlands, Jr, City Manager ~j o~ - FROM: Robert Leiter, AICP, Director of Planning and Building/~ ~/~/'~'/ SUBJECT: Appeal of PCC-01-76; 201 Broadway The project applicant for the proposal for a used car lot to be located at 201 Broadway Street (PCC- 01-76) has withdrawn his appeal request. The, applicant has indicated that he will be working with stafftoward a use for the site that is more compatible with surrounding land uses and that meets the goals of the Chula Vista General Plan. J :\Planning\BOBLLMemo to Mayor Re- Appeal of PCC-01-76 201 Broadway.doc CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/01 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 01-09; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map for EastLake III, Chula Vista Tract 01-09, involving 1,440 single family lots, 4 super lots with a capacity of 612 units, 7 open space lots, 3 public/quasi-public and 2 commercial lots on 748.3 east of the EastLake Business Center II and the EastLake Trails neighborhood between Proctor Valley Road and the Olympic Training Center. RESOLUTION: approving the second addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact report for the EastLake III Woods and Vistas Replarming Program (FSEIR 01-01), and approving and establishing conditions of the tentative subdivision map for EastLake III, Chula Vista Tract 01-09. SUBMITTED BY: Direotor of Playing and Building/ ¢ ¢ REVIEWED BY: City Manger ~ l ~.'~ (4/5 Vote: Yes No X The applicant, The EastLake Company, has submitted an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map known as EastLake III, Chula Vista Tract 01-09, in order to subdivide and develop 748.3 acres east of the EastLake Business Center II and EastLake Trails neighborhood, between Proctor Valley Road and the Olympic Training Center. The Tentative Subdivision Map consists of 1,440 single family lots and 4 super lots with capacity for 612 dwelling units (2052 total dwelling units). The tentative map also includes 7 open space lots, a 12.8 acre community park site, 2 school sites, two Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) sites, 2 commemial sites and several specialty lots (i.e. slopes and landscape buffer areas) (see Attachment No. 5). The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that an Addendum to the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR 01-01), for the EastLake Woods and Vistas Replanning Program, is necessary to address the proposed subdivision. Thus, a second Addendum (IS-01-057) to the FSEIR has been prepared and is attached for your consideration (see Attachment 4). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt attached Resolution approving the second Addendum to the FSI~IR 01-01, EastLake III Woods and Vistas Replanning Program, and the EastLake III Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 01-09, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BOARDS AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On July 25, 2001 the Planning Commission considered the proposed project. The Commission inquired about the adequacy of residential of'f-street parking available within the Estate lot area of Page No. 2, Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/2001 the Woods East neighborhood. Staffresponded that this issue had been extensively reviewed at staff level and that the PC District Regulations recently adopted, require a minimum of 10 on-site parking spaces per each of these estate lots. In addition, there will be room for parking on both sides of the private gated roads which serve that particular cluster of lots. The Commission also inquired about the proposed neighborhood park in the Vistas in regards to how the views both from the park to the Lower Otay Lakes reservoir, as well as the view from the reservoir to the park site would be affected by the futura development of the park. The Commission inquired about type of park amenities, proposed activity level, lighting and landscaping which will be utilized to develop the park site. The commission voted to recommend modification to condition no. 127(b) of the draft City Council resolution in order to ensure the Planning Commisison will have a chance to review the ultimate design of the community park prior to construction. Following the aforementioned discussion, the Commission voted 6-0-1 to recommend the City Council adopt the project, including the inclusion of additional environmental conditions brought forward to the meeting by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator as well as recommending that the City Council take special notice regarding visual impacts in regards to the community park within the Vistas neighborhood. DISCUSSION On July 10, 2001, the City Council approved the new Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, and associated regulatory documents, including Planned Community District Regulations for the EastLake III (Woods and Vistas Neighborhoods). The adopted EastLake III SPA plan established land use distribution and pattern; intensity and character of development; specific development goals and objectives; and development standards to guide the future detailed planning of the Woods and Vistas Neighborhoods. The proposed tentative map implements the SPA plan goals and objectives by more precisely lotting the land use pattern established in the SPA, and providing the required on- site and off-site infrastructure for the project. 1. Existing Site Characteristics EastLake III, is located at the east end of the city's jurisdictional boundaries and consists of approximately 748 acres of gently rolling hills. The project site includes the Woods East, Woods West and Vistas neighborhoods, as described in more detail below: The Woods East neighborhood is the portion of EastLake III, east of Hunte Parkway between the future alignment of Proctor Valley Road and Otay Lakes Road. The existing terrain features gentle rolling hills with a north-to-south ridge along the center of Woods East (see Figure 1, Existing Terrain). Surrounding land uses include: the Upper and Lower Otay Lakes Reservoir to the east; the EastLake Business Center II to the west; the future alignment of Proctor Valley Road and Rolling Hills Ranch Planned Community to the north; and Otay Lakes Road to the south. Access would be Page No. 3, Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/2001 provided along each of the three major streets surrounding the property, Proctor Valley Road, Otay Lakes Road and Olympic Parkway (see Figure 2). The Woods West neighborhood is an elongated shaped parcel located on the west side of Hunte Parkway between Otay Lakes Road and the southern boundary of the Rolling Hills Ranch community (see Figure 2). The site terrain slopes 30-50 ft. west-to-east to Hunte Parkway, and is limited to the north by the Rolling Hills Ranch community; to the West by the recently approved EastLake Business Center II located 20-30 above; to the south by Otay Lakes Road and to the east by Hunte Parkway. WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD SITE Surrounding Land Uses C.V. Muni General Plan Land Use Designation GDP Land Use District Existing Land Code/Zoning Designation Use Site PC Low Density Residential (0-3 LowDensity Residential (0-3 Vacant du's/ac) du's/ac) South PC Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Vacant (0-3 du's/ac) (0-3 du's/ac) East PC Open Space N/A Open Space West PC Research and Ltd. Mfg. Research and Ltd. Mfg. Vacant North PC Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Vacant (0-3 du's/ac) (0-3 du's/ac) The Vistas Neighborhood is the portion of EastLake III located south of Otay Lakes Road between Hunte Parkway and Wueste Road. The existing terrain continues the rolling hills, with the north-to- south ridge along the center of the property. This site is limited to the east by the Lower Otay Lakes Reservoir, across Wueste Road; to the west by the Salt Creek open space corridor; to the south by Olympic Parkway and the Olympic Training Center (OTC); and to the north by Otay Lakes Road. Access to this neighborhood would be provided along Otay Lakes Road and Olympic Parkway (see Figure 2). VISTAS NEIGItBORBOOD SITE Surrounding Land Uses C.V. Muni General Plan Land Use GDP Land Use District Existing Land Use Code/Zoning Designation Designation Site PC Low/Low-Med Density Low/Low-Med Density Vacant Residential (0-3 & 3-6 du's/ Residential (0-3 & 3-6 du's/ ac) ac) South PC Public Quasi-public & comm. Public Quasi-public & comm. Sports Training High density Res High density Res facility Page No. 4, Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/2001 East PC Open Space N/A Open Space West PC Open Space Open Space Open Space North PC Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Vacant (0-3 du's/ac) (0-3 du's/ac) 2. Project Description Woods East The Woods East neighborhood contains two residential lot chtegories and several non-residential lots. The following paragraphs describe in more detail the residential and non-residential lot categories: Estate Lot Category The Estate Lot Category consists of lots ranging in size from 10,000 sq. ft. to over one acre. The largest lots, 22,000 sq. ft. to over one acre, are locfited along the eastern edge of the subdivision and are arranged in clusters of 3-12 lots. The clustered lots are served by a 28 foot wide country road and private streets (see Figure 9). Traditional Single Family Category Traditional Single Family L?ts Category includes lots ranging in size from 7,000 to 8,000 sq. ft. These lots are located just west of the estate lots and limited by the future middle school site and the Salt Creek Open Space Corridor (see Figure 9). Non-residential lots include three public/quasi-public lots to accommodate an elementary school site (15.6 acres), a middle school site (25.49 acres) and a fire station (1.18 acres). Slope areas and open space lots are separate specialty lots (letter lots). Woods West This area contains two small lot products: 3,150 and 4,200 sq. ft. (see Figure 9). These small lot residential products were first introduced by EastLake in the 1980's as an alternative to attached townhomes and condominium units. Since then, the small lot residential product architectural design and individual amenities have improved substantially. According to the applicant, this product continues to be highly desirable for first time home buyers. Small lot residential projects are subject to administrative design review to establish adequate development standards (building setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) and compatible architecture. Since these lots will be developed adjacent to the EastLake Business Center, a condition of approval has been added to require a disclosure to homebuyers described the types of land uses allowed in the adjacent Business Center. Page No. 5, Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/2001 Vistas Neighborhood The Vistas neighborhood is designed to accommodate 1,393 dwelling units and contain a combination of single family and multi-family lot products, as well as non-residential lots. Estate Lot Category The Estate Lot category consists of lots ranging in size from 10,000 sq. ft. to over one-half acre in size. These estate lots are located at the northeastern comer of the Vistas neighborhood with a density of approximately 2.5 du/ac. The average lot size within this category is 13,750 sq. ft. The minimum pad size area usually reflects the minimum lot size as well (see Figure 9); Traditional Single Family Category Traditional single family detached lots contain a minimum lot size ranging from 5,000-7,000 sq. ft. with a density range of 3.0-4.9 du/ac. These lots are arranged with the smaller of these lot sizes on the westernmost portion of the Vistas neighborhood and increasing in size in a easterly direction (see Figure 9). Small-lot Product Two small lot products are proposed: 4,200 sq. ft. (42 x 90), at a density of 5.3 du/ac (Low- Med) and 3,150 sq. ft. (45 x 70) at a density of 6.6 du/ac (Low Med.). These two small lot products are located within the western half of the Vistas neighborhood and are surrounded on all sides for other residential products of various sizes (see Figure 9). Multi-Family Lot Category A total of four super lots with a capacity for 612 dwelling units (30% of the total dwelling units permitted in the EastLake III subdivision) at a density range of 15 (Med-High) to 24 du/ac (High density). The multi-family sites are strategically located at the southern end of the Vistas neighborhood, adjacent to the commemial sites and the Olympic Training Center (see Figure 9). Site design and building architecture are subject to Design Review approval based on the residential design guidelines established in the EastLake III SPA. Non-Residential Lot Category Two commercial lots: a 12-acre specialty retail and an 18-acre tourist commercial. Other non-residential lots in the Vistas neighborhood include two Community Purpose Facility (CPF) lots totaling 12.92 acres. Slope areas and open space lots are separate specialty lots (letter lots). The subdivision is proposed to be developed in two residential phases (Phase 1 and 2) and one commercial phase (phase 3) as shown Figure 3 and Table 1 (Attachment 2). The Developer is requesting several tentative subdivision map design waivers. The waivers are typically considered and approved by the City Engineer, providing said waivers do not compromise Page No. 6, Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/2001 public safety. Based on the Project Engineer's assertion that the waivers will not be detrimental to public safety, the City Engineer has approved the waivers noted on the Tentative Map (see Figure 8), except for the following: Waiver No. 4 has been conditionally approved subject to compliance with Tentative Map condition No. 43 (see draft City Council Resolution). Said condition requires the developer to obtain City approval for the design of the proposed beveled curb in the Woods neighborhood. Waiver No 6a is not approved with the Tentative Map, but may by approved by the City Engineer at the time the improvement plans are submitted for approval. Waiver No 8 was incorrectly listed on the cover sheet of the tentative map as a waiver request. However, it does not require any special approvals as these lots were incorporated into the overall design of the project. 3. Analysis The design of the EastLake III subdivision includes two objectives: 1) provide for a continuation of the lot design of the EastLake Trails neighborhood in most of the Vistas and in the western portion of the Woods neighborhood; and 2) provide for unique estate housing opportunities on the eastern side of the Woods, and northeastern portion of the Vistas neighborhood. The Woods East neighborhood has been designed for estate housing products ranging from 7,350 sq. ft. lots along the Salt Creek open space corridor to over one acre lots along the eastern edge overlooking the Upper Otay Lakes reservoir and the San Miguel Mountains. The gradual increase of lot sizes from west to east have been integrated in a semnless pattern, producing a very cohesive residential neighborhood. In addition to the unique lot design, a number of special street standards have been developed exclusively for the development of the Woods neighborhood. The most significant of these is the "spine road" to be known as "Woods Drive", which traverses through the neighborhood in a northerly-southerly direction. This residential street is designed as a"country road" with no on-street parking and generous landscaping on both sides. This country road with 60 feet of ROW uses 28 feet of paved area and features a meandering d.g. walk on one side. The average lot size of these lots is approximately 39,000 square feet (see Figure 4) Individual neighborhoods are arranged in gated clusters of 3 to 12 lots. Gates in these neighborhoods (WR-1) are less than the required 150 feet from the intersecting street curbline. However, a waiver has been granted by the City Engineer to allow the placement of the gates within approximately 65 feet of the intersecting street curbline. A knox box and other emergency access devices will be provided to allow emergency vehicles access to each residential cluster (See Figure 5). Page No. 7, Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/2001 The proposed lotting of the EastLake Vistas neighborhood is largely an extension of the lotting pattern of the Trails neighborhood to the west. Residential lots range from Low Density (approx. 10,400 sq. It) lots along the eastern edge overlooking Otay Lakes and mountains, to Low Medium (including small lot products) along the westem edge overlooking the Salt Creek Park and open space. The single family attached/multi-family lots are clustered around the commercial uses at the southern end of the Vistas neighborhood. Gates are also proposed along Paradise Ridge Way, which provides access to the estate lots within the Vistas neighborhood. These gates are also less than 150 feet from the intersection of the street curbline. As with the gates proposed in the Woods neighborhood WR-1, a waiver has been granted by the Engineering Department reducing the neighborhood driveway throat from 150 feet to 125 feet, and stipulating the installation of emergency entry devices mentioned above. Circulation Primary access to the project is provided from Otay Lakes Road, Olympic Parkway and Proctor Valley Road. Regional access is provided by 1-805, west of the site. The future construction of SR- 125, west of the EastLake Greens SPA, will provide additional north-south regional access. Internal cimulation in the EastLake Woods, includes two collector streets: one serving the community facilities use corridor and residential uses on the west side of the central ridge and the other serving the residential area to the east. Both streets connect to Proctor Valley Road to the north. The small lot products west of Hunte Parkrway (Woods West) have their own entry from Hunte Parkway, aligned with the Woods East entry, crossing Salt Creek and connecting to the western collector near the junior high school site. Internal circulation in the EastLake Vistas includes Olympic Parkway, which becomes the residential collector as it tums north past Wueste Road, and continues as a collector street to Otay Lakes Road. Other collector streets extend along the west side of the Vistas neighborhood subdivision boundaries adjacent to the Salt Creek open space corridor. (See Figure 6). Off-street improvements are necessary to provide adequate transportation facilities for the project and surrounding developments, and maintain compliance with the Transportation threshold standards prescribed in the Growth Management Program. The required off-site improvements for these major roads are as follows: Otay Lakes Road will be widened to six lanes from Hunte Parkway to the entrance of the Vistas and then transition from six lanes to two lanes east of the intersection of Wueste Road (See Figure 6). Olympic Parkway is already constructed to four lanes from Hunte Parkway to the OTC and it will transition to two lanes as it heads north up through the Vistas. With the exception of improvements along the east side from Otay Lakes Road to the southerly boundaries of the Rolling Hills Ranch community, Hunte Parkway is already fully improved from Proctor Valley Road to Olympic Parkway. Proctor Valley Road will be improved as Page No. 8, Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/2001 part of the Rolling Hills Ranch third phase of development to four lanes from Hunte Parkway to the Woods entrance and eastern boundary of Rolling Hills Ranch. Off-site road improvements needed to serve regional needs in the future will be the construction of Olympic Parkway from Hunte Parkway to SR 125, with eight lanes between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway, and six lanes between EastLake Parkway and Hunte Parkway. EastLake will start construction on this segment early next year. Both the PFFP and TM conditions require the construction of this segment to six lanes concurrent with the first final map containing the first dwelling unit within the Woods and/or Vistas neighborhood Eight lanes are required at buildout. The other major off-site road improvement will be the widening of Otay Lakes Road from SR-125 to EastLake Parkway to seven lanes. The traffic studies show demand for an additional lane on the north side of the road to serve the future community shopping center and northbound traffic accessing future SR-125. Parks and Open Space The EastLake Project is required to provide 18.9 acres of parkland. A 13.5 acre park is provided in the Vistas and in-lieu fees will be paid for 5.4 acres. The Vistas Neighborhood Park will overlook the Lower Otay Reservoir. The spine road serving the Vistas is a similar winding, scenic roadway with spectacular views of the Otay Lakes Reservoir, which gradually transitions into Olympic Parkway near the OTC. The combination of a strategically located spine road and the Vistas Neighborhood Park will take advantage of the best views for the residents and visitors alike. The neighborhood conceptual design features soccer fields, picnic pavilions; open play grounds, game courts and other amenities. However, the City is in the process of preparing a citywide parks master plan, which will outline more specifically the park design requirements. Since the Citywide Parks Master Plan has not been adopted by Council, staff has included a condition requiring the applicant to submit a letter acknowledging that the City is in the process of preparing a Citywide parks master plan and agreeing to comply and remain in compliance with the provisions and requirements of this plan. The citywide Greenbelt Trail, as shown in the Chula Vista General Plan, will be incorporated along the eastern side of the Salt Creek open space corridor and the eastern edge of the Vistas and Woods neighborhoods (see Attachment 3, Figure 7). As with the citywide parks master plan, the city is in the process of preparing a citywide greenbelt trail master plan, which will outline more specifically the design, construction and signage requirements for the greenbelt trail system. Since the citywide greenbelt trails Master Plan has not been adopted by Council, staffhas included a condition requiring the applicant to submit a letter acknowledging that the City is in the process of preparing a City-wide greenbelt trails master plan and agreeing to comply and remain in compliance with the provisions and requirements of this plan. Page No. 9, Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/2001 Grading Variations in the grading of manufactured slopes have been used within the project in order to emphasize the aesthetics of thc natural rolling hills topography that predominate the site. In order to physically and visually separate residences from abutting roadways as well as the greenbelt trail, several manufactured slopes throughout the project exceed thirty (30) feet in height, with the tallest being approximately eighty (80) feet in height at the northeast edge of the Vistas community park. Conventional grading, with 2:1 slopes will be used for interior or visually insignificant project slopes while two contour grading techniques will be used along scenic highways and significant public views. Manufactured slopes will be contoured to blend with natural landform characteristics, including a terraced effect consistent with the natural ridgelines and downward sloping topography leading towards the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. Affordable Housing The EastLake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program has been adopted and incorporated into the EastLake III SPA plan to ensure that a minimum of 10% affordable housing is provided. One of the tentative map conditions of approval requires that the Developer enter into a Standard Agreement with the City to guarantee construction and delivery of affordable units as prescribed in the adopted EastLake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program. This agreement must be executed and property recorded prior to approval of the first final map of the "Initial Phase." The EastLake III Subdivision also provides a mix of housing types and lot sizes for single-family, townhomes, condominium at various densities for persons of various income levels. Schools The EastLake III SPA is located within the Sweetwater Union High School and the Chula Vista Elementary School Districts. The project is expected to generate 927 elementary school students, 226 middle school students and 433 high school students. The SPA plan provides a 14.3-acre elementary school site at the southwest comer of the Woods neighborhood and a middle school to the north, adjacent to the Salt Creek Planned Community. Two high schools serve the area: EastLake and Bonita Vista High Schools and future Otay Ranch High School. The two school districts have indicated that the construction of these two schools in the Woods and the existing high schools in the vicinity will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated number of students generated by the project. However, the existing school fees do not produce adequate revenues to build new schools, so both school districts will use the Mello-Roos District to finance schools. Construction of the two planned school facilities is determined by the corresponding school district, based on their school construction-phasing schedule. Drainage Since EastLake III is positioned on a ridge between Salt Creek and Otay Reservoir. Diversion of drainage run-off to the Salt Creek drainage basin is proposed to avoid urban run-offonto the Upper Page No. 10, Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/2001 and Lower Otay Lakes reservoirs. In recent years, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has enacted tough measures to reduce pollutants from being discharged into water bodies from point and non-point discharges. EastLake III will be required to obtain State and Federal permits and observe the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act 401 Water Quality Certification requirements. The EastLake III project will divert drainage runoff approximately 243 acres to the Salt Creek drainage basin. This diversion will be accomplished by grading the property so that it drains toward Salt Creek and by pumping run-off away from the Otay Lakes Reservoir to the Salt Creek drainage basin in areas that cannot be diverted by grading. An agreement between EastLake and the City of San Diego will be negotiated to compensate for the loss of water being diverted away from the Otay Reservoir. In addition, the detention basins in the Woods and the Trails along Salt Creek ~vill limit the 100-year flood discharge to less than pre-development levels to protect downstream habitats from flooding and contamination. Compliance with the EastLake III Public Facilities Financing Plan: The proposed EastLake III Public Facilities Financing Plan analyzes the impact of the EastLake III project and identifies the required public facilities or fees to mitigate the impacts (based upon the threshold standards in the Growth Management Ordinance). The proposed conditions of approval insure that the required public facilities are constructed, or DIF fees be paid at various stages of the overall development. Compliance with EastLake III General Development Plan and SPA Plan As noted above, this tentative map implements the adopted GDP and EastLake III SPA and therefore, as conditioned, is in substantial conformance with these regulatory documents. Compliance with Planned Community District Regulations The subdivision has been designed in accordance with the EastLake III Planned Community District Regulations, which provides various residential densities and support land uses. All multi-family projects, small lot development, commemial development and private park facilities are subject to Design Review. Conclusion For the reasons noted above, staff has concluded that the EastLake III Tentative Map, described and evaluated in this report, reflect sound Subdivision design principles and, as conditioned, is consistent with adopted plans and ordinances of the City of Chula Vista. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has paid for all costs associated with the processing of the EastLake III Tentative Subdivision Map and will be responsible for paying corresponding Development Impact fees and other applicable development processing fees, as they may be amended from time-to-time. Page No. 11, Item: Meeting Date: 8/14/2001 Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Figures/Tables 3. FSEIR01-01 second Addendum 4. Ownership Disclosure Statement ROLLING HILLS] RANCH wee. -- EAST PROJECT GREENS EASTLJiltE VISTAS OLYMPIC TRAINING I LA~(E ~ OTAY ~NCH PANHANDLE X. LOCATOR Attachment 1 Planning Commission Resolution RESOLUTION NO PCS-01-09 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANN1NG COMMISSION RECOMMI~NDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISON MAP FOR EASTLAKE III, CHULA VISTA TRACT 01-09, WITHIN THE EASTLAKE III PLANNED COMMUNITY AND PC ZONE WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map was filed with the Planning and Building Deparlment of the City of Chula Vista on April 30, 2001 by the EastLake Company ("Developer") requesting approval to subdivide 748 acres into 1,441 residential lots and 4 superlots with a capacity for 612 dwelling units. The tentative map also includes 7 open space lots, a 13.5 acre community park, 2 school sites, 12.9 acre community purpose facility site(s), 2 commercial sites and various specialty lots (i.e. Slopes lots and landscape buffer areas) throughout the subdivision ("Project"); and, WHIEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is commonly known as EastLake IH, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 748.3 acres located east of EastLake Business Center II and Salt Creek open space corridor, between Proctor Valley Road and the Olympic Training Center, within the EastLake Planned Community and PC Plam~ed Community Zone District ("Project Site"); and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed tentative subdivision map have been previously addressed by FSEIR 01-01, EastLake III Woods and Vistas Replanning Program and First Addendum, and has, therefore, prepared a Second Addendum to said FSEIR. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and Chula Vista Environmental Review procedures; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on the tentative map and notice of said heating, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., July 25, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the second Addendum to FSEIR 01-01 (EastLake IH Woods and Vistas Replanning Program). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for EastLake Ill, Chula Vista Tract 01-09 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION voted (6-0-1) to recommend approval of the Project. AYES: O' Neill, Castenada, Hall, Willett, Thomas, McCann NOES: ABSENT: Cortes Bob Thomas, Chairperson ATTEST: Attachment 2 Figures/Tables EXISTING . ' ..... :'~]~- ~ TERRAIN _.EASTiAKE iii A PLANNED COMMUNIIY BY [ASIL/g(E DEVELOPMENI CO. FIGU~ 1 ROLLING HILLS] RANCH WOODS EAST PROJECT IATION EASTLAXI: GR[£NS EASTIAKE 1RAILS [AS11AK[ 1/ISTAS '~c P~'~ TRAINING \ OTAY RANCH PANHANDLE \. \ LOCATOR FIGURE 2 ~ ~../~ DEVELOPMENT PHASFNG Phasing Plan ---- -- -- Phasing Boundary 2 Phasing Sequence Park to be Phased as needed (refer to PFFP) __--' E~STLAKE III A planned community by The EastLake Company Exhibit 17 ( 04/2 0/01 ) $ p.A. PLAN ,. 11.2 6-3 _ FIGURE 3 Land Use Districts Symbol RL1 SFD min. lot size 20,000 sf RL2 SFD min lot size 13,500 sf RL3 & RL4 SFD min lot size 10,000 5f RE1 SFD min Iol size 8,000 sf RE2 & RE3 SFD min lot size 7,000 sf RS1 SFD min. lot size 6.000 sf RS2 SFD min. lot size 5,000 sf RP1 SFD min. lot size 4,200 sf RP2 SFD rain lot size 3,150 sf RC SF/MultJ-Fam, from ~-15 du/ac RM Multi-Familty > 15 du/ac VC Village Commercial TC Toudst Commercial PQ Public and Quasi-Public Uses OSJP Open Space/Park & Rec, OS Open Space - Passive CPF Community Purpose Facilities EASTIAKE III A planned community by The EastLake Company FIGURE 4 ,§9 FIGURE 5 L;Irculatlorl B (O~ay Lakes Road) G 4 Lane Major and Olympic Pa~way) M~l~ed Class fil gesidenfial Collecto[ 65' 40' P ~ ~odi~ Reside~fial Collector 62' ~. p ~ 6 Lane Prime AHerial ~odifi~ Res~entigl Street 62 5' 40' P/ d~lfied Residential Slreel 59' ~'. P ]Residential Slreel 56' 36' C Pti Common Hamme~ead Dr. 40' 20' NA EASTIAKE III planneO communi~ by lhe [asl[ake Company CIRCULATION Trails Plan '71~'-2~*~ 11' City Greenbelt Trail }00 O~ 5'-10' (as noted) BOA Walk ~. ( mil == ~ On-street Bike Lanes City Greenbelt Signing ~:~' HOA Trail Signing ~) Trail Street Crossing View Point - Note: Not all trails and walks are shown. Refer also to Sheet Sections for additional trail and walk details. The b-ails indicated are subject Source: ONA Inc., SB&O, Inc. --'E $TLAKE III A planned community by The EastLake Company Exhibit 13 (os/or~oD II.2.3-14 FIGURE 7 TENTATIVE MAP WAIVERS PHASE I - Residential sub- No. Min lot Average Min Lot No. of Dwelling % of Phase Neig. of lots size lot size Dimension Units Total No. of in sq. ft. in sq.ff. Units (1048) WR-1 64 22,000 39,239 N/A 64 6% WR-3 77 10,000 14,665 95' X 110' 77 7% WR-4 140 7,000 11,003 70'X 105' 140 13% WR-6 135 4,200 5,611 42' X 90' t 35 13% WR-7 119 3,150 3,789 45'X 70' 119 11% VR-4 82 6,000 8,975 60'X 100' 82 8% VR-5 62 5,000 8,535 50'X 100' 62 6% VR-6 131 5,000 6,667 50'X 100' 130 13% VR-10 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A (116)* 11% VR-11 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A (123)* 12% Total 811 809 (239)* 100% Phase Total 1048 Phase 1 Non- Residential Parcel No. Acreage OS-1 1.1 ac OS-2 12~73 ac ©S-3 61.9 ac OS-6 1.52 ac PQ-1 15.6 ac PQ-2 25.49 ac PQ-3 %18 ac P-1 *'12.87 ac** ! P-2 2.47 ac CPF-1 4.01 ac CP-2 8.91 ac *** Note: Phasing of the conununity park (P-l) will be described in the conditions of approval for the tentative map and as described in the PFFP. TABLE 1 A PHASE 2 - Residential sub- No. Min lot Average Min Lot No. of Dwelling % of Phase Neig. of lots size lot size Dimension Units Total No. of in sq. ft. in sq.ft. Units (1004) WR-2 57 13,500 17,536 7,115' X120' 57 6% WR-5 71 8,000 11,418 80'X 105' 71 7% VR-1 56 10,000 13,758 95' X 110' 56 6% VR-2 68 7,000 9,792 70' X 105' 68 7% VR-3 115 7,000 8,708 65'X 108' 115 11% VR-7 96 4,200 5,903 42' X 90' 96 10% VR-8 168 3,150 4,323 45' X 70' 168 17% VR-9 1_ N/A N/A N/A N/A (7_3~. 