Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2002/01/22 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 22, 2002 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CI'IY OF CHULA 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 24 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 47 AGENDA January 22, 2002 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 CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 8) 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 after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 1. APPROVAL OF M1NUTES of December 17, 2001. Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes. 2A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH VOLLMER ASSOCIATES, LLP, FOR A TOLL ROAD OPERATIONAL REVIEW FOR THE SR-125 PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROViNG SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT GROUP, iNC., FOR A FiNANCIALLY BASED APPRAISAL OF THE SR-125 FRANCHISE, AND AUTHORIZiNG THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT On November 7, 2000, the City Council approved an agreement with Vollmer Associates, LLP, to conduct a "peer" review of information used by California Transportation Ventures, Inc. in making traffic and revenue projections for the SR-125 Toll Road Facility. Council also a~vroved a,n a~reement with [nffastmct~re Man~,emen~ Group, Inc. to conduct a tmaucially based appraisal of the SR-125 Franchise~ The agreements, as originally approved, anticipated that completion of certain items would require input from third parties. Due to circumstances beyond the consultants' and City's control, those items have not been made available to our consultants, and amendments to the agreements extending the date of completion need to be approved. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMIJNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH), DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN IMPROVEMENT AREA A OF SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT On January 15, 2002, a public heating was held, proposing an increase in the authorized bonded indebtedness for Improvement Area A of Community Facilities District 2001-1, San Miguel Ranch (CFD 2001-1). Council received no public testimony or protests to the proposed increase. On January 17, 2002, in the City Attorney's Office, the City Clerk, acting as the election official, held a Special Election of the qualified electors of Improvement Area A on the question of the increase. The outcome of the election was that 100% of the qualified electors voted in favor of the proposed increase. CFD 2001-1 will fund the construction of public facilities, such as roadways and other public improvements for the San Miguel project from the proceeds of any bonds issued for Improvement Area A. In addition, a portion of such bond proceeds may be used for certain transportation projects, as directed by the City. (Director of Public Works) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) This agreement will be entered into by the County of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, E1 Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista. It establishes the responsibilities of each party with respect to compliance with the NPDES stormwater permit regulations, which are administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, under the authority granted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and its 1987 amendments, the Water Quality Act. (Director of Public Works) Staffreconunendation: Council adopt the resolution. 5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDING NECESSARY FOR PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE IN IMPLEMENTING NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (GASB), AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) In or0er to mamtain the i~ighest standards or' tinanciat reporting, the City is required to implement newly mandated reporting requirements for this year's report. Professional assistance is required in order to insure an accurate and orderly transition, and additional appropriations are necessary to pay for these services. (Assistant City Manager Powell, Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 2 - Council Agenda 01/22/02 6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING RECLASSIFICATIONS, SALARY ADJUSTMENTS AND/OR CHANGES IN BENEFIT GROUP FOR THREE CLASSIFIED POSITIONS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 SPENDING PLAN THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The reclassifications, salary adjustments and/or changes in benefit group are a result of increases in the level and complexity of duties and responsibilities assigned to three classified positions in two departments. There are currently three incumbents in these classifications. (Director of Human Resources) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution approving the reclassifications, salary and/or benefit group adjustments effective January 25, 2002. 7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DESIGNATING THE HOUSE LOCATED AT 466 E STREET, ORIGINALLY KNOWN AS THE GEORGE SAMPLE HOUSE, AS A HISTORIC SITE, AND PLACING THAT STRUCTURE ON THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S LIST OF HISTORIC SITES AS THE GALLIGAN HOUSE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.32.070(A) The property owner, Elizabeth Galligan, has requested that her property at 466 E Street be considered for inclusion on Chula Vista's List of Historic Sites. (Director of Plarming and Building) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 8. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PROVIDING FUNDING NECESSARY FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL ATTORNEY SERVICES TO CHALLENGE STATE PERMITTING OF THE RAMCO CHULA VISTA II PEAKER GENERATION STATION AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 GENERAL FUND BUDGET THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) In June of 2001, the City engaged the services of McKenna & Cuneo, LLP, to provide technical legal assistance regarding the City's opposition to the Ramco Chula Vista Ii Peaker Generation Station proposed for Albany Avenue, south of Main Street. On short notice, McKenna & Cuneo assisted with the development of a strategy to oppose the RAMCO Chula Vista Peaker II Generating Station, prepared opposition letters and I!d{ci~l ,ql3r~e~l~ ~q~;~d : t~d~.d ,~c,l~¢~i-t~;,2 T:;,~r,,.~,,,:; F'~?r,~i?i!3,,~ h,~.~, ~'~'~.~. ,~!'}( ? l~ i~l~ i significant part of a successful effort to encourage RAMCO to not proceed ~vith its project, City staff directed McKenna & Cuneo to continue its efforts to challenge project permits to prevent RAMCO fi'om re-instituting or selling the project. (Special Operations Manager, Assistant City Attorney Googins) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution and amend the Fiscal Year 2001/2002 budget by appropriating $71,255 from the available fund balance of the General Fund. Page 3 - Council Agenda 01/22/02 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, please fill out a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 9. CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 133, ALONG FOURTH AVENUE FROM L STREET TO ORANGE AVENUE On December 18, 2001, Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-445 and ordered a Public Hearing to be held on January 22, 2002, to determine whether the public health, safety or general welfare requires the formation of a utility undergrounding district along Fourth Avenue from L Street to Orange Avenue. The purpose of forming the district is to require the utility companies to underground all overhead lines and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the proposed district. The proposed utility undergrounding district is about 6,630 feet long and is estimated to cost approximately $1,150,000. SDG&E's allocation funds will be used to cover the cost of the project, including reimbursements to affected property owners for their respective trenching cost. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public heating and adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 133, ALONG FOURTH AVENUE, FROM L STREET TO ORANGE AVENUE, AND AUTHORiZING THE EXPENDITURE OF UT1LITY ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSION If) CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAl, SECOND TIER ENVIRONMENTAI~ IMPACT REPORT (EIR 98-01), A SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND OTHER REGULATORY DOCUMENTS FOR 2,232 DWELLING UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 386 ACRES IN VILLAGE SIX OF OTAY RANCH, LOCATED IN THE OTAY VALLEY PARCEL, SOUTH OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY, EAST OF LA MEDIA ROAD, NORTH OF BIRCH ROAD, AND WEST OF FUTURE SR-125 (PCM 99-05). APPLICANT: MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH, LLC. PARTICIPANT: OTAY RANCH COMPANY, LLC Page 4 - Council Agenda 01/22/02 McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, has submitted an application for a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated regulatory documents for Village Six in Otay Ranch. Village Six is located in the north central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of Olympic Parkway, east of La Media Road, north of Birch Road and west of future SR-125. The SPA Plan proposes 2,232 dwelling units on 386.4 acres of land in Village Six. The ownership of Village Six is split between three property owners: McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, the Otay Ranch Company and the Catholic Diocese of San Diego. McMillin is proposing 482 single-family dwellings and 212 multi-family units on their portion of Village Six, while Otay Ranch Company is proposing 401 single-family dwellings and 1,392 multi-family units. The Catholic Diocese is proposing a church on an 11.5-acre site and a 32.5-acre private high school. (Director of Planning and Building) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the following resolutions, and place the following ordinance on first reading: A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 98-01) FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN; MAKING CERTAIN FINDiNGS OF FACT; ADOPTiNG A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA), AND SUPPORTING REGULATORY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM INVOLVING 386.4 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE SIX C. ORDiNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECTIONAL PLANNiNG AREA (SPA) PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE SIX ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS A. Scheduling of meetings. 