7% VR-12 I N/A N/A N/A N/A (300)* Total 633 631 (373)* 100% Phase total 1004 Phase 2 Non- Residential Parcel No. I Acreage t OS-5 3.78 ac Phase 3 - Commercial/Non-residential Parcel No. Acreage C-1 12.55 ac C-2 18.28 ac OS~ 12.23 ac OS-7 2.49 ac Total _ 45.55ac TABLE lB Attachment 3 FSEIR 01-01 Second Addendum SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTLAKE III WOODS AND VISTAS REPLANNING PROGRAM EIR-01-01 SCH #2000071019 PROJECT NAME: EastLake III Woods and Vistas Tentative Map PROJECT LOCATION: EastLake Master Plaimed Community City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: The EastLake Company DATE: July 18, 2001 1. INTRODUCTION This addendum has been prepared to address the Tentative Subdivision Map application for EastLake III Woods and Vistas. As the lead agency for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, {} 21000 et seq.), the City of Chula Vista ("City") prepared and conducted an environmental analysis (EIR 01-01) of the EastLake III Project. On July 17, 2001 the City Council considered and certified FSEIR 01-01 and approved the Project. The Tentative Map is in substantial conformance with the conceptual tentative map and grading plans on which the FSEIR analysis was based and therefore approval and implementation of the Tentative Map does not change the basic conclusions of the FSEIR. 11. CEQA REQUIREMENTS Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines discuss a lead agency's responsibilities in handling new information that was not included in a project's final environmental impact report CEIR"). Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provides: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the [Final] E1R; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the [Final] EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (b) (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the [Final] EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. In the event that one of these conditions would require preparation of a subsequent EIR but "only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the [Final] EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation," the lead agency could choose instead to issue a supplement to the Final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, 8 15163, subd. (a).) Thus, the City must consider under the standards articulated above whether there will be previously undisclosed significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously disclosed impacts, if the Project is implemented according to the proposed Tentative Map (CEQA Guidelines, 88 15162, 15163, 15164, subd. (a).) As the discussion below demonstrates, implementing the Project according to the proposed Tentative Map will result in no new impacts, or no more severe impacts, than any that were disclosed in FSEIR 01-01. Therefore, it is appropriate for the City to prepare an addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15164. That section states that an addendum should include a "brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162" and that the explanation needs to be supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines, 8 15164, subd. (e).) The addendum need not be circulated for public review but may si~nply be attached to the Final EIR. (Ibid.; CEQA Guidelines, 8 15164, subd. (c).) Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following Addendum to FSEIR 01-01. III. PROJECT SETTING The Project area is located east of SR-125 generally between Proctor Valley Road on the north and Olympic Parkway to the south. The previously approved communities of EastLake Greens and EastLake Trails are located directly to the west of the Project site. The two proposed EastLake III residential neighborhoods, EastLake Woods and EastLake Vistas, are adjacent to the western edge of Upper and Lower Olay Reservoirs, respectively. Existing roadways in the vicinity of the proposed Project include East H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road, Olympic Parkway, Hunte Parkrway, Wueste Road, and Interstate 805. Otay Lakes Road forms the border between the Woods and the Vistas. East H Street traverses the northern boundary of the Project area and Telegraph Cauyon Road/Otay Lakes Road provides east-west access through the northern portions of the Project area. Olympic Parkway provides direct access into the Project area and Hunte Parkway traverses between the eastern and western portions of the Woods neighborhood~ Wueste Road forms the eastern border of the proposed Vistas neighborhood and 1-805 is a north-south freeway, which originates in South County and terminates at its connection with the I-5 freeway. Local interchanges in the Project vicinity are at Olympic Parkway, Telegraph Canyon Road, and East H Street. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (TM), known as EastLake III, Chula Vista Tract 01-09, to subdivide and develop 748.3 vacant acres. The proposed TM consists of 1,444 single family lots and 4 super lots with capacity for 612 dwelling units. The TM also includes 7 open space lots, a 12.8-acre community park site, 2 school sites, 12.9 acres of Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) sites, 2 conunercial sites and several specialty lots (i.e. slopes, and landscape buffer areas). Approval of the TM would continue the implementation of the EastLake III Replanning Program as previously analyzed in FSEIR 01-01. V. COMPATIBILITY WITI-I ZONING AND PLANS The Tentative Map is in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans in the EastLake Ill FSEIR which were found to be consistent with applicable zoning and plans (as amended where appropriate) (See Chapter 4.1, Land Use in the FSEIR). Therefore, the Project Tentative Map is considered compatible with applicable zoning and plans in the City of Chula Vista. V1. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that approval and implementation of the Project Tentative Maps would not result in any additional significant environmental effects beyond those previously covered under FSEIR-01-01. VII. ANALYSIS A summary analysis of the conclusions from the Initial Study is provided below for the major environmental topics of land use, landform alteration and visual quality, traffic, and hydrology and water quality. The proposed TM shows the same land use designations as presented in the FSEIR 01- 01, including single-and multi-family residential, cormnercial, park, public/quasi-public, greenbelt trails, wetland mitigation area, detention basins, Otay Tarplant preserve, open space, and community purpose facility (CPF) uses. As discussed below, there are minor refinements in the acreages shown for the CPF use, parks, schools, and commercial use between the proposed TM and the SPA Plan. These minor changes would not change the analysis and conclusions presented in FSEIR 01-01. TM is in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans analyzed in FSE1R 01-01 and thus does not alter the basic Project description presented therein. Land Use The Tentative Map (TM) shows the same land use designations as presented in the FSEIR, including residential, commercial, park, public/quasi-public, greenbelt trails, wetland mitigation area, Otay Tarplant preserve, open space, and community purpose facility (CPF) uses. There are minor differences in the acreages shown for the CPF use, parks, schools, and conunercial use between the proposed TM and the SPA Plan. However, these differences do not represent significant changes and would not affect the impact and mitigation conclusions presented in the previous FSEIR. Each of these refinements is discussed below: · The proposed TM shows two Community Purpose Facilities (CPFI at 4.01 acres and CPF2 at 8.9 acres) in the Vistas while the conceptual SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan in the FSEIR designated one lO.8-acre CPF site. The proposed 2.2-acre increase in CPF designated land use is minor and is not considered a substantial change. The proposed minor change is in substantial conformance with the conceptual TM and does not alter the impact analysis and conclusions of the previous FSEIR. Therefore, no additional impacts would result from the proposed 2.2-acre increase in CPF site and no additional mitigation measures would be required. The TM also designates a 12.87-acre corrmaunit'j park in the Vistas while the SPA Plan in the FSEIR designated a 13.5-acre park, resulting in a 0.63-acre reduction in parks. This refinement in the size of the community park is consistent with the net usable acreage required by the Park and Recreation Department and satisfies the mitigation requirements shown in the EastLake Ili Final SEIR. Therefore, no additional impacts would result from the proposed 0.63-acre reduction in parkland and no additional mitigation measures would be required. · The elementary school and junior high school sites in the Woods are designated for 15.6 acres and 25.49 acres respectively on the Tentative Map, while in the SPA Plan the school sites are designated for 14.3 acres and 24.8 acres respectively. This 2-acre increase in the total school acreage within the Woods is not considered a substantial change because it does not alter the impact analysis and conclusions of the FSEIR. Therefore, no additional impacts would result fi.om the proposed 2~acre increase in total school acreage and no additional mitigation measures would be required. · The commercial sites, C-1 and C-2 are designated for 12.2 and 18.4 acres respectively in the conceptual SPA Plan in the FSEIR while the Tentative Map designates C-I for 12.55 acres and C-2 for 18.28 acres. This 0.23-acre increase is :. a minor increase, which is in substantial conformance with FSEIR 01-01. This change in insignificant and does not alter the analysis or conclusions presented in the previous FSEIR. Therefore, no additional impacts would result from the proposed 0.23-acre increase in commercial area and no additional mitigation measures would be required. In addition, the proposed TM shows 1,444 single family residential lots which is five units less than the 1,449 shown in the SPA Plan and conceptual TM and grading plan in FSEIR 01-01. This decrease in single-family lots does not represent a substantial change between the proposed TM and the conceptual TM and grading plan analyzed in FSEIR 01-01. The decrease in units does not result in any additional impacts than those analyzed in the previous FSEIR. The proposed TM also shows one lot designated for single and multi-family housing and three lots designated for multi-family housing. These lots are also consistent with the locations shown in the SPA Plan and conceptual TM and grading plans. Thus, the proposed TM would accommodate approximately the same number of dwelling units on similar acreage as analyzed in FSEIR 01-01. Also, consistent with the analysis in FSEIR 01-Ol, the proposed TM shows a greenbelt and community trail alignment, open space to accommodate the Otay Tarplant preserve and a wetlands mitigation area. Landform Alteration/Visual Quality The TM shows the same project boundaries and grading footprint associated with the land uses as presented in the previous FSE1R grading concept plan. Additionally, the grading contours, including maximum slope heights of 90 feet and slope ratios of a maximum of 2:1 are consistent with what was analyzed in the previous FSEIR as are the approximate cut and fill quantities. Thus, the landform alteration and impacts to visual quality anticipated in the previous FSEIR are in substantial conformance with what is presented on the proposed TM. No additional impacts would result from the proposed TM and no additional mitigation measures would be required· Traffic The proposed TM does not show an increase in dwelling units from what is presented in the previous FSEIR; therefore approval of the TM would not result in additional ADT volumes beyond what was anticipated in the previous FSEIR analysis· The circulation plan presented on the proposed TM is also in substantial conformance with what is presented the previous FSEIR with respect to project roadways and access· No additional impacts would result from the proposed TM and no additional mitigation measures would be required. H~ydrology and Water Quality The proposed TM reflects the on-site drainage features required in the previous FSEIR to mitigate hydrology and water quality impacts· These features include the detailed storm drain system, detention basins and wetland mitigation areas in the Woods, and infiltration basins as proposed in the FSEIR. No additional impacts would result from the proposed TM and no additional mitigation measures would be required· VIII. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that approval and implementation of the project tentative map will result in only minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make FSEIR-01-01 adequate under CEQA. Mariiyn R F Pons~ gi, '~:~ - - Environmental Review Coordinator REFERENCES EastLake Woods and Vistas Replanning Program FSEIP,-01-01, June 2001 Case No.IS 01-057 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: The EastLake Company 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100 Chula Vista, CA 91914 4. Name of Proposal: EastLake Woods & Vistas Tentative Subdivision Map 5. Date of Checklist: July 18, 2001 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the ¢' proposal; a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of ,/ an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed Tentative Map (TM) is in substantial conformance to the conceptual TM and grading plans used in the impact analysis for the EastLake Woods and Vistas Replanning Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 01-01 with respect to land use and planning issues. The proposed TM shows the same land use designations as presented in the previous FSEIR, including residential, commercial, park, public/quasi-public, greenbelt trails, wetland mitigation area, Otay Tarplant preserve, open space, and cormnunity purpose facility (CPF) uses. There are minor differences in the acreages shown for the CPF use, parks, schools, and commercial use between the proposed TM and the SPA Plan. However, these differences do not represent significant changes and would not affect the impact and mitigation conclusions presented in the previous FSEIR. Plan designations and zoning on the proposed TM reflects the proposed land uses in the previous FSEIR and any inconsistencies with the General Plan were addressed tbxough proposed amendments in Page- I FSEIR. Other issues related to land use compatibility, consistency with adopted plans, and conversion of former agricultural land to an urban use were also previously addressed in EIRs including the original Master E1R for EastLake (EIR 81-3), the EastLake III Olympic Training Center EIR ( EIR 89-9) and the EastLake Woods and Vistas Replarming Program (EIR 01-01). Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the PQtentially Significant Le~5 th~u a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ,/ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ,/ housing? Comments: The proposed TM is in substantial conformance with the FSEIR 01-01 with respect to proposed dwelling units and infrastructure required to serve the project. Project · : implementation would accommodate expected growth according to city and regional population projections by assisting the City's ability to meet housing needs. Implementation of the proposed project would likely have some growth inducing impacts on undeveloped land in the project vicinity as well as encourage any potential adjacent developments to occur sooner than would otherwise take place without the project. However, FSEIR 01-01 concluded that because much of the surrounding land was zoned for urban growth, the development of EastLake III would not conflict with the City ofChula Vista's goals for accommodating and directing growth. The proposed TM is consistent with the conceptual TM and grading plan analyzed in the previous FSEIR. The proposed TM does not result in any additional impacts than those identified in the previous FSEIR and no additional mitigation is necessary. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. IlL GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e)Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or offthe site? Page - 2 f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion, which may modify the channel of a river or slream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The proposed TM does not result in any additional geophysical changes. The TM is in substantial conformance to the conceptual TM and grading maps used in the environmental impact analysis for FSEIR 01-01 and the data used in the Geotechnical Investigation (Geotechnics, Incorporated) for the previous FSE[R is also valid for the proposed TM. Therefore, the geologic and soil issues for the subject site were adequately addressed in the previous FSEIR and approval of the TM would not result in impacts beyond what was described in the previous FSEIR and no additional mitigation is necessary. .Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. ,/ b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction ,/ of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ttu-ough direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Page - 3 q-37 j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The proposed TM does not result in any additional impacts to water because the criteria for determining storm water run-offvolume is based upon area, which ,has not changed from the conceptual TM and grading plans used in the previous EIR analysis. The proposed TM reflects the on-site drainage features required in the previous FSEIR to mitigate hydrology and water quality impacts. These features include the detailed storm drain system, detention basins and wetland mitigation areas in the Woods, and infiltration basins as proposed in the FSEIR. No modifications were made to the tentative map that would invalidate the drainage and detention study (SB&O, Inc.) upon which much of the hydrological and water quality analysis for the previous FSEIR was based. Therefore, the conclusions of the water quality and hydrology analysis previously addressed in FSEIR 01-01 remain unchanged and approval of the TM would not result in impacts beyond what was described therein. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: r, ot~t~,~ s~g~inc,Dt re, t~,~ a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors. e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality7 Comments: The proposed TM is consistent with the conceptual maps used in the environmental impact analysis in FSEIR 01-01 with respect to proposed land uses, dwelling unit counts and associated construction activities and trip generation. Therefore, approval of the proposed TM would not result in additional impacts to air quality beyond those previously addressed in the FSEIR 01-01. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would Polentially Significant Les~ ~han the flroFosal result in: ~,w¢¢ Mitigated Impact Impa{~ a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., Page - 4 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ' h) A "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The proposed TM is consistent with the conceptual TM and grading plans used in the environmental impact analysis in the FSEIR 01-01 with respect to proposed land uses, dwelling unit counts and associated trip generation, which were used in preparing the traffic analysis (Linscott, Law and Greenspan) for the EIR. Changes are not proposed in project design that would increase dwelling unit count, alter emergency access, parking, public transportation opportuniti~es or create hazards. Therefore no additional traffic impacts beyond those already addressed in the previous FSEIR would result from approval of the proposed TM. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VI1, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the ]proposal result in impacts to: Impact Milil!ated Impact Impart a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing? b)Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c)Locally designated natural communizes (e.g..,. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? . e) Wildlife dispersaI or migration corridors? f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning efforts? Comments: Impacts to biological resources as a result of development of the project area were previously analyzed in FSEIR 01-01. The proposed TM project boundaries and land use Page - 5 distribution and intensity are substantially the same as in the conceptual TM and grading plans on which the biological resources analysis was based in the previous FSEIR. There fore, the impact conclusions related to biological impacts for the proposed TM are the same as those in FSEIR 01-01. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VIH, ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a)Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner7 c) If the site is designated for mineral resource protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: Impacts to gas, electricity, and energy were adequately addressed in the previous FSEIP, 01- 01. Approval of the TM does not result in any new impacts to energy and mineral resources. Development of the site is subject to compliance with Energy Requirements of the Uniform Building Code and therefore, should not result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. No portions of the site are designated for mineral resource protection. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: Approval of the TM would allow construction of a predominantly residential development that docs not involve the use of hazardous substances. The proposed TM is in substantial conformance with the conceptual TM and grading plans used in the environmental impact analysis in FSEIR 01-01 which concluded that the project would not increase the risk of hazards or interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, approval of the TM will not result in the exposure of the public to Page ~ 6 potential health or safety hazards beyond those previously identified in FSEIR 01-01. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels? Comments: The proposed TM is in substantial conformance to the conceptual TM and grading maps used in the noise analysis for FSEIR 01-01 with respect to factors affecting noise impacts including land use, location of sensitive receptors, layout of internal and external roadways, and construction activities. The proposed project would not result in any additional noise impacts beyond those already adequately addressed in the previous FSE1R. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered ~p~,, Mitigaled Impact Impart :. government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? Comments: ~Fhe TM is in substantial conformance to the concept TM and grading plans used in the environmental impact analysis for FSEIR 01-01. Therefore, approval of the T/VI would not result in any additional impacts to public/governmental services beyond those previougly identified and addressed in FSEIR 01-01. The proposed TM, like the conceptual TM and grading plans in the previous FSEIR, shows proposed sites for an elementary and middle school as well as a fire station which would provide ?ervices to the project area as well as other nearby neighborhoods. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the Cty s Threshold Standards. As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the City's Threshold Standards. Page a) Fire/EMS '/ The threshold standards require properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units to respond to calls throughout the City within seven minutes for 85 percent of the cases. During the 2000 calendar year reporting period, the Fire Department responded to 79 percent of emergency calls within 7 minutes, compared with the 85 percent requirement in the threshold standard. Thus, the Fire Department currently fails to meet the threshold standards established for response time. Comments: As population growth in the service area warrants, Fire Station No. 6 would be constructed within the Woods neighborhood and Fire Station No. 8 would be constructed in the Rolling Hills Ranch and Salt Creek service area. These stations would help ensure adequate service within the requirements of the City's Quality of Life Threshold Standards. The proposed TM is in substantial conformance with the conceptual TM and grading plans in FSEIR-01-01 and therefore fhe impact analysis and subsequent conclusions are consistent with and applicable to the approval of the proposed TM. Adoption of the proposed Tentative Map would not create any impacts to fire/EMS services beyond those already adequately addressed in the EIR. :. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. * b) Police For emergency response, police units must respond to 84 percent of Priority One emergency calls within seven minutes and maintain an average response time of 4.5 minutes or less. For Priority Two Urgent calls the police units must respond to 62 percent of the calls within seven minutes with an average response time to all Priority Two calls within seven minutes or less. The GMOC 1999 Annual Report reported that the Police Department responded to 70.9 percent of Priority I emergency calls within 7 minutes as opposed to the 84 percent response required by the threshold standard. The average Priority I call response time was 5:50 minutes compared to the 4:30 minute threshold time. The Police Department responded to 45.8 percent of Priority II urgent calls within 7 minutes compared to the 62 percent response required by the threshold. The average Priority II call response time was 9:35 minutes compared to the 7:00 minute threshold time. Thus, the Chula Vista Police Department is not meeting the threshold standard for Priority One and Priority Two calls, Comments: The proposed TM is in substantial conformance with the conceptual IM and grading plans in FSE1R-01-01 and therefore the impact analysis and subsequent conclusions are consistent with and applicable to approval of the proposed TM. Approval of the proposed TM would not result in a greater impact to response time or create any other impacts to police services beyond those already adequately addressed in the previous FSEIR. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Page- 8 c) Traffic ~ 1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C' or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments e×cept that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. 2. West ofi-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. Cnmments: Traffic impacts associated with the development of the project area were previously analyzed in FSE1R 01-01. The proposed TM is in substantial conformance to the conceptual TM and grading plans in the previous FSEIR, including proposed land uses and dwelling unit counts, which were used in preparing the traffic analysis (Linscott, Law and Greenspan) for the FSEIR. The results of the traffic analysis indicate that unacceptable LOS would result under near- and long-term cumulative conditions with implementation of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures were incorporated. The proposed TM would not result in any impacts beyond those already adequately addressed in the EIR and no additional mitigation is necessary. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. d) Parks/Recreation ~/ The threshold standard for parks and recreation establishes a population ratio, which requires that three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of the 1-805. This threshold standard was met during the 1999-reporting year. Comments: The conceptual TM and grading plans in FSEIR 01-01 include a 1.7-acre private recreation area in the southeastern section of the Woods neighborhood adjacent to the proposed fire station site and a 13.5-acre public park located along the eastern boundary of the Vistas overlooking the Lower Otay Reservoir. FSEIR 01-01 concluded that the proposed project would provide adequate park and recreation facilities and open space for EastLake III and surrounding communities, and compliance with the City of Chula Vista's local parkland requirements as set forth by the City Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The proposed TM is in substantial conformance with the concept plans in the previous FSIEIR and therefore would not result in any additional impacts to parks, recreation, and open space beyond those already adequately addressed in the EIR. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. e) Drainage ~lhe threshold standard requires that (1) Storm water flows and volumes shall Page - 9 T not exceed City Engineering Standards and (2) The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet the threshold standard goals and objectives. During the 1999 reporting year this threshold standard was met. Comments: The TM is in substantial conformance with the conceptual TM and grading plans in FSEIR 01-01 with respect to the storm drain system and other stormwater apparatus such as the design and location of the detention basins. Therefore, the TM does not change the drainage patterns and storm water discharge volumes and the conclusions of the drainage analysis in the previous FSEIR remain unchanged. No additional impacts would result with the approval of the proposed TM beyond those previously addressed in the FSEIR and the established City threshold would be met. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. f) Sewer ~ The threshold standard requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. The threshold standard for sewers was met during the 1999 GMOC reporting year. Comments: The analysis in the Preliminary On-Site Sewer Study for East Lake III Woods and Vistas (SB&O) was based on sewage generation rates for proposed land uses and dwelling unit counts, which are consistent between the FSE1R 01-01 conceptual plans and the proposed Tentative Map. The previous FSEIR concluded that compliance with the phased sewer infrastructure improvements would ensure that the threshold standard for sewage capacity would be met. Approval of the Tentative Map does not change that conclusion because no impacts beyond those addressed in the previous FSEIR would result from approval of the Tentative Map. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Poteutially g) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and lhat water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The threshold standard for water was met during the 1999 reporting year. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Page- 10 Comments: The Subarea Water Master Plan for EastLake III (Powell and Associates) generated water consumption projections used in the previous FSEIR 01-01 analysis based on proposed land uses and dsvelling unit counts. The proposed TM is in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans in FSEIR 01-01, which would result in consistent water consumption projections. Therefore approval of the Tentative Map would not result in the need for additional storage, treatment, and/or transmission facilities beyond xvhat is discussed in the previous FSEIR. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would ~'.t*....p Significant Le~ than the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? Comments: The proposed TM is in substantial conformance with the conceptual TM and grading plans in FSEIR 01-01 and would not result in the need for additional utilities and service systems beyond what is addressed in the previous FSEIR. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Imp,~ I~lltigaled Impact Impact ,/ a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b)Cause the destruction or modification ora scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that could increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 197 e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? Comments: The proposed TM shows the same project boundaries and grading footprint Page associated with the land uses as presented in the previous FSEIR grading concept plans. Additionally, the grading contours, including maximum slope heights ofg0 feet and slope ratios of a maximum of 2:1 are consistent with what was proposed in the FSEIR 01-01 as are the approximate cut and fill quantities. Thus, the landform alteration and impacts to visual quality anticipated in the previous FSEIR are in substantial conformance with what is presented on the proposed TM and would therefore not result in any new or increased aesthetic impacts beyond what is addressed therein. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? :' c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d)Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area7 e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The proposed Tentative Map is in substantial conformance to the conceptual plans in FSEIR 01-01 with respect to land uses, including distribution and intensity, and would therefore not result in any new or increased cultural impacts beyond what is addressed in the previous FSEIR. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the .proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of~oaleontological resources? Comments: The proposed Tentative Map is in substantial conformance to the conceptual plans in FSEI~R 01-01 with respect to land uses, including distribution and intensity, and would therefore not result in any new or increased paleontological impacts beyond what is addressed in the previous FSEIR. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Page 1 2 XVI. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation ,/ plans or programs? Comments: The conceptual plans in the FSEIR 01-01 include a 1.7-acre private recreation area in the southeastern section of the Woods neighborhood adjacent to the proposed fire station site and a 13.5-acre public park located along the eastern boundary of the Vistas owrlooking the Lower Otay Reservoir. The previous FSEIR concluded that the proposed project would provide adequate park and recreation facilities and open space for EastLake III and surrounding communities, and compliance with the City of Chula Vista's local parkland requirements as set forth by the City Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The proposed Tentative Map is in substantial conformance with the previous FSEIR and therefore would not result in any impacts to parks, recreation, and open space beyond those already adequately addressed in the previous FSEIR. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Significant Less than SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for Impact Mlfigaled Impact Impact mandatory findings of significance. [fan EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehislory? Comments: Impacts to biological resources were previously analyzed in FSE1R 01-01. The proposed Tentative Map is in substantial conformance to the conceptual plans in the FSEIR with respect to land uses, including distribution and intensity, and would therefore not result in any new or increased impacts to biological resources beyond what is addressed therein. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Page- 13 b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The proposed project conforms to all long-term goals/plans for this area and therefore will not achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: Cumulative impacts of the EastLake Woods and Vistas development were adequately evaluated in FSEIR 01-01. The proposed Tentative Map is in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans in the previous FSE1R and would therefore not result in any new or increased incremental effects and]or cumulative impacts beyond what is addressed in the FSEIR. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. ,~. d) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Potential environmental effects which could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings were adequately evaluated in FSEIR 01-01. The proposed Tentative Map is in substantial conformance with the conceptual TM and grading plans in the FSE1R and would therefore not result in any new or increased impacts beyond those addressed in the FSEIR. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Page-14 XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR blITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation measures are required. XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company('s) authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator, Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to adoption of the Addendum shall indicate the Applicant(s) and/or Operator s) desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval. Printed Name and Title of Property Owner or Authorized Representative Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Representative .~rinted Name and Title of Operator if different from Property Owner Signature Name and Title of Operator if different from Property Owner XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. I~JLand Use and Planning ~Transportation/Circulation ElPublic Services [3Population and Housing [Biological Resources []Utilities and Service Systems IEGeophysical [~Energy and Mineral Resources OAesthetics [SWater ~Hazards E]Chltural Resources [3Air Quality [~Noise IBRecreation [~Paleontological Resources ElMandatory Findings of Significance Page- 15 3LXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. · I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on atlached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects : (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi/_~ (~'~/ Environmental Review Coordinator Attachment 4 Ownership Disclousre Statement THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of cedain ownership or financial interests, PaYments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the pad of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the properly which is the subject of the application or the contract, e g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 woflh of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes __ No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 6. Have you and/or your o~cers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed mor~han $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No ~ If yes, stale which Councilmember(s): (NOTE: A~ACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NE~SSAR~ Date: '~ ~ ~na~ of contrac~orfapplicant Pr e name of contractor/applicant * Person i$ de/?ned as 'An3' individual firm, co~partnershtp, jo*hr venture, a~oclat~on. $ocial club, freoternal organization, corporation. estate trust, receiver. $).'ndicote this and any o~her counO,', c~ty and colorlith', etD/rnuniclpahn/, district or other po[tticat.~ubd~sion or any RESOLUTION NO. 2001- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FSEIR 01-01) FOR THE EASTLAKE lI1 WOODS AND VISTAS REPLANNING PROGRAM AND APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAKE Ill, CHULA VISTA TRACT 01-09 I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit (A-1 thru A-25), copies of which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, incorporated herein by reference, and commonly known as EastLake III Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 01-09; and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 748.3 acres located east of EastLake Business Center II and Salt Creek open space corridor, between Proctor Valley Road and the Olympic Training Center, within the EastLake Planned Community ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on April 30, 2001, The EastLake Company ("Developer") filed a tentative subdivision map with the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista requesting approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for EastLake III, Chula Vista Tract 01-09 in order to subdivide the Project Site into 1,441 single-family lots and four (4) super lots with a capacity for 612 dwelling units; seven (7) open space lots (OS-1 through OS-7), one (1) park lot, two (2) school sites (PQ-1 and PQ-2), two(2) community purpose facility sites (CPF-1 and CPF-2); two (2) commercial sites (C-1 and C-2); and various special lots (i.e., slope lots) throughout the subdivision ("Project"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including: 1 ) EastLake III General Development Plan (GDP); 2) EastLake Ill Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; 3) EastLake III Design Guidelines; EastLake III Public Facilities Financing Plan, and EastLake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program all approved by the City Council Resolution No. 2001-220 on July 17, 2001; and, the EastLake III Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Map approved by City Council Ordinance 2839 on July 24, 2001, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on July 25, 2001 and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted (6-0-1) recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions listed below; and, Resolution No. D. Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 14, 2001, on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same; and, WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a heating on said tentative subdivision map application, and notice of said heating, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundary of the project, at least ten (10) days prior to the heating; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. August 14, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said heating was thereafter closed. II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and ail evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public heating on the Project held on July 25, 2001, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. IlL PREVIOUS SEIR 01-01 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified FSEIR 01-01, EastLake III Woods and Vistas Replanning Program, and first addendum. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed tentative subdivision map have been previously addressed by FSEIR 01-01, EastLake III Woods and Vistas Replanning Program, and first Addendum, and has, therefore, prepared a second addendum to said FSEIR. The Tentative Map is in substantial conformance with the conceptual tentative map and grading plans on which the FSEIR analysis was based and, therefore, approval and implementation of the Tentative Map does not change the basic conclusions of the FSEIR. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. -2- Resolution No. V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the Second Addendum to FSEIR 01-01 and EastLake III Woods and Vistas Replanning Program, reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts the second Addendum to FSEIR 01-01, EastLake Woods and Vistas Replanning Program. VI. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDiNGS A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned herein for EastLake III, Chula Vita Tract No. 01-09, is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following: 1. Land Use The EastLake III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan provides for Low (0-3 du/ac), Low Medium (3-6 du/ac), Medium High (15 du/ac) and High (24 du/ac) residential densities as well as Commercial (C), Parks (P), Open Space (OS), Public Quasi- public support (PQ) and Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) land uses for 2,061 dwelling units. The proposed subdivision incorporates a variety of lot sizes within the density range allowed by the SPA and other lots to satisfy the park dedication and Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) requirements. Thus, the project as conditioned, is in substantial compliance with the EastLake III GDP and SPA, and since the GDP and SPA are in substantial conformance with the General Plan, the Tentative Map is also in substantial conformance with the General Plan. 2. Circulation All on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision will be constructed or DIF fees paid by the developer in accordance with the EastLake IIII Public Facilities Financing Plan. The public streets within the Project will be sized as prescribed in the circulation element of the General Plan and designed per City design standards and/ or requirements, or modifications accepted by the City Engineer. The required and anticipated off-site improvements would be designed to handle this Project and future projects in the area. 3. Housing The amended EastLake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program has been adopted and incorporated into the EastLake III SPA Plan to ensure that a minimum of ten percent affordable housing is provided. A condition of approval requires the Developer to enter into an agreement with the City to ensure that the affordable housing units as prescribed in the affordable Housing Program are constructed and -3- Resolution No. delivered as prescribed in the above-mentioned Affordable Housing Program. The EastLake subdivision also provides a mix of housing types and lot sizes for single family, townhomes, and condominiums at various densities for persons of various income levels. 4. Conservation The Environmental Impact Report FSEIR 01-01 and second Addendum addresses the goals and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan and found the development of this site to be consistent with these goals and policies. 5. Parks and Recreation, Open Space In fulfillment of its obligation to provide 18.9 acres of parkland, the developer will provide a 13.5-acre neighborhood park within the Vistas neighborhood and pay in- lieu fees for 5.4 acres. In addition, a 2.4-acre private park will also be provided within the Woods neighborhood. The Citywide greenbelt trail, as prescribed in the City's General Plan diagram, will be incorporated along the eastern side of the Salt Creek open space corridor and the eastern edge of the Vistas and Woods neighborhoods. 6. Seismic Safety The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site 7. Safety The Fire Department m~d other emergency service agencies have reviewed the proposed subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and have determined that the proposal meets the City Threshold Standards for emergency services. 8. Noise Noise mitigation measures included in the Environmental Impact Report FSE1R 01- 01 and First and Second Addendum adequately address the noise policy of the General Plan. The project has been conditioned to require that all dwelling units be designed to preclude interior noise levels of 45 dBA and exterior noise exposure over 65 dBA for all outside private patio areas 9. Scenic Highway The project site is located adjacent to designated scenic highways (Olympic Parkway and Otay Lakes Road). The project will be developed in compliance with Section 8 of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. -4- Resolution No. 10. Bicycle Routes Although no designated regional off-street bicycle routes are included as components of the internal circulation network, bicyclists will be readily able to share the intemal streets with motor vehicles due to low traffic volume and limited speeds allowed. Bicycle route segments to connect to regional systems have been incorporated as prescribed by the Circulation Element of the General Plan. On- street bike lanes are included on the adjacent arterial highways. The bike lanes will be paved components of the street systems indicated. 11. Public Buildings No public buildings are proposed on the project site. The project is subject to RCT fees prior to issuance of building permits. B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies that it has considered the effect of this proposal on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the optimum setting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by Government Code Section 66473.1 D. The site is physically suited for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such project. E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extend to the impact created by the proposed development. BE IT FURTHER RESOSLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the general and special conditions set forth below. Vii GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Project Site is Improved with Project Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 01-09 and FSEIR 01-01 and first and second Addendum, except as modified by this Resolution. B. Implement Mitigation Measures Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Final Subsequent Enviro~unental Impact Resolution No. Report, EastLake III, FSE1R 01-01 and first and second Addendum. Any such measures not satisfied by a specific condition of this Resolution or by the project design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. Mitigation Measures shall be monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction with the FSE1R and Addendum. Modification of the sequence shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. C. Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan Developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the EastLake III Public Facilities Financing Plan, as amended or as required by the City Engineer, to meet the threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer and Planning and Building Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. D. Design Approval The Developer shall develop the lots in accordance with the EastLake III Planned Community District Regulations and Design Guidelines and all single-family planning areas less than 7,000 sq. ft. and multi-family, commercial and public/quasi-public projects shall be submitted for review and approval under the City's Design Review process prior to submittal for building permits. VIII SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully completed to the City's satisfaction prior to approval of each final map. GENERAL/PRELIMINARY 1. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the property. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 2. Developer shall, comply, remain in compliance and implement, the terms, conditions and provisions, as are applicable to the property which is the subject matter of this Tentative Map, off 1) EastLake III General Development Plan (GDP); 2) EastLake III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; 3) EastLake Ill Design Guidelines; 4) EastLake Ill Public Facilities Financing Plan; and 5) EastLake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program all approved by the City Council on July 17, 2001 by Resolution No. 2001-220 and the EastLake 1II Planned Community District Regulation and Land Use Map approved by City Council Ordinance No. 2839 on July 24, 2001. The Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City, providing the City with such security (including recordation of covenants running with the land) and implementation procedures as the City may require to comply with the above regulatory documents. Said Agreement shall -6- Resolution No. also ensure that, after approval of the final map, the developer will continue to comply, remain in compliance, and implement such Plans. (Planning & Building) In the event of a filing of a final map, which requires over-sizing of the improvements necessary to serve other properties, said final map shall be required to include the installation of all necessary improvements to serve the project, plus the necessary improvements for over-sizing of facilities required to serve such other properties. At the request of Developer, City shall consider formation of a reLmbursement district or any other reimbursement mechanism in accordance ~vith the restrictions of State Law and City ordinances. (Engineering) 4. If Developer desires to do certain work on the property after approval of the tentative map, but prior to recordation of the applicable final map, he may do so by obtaining the required approvals and permits from the City. The permits can be approved or denied by the City in accordance with the City's Municipal Code, regulations and policies. Said permits do not constitute a guarantee that subsequent submittals (i.e., final map and improvement plans) will be approved. All work performed by the Developer prior to approval of the applicable Final map shall be at Developer's own risk. Prior to issuance of grading and/or construction permit, the Developer shall acknowledge in writing that subsequent submittals (i.e., final map, improvement plans) may require extensive changes, at Developers cost, to work done under such early permit. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the Developer shall post a bond or other security acceptable to the City in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the rehabilitation of the land if the applicable final map does not record. (Engineering) 5. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, and if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, including issuance of building permits; deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein granted; and institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The Developer shall be notified ten (10) days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City within a reasonable and diligent time frame. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 6. Prior to approval of each final map, Developer shall agree to 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 any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. (Engineering, Environmental, Planning & Building) 7. Any and all agreements that the Developer is required to enter into hereunder shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. (City Attorney) -7- Resolution No. 8. Prior to approval of any final map proposing the creation of a Multi-family housing for Planning Areas VR-9, VR-10, VR-11, or VR-12 as a condominium project, commun/ty apartment project, or stock cooperative, as defined in the applicable sections of the Government Code, Developer shall agree to process a subsequent tentative map for said proposed condominiun~, community apartment, or stock cooperative project in said Planning Area. (Engineering) 9. The subsequent development of a multiple-family lot, which does not require the filing of a subsequent final map, shall meet, prior to issuance of a building permit for that lot, all the applicable conditions of approval of the tentative map, as determined by the City Engineer and Director ofplanmng and Building. (Planning & Building, Engineering) 10. Unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is required, the Developer shall be required to provide subordination of any prior lien holders in order to ensure that the City has a first priority interest in such land unless otherwise excused by the City. Where fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free and clear of all encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the City. ENVIRONMENTAL/PRESERVATION 11. Prior to approval of each final map, the Developer shall enter into a supplemental subdivision agreement to implement, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, all applicable mitigation measures identified in FSEIR-01-01, and first and second Addendum, the CEQA Findings o£ Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the EastLake III Project, in accordance with the requirements, provisions and schedules contained therein, and as ~urther specified in these Tentative Map conditions. Modification o£ the sequence o£ mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of' Planning and Building should changes in circumstances warrant such a revision. If any permits are required to be obtained by Developer as set forth herein, Developer shall obtain said permits with applicable agencies in consultation with the City. (Engineering/Planning) 12. Implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation measures pertaining the to the Project identified in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and first and second Addendum for EastLake 11I (FSEIR 01-01). Any such measures not satisfied by a specific condition of this Resolution or by the project design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. Mitigation Measures shall be monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved in conjunction with FSEIR-01-01 and first Addendtun. Modification of the sequence of mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. (Planning & Building). 13. The Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the California Depamnent of Fish and Game, the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. (Planning) -8- Resolution No. 14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or the cutting or removal of natural vegetation, which ever comes first, the project Applicant shall obtain approval of a detailed mitigation plan and obtain all necessary permits for the take of coastal sage scrub. 15. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, preparation and approval of a detailed mitigation plan for non-native grassland shall be required. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or clearing and grubbing permit whichever comes first, the project Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for the take of non-native grassland. 16. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the exact location and size of the wetland restoration area shall be determined and a wetland restoration plan shall be prepared and approved in conjunction with the 404 and 1603 permitting process. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall obtain a Section 404 permit from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a standard or conditional 401 Certificate from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and a Strearnbed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish & Game (Section 1603) for impacts to wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. both on-site and off-site. 17. Prior to issuance of a grading pemfit, preparation and approval of a detailed mitigation plan for impacts to Otay tarplants shall be required. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or cleating and grubbing permit, whichever comes first, the project Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for the take of Otay tarplants. SUBDIVISION DESIGN 18. Install all street trees in accordance with Section 18.32.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City' s Landscape Manual and approved cross-sections in the EastLake III SPA plan; or as otherwise approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation and Direct°r of Public Works. Developer agrees to provide any and all special installation conditions as requested by the Director of Parks and Recreation for those trees identified in the SPA as having special installation conditions. Street trees shall be shown on street landscape and irrigation plans submitted for approval by the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Director of Public Works prior to, or concurrent with the second submittal of street improvement plans within the subdivision. Approval of the street tree improvement plans shall constitute final approval of the species selection of street trees. Location of trees and planters shall be contingent upon the location of street signs. Under no circumstance shall a tree or shrub block the visibility of any street sign, regulatory, warning or guide traffic signs. (Public Works, Parks & Recreation) 19. Prior to the issuance of each rough grading permit proposing to grade individual lots and streets for the Project, submit a study showing that all curb returns for any intersection in excess of 4% grade, located within the permit boundaries, and all driveways, comply with ADA standards at the front and back of sidewalks to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) -9- Resolution No. STREETS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 20. Provide security in accordance with chapter 18.16 of the Municipal Code, dedicate, and construct full street improvements for all public streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary or off-site, as deemed necessary by the City Engineer to provide service to the subject subdivision, in accordance with Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Streets Standards, Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, and approved Tentative Map, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Said street improvements shall include, but not limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, drainage facilities, street lights, traffic signals, signs, stripping, fire hydrants and transitions to existing improvements in the manner required by the City Engineer. If improvement plans have been approved by the City, the amount of the security for the above noted improvements shall be 110% of the construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer. If improvement plans are being processed, 150% of approved cost estimate. Or, if improvement plans are not being processed by the City, 200% of construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer. A lesser percentage may be required if it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such reduction. (Engineering) 21. Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of the building permit that triggers the Cumulative DUs, or approval of the first final map or issuance of a building permit for a specific Planning Area as defined in the following Table "A', whichever occurs first the Developer shall construct and secure, in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, full street improvements, or remaining street improvements outlined in the following table: -10- Resolution No. Table "A" - Public Facilities Required to be Constructed by EastLake HI Facility [Street Name I Description Cumulative DU's I Planning Area 1 a Otay Lakes Road From Hunte Pkwy to With the first final map PQ- 1 Woods Drive containing the 1st DU within the Woods lb Otay Lakes Road From Hunte Pkwy to With the first final map VR-5 Lake Crest Drive containing the 1st DU within the Vistas 4 Olympic From SR- 125 to Hunte With the first final map Not Applicable Parkway Pkwy. (6 lanes) containing the 1st DU within the Woods and/or I Vis!as 5 Lake Crest Drive From Olympic Pkwy to With the final map VR-1, VR-2, Otay Lakes Road containing the 1034t~ DUs VR-3, VR-11 within the Vistas 6 Stone Gate Duncan Ranch Rd. Drive From Hunte Pkwy to With the first final map WR~4, WR-5, containing the 1st DU PQ-I, PQ-2 within the Woods 7 Duncan Ranch From RHR boundary to With final map containing WR-5, PQ-2 Road Stone Gate Drive Woodsthe 604th DU within the Hawthorne From Stone Gate Drive to With the final map WR-4, PQ-1 8 Creek Drive containing the 524u' DU Otay Lakes Roadwithin the Woods 9 Olympic Vista From Olympic Pkwy to With the final map VR-3, VR-9, Road Lakes Crest Drive containing the 715th DU's VR-4, VR-10, within the Vistas VR-8, VR-11, 10 Woods Drive From Otay Lakes Road to [ With the final map WR- 1, WR-2, Proctor Valley Road containing the 453rd DU WR-3 within the Woods 11 Otay Lakes Road From East "H" St. to With the final map Not Applicable Telegraph Canyon Rd. containing the 1259u, DUs widen to 6 lanes) total of both the Woods & Vistas ifSR-125 has not been constructed a. Facility No. la Construct Otay Lakes Road from Hunte Parkway to Woods Drive to the designed full-width six-lane Prime Arterial street improvements, per the cross-section shown on the Tentative Map. Resolution No. b. Facility No. lb Construct Otay Lakes Road from Hunte Parkway to Lake Crest Drive as a 6-lane Prime Arterial, per the cross-section shown on the Tentative Map, and provide adequate transition between the Vistas western boundary to the Vistas entrance, as approved by the City Engineer. c. Facility No. 4 Construct Olympic Parkway from SR-125 to Hunte Parkway as a 6-lane Prime Arterial to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Facility No. 5 Construct the full-width street improvement for the Lake Crest Drive connector between Olympic Parkway and Otay Lakes Road, per the cross-section shown on the Tentative Map. e. Facility No. 6 Construct the full-width street improvement for the Stone Gate Drive connector between Hunte Parkway and Duncan Ranch Road, per the cross-section shown on the Tentative Map. f. Facility No. 7 Construct the full-width street improvement for Duncan Ranch Road between Rolling Hills Ranch Neighborhood 8, southerly boundary and Stone Gate Drive, per the cross-section shown on the Tentative Map. g. Facility No. 8 Construct the full-width street improvement for the Hawthorne Creek Drive connector between Stone Gate Drive and Otay Lakes Road, per the cross-section shown on the Tentative Map. h. Facility No. 9 Construct the full-width street improvement for the Olympic Vista Road connector between Olympic Parkway and Lake Crest Drive per the cross-section shown on the Tentative Map. i. Facility No. 10 -12- Resolution No. Construct the full-width street improvement for the Woods Drive connector between Otay Lakes Road and Proctor Valley Road, per the cross-section shown on the Tentative Map. j. Facility No. 11 Widen Otay Lakes Road from East 'H' Street to Telegraph Canyon Road to 6-lane Prime Arterial with the final map containing the 1259th dwelling unit (total of both the Woods and Vistas), or construct intersection improvements on Otay Lakes Road, East 'H' Street and Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, which provides additional capacity if SR-125 has not been constructed. (Engineering) 22. Prior to approval of each final map, the Engineer-of-Work shall submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer of a waiver request for all subdivision design items not conforming to adopted City standards. The Engineer-of-work request shall outline the requested subdivision design deviations from adopted City standards and state that in his/her professional opinion, no safety issues will be compromised. The waiver is subject to approval by the City Engineer in the City Engineer' sole discretion. (Engineering) 23. Design all street vertical and horizontal curves and intersection sight distances to conform to the CalTrans' Highway Design Manual. All streets, which intersect other streets at or near a horizontal or vertical curve, shall meet intersection design sight distance requirements in accordance with City Standards. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to comply with the requirements in the CalTrans Highway Design Manual and City of Chula Vista Policies. When a conflict between the CalTrans Highway Design Manual and adopted City policies exists, the adopted City Policies shall prevail. Lighted sag vertical curves will be permitted at intersections per AASHTO standards and with approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 24. Constmct sidewalks and pedestrian ramps on all walkways to comply with the "Americans with Disabilities Act" (ADA) standards, as approved by the City Engineer. In the event the Federal Government adopts new ADA standards for street rights-of-way, which are in conflict with the standards and approvals for the Project, all such approvals conflicting with those new standards shall be updated to reflect the new standards. Unless otherwise required by federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by federal regulations, once construction has commenced. (Engineering) 25. Prior to approval of each final map, acquire and then grant to the City all off-site rights-of- way and easements necessary for the installation of required street improvements and/or utilities. (Engineering) 26. Notify the City, at least 60 days prior to consideration of the approval of the applicable final map by City Council, if off-site right-of-way and easements cannot be obtained as required by these conditions. (Only off-site right-of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 -13- Resolution No. of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition.) After said notification the developer shall: a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map. b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements. Said estimate is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. c. Have all right-of-way and/or easement documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete, as necessary to commence condemnation proceeding, and as determined by the City Engineer. d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire right-of-way, easements, or licenses needed for off-site improvements, or work related to the final map. The Developer shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect, incurred in said acquisition. Items a, b, and c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the applicable final map. (Engineering) 27. Prior to approval of the first final map for the project, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, to run with the entire land contained within the Project, wherein the Developer acknowledges and agrees that, prior to the construction of SR-125, the City shall stop issuing new building permits for EastLake III when the City, in its sole direction, determines that either: a. Building permits for a total 9,429 dwelling units have been issued for projects east of 1-805 (the start date for counting the 9,429 dwelling units is January 1, 2000); or, b. An alternative measure is selected by the City in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance. Developer shall also acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding the foregoing thresholds, the City may issue building permits if the City decides, in its sole discretion, that any of the following has occurred: 1) traffic studies demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding the GMOC traffic threshold standards; 2) other improvements are constructed which provide additional capacity; or 3) the City selects an alternative method of implementing the GMOC standards. These traffic studies would not require additional environmental review under CEQA; however, any improvements proposed in these traffic studies would be subject to additional environmental reviews as required. 28. Prior to approval of the final map that triggers the installation of the street improvements listed below, the Developer shall construct and secure a fully activated traffic signal including interconnected wiring at the following intersections: - 14- Resolution No. a. Hunte Parkway and Stone Gate Drive b. Otay Lakes Road and Woods Drive c. Otay Lakes Road and Lake Crest Drive d. Otay Lakes Road and Wueste Road The Developer shall fully design the aforementioned traffic signals in conjunction with the improvement plans for the related streets, and shall install underground improvements, standards and luminaries in conjunction with the construction of the applicable street improvements. In addition, the Developer shall install mast am~, signal heads, signal interconnect cable, and associated equipment when traffic signals warrant as determined by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 29. Prior to approval of: 1) the final map containing the 1,341~t cumulative dwelling unit in the Vistas neighborhood, or 2) the first final map in the planning area VR-1, within the Vistas Neighborhood, which ever occurs first, the Developer shall construct and secure the construction of the southerly one-half of Otay Lakes Road, between Lake Crest Drive and Wueste Road to 6-lane Prime Arterial standard. This requirement shall also include constructing the necessary improvements for connecting Wueste Road to the proposed Otay Lakes Road improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The schedule for constructing these improvements shall be approved or determined by the City Engineer, prior to approval of the aforementioned final map. Developer shall provide security guaranteeing the construction of the aforementioned improvements in the form of cash or any other form approved by the City Engineer, at his/her sole discretion. City Engineer may waive or modify this condition, at his/her sole discretion, based on other health and safety concerns. (Engineering) 30. Prior to approval of the final map containing the 547th cumulative dwelling unit within the Woods neighborhood, the Developer shall do the following: a. Pay for the construction of Proctor Valley Road improvements, as a four-lane major road, along the frontage of the Project, extending from the westerly subdivision boundary to Northwoods Drive. b. City may use Developer's money, as the City may deem appropriate, to acquire completed portions, and/or pay directly for the construction of the Proctor Valley Road improvements. 31. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Commercial Tourist (C-2) site, unless otherwise required by the City Engineer, the Developer shall construct and secure full traffic signal improvements at the intersection of Olympic Parkway and the entrances to the Commercial Tourist (C-2) site where pedestrian crossing shall be prohibited, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 32. Prior to approval of the final map, which triggers the construction of Facility 9 (Olympic Vista Road) within the Vistas Neighborhood, as set forth in Table "A", the Developer shall construct and secure the following improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: -15- Resolution No. a. All necessary improvements in Olympic Parkway for providing left tum access into Facility 9 (Olympic Vista Road). This requirement shall also include, but is not limited to, any required modification to the existing median, storm drainage system, stmetlights, landscaping, and irrigation improvements. b. Full traffic signal improvements at the intersection of Olympic Parkway and Facility 9 (Olympic Vista Road). c. Stripping and signage for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. (Engineering) 33. Prior to approval of the final map, which tr/ggers the construction of Facility 5 (Lake Crest Drive) within the Vistas Neighborhood, as set forth in the PFFP, Developer shall accomplish the following to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: a. Construct and secure all improvements including, but not limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, curb, gutters, stripping, signage, storm drains, landscaping, connection to existing improvements, and removal of any existing improvements required for constructing the two proposed intersections of Olympic Parkway and Wueste Road. b. Construct and secure the construction of full traffic signal improvements and appropriate stripping and signage at the following locations: i. Intersection of Olympic Parkway, the entrances to the Olympic Training Center and Commercial Retail (C-l) site. ii. Both intersections of Olympic Parkway and Wueste Road. _~ c. Developer shall obtain the City Engineer's approval of traffic signals plans for said intersections, and shall install underground improvements, including signal intemonnect cable, traffic signal standards, and luminaries concurrent with the construction of Facility 5 (Lake Crest Drive). In addition, mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment shall be installed when the traffic signal is warranted, as determined by the City Engineer. (Engineering) d. Submit a request for changing the name of Wueste Road, in order to provide distinct names for the two proposed intersections with Olympic Parkway, unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. Developer shall prepare all the necessary documents and provide for all costs involve in processing said street name change. 34. Prior to approval of the first building permit for the construction of the Commemial Retail (C-l) site, the Developer shall construct and secure the following improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: -16- Resolution No. a. All necessary improvements on Olympic Parkway for a left mm ingress to the Commercial Retail (C-I) site. This requirement shall also include, but is not limited to, any required modification to the existing median, storm drainage system, streetlights, and irrigation improvements. b. Full traffic signal improvements at the intersection of Olympic Parkway, the entrances to the Olympic Training Center and Olympic Parkway and the Commercial Retail (C-l) site. c. Stripping and signage for pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the entrance to said Commercial Retail (C-l) site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 35. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project, Developer shall construct and secure, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the following improvements: a. All necessary improvements on Hunte Parkway to provide a left tum ingress lane to the elementary school site. This requirement shall also include, but is not limited to, any required modification to the existing median, storm drainage system, streetlights, and irrigation improvements. Left turn egress from the elementary school, as well pedestrian crossing in Hunte Parkway shall be prohibited. b. Traffic signal improvements for a left turn vehicular ingress lane to the elementary school site. c. Construction of an exclusive 12-foot wide right tm-lane for vehicular access into the.elementary school site. Said fight mm-lane shall be a minimum of 40 feet long, in addition to the appropriate transition length acquired by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 36. Include in the applicable grading/improvement plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, all th6 grading and improvements required for a 5-foot bike lane at both sides of the following roadways. These bike lanes shall be extended to the first street intersection within the subdivision as determined by the City Engineer: (Engineering) a. Proctor Valley Road and Northwoods Drive b. Otay Lakes Road and Woods Drive c. Otay Lakes Road and Lake Crest Drive d. Hunte Parkway and Stone Gate Drive e. Olympic Parkway and Olympic Vista Road 37. Grant on the applicable Final maps sight visibility easements to the City of Chula Vista for comer lots, as required by the City Engineer, to keep sight visibility areas clear of any obstructions. Sight visibility easements shall be shown on grading plans, improvement plans, and final maps to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) Resolution No. 38. Design landscape and irrigation plans such that street tree placement is not in conflict with the sight visibility of any traffic signage. The Developer shall be responsible for the removal of any obstructions within the sight visibility of said traffic signs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 39. Prior to issuance of any grading permit proposing the creation of down slopes adjacent to public or private streets, the Developer shall accomplish the following: a. Obtain the City Engineer's approval of a roadside study to determine the necessity of providing guardrail improvements at those locations. b. Construct and secure any required guardrail improvements in conjunction with the associated grading and/or construction permit, as determined by the City Engineer. Guardrail shall be installed per CalTrans Traffic Manual and Roadside Design Guide requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 40. Construct traffic signal interconnect conduit and all appropriate wiring for all proposed signalized intersections to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 41. Prior to approval of each final map, Developer shall agree to install permanent street name signs prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the applicable final map. (Engineering) 42. Construct and secure the installation of nine permanent traffic count stations as indicated below: Traffic count station Construct and secure construction General location prior to approval of Hunte Parkway North of Otay First final map for the Lakes Road (1 count station) Woods neighborhood Otay Lakes Road (3 count stations) Final map that triggers construction of Otay Lakes Road Hunte Parkway - South of Otay First final map for the Vistas Lakes Road (1 count station) neighborhood Olympic Parkway (3 count stations) First final map for the Vistas neighborhood Wueste Road (1 count station) First final map for the Vistas neighborhood The traffic count stations shall be installed at specific locations determined by the City Engineer during processing of the applicable improvement plans. (Engineering) 43. Prior to approval of the first final map or first construction permit for any property in the Woods East, whichever occurs earlier, Developer shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Building of a design for the proposed beveled curbs. Resolution No. 44. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Vistas, the Developer shall construct and secure, in accordance ~vith City standards, all sewer and drainage improvements in Olympic Parkway required to provide service to the Project. This requirement shall include, but not be limited to, any required modifications to the existing sewer and storm drainage facilities. 45. Include in the first construction permit for Planning Area WR-6, all the grading and improvements necessary to construct the proposed neighborhood emergency access along Otay Lakes Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Fire Chief, and Director of Parks and Recreation. 46. Maintenance responsibility of street trees within the Project shall be as follows: a. Developer shall grant to the City a 10-foot street tree planting and maintenance easement at the back of the sidewalk for non-monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalk sections where parkways are less than 7 feet. b. Where street trees are planted between curb and gutter, and the sidewalk (within a parkway) no additional street tree easement will be accepted, nor will the City maintain trees planted in area on the side of sidewalk furthest from the roadway. c. Private streets: All street trees shall be privately maintained. GRADING AND DRAINAGE · 47. Prior to approval of mass grading plans, submit hydrology and hydraulic studies, and calculations demonstrating the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. (Engineering) 48. Provide graded vehicle access to all storm drain clean-outs, or other access solution approved by the City Engineer. Storm drain clean-outs shall not be located on slopes or inaccessible areas for maintenance equipment, and shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 49. Drainage shall be collected in an inlet and carried to the bottom of any slope in an underground storm drain, if the slope is over 10 feet in height and steeper than 4:1. (Engineering) 50. Prior to approval of grading plans, demonstrate the adequacy of existing drainage runoff detention facilities or include, in the grading plans, the construction of additional detention facilities, to ensure that the maximum allowable discharges after development do not exceed pm-development discharges, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer shall provide for the future maintenance of the detention basin facilities through the estabhshment of a Master Home Owners Association, or other funding mechanism as approved by the City. (Engineering) Resolution No. 51. Construct a protective fencing system around all proposed permanent detention basins, and the inlets and outlets of storm drain structures, as and when directed by the City Engineer. The final fencing design and types of construction materials shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation. (Engineering, Parks & Recreation) 52. Construct energy dissipaters at all storm drain outlets, as required by the City Engineer to maintain non-erosive flow velocities. (Engineering) 53. Submit to and obtain approval from the City Engineer and Director of Parks & Recreation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of grading plans. (Engineering, Parks & Recreation)) 54. Locate lot lines at the top of slopes except as shown on the Tentative Map or as approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Building. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes or onto adjacent property. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 55. Design and construct all grading and pad elevations to be within 3 feet of the grades and elevations shown on the approved Tentative Map or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Building. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 56. Obtain and submit to City staff notarized letters of permission for all off-site grading work prior to issuance of grading permit for work requiring said off-site grading. (Engineering) 57. All private storm drains fi.om the business center shall connect into the public storm drain system at a structure such as a cleanout or catch basin. 58. Prior to approval of each final map, submit a list of proposed lots indicating whether the house structure will be located on fill, cut, or a transition between the two situations. (Engineering) 59. Design and construct all public storm drains as close to perpendicular to the slope contours as possible, but in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours. (Engineering) 60. Provide a minimum of three (3) feet of flat ground access from the face of any wall to the beginning of the slope rounding for wall maintenance, unless otherwise approved for HOA slopes by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 61. Provide a setback, as determined by the City Engineer based on Soil Engineer recommendations, between the property lines of the proposed lots and the top or toe of any slope to be constructed where the proposed grading adjoins undeveloped property or property owned by others. The City Engineer shall not approve the creation of any lot that does not meet the required setback. (Engineering) -20 - Resolution No. 62. Design and construct the inclination of each cut or filI surface, resulting in a slope, to not be steeper than 2:1 (two horizontal toone vertical), except for minor slopes as herein defined. Ali constructed minor slopes shall be designed for proper stability considering both geological and soil properties. A minor slope may be constructed no steeper than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical (1.5:1) contingent upon: a. Submittal and approval of reports by both a soils engineer and a certified engineering geologist containing the results of surface and sub-surface exploration, and analysis. These results should be sufficient for the soils engineer and engineering geologist to certify that in their professional opirdon, the underlying bedrock and soil supporting the slope have strength characteristics sufficient to provide a stable slope and will not pose a danger to persons of property. b. The installation of an approved slope planting program and irrigation system. c. "Minor Slope" is defined as a slope four (4) feet or less in vertical dimension in either cut or fills, between single-family lots and not parallel to any roadway. (Engineering) 63. Prior to issuance of grading permits or any other grant of approval for any landform modification, the Developer shall delineate areas of native vegetation to remain undisturbed based on adopted grading plans. (Environmental) 64. Construct temporary desilting basins at all discharge points adjacent to drainage courses or where substantial drainage alteration is proposed in the grading plan. The exact design and location of such facilities shall be based on hydrological modeling, and determined pursuant to direction by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 65. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any area of the Project (including off-site areas) draining toward the Upper or Lower Otay Reservoirs, developer shall accomplish the following: a. Obtain the approval of the City of Chula Vista and all other applicable agencies for any proposed structural drainage runoff detention and/or diversion facilities ~vithin the Otay Lakes Watershed. b. Obtain the approval of the City of Chula Vista and all other applicable agencies of all operational and maintenance agreements associated with any proposed structural drainage runoff detention and/or diversion facilities within the Otay Lakes Watershed. (Engineering) 66. Prior to approval of any grading pemfit or any other grant of approval for constructing the proposed detention basins in the Woods, the Developer shall demonstrate that the design of the Woods detention basin would reduce the 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100-year post-development peak flows, to an amount not exceeding pre-development conditions. (Engineering) Resolution No. 67. Provide a minimum of 6-inch thick PCC (reinforced with ~4 BAR @ 18" on center each way) designed for H-20 loading and heavy broom finish for those access roms to the detention basins with grades of 10% or greater. All other detention basin access roads must be asphalt concrete designed to carry H-20 loading. In addition, maintenance pads adjacent to the inlet structures shall be a minimum of 6-inch PCC (reinforced with #4 bar @ 18" on center each way) designed for H-20 loading with a heavy broom f'mish. (Engineering) 68. In order to avoid indirect impacts on the Otay Tarplant Preserve, Preserve lands, Salt Creek wetlands and Otay Lakes, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides shall not be applied to the manufactured slopes along the eastern periphery of the Woods and Vistas parcels that drain to Otay Lakes, or to the manufactured slopes immediately adjacent to Salt Creek. In addition, potable water shall be used for irrigation on the manufactured slopes along the eastern periphery of the Woods and Vistas parcels that drain to Otay Lakes. (Environmental) 69. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the Woods or Vistas, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that proposed storm drain discharge does not exceed pre-development discharge. (Engineering) 70. Prior to acceptance of the two Woods detention basins and release of the grading bond by the City, Developer shall obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency revising the current National Flood Insurance Program Maps of the Salt Creek Channel to reflect the effect of the Salt Creek drainage improvements. (Engineering) 71. Prior to the approval of the first final map for the Project, the Developer shall agree not to protest the formation of a financing district or any other funding mechanism as approved by the City for the maintenance of the entire Salt Creek drainage basin. The Developer shall agree to finance the formation of such a district on a fair share basis. 72. Prior to issuance of grading permits, Developer shall demonstrate that the grading plans are in substantial compliance with the grading outlined in the Tentative Map. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 73. Include in the first grading plan proposing to grade the elementary school site all the grading and improvements necessary to construct the following: a. Pedestrian safety fence and/or any other safety feature along the existing Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor maintenance access road within the Woods Neighborhood, as required by the City Engineer. The fence details, specifications and installation shall be approved by the City Engineer and Director of Parks & Recreation. b. Locking devices for the existing Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor manholes, as determined by the City Engineer. c. Relocation of the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor, as depicted on the Tentative Map. The access road for said sewer shall have a minimum width of 16 feet and shall be - 22 - Resolution No. paved with asphalt concrete 12 feet wide within the easement. The structural section of the access road shall be designed to accoinmodate H-20 loading with asphalt depth of 3-inches minimum. The access road does not have to be centered in the easement but the 12-foot paved section shall be centered on the access points (Manholes). Developer shall not receive DIF credit for this work. 74. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project or issuance of the first grading permit for the construction of the proposed naturalized channel and/or detention basins in Salt Creek, whichever occurs earlier, developer shall accomplish the following: a. Prepare a maintenance program of all the proposed drainage and water quality treatment facilities in Salt Creek, including, but not limited to, naturalized channel, wetlands restoration areas, detention basins, and water quality treatment facilities. The maintenance program shall include, but not be limited to: a) a manual describing the operation and maintenance of the drainage and water quality treatment facilities; b) an estimate of the cost of such operation and maintenance activities; and c) a funding mechanism for financing the maintenance program. Said maintenance program shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Building, and the Director of Parks and Recreation. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining the approval of the maintenance program from ail applicable federal and state agencies. b. Enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista and the applicable resource agencies wherein the Developer agrees to implement the maintenance program. c. Enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein Developer agrees to the following: i. Provide for the maintenance of all proposed drainage and water quality treatment facilities in Salt Creek, including, but not limited to, the naturalized drainage channel, wetlands restoration areas as allowed by the resource agencies, detention basins, and water quality treatment facilities until the latter to occur of maintenance of such facilities is assumed by the City, open space district, or HOA, or the City determines all erosion protection plantings are adequately established. ii. Developer shall provide security, satisfactory to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the performance of the aforementioned maintenance obligations. (Engineering) 75. Prior to approval of the first final map or issuance of the first grading permit for the Project, Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein Developer agrees to the following: a. Provide for the removal of siltation attributable to the Project for: I) all proposed drainage and water quality treatment facilities in Salt Creek, including, but not limited Resolution No. to, the naturalized drainage channel, wetlands restoration areas as allowed by the resource agencies, detention basins, water quality treatment facilities and any future facility constructed by the EastLake Trails project, and 2) all existing drainage and water quality treatment facilities in Salt Creek, including but not limited to the detention basin and wetland restoration area in EastLake Trails as allowed by the resoume agencies until all upstream grading of the area contained within the Project is completed and all erosion protection planting is adequately established as determined by the City Engineer, Director of Planning & Building and Director of Parks & Recreation. b. Provide for the removal of siltation for all proposed drainage and water quality treatment facilities in Salt Creek, including, but not limited to, the naturalized drainage channel, wetlands restoration areas as allowed by the resource agencies, detention basins and water quality treatment facilities, attributable to the Project, for a minimum period of 5 years after maintenance of such facility is accepted by the City or an Open Space District. c. Developer shall provide security, satisfactory to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the performance of the aforementioned siltation removal obligations. (Engineering) 76. The Development shall comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), permit requirements for urban mnoff and storm water discharge, the Clean Water Act, and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista, pursuant to the NPDES regulations or requirements. Further, the Developer shall file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post construction control measures, The developer shall comply with all the provisions of the NPDES and the Clean Water Program during and after all phases of the development process, including, but not limited to, mass grading, rough grading, construction of street and landscaping improvements, and construction of dwelling units. The Developer shall design the Project storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 77. Prior to the approval of the first final map, or issuance of the first grading permit for the Project, whichever occurs earlier, enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein the Developer agrees to the following: a. Comply with the requirements of the new Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2001-01) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, including revision of plans as necessary. b. Indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, - 24- Resolution No. from and against all fines, costs, and expenses arising out of non-compliance with the requirements of the NPDES regulations, in coimection with the execution of any construction and/or grading work for the Project, ~vhether the non-comptim~ce results from any action by the Developer, any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others. The Developer's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City. c. That the City Engineer may require incorporation of Standard Urban Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements during the implementation period preceding the adoption of the local SUSMP by the City for all priority projects or phases of priority projects undergoing approval process, in accordance with Order No. 2001-01, NPDES No. CAS0108758 Municipal Permit, as determined by the City Engineer. d. To not protest the formation of a facilities benefit district or any other funding mechanism approved by the City to finance the operation, maintenance, inspection, and monitohng of NPDES facilities. This agreement to not protest shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge the amount of any assessment, which may be imposed due to the addition of these improvements and shall not interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot election. The above noted agreement shall mn with the entire land contained within the Project. (Engineering) 78. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Vistas or issuance of the first grading permit proposing to deposit storm water into the existing drainage facilities in Olympic Parkway, whichever occurs earlier, the Developer shall accomplish the following: a. Construct and secure all grading and improvements necessary to construct the proposed infiltration pond in the OS-5 lot, including the storm drain connecting to the existing drainage facilities in Olympic Parkway. b. Prepare a maintenance program for the proposed infiltration pond. The maintenance program shall include, but not be limited to: a) a manual describing the operation and maintenance of said facility; b) an estimate of the cost of such operation and maintenance activities; and c) a funding mechanism for financing the maintenance program. Said maintenance program shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Building, and the Director of Parks and Recreation. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining the approval of the maintenance program from any applicable federal and state agencies. c. Enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista and any applicable agencies, wherein Developer agrees to implement the maintenance program until the later to occur of a) maintenance of such facilities is assumed by the City, open space district, or HOA, or b) all upstream grading of the area draining to the filtration pond is completed and all erosion protection planting is adequately established as -25 - 7 Resolution No. determined by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Building, and Director of Parks and Recreation. Developer shall provide security, satisfactory to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the performance of these maintenance obligations. (Engineering) 79. Prior to approval of the first final map or approval of the rough grading permit proposing to create finish grade lots for the Project, whichever occurs earlier, Developer shall provide written evidence acceptable to the City Engineer, demonstrating that the Chula Vista Elementary School District has no objections to the proposed public storm drain and associated access and maintenance easement to the City of Chula Vista crossing the proposed PQ-1 site, as depicted in the Tentative Map. (Engineering) 80. Prior to approval of the first grading permit for the Project (including off-site areas) draining towards the Upper or Lower Otay Lake Reservoirs, the Developer shall provide written evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer, demonstrating that financial arrangements have been made with the City of San Diego regarding monetary compensation for any loss of water resulting from the proposed diversion of drainage runoff from the Otay Lakes watershed. Said financial arrangements shall be in a form approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Building. (Engineering, Planning & Building) SEWER 81. Design all server access points (manholes) to be located at centerline of street, cul-de-sac center, or at the center of a travel lane, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 82. Provide improved ail-weather paved access to all sewer manholes to withstand H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 83. Sewer access points (manholes) shall not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas for maintenance equipment. (Engineering) 84. Provide sewer manholes at all changes of alignment of grade, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a minimum grade of 1%. (Engineering) 85. Manholes should not be located in the wheel tracks on Class I Collector Streets and above, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Manholes within intersections of Class I Collectors and above shall meet Regional Standard Drawing M-4 (Locking). (Engineering) 86. Prior to approval of any final map or any other grant of approval for any improvement proposing to pump EastLake III sewage flows to the Telegraph Canyon and/or Poggi Canyon sewer trunks, the Developer shall accomplish the following: - 26 - Resolution No. a. Comply with all the requirements of Council Policy No. 570-03 ("Sewage Pump Station Financing Policy). b. Enter into an agreement to construct and secure the construction, in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, of those improvements required to accomplishing the following: i. Construction of pump station improvements and associated facilities necessary to pump sewage flows to the Telegraph Canyon and/or sewer trunks. ii. Removal of any existing, new, and/or modified pump stations and associated improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, upon completion of the Salt Creek Sewer Intemeptor. iii. Connection of the Project by gravity to the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, upon completion of the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor. iv. The amount of the security for the above noted improvements shall be 110% of the construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement plans have been approved by the City, 150% of the approved cost estimate if improvement plans are being processed by the City or 200% of the construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement plans have not been submitted for City review. A lesser percentage may be required if it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such reduction. (Engineering) c. Provide funding for the preparation of all the studies and reports required to support the addition of pumped sewage flows to the Telegraph Canyon and/or Poggi Canyon sewer trunks, as determined by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 87. Prior to approval of any final map or any other grant of approval for any improvement proposing to pump EastLake III sewage flo~vs to the Telegraph Canyon and/or Poggi Canyon sewer tnmks, the City Engineer, at his/her sole discretion, shall determine the extent of improvements needed for pumping EastLake III sewage flows consistent with: 1) the requirements of Council Policy No. 570-03; 2) the Preliminary Offsite Sewer Study for EastLake III prepared by John Powell & Associates Inc. dated November 2000 and revised January 3, 2001 (refer to Attachment I of FSEIR 01-01); and 3) the City Memorandum dated February 19, 2001 (see Attachment ! of Subsequent EIR 01-01). Flows from no more than 1,610 Equivalent Dwelling Units shall be pumped to Telegraph Canyon and/or Poggi Canyon, as described in the Preliminary Off-site Sewer Study for EastLake II1. (Engineering) Resolution No. 88. Prior to approval of the first final map or any other grant of approval for any improvements proposing to pump EastLake III sewage flows to the Poggi Canyon sewer tnmk, the Developer shall accomplish the following: a. Provide the necessary funding, in the amount determined by the City Engineer, for establishing the Poggi Canyon Pumped Sewer Development Impact Fee or any other funding mechanism as determined by the City Engineer. Said Development Impact Fee, or funding mechanism shall be prepared, as directed by the City Engineer, and approved by Council. b. Provide the necessary funding for implementing a Poggi Canyon sewer trunk- monitoring program, as determined by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 89. Prior to approval of the first final map, Developer shall agree to construct and secure, in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the Poggi Canyon Sewer Improvements set forth in Section 4.4.8.6 of the PFFP under subsection entitled "Capacity of Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer" in accordance with the times frames set forth therein. In addition, the Developer shall acknowledge and agree that the City Engineer may amend the Poggi Canyon thresholds set forth in said section of the PFFP, if he/she determines at his/her sole discretion, that the EDU assumption of in-basin gravity flows are such that additional pumped flows, beyond what is identified in said section of the PFFP, can be accommodated as evidenced by monitoring. The amount of the security for the above noted improvements shall be 110% of the construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer, if improvement plans have been approved by the City; 150% of the approved cost estimate, if improvement plans are being processed by the City, or 200% of the construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer, if improvement plans have not been submitted for City review. A lesser percentage may be required if it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such reduction. (Engineering) 90. Provide a sewer profile study for all deep sewer lines (15' in depth or greater), which indicates that no other feasible alternative exists except for the deep sewer running between northerly boundary of the commercial site (C-l) and southerly boundary of VR-9 through VR-11 (as shown on the Tentative Map). If the City Engineer approves the profile study, the deep sewer lines will be permitted for construction. (Engineering) 91. All PCC paved sewer and/or drainage maintenance access roads shall be 6 inches in thickness and contain #4 reinforcement bars at 18 inches on center each way to prevent differential displacement between concrete panels. (Engineering) 92. Sewer main pipes shall not mn parallel and under slopes greater than 5:1 unless otherwise approved by City Engineer. (Engineering) 93. Sewer lines, which are greater than 20 feet in depth, shall use C-900 or C-905 class pipe, as approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) Resolution No. 94. The sewer line from the C-2 lotto the connection with the main sewer on the most northeasterly comer of Commercial Site (C-1) shall be private unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer as public sewer. WATER 95. Prior to approval of each final map, present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter from Otay Water District indicating that the assessments/bonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the City have been paid, or that no assessments/bonded indebtedness exist on the parcel(s). (Engineering) 96. Prior to approval of each final map, present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter from Otay Water District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long-term water storage facilities. The Developer shall phase and install water system improvements as required by the Otay Water District. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 97. Prior to approval of the first final map, obtain approval from the Otay Water District of the EastLake III Sub-area Water Master Plan (Engineering, Planning & Building) 98. Avoid installation of privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities crossing any public street. This shall include the prohibition of installing sleeves for future construction of privately owned facilities. The City Engineer may waive this requirement if the following is accomplished: a. The Developer enters into an agreement with the City where the Developer agrees to the following: i. Apply and obtain approval of an encroachment permit for installation of private utilities within public right-of-way. ii. Maintain membership in an advance notice, such as: the USA Dig Alert Service. iii. Mark out all private facilities/utilities owned by the Developer whenever work is performed in the area. iv. The terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Developer. b. Shutoff devices, as determined by the City Engineer, are provided at those locations where private facilities traverse public streets. (Engineering) AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL Resolution No. 99. Enter into a supplemental agreement ~vith the City, prior to approval of each final map, where the Developer agrees to the following: a. That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if any one of the following occur: i. Regional developmem threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan, as amended from time to time, have been roached or in order to have the Project comply with the Growth Management Program as may be amended from time to time. ii. Traffic volumes, levels of service, Public utilities and/or services either exceed the adopted City threshold standards or fail to comply with then effective Growth Management Ordinance, and Growth Management Program and any amendments thereto. Public utilities shall include, but not be limited to, air quality, drainage, sewer and water. iii. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP, or as amended or otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to the satisfaction of the City. The Developer m~ay propose changes in the timing and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended, as approved by the City's Director of Planning and Building and the Public Works Director. (Engineering, Phmning & Building) b. Defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act; provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding, and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. (Engineering, Planning & Building) c. Permit all cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service for each lot or un/t within the Tentative Map area. Developer further agrees to grant, by license or easement, and for the benefit of, and to be enforceable by, the City of Chula Vista, conditional access to cable television conduit within the properties situated within the final map only to those cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista, the condition of such grant being that: (a) such access is coordinated with Developer's' construction schedule so that it does not delay or impede Developer's construction schedule and does not require the trenches to be reopened to acconunodate that placement of such conduits; and (b) any such cable company is and remains in compliance with, and promises to remain in compliance with the terms and conditions of the franchise and with all other rules, regulations, ordinances - 30- Resolution No. and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be, issued by the City of Chula Vista. Developer hereby conveys to the City of Chula Vista the authority to enforce said covenant by such remedies as the City determines appropriate, including revocation of said grant upon determination by the City of Chula Vista that they have violated the conditions of grant. (Engineering, Planning & Building) d. That the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project, should the Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the terms of the Tentative Map Conditions or any Supplemental Agreement. The City shall provide the Developer of notice of such determination and allow the Developer reasonable time to cure said breach. (Engineering, Planning & Building) e. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project. (Engineering, Planning & Building) f. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP). (Engineering) g. To not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities. This agreement not to protest shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge the amount of any assessment which may be imposed due to the addition of these new improvements and shall not interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot election. (Engineering) 100. Prior to approval of each Final map, the Developer shall comply with all previous agreements as they pertain to this tentative map. (Engineering, Plannzng & Building) 101. Prior to approval of each final map, the Developer shall contract with the City's current street sweeping franchisee, or other server approved by the Director of Public Works to provide street sweeping for each phase of development on a frequency and level of service comparable to that provided for similar areas of the City. The developer shall cause street sweeping to commence immediately afier the final residence, in each phase, is occupied and shall continue sweeping until such time that the City has accepted the street, or 60 days after the completion of all punch list items, whichever is shorter. The developer further agrees to provide the City Special Operations Manager with a copy of the memo requesting street sweeping service. Such memo shall include a map of areas to be swept and the date the sweeping will begin. (Public Works) 102. Prior to approval of the first final map for the project, enter in an agreement with the City to provide affordable housing units as specified in the adopted EastLake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program. (Community DevelopmenO -3i ~ Resolution No. 103. Prior to issuance of first final map, the Developer shall provide evidence, satisfactory to the Director of Planning & Building3 that the school districts are satisfied. (Planning & Building) 104. Developer acknowledges that the City is in the process of conducting an Air Quahty Improvement Plan (AQIP) Pilot Study to evaluate the various transportation and energy efficient land use planning and building construction measures for new development and that the Project Study will include cost effectiveness and feasibility analyses of the various measures under consideration, and will result in a Draft AQIP for the Project recommending which measures should be included in the Project at the present time. 105. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the first final map for the project, unless the Director of Planning and Building allows other timing, the Draft Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQ1P) must be considered and acted upon by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Developer hereby agrees to implement the final AQIP measures as approved by the City Council, and to comply and remain in compliance with the AQ1P. The Developer shall also agree to waive any claim that the adoption of a final Air Quality Improvement Plan constitutes an improper subsequent imposition of the condition. 106. The Developer acknowledges that the City Council may, from time-to-time, modify air quality improvement and energy conservation measures related to new development as various technolog/es and/or programs change or become available. The Developer shall be required to modify the AQIP to incorporate those new measures, which are in effect at the time, prior to or concurrent with each Final map approval within the Project. The new measures shall apply, as applicable, to development within all future Final map areas, but shall not be retroactive to those areas, which receive Final map approval prior to effect of the subject new measures. 107. The Developer acknowledges that the City is in the process of developing guidelines for the preparation of required Water Conservation Plans (WCP), and is conducting a WCP Pilot Study to evaluate various water conservation measures for new development beyond those currently mandated, and that the Project area is part of that Study. The Developer further acknowledges that the WCP Pilot Study will include cost effectiveness and feasibility analysis of the various measures under consideration, and will result in recommending which measures should be included in the Project at the present time. 108. Prior to or concurrent with the approval of the first final map for the project, unless the Director of Planning and Building allows other timing, the Developer shall have prepared, submitted and obtained the approval of the Planning Commission and City Council of a Water Conservation Plan (WCP) for the Project which incorporates the Pilot Study recommendations. The Developer hereby agrees to implement the final WCP measures as approved by the City Council, and to comply and remain in compliance with the WCP. The Developer also agrees to waive any claim that the adoption of a final WCP constitutes an improper subsequent imposition of the condition. - 32 - Resolution No. 109. The Developer acknowledges that the City Council may, from time-to-time, modify water conservation measures related to new development as various technologies and/or programs change or become available. The Developer shall be required to modify the WCP to incorporate those new measures, which are in effect at the time, prior to or concurrent with each final map approval within the Project. The new measures shall apply to development within all future fmal map areas, but shall not be retroactive to those areas, which received final map approval prior to effect of the subject measures. 110. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall be required to submit a detailed acoustical analysis to the Environmental Review Coordinator prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant that demonstrates that the building structure is adequately designed such that second-floor interior noise levels, due to exterior sources, will be at or below the 45 CNEL interior standard. Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 CNEL, additional measures shall be required to attenuate interior noise to the 45 CNEL standard in compliance with the noise mitigation measures required in the MMRP. (Environmental, Planning & Building) 111. Agree to construct the City's greenbelt trail along the eastern edge of the Vistas and Woods neighborhood and along the east side of the Salt Creek open space Corridor, as identified in the Trials Plan of the EastLake III SPA. Final Greenbelt design, alignment and construction details, including fencing signage and view point amenities, shall be subject to approval by the Director of Parks and Recreation and Planning and Building. (Parks & Recreation, Planning & Building) OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS 112. In the event Developer request the formation of a Comanunity facility District (CFD), the Developer shall make such request, submit an application packet for formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD), and submit the request for CFD formation to the City Council for consideration prior to the approval of the first final map for the Project. The CFD shall be formed prior to issuance of the first production home building permit. The Developer shall submit a list of amenities, acreage and costs for all open space lots, including, but not limited to, the cost of any detention basin maintenance and ail costs to comply with the Department ofFish & Game, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements, if any. Maintenance of the open space improvements shall be accomplished by the Developer for a minirnnm period of one year, or until such time as accepted into the open space district by the Director of Public Works. If Cotmcil does not approve the CFD formation, some other financing mecharfism, such as homeowners association, or an endowment shall be established and submitted to the City Council for consideration prior to approval of the first final map. Prior to the approval of the first final map, the Developer shall submit an initial deposit of $35,000 to begin the process of formation of the Open Space District. All costs of fom~ation and other costs associated with the processing of the open space relating to this project shall be borne by the Developer. The Developer shall provide all the necessary information and materials (e.g., Tables, diagrams, etc.) required by the City Engineer for processing the formation of the proposed CFD. (Engineering) - 33 - Resolution No. 113. Grant in fee to the City on the applicable final map, all the open space lots to be maintained by the City through the open space district. Developer shall provide on the final map a certificate, pursuant to section 66477.2(a) of the Subdivision Map Act, rejecting those open space lots to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. (Engineering) 114. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which includes Landscaping and Irrigation (L&I) improvements to be installed in an open space lot to be maintained by the open space district, the developer shall place a cash deposit with the City which will guarantee the maintenance of the L&I improvements until the City accepts said improvements. In the event the improvements are not maintained to City standards as determined by the City Engineer, Director of Public Works, or the Director of Parks and Recreation, the deposit shall be used to perform the maintenance. The amount of the deposit shall be equivalent to the estimated cost of maintaining the open space lots to City standards for a period of six months as determined by the City Engineer. Any unused portion of said deposit shall be incorporated into the open space district's reserve at such time as the open space district assumes the maintenance of the open space lot. (Engineering, Public Works, Parks & Recreation) 115. Conform to the design elements of the City's Landscape Manual for all landscaping, which falls within the maintenance responsibility of the open space District. (Parks & Recreation) 116. Prior to approval of each Final map, provide proof to the satisfaction of the City Eng/neer and Director of Parks and Recreation that all improvements located on open space lots will be incorporated into and maintained by a Home Owner's Association or an Open Space District. (Engineering, Parks & Recreation) 117. Prior to approval of each final map, agree to have future property owners of lots adjacent to open space lots sign a statement at the time of property purchase, indicating that they are aware and acknowledge that the perimeter walls within open space lots are the property of the EastLake III HOA, and that they may not modify or supplement the wall, or encroach onto Open Space property. These restrictions shall also be reflected in the CC&R's that are recorded against each property. A copy of said CC&Rs shall be provided to the City for its approval prior to recordation. (Engineering, Parks & Recreation) 118. Prior to approval the applicable final map, enter into a maintenance agreement and grant easements as necessary for landscaping and improvements maintained by a Homeowners Association within City right-of-way or such other public areas required by the City. (Engineering, Parks & Recreation) 119. All open space lots shall have a minimum dimension of 10 feet. (Planning & Building) I20. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project, Developer shall provide evidence, satisfactory to the City Engineer, demonstrating that the Project will provide for the fair share of the cost of operating and maintaining the existing infiltration pond at the intersection of Olympic Parkway and Wueste Road, through an open space district, MHOA, or any other mechanism approved by the City. (Engineering) Resolution No. 121. Thematic fencing shall be provided along the perimeter of the elementary and middle school exposed to public right-of-way and open space. All thematic fences along the two school facilities shall be located within open space lots or easement, 10 feet from properly lines along street edges, and maintained by the EastLake III Homeowners Association or other acceptable financing mechanism acceptable to the City, as determined by the Director of Planning & Building. PARKS, TRAILS AND LANDSCAPE 122. Prior to the approval of the first final map, issuance of the rough grading permit proposing to create finish lots or issuance of building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall prepare, submit and receive approval from the Director of Parks and Recreation of a comprehensive Project Landscape Master Plan. Such approval shall be indicated by means of the Director's signature and date on said Plan. The contents of the Landscape Master Plan shall conform to the City staff checklist and contain the following major components: a. Landscape Concept b. Wall and Fence Plan, indicating type, material, height and location. c. Brash Management Plan, identifying three zones and treatment. d. Maintenance Responsibility Plan e. Planting Concept Plan f. Master Irrigation Plan Parks & Recreation, Planning & Building, Engineering, Public Works) 123. The Developer acknowledges that the City is in the process of preparing and adopting a City-wide Parks Master Plan, and hereby agrees to comply with the provisions of said Plan as adopted and as it affects facility and other related requirements for the Project's parks. (Parks & Recreation) 124. Prior to approval of the first final map, Developer shall provide an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) to the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the project park site identified as (P-l). Park site shall include public access to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. The park net acreage and the park Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) credit to be received by the Developer is based on net usable park acreage as usable is determined solely by Director of Parks and Recreation. Developer shall construct an all weather access road on the park site to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and Chief of Police and at no cost to the City, upon request from the Director of Parks and Recreation. (Parks & Recreation) 125. Prior to the Approval of each final map, Developer shall pay to the City the park development fees for the project's park (P-l) improvements, as determined by dwelling unit count and type contained within each Final map, in accordance with the PDO or unless otherwise specified in the "Amended and Restated Development Agreement for EastLake III of February 1, 2000. In the event the City accepts the 'rum-key' improvements for the project's park, the PDO development fees paid may be returned to the Developer at the time of the City's acceptance of the project's park construction documents and accompanying Resolution No. security bonds, less the City's cost of processing and administering the expenditure, verification and administration of the PDO fees. Developer acknowledges the City may withhold up to 25% of the total PDO fees paid until such time as park construction has been coinpleted and accepted by the City. (Park3. & Recreation) 126. Developer agrees to enter into a Cbula Vista standard three-party agreement with the City of Chula Vista and design Consultant(s) for the design of all aspects of the Project's park. Developer acknowledges the Director of Parks and Recreation shall have the sole right to select the design Consultant(s). All design Consultant work product shall reflect the then current requirements of the City's Municipal Code, Department of Parks and Recreation Policies and the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual requirements. (Parks & Recreation) 127. Prior to the Approval of the first final map for the Project, Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City wherein Developer agrees to comply with the following schedule for commencement of construction and delivery to the City of the project's park (P-I): a. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the 916th dwelling unit for the Project, Developer shall have commenced construction of project's Park (P-l), to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. Developer shall complete construction of the park within twelve (12) months of commencement of construction. The term "complete construction", shall mean park construction has been completed according to the City approved construction plans and accepted by the Director of Parks and Recreation. Furthermore "compete construction" shall mean prior to and shall not include the City's established maintenance period required prior to acceptance by the City for Public use. b. Developer acknowledges that prior to the commencement of park construction, Developer shall prepare, submit and obtain the Approval from the City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, of a Park Master Plan and shall prepare, submit and obtain the Approval from the Director of Parks and Recreation of Park Constmction Documents and accompanying security. c. At any time the Director of Parks and Recreation may, at his sole discretion, modify the neighborhood development phasing and construction sequence for the project's park should conditions change to warrant such revision. (Planning & Building, Parks & Recreation) 128. Developer shall rough grade the project's park site (P-l) to conform to the approved Park Master Plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation and at no cost to the City. (Engineering, Parks & Recreation) 129. Developer shall install underground utilities to the boundaries of the project's park site (P-l) to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks & Recreation and City Engineer concurrently with the installation of underground utilities for any portion of the Project adjacent to the park site. (Parks & Recreation, Engineering) -36- Resolution No. 130. Developer acknowledges, understands and agrees that the City shall withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project should the Project fail to comply with the conditions herein. For purposes of this condition, the term "constructed park" shall mean the construction of the Project's park has been completed and accepted by the City as being in compliance with the Parks Master Plan, but prior to the City's required mandatory maintenance period. This is not intended to supersede any of the City's ma'mtenance guarantee requirements. (Parks & Recreation) 131. Concurrent with the approval of each final map that contains a proposed trail, Developer shall provide an easement to the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the trail alignment. (Parks & Recreation, Planning & Building) 132. Regular maintenance of the Greenbelt and Community trails and open space shall be the responsibility of the HOA. Prior to issuance of first grading permit for the applicable improvements, a maintenance program for the ordinary and usual maintenance of the trails shall be established with the approval of the City in order to minimize potential for erosion into lower Otay Reservior. 