12. MAYOR'S REPORTS 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday January 29, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, and thence to a Regular Meeting of February 5, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Page 5 - Council Agenda 01/22/02 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 1/22/02 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Second Amendment to the Agreement with Vollmer Associates LLP for a toil road operationaI review for the SR-125 Project, and authorizing the City Manager to sign the amendment. Resolution Approving Second Amendment to the Agreement with Infrastructure Management Group, Inc for a financially-based appraisal of the SR- 125 Franchise, and authorizing the City Manager to sign the amendment. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~,//~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager~/' ~, ~ ~o0 (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No ) On November 7, 2000 the City Council authorized staff to enter into an agreement with Vollmer Associates LLP (Vollmer), to conduct a "peer" review of information used by California Transportation Ventures, Inc. (CTV) in making traffic and revenue projections ibr the SR-125 Toll Road Facility. Further, the Council also authorized staff to enter into an agreement with Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. (IMG) to conduct a financially based appraisal of the SR-125 Franchise. The agreements, as originally approved, anticipated that completion of certain items ~vould require input from third parties. Due to circumstances beyond the consultants nd C~tv s control those ~tems have not been made available to our consultants and amendments to the agreements extending the date of completion need to be approved. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolutions: 1. Approving the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Vollmer Associates LLP for a toll road operational review lbr the SR-125 Project, and authorizing the City Manager to sign the amendment; and 2. Approving the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Infrastructure Management Group, [nc for a financially-based appraisal of the SR-125 Franchise, and authorizing the City Manager to sign the amendment. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable. On May 2, 2000, the City Council considered a report on the pros and cons of public ownership of the SR-125 Toll Road and directed staff to spend an adequate effort to investigate the necessary actions and commitments needed lbr the City to be involved in a public toll road. Then, on August 22, 2000, the Council reviewed a report from the finn of Smith and Kempton which outlined the necessary actions and studies required befbre considering entering into a JPA for ownership and operation of the toll road can be made. Based on those actions it was determined that it would be in the best interests of the City to proceed with further discussions/negotiations with CTV on acceptable terms and conditions for a possible transfer of' the SR-125 Franchise. To accomplish these discussions, it was also determined that it would he necessary to conduct an independent review of information relative to traffic and revenue projections Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date: 1/22/02 and to conduct an independent financial appraisal of the SR-125 franchise prior to making a final decision on a possible transfer. Per the Council's instructions, on November 7, 2001, staff brought agreements forward for approval for a "peer" review and a financial appraisal. The City contracted with Vollmer Associates LLP conduct an independent review of the proposed revenues that would be generated by the tolls (Attachment 1). In order to determine the toll revenues, a traffic volume study needed to be performed in order to project toll revenues. A third party, Wilbur Smith and Associates (WSA) was preparing this analysis for CTV and Vollmer's contract anticipated that WSA would be providing work. In addition, the City contracted with Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. (IMG)to provide a financial based appraisal of the Franchise (Attachment 2). The City needs to have a good understanding of the value of the Franchise in order to enter into negotiations for its purchase. IMG requires the information from Vollmer's review in order to complete the appraisal. Due to circumstances beyond the control of either the City or the consultants the work under these contracts could not be completed as originally scheduled. As a result, it was necessary to extend the time frames and a First Amendment to each of the agreements was entered into by the City Council on August 7, 2001 (Attachments 3 & 4). The contract work was, at that time, anticipated to be complete by November 6, 2001. However, due to the same circumstances that resulted in the need for the first time extension, the time frame again needs to be extended. WSA has not been able to complete their toll road revenue projections as originally anticipated and, therefore, neither of the City's consultants has been able to complete their work. Further, since CTV is now proceeding in earnest with their financing, additional time is needed to see how that proceeds and whether or not additional analysis is warranted and to what extent. City staff requests that the date for completion of all work under both contracts be extended until June 30, 2002 (Attachments 5 & 6). FISCAL IMPACT: The original overall estimate of the studies and services was $200,000 and the first amendment increased these costs by $65,000 bringing the total to $265,000. There is no additional cost for these time extensions. The funding source for this work is the Interim SR-125 DIF, fund number 592. Attachments: 1. Vollmer Associates I,LP Contract 2. IMS Contract 3. First Amendment to Agreement with Vollmer Associates LLP 4. First Amendment to Agreement with IMG 5. Second Amendment to Agreement with Vollmer Associates LLP 6. Second Amendment to Agreement with IMG CLS: S¥M348 J:\Engineer\AGI!NDA\125agmnt 2nd-amends DO( ATTACHMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND VOLLMER ASSOCIATES LLP FOR TOLL ROAD OPERATIONAL REVIEW This agreement ("Agreement"), is entered into effective as of November 27, 2000 ("Effective Date") by and between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("City") and Vollmer Associates LLP ("Consultant") and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals Whereas, the City of Chula Vista is considering the possibility of a public purchase of the State Route 125 South Tol! Franchise, and Whereas, the City Council has recently approved the selection of Consultant to conduct a "peer" review of information used by California Transportation Ventures, Inc. in making traffic and revenue projections for the SR 125 project, and Whereas, the City Council has authorized the City Manager to negotiate a contract with Consultant for this purpose, and Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (End of Recitals, next page starts Obligatory Provisions) H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\VoIlemer Contract.doc Page 1 OBLIGATORY PROVISIONS PAGES NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consultina services related to the Defined S~r~ices ('Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. H:\HOME\ENGINEER~,DMIN\Vollemer Contract.doc Page 2 E. Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. (1) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\Vo[lemer Contract.doc Page 3 H. Security for Performance. (1) Performance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. I. ' Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Duties of ti~e City A. Consultation and Cooperation City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\Vollemer Contract.doc Page 4 of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the.justifiable delay h-~ the Consultant's performance of this agreement. B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 'I 1, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 4. Term. This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. tt is acknowledcled bv both parties that time is of the essence in the o(~rnp!~,tior~ of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliver:able, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from H:\HOMEtENGINEER~ADMIN\Vollemer Contract.doc Page 5 monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. u. h'rorn~se r4ot ~:o ,~cqu~re Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant fur[her warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\Vollemer Contract.doc Page 6 E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereaffer. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless ConsUltant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall in- clude any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequept declaration by the Consultant. H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\Vollemer Contract.doc Page 7 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 9. (intentionally Deleted) 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date Of such termination. In that event, all fi'nished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subcor~sultants'L 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other H:\HOMEkENGINEER~ADMIN\Vollemer Contract.doc Page 8 country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independent Contractor City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arisin9 out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performin9 the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\Vollemer ContracLdoc Page 9 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatso, ever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\Voltemer Contract.doc Page 10 F. Governing Law/Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or re!ating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. (End of page. Next page is signature page.) H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\VolIemer Contract.doc Page 11 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND VOLLMER ASSOCIATES LLP FOR "PEER" LEVEL REVIEW OF SR 125 SOUTH TOLL FACILITY IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the Effective Date, City and Consultant h~ve executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: City of Chula Vista David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: J~n M."J"K,aheny, C,~y A'~tomey/I -- ~ Vollmer Associates, LLP. '~[~S ig~at'u re] [Print Name and Title] [Signature] By: [Print Name and Title] Exhibit List to Agreement (x) Exhibit A. H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\Vollemer Contract.doc Page 12 EXHIBIT A TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND VOLLMER ASSOCIATES LLP 1. Effective Date of Agreement: November 27, 2000 2. City-Related Entity: (x) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California ("City") 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: Vollmer Associates LLP 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship (x) Partnership ( ) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: Vollmer Associates LLP 50 West 23rd Street New York, New York 10010-5205 Voice Phone: (212) 366-5600 Fo' ,~hoac (212'~383 5829 7. General Duties: Conduct a "peer" level review of traffic and revenue projections for tile SR 125 toll facility H:\HOMEtENGINEER~ADMIN\Vollemer Contract.doc Page 13 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope of Work: 1) Review of Prior Reports. Review all prior' traffic and revenue material appropriate to the SR 125 project. 