133. Prior to the issuance of the first rough grading permit for the Project, or as otherwise approved by the Director of Parks & Recreation, the Developer shall prepare, submit and obtain the approval of the Director of Parks & Recreation, City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator for a landscape and irrigation slope erosion control plan. All plans shall be prepared in accordance with the current Chula Vista Landscape Manual, Grading Ordinance and Biology section of the EIR. Developer shall install erosion control in accordance with approved plans within six months from the commencement of grading. (Parks & Recreation, Engineering, Planning Environmental) 134. Prior to the issuance of any construction permit, the Developer shall prepare, submit and obtain the approval of the City Engineer and the Director of Parks & Recreation, for open space, parkway, medians and trails landscape and irrigation plans. All plans shall be prepared in accordance with the current Chula Vista Landscape Manual and the SPA. Developer shall install all improvements in accordance with approved plans to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. (Parks & Recreation, Engineering) 135. Prior to the approval of any final map for the Project that contains open space, the Developer shall enter into an agreement to construct and secure open space landscape improvements within the map area. All landscape improvements shall be bonded for in amounts as determined by the Director of Parks & Recreation and approved in form by the City Attorney. Developer shall prepare, submit and obtain the approval for the Director landscape improvement plans simultaneously with improvement plans for the appropriate areas. (Parks & Recreation, Planning & Building) 136. The Project's MHOA CC&R's shall contain the requirement that, should the MHOA seek to be released by the City from the maintenance obligations for the project's open space and trails, the MHOA shall first obtain written consent from the City and 100 percent of the property owners within the MHOA. (Parks & Recreation, Planning & Building) Resolution No. 137. Developer agrees to immediately relocate, at Developer's sole expense, the necessary above and/or underground utilities to accommodate the required street trees within the street tree panting easement if determined necessary by the Director of Parks and Recreation or the City Engineer. (Parks & Recreation, Engineering) 138. Include in the rough grading permit proposing to create finish lots for the Vistas Neighborhoods, all grading and improvements required for that offsite portion of the Green Belt Trail extending westerly of the VR-12/CPF-1 site along Olympic Parkway to join the proposed Green Belt Trail along Salt Creek, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer. (Engineering, Parks & Recreation) 139. Include in the applicable grading, landscaping and improvement plans proposing the construction of the Green Belt and Community Trails, all grading, improvements and appurtenant facilities, required by the Director of Parks and Recreation, Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, for accomplishing the following: a. Ensuring that trail traffic (i.e., pedestrian, bikes, electric carts) only crosses Collector and higher classification streets at controlled street intersections. b. Providing adequate safety and traffic calming features at the proposed trails mid- block crossings with residential streets. These improvements should include but are not limited to landscaped street neck-downs, stripping/signage, waming signs and/or streetlights. (Engineering, Parks & Recreation) 140. Prior to the approval of the first final map or rough grading permit proposing to create finish lots, whichever comes first, prepare, submit and obtain approval by the Director of Parks and Recreation for the final alignment, including location, construction materials, rest areas and detailing of the trail along the Salt Creek corridor between Olympic Parkway and Otay Lakes Road (Parks & Recreation) 141. Provide a trail connection, to be approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation, along the east side of Lake Crest Road between North Fork Road and Wueste Road to be submitted with improvement plans for Lake Crest Road. Trail shall be a minimum 10 feet wide and connect to graded park pad. (Parks and Recreation) EASEMENTS 142. Grant on the final maps minimum 15' wide easements to the City of Chula Vista as required by the City Engineer for construction and maintenance of sewer facilities. (Engineering) 143. Provide minimum 15' wide easements to the City of Chula Vista as required by the City Engineer for construction and maintenance of storm drain facilities. (Engineering) 144. Provide 10-foot wide general utility easements adjacent to street right-of-way within public open space lots, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) Resolution No. 145. Provide easements for all off-site public storm drains and sewer facilities prior to approval of each final map requiring those facilities unless Section 66462.5 of the State Map Act applies. The easements shall be sized as required by the City of Chula Vista Standards, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 146. Grant on all applicable final maps, easements along all public streets within the subdivision as shown on the tentative map and in accordance with City standards unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building. The City Engineer may require either the removal or the subordination of any easement, which may unreasonably interfere with the full and complete exercise of any required public easement or right-of-way. (Engineering) 147. Grant on the appropriate final map, a 20-foot minimum sewer and access easement for sewer lines located between residential units, unless otherwise required by the City Engineer. All other easements shall meet City standards for required width. (Engineering) 148. Provide an easement or any other instrument acceptable to the City Engineer restricting the installation of facilities or improvements within that 5-foot strip of land adjacent to all dedicated public streets. Said easement or instrument shall reserve to the underlying fee owner the continued use of the surface of said easement and the right to permit installation of general utility improvements subject, but not limited to, the following conditions: prohibiting the erecting of masonry walls, masonry fences and other structures, planting or growing of trees unless written permission is first obtained from the City. MISCELLANEOUS 149. Prior to approval of each final map, submit copies of ail final maps in a digital format. The drawing projection shall be in California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6). The digital file of the final maps shall combine all map sheets into a single CADD drawing, in DXF, DWG0r Arc View (GIS) format and shall contain the following individual layers: a. Subdivision Boundary (closed polygons), b. Lot Lines (closed polygons) c. Street Centerlines (polygons) d. Easements (polylines) e. Street names (annotation) (Engineering) 150. Prior to the earliest to approval of: 1) first final map for Neighborhoods WR-6 and WR-7, or 2) issuance of~any grant of approval for construction of the storm drainage system within said Neighborhoods WR-6 and WR-7, whichever occurs earlier, Developer shall provide verification, satisfactory to the City Engineer, demonstrating that: a. Appropriate easements has been granted to the EastLake Business Center II for constructing, operating, and maintaining the private storm drains conveying drainage Resolution No. flows generated by the adjacent EastLake Business Center II project through said Neighborhoods WR-6 and/or WR-7. b. The EastLake Business Center HOA shall be responsible for maintaining the aforementioned private storm drains. (Engineering) 151. Prior to approval of the applicable final map, Developer shall construct and secure the construction of transit stop facilities as set forth in the PFFP. The schedule for constructing the transit stops shall be approved or determined by the City Engineer prior to approval of the aforementioned final map. Developer shall design said transit stops in conjunction with the improvement plans for the related street. The City Engineer may require that Developer provide security guaranteeing the construction of said transit stops in a form of cash or any other form approved by the City Engineer at his/her sole discretion. (Public Works/Transit) 152. Prior to approval of the first final map, revise the EastLake III GDP, EastLake III SPA, EastLake III Planned Community District Regulations, EastLake III Design Guidelines, EastLake Community Purpose Facility Master Plan, EastLake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program and Public Facilities Finance Plan documents, as modified by the City Council and as deemed appropriate by City staffto delete strike underline text, references to previous documents, inconsistencies and other clean-up items before final printing. (Planning and Building) 153. Prior to approval of the first final map, submit to the Planning and Building Department 20 copies of the adopted GDP, SPA, FSEIR, CEQA Findings, and Mitigation Monitoring Program in plastic binders. Specific document format, table of contents, binder size and titles shall be as determined by City staff. (Planning & Building) I54. Prior to sale of dwelling units in the Woods West, sales disclosure statement shall be provided, identifying the allowable uses in the westerly adjacent Business Center. (Planning & Building) 155. Prior to approval of the first final map, prepare, submit and obtain approval by the Director of Planning & Building of a homeowners manual for neighborhood WR-1, outlining development parameters and design criteria for accessory structures encroaching into the privately owned slope banks along the eastern edge of the Woods neighborhood. The homeowners manual shall address the following items: 1) permitted encroachment into slope banks, minimum separation between easterly adjacent greenbelt trail, permitted m-grading of slopes, thematic fencing along the greenbelt trail edge and within the sloped areas, height, design and treatment of all accessory structures, including decks, retaining walls, landscape design and any other development standard as determined by the Director of Planning & Building. (Planning & Building) 156. A summary of City responses to each of Developers waiver request from City Standards is contained within the following Table 1, which includes the "Approved" or "Not Approved" status of each waiver. The summary descriptions for each waiver within Table I are brief -40- Resolution No. and the approved Tentative Map should be consulted for more complete description of the waiver requests: Table 1 TENTATIVE MAP WAIVERS WAVIER BRlEF DESCRIPTION STATUS COMMENTS NO. 1 Gates on Paradise Ridge Way in the Vistas are less than 150' *Approved None from the extension of the intersecting street curb line. Gates on all of the private entry street in WR-I are less than 150' from extension of the intersecting street curb line. 2 Residential Street Standards as indicated on the typical street Approved None sections on sheet 2 & 14 of the Tentative Map 3 The rear property lines in WR-1 Lots 5, 6, 9-11, 14-16, 19, Approved None 26, 27, 32, 33, 3540, 42, 43, 45-50, 52-54, 57, & 58 will be located at the toe of the slope 4 All streets within the Woods East Planning area will be Conditionally None constructed with beveled curb, tan in color Approved (see condition No. 43 in Streets, Right-of-Way, & Public Improvements) 5 Streets having tangent shorter than 4 times the design speed *Approved None beb,veen horizontal curves (as listed below) - Silver Oak Place between Lone Oak Court & the knuckle - Mountain Ash Lane South of Mulberry Way - Table Rock Loop at both knuckles - Rambling Vista Road at Agate Creek Way - Marble Canyon Road at knuckle - Red Rock Canyon Road at both knuckles - Old Janal Ranch Road at Blue Sage Way - Horn Canyon Avenue 6 a "Local" Sewer exceeds 12' in depth Not Approved May be approved by City Engineer at the time that improvement plans are submitted for approval 6 b "Trunk" Sewer exceeds 20' in depth Approved C-900 or C-905 pipe shall be used from manhole to manhole 7 Street intersections within horizontal curves or within 100' *Approved None tangents of horizontal curves (as listed on sheet I of the Tentative Map 01-09 9 Yosemite Drive south of Stone Gate Street is proposed to be *Approved None a residential class street with an anticipated ADT of 1,360. (Maximum allowed of 1,200 ADT for Residential Class Slxeet.) 10 Old Janal Ranch Road between Silver Hawk Way and Blue Approved None Sage Way and south of Rambling Vista Road is a Class Ill Collector with centerline radius of 400 feet. (Minimum radius for a Class I11 Collector is 450 feet.) * The City's approval of the waiver request is contingent upon subrmttal of a letter from Developer's Engineer of Work explaining that, in their professional opinion, no public safety issues will be compromised. (Engineering, Planning & Bui[ding~ Resolution No. FIRE AND BRUSH MANAGEMENT 157. Prior to approval of' the first grading permit for the Project, the Developer shall have submitted and received approval by the Director of Parks and Recreation and the City's Fire Marshall of a Brash Management Program for the Project. (Fire, Parks and Recreation) 158. Prior to issuance of each Grading Permit, provide the Initial Cycle of fire management/brush clearance within lots adjacent to natural open space areas subject to approval by the Fire Marshal and Director of Parks and Recreation (Fire, Parks and Recreation) 159. Provide fire hydrants every 500 feet for single-family residential units and every 300 fi. for multi-family residential units. All hydrants shall be operable prior to delivery of combustible building materials, and minimum 20' wide, ali-weather fire access roads shall also be provided or an acceptable alternative approved by the Fire Marshall and in compliance with the U.F.C. (Fire) 160. Provide sprinkler systems in all homes that are on flag lots where any portion of exterior wall of first story is located more than 150 fi. from fire department access or as measured by local jtmsdiction. (Fire) 161. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, provide a 20 fi. wide hard surface and required fire hydrant with required water pressure to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. (Fire) 162. Prior to issuance of each building permit, developer shall pay Public Facility Fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. If the Permanent Fire Station has been constructed in EastLake, the Developer shall be given credit, for costs related to construction of the permanent fire station. (Fire) 163. Prior to approval of the first final map, Developer agrees to design, construct and deliver Fire Station No. 6A witlfin the Woods Neighborhood as determined by the Fire Chie£ (Fire) I64. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Woods Developer shall grant in fee to the City the property identified on the Tentative Map as Lot PQ-3 (fire station site), to the satisfaction of Fire Chief and City Engineer. Developer shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the first final map by City if any offsite property cannot be obtained as required by this condition of approval. ARer said notification, the Developer shall: a. Pay the full cost of acquiring fee title for site PQ-3 as required by the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map. b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said property. Said estimate is subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Fire Chief. c. Have all documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete as necessary to commence condemnation proceeding as determined by the City Engineer. Resoìutlòn No. d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire the property needed for constructing off-site improvements or work related to the site PQ-3. The Developer shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition. The requirements of a, b and c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the first final map. CODE REQUIREMENTS 165. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code including Chapter 15.04 "Grading Ordinance" as amended. Preparation of the Final map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. (Engineering) 166. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 167. Comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 168. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within open spaces. (Engineering) 169. Comply with Chula Vista Municipal code Sections 14.04 to 14.18 and 18.54 for any work proposed within the watercourse and floodplain of Salt Creek. (Engineering) 170. Pay all required fees, including the following fees, in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy: a. b. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. Signal Participation Fees. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees. Interim SR-125 impact fee Salt Creek Sewer DIF Telegraph Canyon Pumped Sewer Basin DIF, if applicable. Poggi Canyon Pumped Sewer Basin DIF as may be adopted by the City in the future if applicable. c. d. e. f. g. Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits (Engineering, Planning & Building) - 43- Resolution No. GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN (PFFP)/ PHASING 171. Developer shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04); public facilities finance plan implementation (19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09.100). (Engineering, Planning & Building) 172. Install public facilities in accordance with the EastLake III Public Facilities Finance Plan as may be amended from time to time, or as required by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer and Director of Planning & Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 173. Developer shall develop the Project in accordance with the approved SPA and PFFP phasing plan. If the Developer proposes to modify this approved phasing plan, the Developer shall submit to the City a revised phasing plan for review and approval prior to approval of each Final map. The PFFP and these map conditions shall be revised where necessary to reflect the revised phasing plan (Engineering, Planning & Building). 174. If multipte final maps are proposed within a planning area as set forth in the Tentative Map, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development sub-phasing plan by the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Building prior to approval of the first final map for that planning area. The sub-phasing plan shall include: a. A site plan showing the lot lines and lot numbers, the phase lines and phase numbers and number of dwelling units in each sub-phase, and b. A table showing the sub-phase number, the lots included in the phase and the number of units included in each phase. Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase shall be determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Building. The City reserves the right to require improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of Police and Fire departments. The City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvements and construction should conditions change to warrant such revision(s). (Engineering, Planning & Building) HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS (HOA)/DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS CC&Rs) 175. The Developer shall create a Master Homeowners Association ("MHOA") to own and maintain in a professional manner open space areas, medians, parkways, Salt Creek wetlands mitigation area, or any other improvement not maintained by community facilities - 44 - Resolution No. district, the City, or other entity. The Developer shall complete the formation of the MHOA prior the first final map for the Project. The MHOA shall be structured to allow annexation of future tentative map areas in the event the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Building requires such annexation of futura tentative map areas. On or before 90 days following the date of Council approval of this tentative map, the developer shall submit for City's approval the CC&Rs, grant of easements, maintenance standards and responsibility of the MHOA for the Project area. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer City Attorney, Director of Planning & Building, Director of Parks & Recreation and Director of Public Works. The CC&Rs shall include but not limited to the following obligations of the Master Homeowners Association and/or any successor in interest (herein after collectively referred to as "Master Homeowner Association (MHOA)": a. Maintain all the facilities and improvements within the open space lots offered for dedication to the City until acceptance of the open space lots for maintenance by the community facilities district. b. A requirement that the MHOA shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance against liability incident to ownership or use of the following areas: i. Open space lots offered for dedication to the City until acceptance by the City, ii. All open space lots that shall remain private, iii. Other Master Association property. c. Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&Rs that may particularly affect the City can become effective, said revisions shall be approved by the City. The MHOA shall not seek approval from the City of said revisions without the prior consent of 100% of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the MHOA. d. The MHOA shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims, demands, causes of action liability or loss related to or arising from the maintenance activities of the MHOA. e. The MHOA shall not seek to be released by the City fi'om the maintenance obligations described herein without the prior consent of the City and 100% of the holders of first mortgages or property owners withLn the MHOA. f. The MHOA is required to procure and maintain a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than one million dollars combined single limit. The policy shall be acceptable to the City and name the City as additionally insured. -45- Resolution No. g. The CC&Rs shall incorporate restrictions for each lot adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the open space district to ensure that the property owners know that the walls may not be modified or supplemented nor may they encroach on City property. h. The CC&Rs shall include provisions assuring MHOA membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service in perpetuity. i. The CC&Rs shall include provisions that provide City the right, but not the obligation, to enforce the CC&R provisions same as any owner in the Project. j. The CC&R provisions setting forth restrictions in these Tentative map conditions may not be revised at any time without prior written permission of the City. k. The MHOA shall not seek to dedicate or convey for public streets, land used for private streets without approval of 100% of all the HOA members or holders of first mortgages within the MHOA. 1. The CC&Rs shall include the reqnimment to provide for the fair share of the cost of maintaining the existing detention basin and wetland restoration areas in the EastLake Trails. (Engineering, Planning & Building) m. CC&Rs shall include provisions establishing an HOA "to assure maintenance" of all open space areas and slopes" including long term maintenance of the Salt Creek wetland mitigation area in perpetuity, as identified in the EastLake III Woods and Vistas Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan, prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., all subject to approval by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator. (Environmental) n. CC&Rs shall include the requirement to provide for the following: i. Repair and replacement of the proposed beveled curbs in the Woods. City will provide sweeping services for those streets with beveled curbs. ii. Maintenance of the landscaped parkways along all streets containing detached sidewalks. 176. Provide within the master CC&Rs for the maintenance in perpetuity of all stabilized decomposed granite (DG) areas by a Homeowners Association. All proposed stabilized decomposed granite (DG) walkways shall be free from vertical obstacles and obstructions such as public utility vaults, boxes, etc. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 177. Futura property owners shall be notified during escrow by a document to be initialized by the owners of the maintenance responsibility of the HOA and their estimated annual cost. The form of said document shall be approved by the Director of Planning & Building and the -46- Resolution No. City Engineer prior to approval of the first final map for the Project. (Engineering, Planning & Building) 178. Designate as private and maintain by a Homeowners Association all storm drain clean outs determined by the City Engineer to be in areas inaccessible for maintenance equipment. (Engineering) IX. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the fight to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said Conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developet~ or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution. X. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. It is in the public's interest for City to require EastLake to indemnify the City against the adverse risks and costs of a challenge to City's actions in preparing and approving a second Addendum to FSEIR 01-01 and approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for EastLake III, Chula Vista Tract 01- 09 and related discretionary approvals, if any; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an Agreement for Indemnification and Covenants for Actions Taken by City related to EastLake III, 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 for and on behalf of the City. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Robert A. Leiter John M. Kaheny Planning & Building Director City Attorney HSAttomey\mso\lSl Ill Reso August I, 2001 -47 - ~~ft- ::;$~-= ~~~~ CllY OF CHUlA VISfA OFFICE OFTHE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: August 13, 2001 FROM: Honorable Mayor and city council ar~ Ann Moore, Senior Assistant City Attorney TO: SUBJECT: Meeting Date 8/14/01; Agenda Item No.9 Attached is revised page 43 of the resolution relating to the above-referenced agenda item. On Friday, August 10, 2001, the Developer requested a revision to Condition No. 170(g) and City staff has no objection. AYM:clb Attachment J, \Attorney\Revised Reso 276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910' (619) 691.5037' FAX (619) 409-5823 """'~'"'"~"-""'" Resolution No. d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire the property needed for constructing off-site improvements or work related to the site PQ-3. The Developer shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition. The requirements of a, b and c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the first final map. CODE REQillREMENTS 165. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code including Chapter 15.04 "Grading Ordinance" as amended. Preparation of the Final map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. (Engineering) 166. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 167. Comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 168. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within open spaces. (Engineering) 169. Comply with Chula Vista Municipal code Sections 14.04 to 14.18 and 18.54 for any work proposed within the watercourse and floodplain of Salt Creek. (Engineering) 170. Pay all required fees, including the following fees, in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy: a. b. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. Signal Participation Fees. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees. Interim SR-125 impact fee Salt Creek Sewer DIF Telegraph Canyon Pumped Sewer Basin DIF, if applicable. Poggi Canyon Pumped Sewer Basin DIF as may be adopted by the City in the future if applicable. c. d. e. f. g. Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building pennits (Engineering, Planning & Building) - 43- CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Meeting Date: 8/7/01 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCC-00-58; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and maintain a wireless communications facility consisting of a 66-foot-high light standard supporting nine antennas; and an associated equipment building at an unlit baseball field within Rohr Park, 4548 Sweetwater Road. Applicant: Cox/Sprint PCS Resolution: of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista granting a Conditional Use Permit, PCC-00-58, to Cox/Sprint PCS to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at 4548 Sweetwater Road (Rohr Park). SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building/~'~/f/ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ ? ~ i~-~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X) Cox/Sprint PCS is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an unmanned cellular communications facility at 4548 Sweetwater Road (Rohr Park). The project will consist of a 384-square-foot equipment and storage building, and a 66-foot-high light standard supporting nine antennas. The light standard location is proposed in the right field of a currently unlit baseball diamond at the park. The City will use revenue generated from the antennas to purchase and install five additional lights at the ball field. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) city staff prepared an Initial Study (IS-01-044), and the Environmental Review Coordinator posted notice of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) on May 29, 2001. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On January 17, 2001, this project was brought before the Plarming Commission. Public testimony was heard; however, there was no discussion. The project was continued until the Initial Study for the six light standards could be completed. (See minutes, Attachment 3.) On June 18, 2001, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that the Initial Study prepared for this project was adequate, and recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The public comment period, as noticed by the Environmental Review Coordinator regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), ended on July 5, 2001. On July 11,2001 this project was brought back to the Planning Commission, who voted 5-0-1-1 to adopt Resolution PCC-00-58, which recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Conditional Use Permit for PCC-00-58. Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 8/7/01 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communications facility in Rohr Park, subject to the conditions of approval (including the mitigation monitoring and reporting program measures). DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics The project site is an unlit baseball field, east and across the parking lot from a lit baseball field, within a 23-acre public park owned by the City of Chula Vista. It is accessed by a 400-foot-long driveway to the north that runs parallel to Sweetwater Road, which is about five feet higher in elevation than the field. There is a dirt parking lot east of the field, and a paved parking lot west of it. Between the paved parking lot and the field are a block wall restroom building and a few small trees. The baseball field consists of a clay infield surrounded by a grassy outfield. A chain link fence encloses the diamond on three sides, and spectator bleachers are positioned on two sides. There are some light poles in the paved parking lot, but there are currently none in the ball field. 2. General Plan, Zoning, and Land Use General Plan Zoning Current Land Use Site: Public & Open Space AD-Agricultural with Rohr Park Parks & Recreation design overlay North: Residential, Low Residential (County) Single-Family Residential South: Public & Open Space AD-Agricultural with Rohr Park Parks & Recreation design overlay East: Residential, RE Residential Estates Vacant Low-Medium West: Residential, Low RED-Residential Estates Single-Family Residential with design overlay 3. Proposal Cox/Sprint proposes to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at 4548 Sweetwater Road, specifically, a 66-foot-high light standard pole consisting of lights at approximately 55 feet up the pole, and nine antennas (each of which is approximately six- Page 3, Item: Meeting Date: 8/7/01 feet-long and eight-inches-wide) above the lights. The pole would be placed on the southwestern edge of the infield, near right field. Telephone, electrical and radio equipment would be placed in a 384-square-foot building to be constructed directly north of an existing restroom building west of the ball field, and would be constructed of the same materials as the restroom building (block wall with asphalt shingles). The new building would also include a storage area for the park. The proposed site would provide service to portions of Sweetwater Road, commercial areas along Bonita Road, and surrounding residential areas. The revenue generated to the City of Chula Vista by lease for the proposed antenna/light standard in Rohr Park would be approximately $87,000 over a five-year time period. If Council approves this Conditional Use Permit, the city plans to enter into an agreement with the applicant that would result in prepayment of up to $87,000 for installation of five other lights in the ball field, as the one light standard this project proposes would not adequately light the field. (After five years, applicant would pay the city a monthly use fee of approximately $1,650.) The 60-70-foot-high lights would be installed in conjunction with the proposed light standard, or shortly thereafter. The City's Parks & Recreation Department is supportive of this proposal, as this would provide the park with a second lit baseball field. The proposed light standard supporting nine antennas is an Unclassified Use, according to Section 19.54 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. Section 19.54.010 states that matters "possessing characteristics of such unique and special form as to make impractical their being included automatically in any classes of use as set forth in the various zones herein defined" are unclassified uses, and, as such, are required to have Conditional Use Permits. Section 19.54.020 requires the project to be considered by the City Council, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. 