2) Kick-off Meetinqs. Based upon rewew of the prior reports, meet' with the City's representatives to outline the critical steps that will be taken as part of the peer review and a specific schedule for performance. Evaluate the reports and provide any early indications of key issues and findings. 3) Field Review. Key staff members will ride the area road network, undertake travel time runs, as well as meet with City, County, MPO and State officials to secure independent traffic and sociooeconomic data. Undertake a review of land use and economic trends. 4) Meetinq with Wilbur Smith Associate. Having finished preliminary review, meet with WSA and provide a list of issues and concerns for their response. Coordinate with WSA the run of several sensitivities of the traffic model based upon City specification to test how it responds to varying assumptions. WSA (and/or CTV) shall be responsible for the cost of such runs. 5) Review WSA Response and Sensitivities. Review and evaluate the material received from WSA, using such information to provide final judgments as to the traffic and revenue projections. 6) .Prepare a Letter Report summarizing findings. 7) Meet with City Representatives after providing a letter report to present and discuss the details of work and, at City's request, prepare a revised letter report incorporating City comments. B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (x) Same as Effective Date of Agreement Deliverable No. 1: Letter report summarizing findings -- to be delivered by a date to be agreed upon by the parties (currently estimated to be January 27, 2000) such that the report can be utilized by IMG in a timely manner to prepare its Preliminary and Final Valuation Reports under separate contract with the City. H:\HOME~ENGINEER~,DMIN\Vollemer Contract.doc Page 14 D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: February 23, 2001 9. Insurance Requirements: (x) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (x) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: Not applicable. 11. Compensation: A. (x) Fixed Fee Arrangement. For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for time expended, at the rates set forth below, and reasonable materials costs incurred, in a total amount not to exceed $50,000. Consultant shall bill City monthly. City's obligation to make payments hereunder at the time of Consultant's second monthly invoice shall not exceed $30,000, in the aggregate. Any amounts billed under the first two invoices in excess of $30,000 shall be carried over to, and be due and payable with, Consultant's third monthly invoice. City payments shall be due and payable within 15 days after receipt and approval of the submitted invoices. Rate Schedule Category of Employee of Consultant Name Hourly Rate Principal $210.00 Project Manager/Coordinator $150.00 Senior Professional $140.00 Professional $120.00 Junior Professional $90.00 Technical Typist $75.00 Technician $70.00 Field Technician $60.00 OTHER Per Usage Minute $10.00 Engineering/Architectural Work Station Per Hour $15.00 CADD Work Station Per Hour $30.00 H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMiN~Vollemer Contract.doc Page 1 5 12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: (x) None, the compensation includes all costs. 13. Contract Administrators: City: John Lippitt, Public Works Director, City of Chula Vista Wilt Kempton, Smith & Kempton, City Transportation Consultant Consultant: Gerald V. Nielsten, Partner 14. Liquidated Damages Rate: Not applicable. 15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (x) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. 16. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman: Not applicable. 17. Permitted Subconsultants: None 18. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's billing to be submitted for the following period of time: Monthly B Day of the Period for Submission of Consultant's Billing: By no later than the 15th of each month. C. City's Account Number: 2401348592 (STM 348) 19. Security for Performance: Not applicable. H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\VolIemer Contract.doc Page 16 ATTACHMENT ~= ~ . AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. FOR FINANCIAL-BASED APPRAISAL OF TOLL FRANCHISE This agreement ("Agreement"), is entered into effective as of November 27, 2000 ("Effective Date") by and between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation ("City") and Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. ("Consultant") and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals Whereas, the City of Chula Vista is considering the possibility of a public purchase of the State Route 125 South Toll Franchise, and Whereas, the City Council has recently approved the selection of Consultant to conduct a "financially" based appraisal of the Toll Franchise, and Whereas, the City Council has authorized the City Manager to negotiate a contract with Consultant for this purpose, and Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (End of Recitals, next page starts Obligatory Provisions) H:~'HOME~ENGtNEER~ADMIN\IMG contractl.doc Page 1 OBLIGATORY PROVISIONS PAGES NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties according to, and within the time frames set forth n Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this AgreemonL Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials 'r~;~ ~ ~J ~ ' ~e~ ~ 'U~ ~ ~ ~e ~a~e ,_hcneeule" ~n Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. H:\HOME~ENGINEERtADMIN\IMG contractl.doc Page 2 E. Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with tha. t leve! of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and IFmployer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached IFxhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City as an 'Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. (1) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by de ivery of Certificates of nsurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (Z) h'ol~cy I::naorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. H:\HOMb~ENGINEER~,ADMIN\IMG contractl.doc Page 3 H. Security for Performance. (1) Performance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 1 9, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 1 9, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. t. Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall H:\HOME~ENGINEER~,DMIN\IMG contractl.doc Page 4 permit access to its office facilities, flies and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indica, ted on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 4. Term. This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment H:\HOME~ENGfNEER~ADMIN\IMG contractl.doc Page 5 or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when. granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this a(~reement. H:\HOME%ENGINEER~ADMIN\IMG contract1 .doc Page 6 D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third oartv which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the negligence or wilful misconduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcO~I- H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\IMG contract1 .doc Page 7 tractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall in- clude any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 9. (Intentionally Deleted) 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, alt finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby exnr~k~ wni~es ~ny and all claims for d,~.mn, ges or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\IMG contracn.doc Page 8 consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this - Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in par[, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independent Contractor City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City wilt not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used bv the Cih~ in the implementation of sa. me Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal H:\HOM~ENGINEER~ADMIN\IMG contractl.doc Page 9 to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 6 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Aqreement and understandina between the par[ies relating to ~he subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enfomement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. H:\HOMEkENGINEER~,DMIN\IMG contractl.doc Page 10 E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing Law/Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. (End of page. Next page is signature page.) H:\HOME~ENGINEERLADMIN\IMG contractl.doc Page 1 1 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. FOR FINANCIALLY-BASED APPRAISAL OF TOLL FRANCHISE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the Effective Date, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: City of Chula Vista Attest: David D. Rowlands, Jr., C_~ Manager Susan Bigelow, City~;lerk Approved as to form: J,~n~Kaheny,,% _) C_~,ty~A-ttornI~, ) , Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. [Signature] [Signature]' [Print Name and Title] Exhibit List to Agreement (x) Exhibit A. H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\IMG contract1 .doc Page 12 ,,2 -,5o EXHIBIT A TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. 1. Effective Date of Agreement: November 27, 2000 2. City-Related Entity: (X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California ("City") 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (x) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. 4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 600 Bethesda, MD 20814 Voice Phone (301) 907-2900 iZax h~t~o~'le (30]) 90/-29Ub 7. General Duties: Conduct financially based appraisal of the SR 125 South Toll Franchise. H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\IMG contract1 .doc Page 13 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope of Work: 1. Meet with the City and advisors to establish: a. key data requirements, b. a schedule for performance of interim tasks and, c. an acceptable valuation approach that includes City-approved valuation factors. 2. Begin additional comparables research and development of full valuation model. 3. Clarify with CTV their program, if appropriate and necessary. 4. Incorporate inputs from City, Vollmer Associates LLP, other City and advisors and IMG research. 5. Prepare and deliver draft evaluation report (detailed presentation format). 