4. Analysis Location: In order to accomplish its desired radius of service, the applicant originally evaluated at least three other locations to place antennas. Those locations included a church in San Diego County at the intersection of Sweetwater Road and Bonita Road; the Kaiser Permanente building at the intersection of Willow Street and Bonita Road; and the water tank on Greenwood Place. It was determined that the buildings on the south side of Bonita Road were too low to meet the applicant's objectives. Therefore, the applicant concentrated on locations north of the Sweetwater River, and determined that the Rohr Park location could serve a broad area, requiring only one antenna site rather than two or three to accomplish the desired radius of service. Page 4, Item: Meeting Date: 8/7/01 The city encourages applicants of wireless telecommunications facilities to co-locate with other companies whenever possible in order to keep the number of new poles and structures to a minimum. There are currently very few wireless communication facilities within the city limits in the region where the light standard/antenna is proposed, however. Two companies have co-located through architectural integration at the intersection of Willow Street and Bonita Road, and one company has architecturally integrated on the water tank at Greenwood Place. The water tank was determined to be too high for the applicant's objectives. Public Concerns: This project was originally scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on December 13, 2000. Ten days prior to that hearing, a public notice was sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the parcel where the antennas were proposed, and a notice was published in The StarNews. On the afternoon of December 13m, staff received three letters opposing the project, and a petition with 1.4 signatures opposing the project (see Attachment 4). The petition stated: This petition is in opposition to the proposed issuance of a conditional use permit to Cox/Sprint for the construction of a wireless antenna on the grounds that the proposed project is environmentally unsafe. That the proposed project is adjacent to and near a populated Bonita community in front of Rohr Park that will be adversely impacted. That the Environmental Review Coordinator has erred in not requiring an environmental impact report and the Chula Vista Planning Commission not issue a permit. That the proposed project is in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act which requires an environmental impact report that will study in detail the impact of the proposed project on the adjoining residents and property owners of the Bonita community. In light of community concerns, the project was continued until January 17, 2001 so that Planning staff and the applicant could meet with residents to address questions and discuss concerns, prior to the public hearing. A community meeting was held on January 16, 2001, and was attended by seven private citizens, in addition to the applicant and Planning staff. A verbal summary of that meeting was delivered to the Planning Commission by Planning staff during the advertised public hearing on January 17, 2001 (see minutes, Attachment 5), and copies of the December 13, 2000 letters and petition from citizens opposing the project were attached to the planning commissioners' January 17 staff reports. The three primary concerns expressed by citizens were: 1. That the monopole would he the tallest structure in the area. 2. That putting the monopole in the park is perceived to be a commercial enterprise by Page 5, Item: Meeting Date: 8/7/01 the city. 3. Health concerns. Planning staff explained that topographic maps of the vicinity demonstrate a variety of elevations, and some of the trees in the park are several feet higher than 66-feet. Therefore, it appears that the proposed monopole would not be the tallest structure in the area. Staff also explained that the FCC regulates wireless communications facilities in order to ensure they comply with all health and safety standards; therefore, city government is not legally entitled to deny a wireless communications facility proposal on the basis of health and safety concerns. After Planning staff and the applicant presented the project, public testimony was heard. Six citizens spoke, reiterating concerns expressed at the community meeting held on January 16. (See Attachment 3 for January 17, 2001 Planning Commission minutes.) There was no discussion because it was determined that the project should be continued until an Initial Study could be conducted for the six ballpark lights that would be erected if the Conditional Use Permit for the antennas on a light standard was approved. The project was continued to when the Initial Study would be completed. Planning staff called each of the citizens who spoke at the January 1Th Planning Commission hearing and informed them of the July 11, 2001 Planning Commission hearing. Public notices were sent and a notice was published in The Star News, once again, for the July 11'~' hearing. One citizen (Mike Kujawa) attended the Planning Commission public hearing for this project on July 11~h. Previously, he had attended the community meeting on January 16, 2001 and spoken at the Planning Commission hearing on January 17, 2001. Also, he had written a letter and submitted the petition opposing the project back in December 2000. At the July 11t~ meeting he reiterated his concerns regarding safety, and stated he is opposed to the project because: 1) He is opposed to "commercial use of Rohr Park." 2) The project will only serve Sprint customers. 3) The antennas are "visual pollution." After the July 11tI' Planning Commission hearing, Planning staff was contacted by a citizen (Christa Hoffman) who was unable to attend the meeting. She had stated her opposition at previous meetings, and said she is still opposed to the project. In particular, she has concerns about the safety of the antennas, and had been under the impression that the Initial Study was required for safety issues related to the antennas, not for impacts from the lights. Staff has since provided Ms. Hoffman with FCC publications regarding wireless communications facilities and how they are regulated. Page 6, Item: Meeting Date: 8/7/01 5. Conclusion With the attached conditions of approval, the proposal is consistent with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and the General Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit in accordance with the attached City Council resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact to the General Fund. The applicant will be responsible for all processing fees. Attaclmaent I of the Master Licensing Agreement between the city and Cox/Sprint states that: Prior to the commencement of construction [of the light standard and antennas in Rohr Park], Sprint shall, in lieu of rent for the first five-year term as described in Section IV.A of the agreement, pay the city the full cost of the purchase and installation of the remaining [five] poles and lights for the field, but not more than the equivalent 5-year rental fee of approximately $87,000. Attachments 1. Locator Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution 3. Minutes from 1/17/01 PC Meeting 4. Letters and petition from concerned citizens 5. Minutes from 7/11/PC Meeting 6. Mitigated Negative Declaration 7. Disclosure Statement H:\HOME\PLANNING\KIM\REPORTS\PCC-00-58 Cox Sprint, Rohr.doc (::::HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT COX/SPRINT PCS PROJECTDESCRIPTION:  ~Puc~.~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT Rohr Park, ADDRESS: 4548 Sweetwater Road Request: Proposed wireless telecommunications facility consisting of up to (9) panel antennas mounted on SCALE: FILE NUMBER: El 72 foot light standard. All equipment will be located NORTH No Scale PCC 00-58 on the ground adjacant to the base of the pole. C:\myfiles\lo cators\PCC0058.cd r 01/05/01 / ¢ ~;? ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. PCC-00-58 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-00-58, TO COX/SPRINT PCS TO CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 4548 SWEETWATER ROAD (ROHR PARK). WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on May 12, 2000 by Cox/Sprint PCS; and WHEREAS, said application requests permission to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility consisting of a 66-foot-high light standard supporting nine antennas, and a 384- square-foot equipment building in the area ora baseball field within Rohr Park at 4548 Sweetwater Road; and WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that the initial study was adequate and recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as to the effects of the proposal on the environment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Conditional Use Permit and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was scheduled and advertised for December 13, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; was continued to January 17, 200l at 6:00 p.m.; and was continued again to July 11,2001; and WHEREAS, the 'Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearings with respect to subject application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Conditional Use Permit PCC-00-58 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions and findings contained in the attached City Council Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 11th day of July 2001 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Castaneda, Cortes, Hall, Thomas, Willett NOES: ABSTAIN: McCann ABSENT: O'Neil Kevin O'Neil, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - January 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-00-58; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 66-foot high light standard supporting nine antennas, and an associated equipment building at 4548 Sweetwater Road (Rohr Park). CoxJSprint PCS. Jim Sandova], Assistant Planning Director stated that this item has received a considerable amount of public interest, therefore, staff held a cbmmunity meeting to hear those concerns. 'The purpose of tonight's meeting is to give the Commission an opportunity to hear comments from the community, and staff is therefore recommending that the Commission not take any action tonight, but that the Public Hearing be opened, public testimony be taken, and that this item be continued to April 11, 2001 for final action. Background: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner, reported that Cox/Sprint PCS is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 384 sf equipment and stora[~e building, and a 66-foot hi[~h light standard supporting nine antennas at 4548 Sweetvvater Road (Rohr Park). The light standard location is proposed in the right field of a baseball diamond at the park, and the proiect wotJId result in the ATTACE[MI~NT 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - January 17, 2001 City adding five more lights to the baseball fieid. The proiect site is an unlit baseball field across the parking lot of a lit baseball field. The pole would be placed on the southwest edge of the endfield near right field. The proposed site would provide service to portions of Sweetwater Road, commercial areas along Bonita Road and surrounding residential areas. The revenue generated to the City by the proposed light standard would be approximateJy $80,000 over a five-year time period and the Cih, has elected to enter into an agreement with the applicant that would result in prepayment of installation of five other lights in the ball field. The 55-foot high lights would be installed in coniunction with the proposed light standard or shortly thereafter. Because of the additional lights that would be added as a result of the monopole, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this proiect is subiect to CEQA and an Initial Study is required. There were seven private citizens, staff and the applicant present at the community forum and three pfimar~ concerns that were expressed. Staff's responses to these concerns are: That the monopole would be the tallest structure in the area. Topo maps from GIS clearly indicate that the monopole would not be the tallest structure in the area. Copies of those maps will be presented to the Commission at the next hearing. 2. That putting the monopole in the park is perceived to be a commercial enterprise by the City. The $80,000 generated by this proposal would be put back into the park and not into the City's General Fund. 3. Health concerns. This proje~ would compliance with FCC health standards. Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission review the application, hear public testimony, and continue this project until the Initial Study is completed. Public Hearing Opened 7:55. Mike Sloop, representing Sprint PCS stated that various sites in the area were looked into, but other than the proposed site, there existed topographical constraints and would not offer optimal coverage to the area. This proposal meets the federal safety standards that are overseen by the Federal Communications Commission. Based on the concerns that were raised by the citizens, the applicant re-evaluated the calculations for FMF emissions in the areas closes to the monopole, which would be the area around first base and some bleacher seating, and it would be less than 1/2 of 1% of the FCC Planning Commission Minutes - 6 ~ January 17, 2001 standard, which is over 200 times below the standard. Peter Pearce, 4802 Birch Bark, Bonita, CA, representing the Bonita Woods homeowners group expressed their collective concern with "commercializing' the park and the precedence this would set for other carriers to come into the park as well. In their opinion, parks are designed to have a large open space with vegetation and to be enioyed by people, not for artificial structures or commercial enterprises. Gil Hartson, 4231 Sweetwater Road, Bonita, CA stated he opposes the ~roject because the pole would create an eye-sore. Additionally, he is not convinced that the emissions would not create a hazardous condition because the effect of EMF exposure is not an exact science. Christa Hoffman, 3580 Evergreen Road, Bonita, CA stated that the beautiful view of the park she enioys from her home of mature vegetation, ioyful noise of families and children enioying the park, and the serenity it brings would be diminished with the 56 foot high light standard with 9 antennas, which is totally incompatible with the park. Therefore, she urged the Commission to vote against i~. Mike Kuia~,'a, 3580 E~,er~,reen Road, Bonita, CA stated he opposes the facility as it would be a very, imposing and the tallest structure in the immediate area. He also is not convinced that the health hazards are as benign as previously stated because the standards that are used to measure today are nine years old. Litia Pedrum, 4328 Grace Road, Bonita, CA opposes the proiect because of the visual impacts the artificial structure will create. Additionally, as a cancer survivor, she is especially concerned with the potential health hazards the proiect could pose, therefore, she urged the Commission to vote against it. Phil Pedrum, 4328 Grace Road, Bonita, CA stated that he too is concerned with health risks and with the light standard being an eye-sore that could potentially diminish his property value, therefore, he urged the Commission to vote against it. M$C (McCann/Cortes) (7-0) to continue public bearing to April 11, 2001. Motion carried. TO: Chula Vista Planning Commission Re Case Number: PCC-00-58 DATE: 12/12/00 PLAl~dh,~G Dear Planning Commission; I am opposed to the proposed Cox/Sprint 66-foot high light standard being erected in Rohr Park or the immediate vicinity for the following reasons: a) The light standard will become the highest structure in the park and will detract from the beauty of the surrounding vegetation. The standard may very will exceed even the height of the highest trees in the park. b) Although the City notice says that the project is exempt from any environmental review, I am concerned about the effects of emissions from the tower on health and on interference with various receivers like radios, TVs, cordless phones, electric gates, etc. and on the possibility of attracting lightening strikes. c) Any detraction from the park's natural atmosphere, especially when the standard will be visible above the trees and visible from windows of residences bordering the park, will reduce property values. I urge the Planning Commission to reject the proposed project as unsuitable for the proposed location in or around Rohr Park. If the Commission decides to support the project, I urge the Commission to delay the approval for six months to allow adequate study of the project by those residents and users of the Park who will be negatively affected by the project. Thank you Very Truly Yours, Michoa. l A. Kujawa ~// 3580 Evergreen Road Bon/ta, CA. 91902 (619) 479-1717 DECEMBER 12, 2000 TO: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION [}EC 1 3 2000 RE: CASE #PCC-00-58 FROM: JESUS H. KURODA-SAN PLANN!NG TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I HAVE RECEIVED THE PLAN~ING CONa&,IISS!ON'S NOTICE REGARDING THE 66' .aNTENNA THAT WILL BE INSTALLED 1N ROHR PARK. I WOULD LIKE TO FORMALLY OPPOSE TO THIS. I PURCHASED MY HOME, IN THIS AREA BECAUSE I WANTED TO LIVE IN AN AREA WHERE I COULD SEE THE TREES ANS STILL SMELL THE FRESH AIR. THIS ANTENNA WILL BE A TOTAL EYESORE TO OUR COMMUNITY I DO NOT WANT TO LOOK OUT MY WINDOW AND SEE ANTENNAS, I WANT TO CONTINUE TO SEE TREES. / RE SPECTFUL3Y..Y.Y.Y.~URS, JESUS H.~A~ 4437 CRESTA VERDE LANE MINUTES OE THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, July 11, 2001 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Commissioners, Castaneda, Hall, Cortes, Thomas, Willett, McCann Absent: Chair O'Neill Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Klm Vander Bie, Associate Planner Sunny Shy, Assistant Director of Recreation Michael Meacham, Special Operations Manager Bart Miesfeld, Deputy City Attorney MSC (Willett/Thomas) to excuse Commissioner O'Neill. Motion carried. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Vice Chair Hall. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-00-58; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 66-foot high light standard supporting nine antennas; and an associate equipment building at an unlit baseball field within Rohr park, 4548 Sweetwater Road. Cox / Spring PCS. Background: Klm Vander Bie, Associate Plann~er reported that the application is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an unmanned cellular communications facility consisting of a 384 sf equipment and storage building, a 66 foot high light standard supporting 9 antennas, which is to be located in the right field of a currently unlit baseball diamond at the park. The City will use revenue generated from the antennas to purchase and install 5 additional lights at the ball field. The Parks and Recreation Department is supportive of this proposal, as this would provide the park with a second lit baseball field. .4'-/-r4 c fx,i Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - July 11, 2001 Telephone, electrical and radio equipment would be housed in a 384 sf equipment room to be constructed north of an existing restroom building and would be constructed of the same material as the restroom building (block wall and asphalt shingles). Part of the roof would be opened with a trellis-type roof and part of it would be a solid shingle roof. The equipment building would also house park maintenance equipment. On January 17, 2001 this project was brought before the Planning Commission at which time the project was continued to allow time for an Initial Study, reviewing the six light standards, be completed. The Resource Conservation Commission has determined that the Initial Study is adequate and recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. At the January 2001 Planning Commission meeting several residents expressed concern with: 1) visual impacts, 2) commercialization of the park, and 3) health concerns with EMF emissions. The project complies with all FCC regulations for EMF emissions and the law precludes the Planning Commission from denying the project based on health issues. Ms. Vander Bie stated that she contacted all of the residents who spoke at the January 2001 meeting notifying them of tonight's meeting. In addition, notices were mailed to residents within the 500 foot radius of the project site. Staff Recommenation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution PCC-00-58 recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Rohr Park wireless communications facility, subject to the conditions of approval (including the mitigation monitoring and reporting program measures). Commission Discussion: Commissioner Willett stated that the existing ball field at the park has light refraction that needs to be corrected by placing shields on the lights and directing the lighting system downward. Additionally, the City should make every effort to conserve energy by turning off the lights when the ball field is not being used. Sunny Shy, Assistant Director of Recreation stated that the ball field receiving the new light standards is at a lower elevation and the lighting consultant will be looking at implementing mitigation measures to reduce the glare. Michael Meacham, Special Operations Manager stated that the City is working on a lighting management system throughout the City for all facilities that will allow those adjustments to be made remotely. Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification on the prepayment of the revenue that will be generated by this project. Additionally, Cmr. Thomas stated he would like to see the Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - July 11, 2001 roof of the equipment room be extended to be a complete shingle roof to match the adjacent restroom building. Mr. Meacham stated that the applicant will reimburse the City for the cost of purchase and installation of the lights up to $80,000, which should cover all costs. The amount is intended to be a cap on the cost relative to the actual cost of purchase and installation of the light standards. Mr. Meacham stated that the reason why half of the roof is proposed to be an open trellis is because the equipment needs air circulation. If the ceiling is completely covered, then there may need to be more ventilation around the facia of the building, which could create an even greater visual distinction between the two buildings. Commissioner Castaneda stated he remembers that when this item first came before the Commission there was considerable opposition from the area residents and asked if staff had received any new communication from residents. He also stated that when items are continued, he would like to see all of the background information included in the new staff report. Cmr. Castaneda also asked if there were any restrictions on commercial use of the park when it was originally conveyed to the City. Kim Vander Bie stated that she received no new communication from residents and there also were no responses to the Initial Study, which was noticed. Mr. Meacham stated that there are no restrictions now, however, the original restriction was designed to prevent uses that would restrict the use of the park. The secondary nature of this project, which is the lighting of the ball field, will enhance the park and will enable its use by more people, for extended hours. Commissioner Thomas stated that he would like to see some type of condition where the appropriate party would be required to make any necessary adjustments to the lighting system after its been in operation for a couple of months. Ms. Shy stated that, in fact, this is part of the scope of work for the lighting consultant to make any necessary adjustments. Public Hearing Ol~ened 6:45 Robert Krebbs, 9225 Dowdy Drive, #112, San Diego, CA 92126, Sprint PCS stated he is pleased to present this win-win proposal, which will provide wireless service to the community as well as lighting for a City-owned ball field. He urged the commission to support this proposal and stated he was available to answer any questions they may have. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - July 11, 2001 Mr. Krebbs also stated that they would be willing to cover the entire roof to match the adjacent restroom building, and if additional ventilation is needed, they would ensure that it is done in a manner that will not create an obvious difference between the two buildings. Mike Kujawa, 3580 Evergreen Road, Bonita, CA 91902 asked if there would be any fencing around this facility and equipment room, as well as any warning signs stating there may be potential radiation around the building. He also asked if the cabling between the antenna and equipment room would be underground. Mr. Kujawa still opposes the project because of visual impacts and because of the precedence this sets for future commercial ventures wishing to locate on the park. Mr. Krebbs responded that the facility will comply with all Municipal Code and federal regulations and if posting warning signs is a requirement, then they definitely will be posted. The cables will be underground. Mr. Meacham clarified that the older cellular sites produce greater emission amounts than the newer digital technology, which is the only type of facility that the City now allows. Public hearing closed 7:05. Commissioner Willett stated that due to a proliferation of these facilities, he would recommend that the City place a public information article in the newspaper explaining that these facilities pose no public health risk because the emissions are so minimal. The Commission collectively stated that although they are fully supportive of co-location whenever possible, there are exceptions where it may not be desirable, particularly in a site such as the park where the visual impacts need to be carefully considered. Commissioner Hall stated that he is supportive of this proiect and is particularly encouraged with the public benefit it creates with the installation of the lighting system on the ball field, which is one of the City's best leveled fields that has been underutilized because of the lack of lighting. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - July 11, 2001 MSC (Thomas/Castaneda) (6-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC- 00-58 recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Rohr Park wireless communications facility, subject to the conditions of approval (including the mitigation monitoring and reporting program measures) including the following two additional conditions: 1. That the equipment building roof be a full shingled roof and that the building be redesigned to provide the necessary ventilation for the equipment, and at the same time be aesthetically compatible with the adjacent restroom building; and 2. That the applicant be required, upon renewal of the Conditional Use Permit, to provide evidence of compliance with I~CC regulations for EMF emissions. Motion carried. Case No. IS-01-044 ENVIRONBIENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista Cox/Sprint PCS 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 4683 Chabot DriVe, Suite I00 Pleasanton, CA 94588 4. Name of Proposal: IS-01-044 5. Date of Checklist: May 29, 2001 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Woulcl the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or [] [] [] [] zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [] [] [] [] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations [] [] [] [] (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of [] [] [] [] an eshablished community (including a low- income or minority community)? Comments: The project is consistent with the Public & Open Space land use designation (Parks and Recreation) of the General Plan. The project is also consistent with the zoning designation of the AD - Agricultural with Design Overlay and designated. The proposed ball field lights and cellular transceiver base station ("base station") are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The site is located xxsthin a City Park (Rohr Park). The proposed site is a public park. The proposed ball field lights are proposed for an existing ball field and the proposed base station will be incorporated in the design of one of the light standards. The subject ball field is located at the eastern portion of the Park. Rohr Park is a 23-acres in size and is surrounded by residential development to the north (County of San Diego) and west, commercial to the east, and the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course to the south. The proposed project does not require the physical arrangement of the community to be changed. Page - I ATTACHMENT 6 .Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. I1. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the vo,~,i~n~ si~r~t ~,~t~a= proposal: x~.~, m~,~ ~ ~m~ a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] [] [] [] population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either [] [] rn [] directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [] [] [] [] housing? Comments: The proposed project would result in the installation of lights and base station (for wireless communications) on an existing ball field in a public park. The project does not exceed regional or local population projections because it does not create any growth. The project does not create any employment opportunities or housing units in the area. The project does not displace any housing, including affordable housing. Therefore, the project will not result in any potential impacts related to population and housing. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. III. GEOPItYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or l~o,=~m, s~van,~.~ ~ than expose people to potential impacts involving: ~ ~e~,~ ~vm ~ a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in [] [] [] [] geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or r~ [] ~ [] overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief [] [] [] [] features? d) The desn-uction, covering or modification of ~ [] [] [] any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, ~ [] [] [] either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach n rn [] [] sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic [] [] [] ~ hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Page - 2 Comments: There are no known geophysical conditions present that expose people to geologic or earth hazards and the proposal does not include any grading. Therefore. no sio~nificant impacts have been identified. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: s~e~a-,~ u~ s~,,m,~.t r~o a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, [] [] [] [] or the rate and amount of surface runoff b) Exposure of people or property to water [] r~ [] [] related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other [] [] r: [] alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] ~ [] ~ water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction [] [] [] ~ of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either [] [] [] [] through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of [] [] [] ~ groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? [] [] [] [] i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood [] [] [] [] waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water [] [] [] [] otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: Construction of the light standards and 384 square foot equipment building would have a negligible effect on surface runoff and would not have any effect on groundwater because no grading is proposed. The proposed park improvements will be located within the 100 year flood plain of the Sweetwater River. Due to the nature of the project, no significant impacts related to flooding are anticipated. As a standard Engineering Division condition of approval the applicant is required to implement Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm drainage systems, during and after construction. Therefore, no significant impacts to water resources have been identified and no mitigation is required. Page - 3 Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposah' ~,o~ slr~m~n~ t~ ,ha~ a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to m [] m [] an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] ~ [] [] c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, [] [] [] [] or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] [] e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or [] [] [] [] non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The ball field lights and base station would not produce any air emissions. One to two service truck trips per month would be generated for the maintenance of the telecommunications equipment. The proposed lighting would allow the use of the ball field until the park closes at 10:00 PM. According to the Engineering Division, the proposed project will generate an insignificant amount of daily trips. Therefore, no significant air quality impacts would result and no mitigation is required. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would si~ui~ ~s~ s'~m~nt ~o rite proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] m [] b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., [] [] [] [] sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to [] [] m [] nearby uses? d) Insufficient p~rking capacity on-site or off-site? m [] [] m e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or [] [] [] [] bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [] [] [] [] alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [] [] [] [] Page h) A "large project" under the Congestion [] [] [] [] Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or · more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: No additional roadway facilities are required to serve the site. Short-term effects would consist of construction trucks required to install the ball field lights and base station. Long-term effects would consist of one to two service truck trips per months associated with the base station and an insignificant amount of daily vehicle trips associated with the use of the ball field in the evening hours. On-site parking is provided in a paved parking lot immediately south of the ball field. Parking is also available in a dirt parking lot immediately east of the ball field adjacent to the equestrian facility. Therefore, no significant transportation effects wr)uld result and no mitigation is required. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: ~pa,~ Mitigated Impact Impact a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of [] [] [] [] concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., [] [] [] [] oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and ~ [] r~ [] vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [] [] [] [] f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning r~ [] ~ [] efforts? Comments: The project site is currently developed as a public park and contains no native vegetation or habitat. The subject ball field is fully improved with a clay infield and turf. Rohr Park is not identified as containing significant biological resources on the City's General Plan. The Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan identifies Rohr Park as an area designated for development (developed or take authorized). Therefore, no endangered, threatened, or rare plant or animal species are expected to occur on site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. VIII. ENERGY .4aND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted ener~-~y conservation [] [] [] tn plans? Pa~e - 5 b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and n [2 n a inefficient manner7 c) If the site is designated for mineral resource n rn [] [] prolection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. The project does not conflict with the recently adopted CO2 Reduction Plan. The proposed project does not result in the use of resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner because the proposed lights will operate during the off-peak hours (after 6:30 PM) when energy reliability is not a primary Concern. The project is not located in an area designated for mineral resource protection as defined in the City's General Plan. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Po emially Significant ~ than a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [] [] hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency [] [] [] [] response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential [] [] [] [] health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of [] t~ [] [] potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable [] [] D [] brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed sports lighting system and base station would not involve operations involving hazardous substances. The base station is subject to Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulations. Sprint has a license to operate from the FCC and is required to provide documentation for the proposed base station to the FCC for verification that Federal regulations are met. No significant impacts are expected to occur due to compliance with FCC permitting requirements. A 24-hour power outage is an unlikely event, however, an emergency power generator would be brought to the site if an extended power outage (i.e., in excess of two hours) should occur. These generators have an internal diesel fuel tank that provides a minimum of 24 hours of run time. In the event an emergency power generator is needed, a liner would be required to prevent any fuel spillage that could result in a potential fire hazard. Compliance with the condition for a liner would result in a less than significant impact. Page- 6 Mitigation: In the event that an emergency pov.'er generator is needed, a liner would be required to prevent any fuel spillage that could result in a potential fire hazard. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: ~.o,,n,~u: s~nm=~, u~ ,~ a) Increases in existing noise levels? [] [] rn ~ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] :] Comments: The proposed lighting system and base station are not anticipated to result in a significant increase in existing noise levels. The proposed lighting system will extend the use of the e:~isting sports fields until 10:00 PM Monday through Friday, Weekend night use of the lighted field is not typical, but could occur; however, the light system will not operate past 10:00 PM. The subject ball field is located on the valley floor, approximately 5-feet lower in elevation than Sweetwater Road and the nearest single-family residential units to the north. Therefore, due to the separation from the nearest residential units and the difference in elevation the prbposed sports field lighting system and base station are not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would rlte proposal have Xmp~,~ ~Ut~g~.a ~*~ ~p~, an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the folIo~ving areas: a) Fire protection? [] rn [] [] b) Police protection? [] [] [] m c) Schools? [] [] [] [] d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] r2 [] m roads? e) Other governmental services? [] m rn [] Comments: No new or altered governmental services will be required to serve the project. The proposal does not impact existing Fire and Police services. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact [] [] [] m the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. Comments: The addition of a sports lighting system and base station to an existing sports field does not impact the provision of Fire/EMS services to the site. The City of Chula Vista Fire Departh~ent has indicated that the3, will be able to meet this Threshold Standard without adding any additional equipment or personnel. The nearest fire station is approximately 1.5 miles away and the estimated response time is 3 to 4- minutes. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. b) Police r~ [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to ail Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. Comments: The Police Threshold Standard would be met as reported by the Police Department. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. c) Traffic [] [] [] [] 1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. 2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. Paee- 8 Comments: The Traffic Section of the Engineering Division has reported that the proposed project will generate an insignificant amount of daily trips associated with the extended usage of the sports fields. Therefore, no significant impact to the City's Traffic Threshold Standard is anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. d) Parks/Recreation ca [] ca [] The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805. Comments: The proposed project does not impact Threshold Standards for Parks and Recreation because the proposal does not result in an increase in population. The proposed lighting structure will provide extended use of an existing recreational facility within a City park. 5litigation: No mitigation measures are required. e) Drainage ca [] ca [] The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. (~ommeIlts: No additional storm water flows would be generated by the installation of the proposed sports lighting system and base station. Therefore, no conflict with the City's threshold is anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Potentially The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project wiIl comply with this Threshold Standard. Page - 9 Comments: No sewer facilities are required to serve the proposed sports lighting system and base station. Therefore, no conflict with the Ci~'s Sewer Threshold Standard is anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. g) Water [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off- set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: No water service is required to serve the proposed sports lighting system and base station. Therefore, no conflict with the Ci~,'s Water Threshold Standard is anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would si~tr,=n, uo..~ si~ir~t so the proposal result in a need for new systems, or u=~ Mitigat~l lmpael lmlmaci substantial akerations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? [] r: [] [] b) Communications systems? [] [] [] [] c) Local or regional water treatment or [] [] rn [] distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? [] [] [] [] e) Storm water drainage? [] [] [] [] f) Solid waste disposal? r~ [] rn [] Comments: The proposed sports lighting system and base station would not result in the need for new systems or substantial alteration of existing utilities. Electrical service will be extended to the site from an existing transformer located within the Park. The extension of electrical services would not require new systems to be installed, or alterations of existing utilities. No significant impacts to utilities and service systems is anticipated. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Page- 10 XIV. AESTHETICS.. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the [] [] [] r3 public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a [] [] [] [] scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? tn [] [] [] d) Create added light or glare sources that could rn [] [] [] increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66. I00 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 197 e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? [] [] [] [] Comments: The proposed lighting system for the ball field #18 and the proposed base station are not anticipated to obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public. The subject ball field is located on the valley floor, approximately 5-feet lower in elevation than Sweetwater Road and the nearest single-family residential units to the north. Dense vegetation including tall eucalyptus trees block most of the view of the ball field from Sweetwater Road and the subject site is separated from Bonita Road (a designated scenic roadway) by the Chun Vista Municipal Golf Course ("Golf Course"). The proposal is not anticipated to obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public because of the surrounding topography and vegetation and the separation by Sweem, ater Road from the nearest single-family residences to the north. These conditions provide an effective shield for residential properties closest to the subject ball field. Additionally, due to the separation from Bonita Road to the south by the Golf Course, and the existing vegetation on the Golf Course and Park, the proposal is not anticipated to cause the destruction or modification of Bonita Road, which is identified as a scenic route in the City's General Plan. The proposed project would create a new source of light and glare on the unlighted ball field and views from the adjacent residential uses could be noticeably affected because of the current absence of lighting at the project site. However, because the Park already contains existing lighting associated with the parking lots and ball fields, the proposed lighting of ball field #18 would not be expected to create a noticeable increase in light and glare from distant views. Additionally, the proposed lighting system (manufactured by Musco Systems) increases light levels up to 25 % and reduces wasted spill light up to 95 %, thereby reducing impacts to surrounding residential properties. In an effort to reduce any potential light and glare impacts to surrounding residential properties the proposed lighting system shall be directed downward to provide the uniform distribution of lighting on to the ball field and soccer field overlay and reduce wasted spill light. Mitigation: 1. The proposed lighting system shall be directed downward to provide a uniform distribution of lighting on to the subject ball field and soccer field overlay and reduce wasted spill light. Page - 11 XV. CULTU~h.L RESOURCES. Would the Po,,,~ny a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or [] n [] [] the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or [] [] ri [] aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a [] [] - [] [] physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or [] [] [] [] sacred, uses within the potential impact area? [] [] [] [] e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan does not identify the subject site or surrounding vicini~, as an area of potential cultural resources. The project does not include grading for the installation of the sports lighting system and base station; therefore, there would be no significant impacts to cultural resources on the project site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. V~ll the [] r~ [] [] proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources ? Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan does not identify the subject site or surrounding vicirfity as an area of potential paleontological resources. The project does not include grading for the installation of the sports lighting system and base station; therefore, there would be no significant impacts to paleontological resources on the project site. XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: ~ot~t~ny sie~n~t ~ ~ a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or [] [] r~ [] regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [] [] [] ~ c) Interfere xxith recreation parks & recreation [] ~ [] a plans or programs? Comments: The proposed project is a sports lighting system and base station in an existing City park, which does not affect the need for parks and recreational facilities. The proposed project would extend the use of an existing recreational facility. Therefore, no significant impacts to recreational needs are anticipated from the proposed project. XVlII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF e~,.,~: si~ir,~n~ t.~ u,a, SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for x~ M~ig,t,a ~.~ t~p.~ mandatory, findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade [] r2 [] ~ the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: The proposed project is located in a fully developed park in the Cits' of Chula Vista. The surrounding area is developed with residential uses and a municipal golf course. Neither sensitive plant nor animal resources, nor historical or archeological resources are present on the site. The proposed project will have no significant impact to the quality of the environment, reduction of habitat of wildlife species or threaten the historical preservation of the area. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve ~ c~ [] [] short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: Installation of the sports lighting system and the base station is consistent with the City's General Plan and the City Council approved Draft Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) dated October 9, 2000. The proposed project will not negatively affect long~term environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project Page- 13 are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable furore projects.) Comments: There are no other current or foreseeable projects in the surrounding area that would contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts. The proposed project is consistent with the Rohr Park Master Plan. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Does the project have environmental effects, a in [] [] which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The proposed sports lighting system and base station is not anticipated to cause any direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human beings. The proposed project would not involve operations invoMng hazardous substances. The base station is subject to Federal Con'anunication Commission (FCC) regulations. Sprint has a license to operate from the FCC and is required to provide documentation for the proposed base station to the FCC for verification that Federal regulations are met. No significant impacts are expected to occur due to compliance with FCC permitting requirements. The proposed project will result in a new source of light and glare on the unlighted ball field and views from the adjacent residential uses could be noticeably affected because of the current absence of lighting at the project site. To reduce any potential light and glare impacts to surrounding residential properties the proposed lighting system shall be directed downward to provide the uniform distribution of lighting on to the ball field and soccer field overlay and reduce wasted spill light. Mitigation: The proposed lighting system shall be directed downward to provide a uniform distribution of lighting on to the subject ball field and soccer field overlay and reduce wasted spill light. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Aesthetics & Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. The proposed lighting system shall be directed downward to provide a uniform distribution of lighting on to the subject ball field and soccer field overlay and reduce wasted spill light. Hazards 1. In the event that an emergency power generator is needed, a liner would be required to prevent any fuel spillage that could result in a potential fire hazard. 14 XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASUqt. ES By signing ~e line(s) provided below, ~e Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate ~at ~ey have each read, understood and have ~eir respective company's au~ori~ to and do agree to ~e mitigation measures conuined herein, and will implement same to ~e satisfaction of ~e Enviromenml Review Coordinator. Failure to sign ~e line(s) provided below prior to adoption of ~e Addendum shall indicate ~e Applicants' and/or Operator's desire ~at ~e Project be held in a~yance wi~out approval. Prated Name and Titl~ of A~plicant or A~orized Representative Date . Signature of Applicant or Au~orized Representative Printed ~qame and Title of Applicant or Authorized Representative ~ D'ate/ Xq~I. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, invoMng at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Land Use and Planning [] Transportation/Circulation [] Public Services [] Population and Housing [] Biological Resources [] Utilities and Service Systems [] Geophysical [] Energy and Mineral Resources · Aesthetics [] Water · Hazards [] Cultural Resources [] Air Quality [] Noise [] Recreation [] Paleontological [] Mandatory Findings of Significance Resources Page- 15 XXll. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, [] and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, · there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an [] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at [] least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, [] there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. Marilyn 'R.F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator Page-16 Appendix B THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'DISCLOSURE STATEMENT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, matedal supplier. City of Chula Vista Cox/Sprint PCS Lucent, Inc 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 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 X If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. Wireless Facilities Incorporated (WFI) 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 No X If yes, state which Councilmember(s): I // nt nt Print or type'name of contracto~'applicant * Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, f~.aternal organizatior~ corporatio~ estate, trust, receiver, O,ndicate, this and an.v other count.,, ciO' and countr3. ; cio' municipaIiO: district, or other political subdivision, or an)' other group or combination acting ax a unit." ATTACHMENT 7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-00-58, TO COX/SPRINT PCS TO CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 4548 SWEETWATER ROAD (ROHR PARK). A. RECITALS 1. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcel that is the subject matter of this resolution is represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general description is located at Rohr Park, 4548 Sweetwater Road ("Project Site"); and 2. Project Applicant WHEREAS, on May 12, 2000 a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit (PCC-00-58) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Division by Cox/Sprint PCS (Applicant); and 3. Project Description; Application for Conditional Use Permit WHEREAS, Applicant requests permission to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility consisting of a 66-foot-high light standard supporting nine antennas, and a 384-square-foot fenced equipment and storage building on the Project Site; and 4. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the Project requires the preparation of an Initial Study. Such study (IS-01-044) was prepared by city staff, and based on such study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review. WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that the Initial Study was adequate and recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 18, 2001, in compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the same Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 11, 2001. 5. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission scheduled and advertised a public hearing on the Project for December 13, 2000; continued the Project to January 17, 2001; and continued the project again to July 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, at the July 11, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission considered a motion to support staff's recommendation for the cellular facility and voted 5-0-1-1 to recommend that the City Council approve the Project based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCC-00-58; and 6. City Council Record of Application WltEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 7, 2001 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same. NOW, TItEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on July 11, 2001 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. C. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for this Project has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. D. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this Project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council. E. INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES The City does hereby adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this approval all applicable mitigation measures, as set forth in the Environmental Document IS-01-044. Resolution No. __ Page #3 F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City' s rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as herein below set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made. 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed cellular facility is necessary to provide and maintain a quality cellular phone system in northeastern Chula Vista, specifically providing service for portions of Highway 54, Sweetwater Road, commercial areas along Bonita Road, and surrounding residential areas in all directions. The cellular facility will contribute to the general well being of the community by facilitating telephonic communication in the area surrounding said facility. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general .welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Emissions from cellular antennas have been shown to be below any levels that would cause hazardous biological effects. In addition, cellular antenna emissions are so far below all recognized safety standards that they constitute no hazard to public health or safety. The project has been conditioned that the applicant prove compliance with the accepted ANSI standards for emissions control. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Conditional Use Permit PCC-00-58 requires the permittee to comply with all the applicable regulations and standards specified in the Municipal Code for such use. The conditioning of PCC-00-58 is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed development in that the conditions imposed are directly related to and are of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the project. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. Land use patterns within the City will not be affected by the granting of PCC-00-58. Monthly maintenance visits that the project may generate will not result in the intensification of the use of the site and is an insignificant increase in the traffic for the neighborhood. The integration of the light standard with other field lights will not be a visual intrusion in Chula Vista. Resolution No. __ Page #4 G. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-00-58 subject to the following conditions whereby the applicant and/or property owner shall: I. Construct the Project as described in the application, except as modified herein to allow for the light standard and equipment/storage building. The light standard shall be no taller than 66-feet, and shall support no more than nine antennas. The telephone, electrical and radio equipment shall be placed in a new 384-square-foot block wall building with shingled roof adjacent to the ball field, and it shall match an existing restroom building to the south of the new building. 2. Cooperate in good faith with other communications companies in co-locating additional antenna on pole structures and/or on the tops of buildings, provided said co-locates have received a conditional use permit for such use at said site from the City. Permittee shall exercise good faith in co-locating with other communications companies and sharing the permitted site, provided such shared use does not give rise to a substantial technical level- or quality-of-service impairment of the permitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict or financial burden). In the event a dispute arises as to whether permittee has exercised good faith in accommodating other users, the City may require a third party technical study at the expense of either or both the permittee and applicant. 3. Comply with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. Within six (6) months of the Building Division final inspection of the project, the Applicant shall submit a project implementation report to the Director of Planning and Building which provides cumulative field measurements of radio frequency (EMF) power densities of all antennas installed at subject site. The report shall quantify the EMF emissions and compare the results with currently accepted ANSI standards. Said report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building for consistency with the project proposal report and the accepted ANSI standards. If on review the City in its discretion finds that the Project does not meet ANSI standards, the City may revoke or modify this conditional use permit. 4. Ensure that the project does not cause localized interference with reception of area television or radio broadcasts. If on review the City, in its discretion, finds that the project interferes with such reception, the City may revoke or modify the conditional use permit. 5. Provide one 2A:10BC fire extinguisher at a location satisfactory to the Fire Marshal upon completion of construction. 6. Obtain all necessary permits from the Chula Vista Building Division and Fire Department. Resolution No. __ Page #5 7. Comply with the City's Municipal Code noise standards. Within three (3) months of the Building Division's final inspection, the applicant shall submit a report to the Director of Planning and Building which provides cumulative field measurements of facility noises. The report shall quantify the levels and compare the results with current standard specified in the Municipal Code for public and open space uses. Said report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Plaiming and Building for consistency with the project proposal dated May 12, 2000 and Municipal Code noise standards. If on review the City finds that the project does not meet the Municipal Code noise standards, the City may revoke or modify the permit. 8. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source, which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 9. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. 10. Upon cessation of the business operations and use of the light standard for antennas by the applicant, the applicant has 90 days to submit a substitute user to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building Department and/or remove the antennas from the light standard and equipment from the storage building. Any changes on the conditional use permit shall require modification. 11. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and c) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including, without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Conditional Use Permit where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express Resolution No. __ Page #6 condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a site plan which identifies any and all existing site features which are anticipated to be disturbed/disrupted by constmction activity related to the project and appropriate notes and construction details which describe the construction methods and materials to be utilized to restore site features to original condition. Said site plan is subject to the review and approval by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Parks and Recreation or their designees prior to issuance of building permit. 13. This permit shall expire five (5) years after the date of its approval. After the first five (5) years, Planning staff shall review this conditional use permit for compliance with the conditions of approval, and shall determine, in consultation with the applicant, whether the project shall be modified from its original approval. 14. Project site shall be inspected six months subsequent to the issuance of building permits to check conformance with project plans and conditions of approval. 15. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This shall be noted on any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the C.V.M.C. regarding graffiti control. 16. The power source for the project shall be independent of existing site facilities. Electrical service connections and the locations of related components such as meters and transformers shall be coordinated with SDG&E and City of Chula Vista Electrician prior to issuance of building permit. Disruption of existing site improvements and facilities, including site landscaping improvements, resulting from the installation of said electrical services shall be replaced/repaired in kind subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works, Director of Planning and Building, and Director of Parks and Recreation or designees. 17. Damage of existing park grounds and/or facilities resulting from the installation and/or maintenance of the antenna and equipment building including but not limited to turf areas, walkways, irrigation systems, any and all site utilities and fixtures shall be replaced in kind and under the authority and supervision of the Director of Public Works and Director of Parks and Recreation or designees. 18. Installation and scheduled maintenance of the antenna and related components shall be coordinated with parks operation personnel and on-site recreation staff prior to Resolution No. __ Page #7 commencement of work to minimize the potential for conflicts with recreation programs occurring at the site. 19. Any disruption or interruption of site service resulting from the installation of and/or continued maintenance of the antenna and related components shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Director of Parks and Recreation or Designees. H. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS TO GRANT 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code. 2. A copy of this resolution shall be recorded against the property. 3. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit shall be ground for revocation or modification of permit. I. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document 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 Planning Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten 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. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk' Office and known as Document No. Signature of Representative of Date Cox/Sprint PCS J. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of Determination and file the same with the City Clerk. Resolution No. __ Page//8 K. ADDITIONAL TERM OF GRANT This permit shall expire five (5) years after the date of its approval by the City Council. After the first five (5) years, the Zoning Administrator shall review this Conditional Use Permit for compliance with the conditions of approval, and shall determine, in consultation with the Applicant, whether or not the antenna height can be lowered. L. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect a~b initio. THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2001. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter John ~I.//~'a~ny Director of Planning and Building City Attorney H:\HOME\PLANNING\KIM\City Council Resolutions\PCC-00-58 Cox Sprint, Rohr.doc CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR pROJECT COX/SPRINT PCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:  ^PP"~"~: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT Rohr Park, ADDRESS: 4548 Sweetwater Road Request: Proposed wireless telecommunications facility consisting of up to (9) panel antennas mounted on SCALE: FILE NUMBER: a 72 foot light standard. All equipment will be located NORTH No Scale PCC 00-58 on the ground adjacent to the base of the pole. C:\myfiles\lo cators\PCC0058.cdr 01/05/01