6. Carry out sensitivities and valuation model refinements. 7. Complete and deliver final valuation report (detailed presentation format). 8. Unless approved by the City in writing, all written reports and materials shall be prepared at the direction of and be submitted to the City Attorney and shall be kept strictly confidential. B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (x) Same as Effective Date of Agreement C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. 1: Draft Valuation Report -- To be delivered by no later than the date agreed upon by the parties as the date sufficient to allow full City review and comment and timely preparation and delivery of the final report. Deliverable No. 2: Final Valuation Report -- To be delivered by no later than February 23, 200'l. D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: Eel3ruary 23, 2001 9. Insurance Requirements: (x) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (x) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\IMG contract~.doc Page 14 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: Not applicable. 11. Compensation: A. (x) Fixed Fee Arrangement. For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for time expended, at the rates set forth below, and reasonable materials costs incurred, in a total amount not to exceed $118,000. City shall pay Consultant in three installments. The first two installments shall be paid based upon invoices submitted by Consultant for time expended at the rates set forth below and reasonable materials costs incurred. The maximum amount owed by the City for the first installment shall not exceed $40,000; the maximum amount owed for the first two installments, in the aggregate, shall not exceed $80,000. The first installment invoice shall be submitted on December 15th and shall cover the period commencing with the Effective Date and ending December t4, 2000. The second installment invoice shall be submitted on January 15, 2001 and shall cover the period commencing with December 15, 2000 and ending January 14, 2001. Amounts billed under an invoice that are not immediately payable shall be carried over to and be due and payable with, Consultant's next invoice subject to the then applicable maximum compensation amount. City payments shall be due and payable within 15 days after receipt and approval of the submitted invoices. The final invoice shall be submitted with Consultant's submittal of the Final Valuation Report and shall be due and payable within 15 days after City receipt and approval of the submitted invoice and report. Rate Schedule Category of Employee of Consultant Name Hourly Rate Director $300.00 Project Managed Senior Staff $210.00 - $240.00 Senior Financial Analyst $150.00 Staff Analyst $100.00 12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance oi se~ wues ~3ere~rl ~'equ~rera, E;~ty snail pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: (x) None, the compensation includes all costs. H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\IMG contractl.doc Page 15 13. Contract Administrators: City: John Lippitt, Public Works Director, City of Chula Vista Will Kempton, Smith & Kempton, City Transportation Consultant Consultant: Steve Steckler, President 14. Liquidated Damages Rate: Not applicable 15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (x) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. 16. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman Not applicable. 17. Permitted Subconsultants: None 18. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's billing to be submitted for the following period of time: (1) Through December 15, 2000 (2) Through January 15, 2001 (3) Through February 23, 2001 (or date for completion of services) B. Day of the Period for Submission of Consultant's Billing: (1) December 15, 2000 (2) January 15, 2001 (3) With Final Valuation C. City's Account Number: 2401348592 (STM 348) H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN\IMG contractl.doc Page 16 A~¢fACHMENT FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETVVEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND VOLLMER ASSOCIATES LLP FOR TOLL ROAD OPERATIONAL REVIEW This first amendment to the agreement for toll road operational review is entered into as of August 7,2001, by and between the City of Chula Vista (CITY) a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California, and Vollmer Associates LLP (CONSULTANT). RECITALS: WHEREAS, the CITY has approved an Agreement with CONSULTANT dated November 27, 2000 and approved by Resolution 2000-403 (Agreement); and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT cannot meet the Date for completion of all Consultant se~ices due to circumstances beyond CONSULTANT's control; and WHEREAS, both CITY and CONSULTANT desire to amend the Agreement to revise the Date for Completion of all consultant services. NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: I. Exhibit A, Section 8D, is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: November 6, 2001 II. Except as modified herein, all other provisions of the Agreement approved by Resolution No. 2000-403 on November 7, 2000 shall remain in full force and effect. END OF FIRST AMENDMENT SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS J :',Engineer%&DMl%- ] si-exten-vollrner-conrract. DOC Page SIGNATURE PAGE TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND VOLLMER ASSOCIATES LLP FOR, TOLL ROAD OPERATIONAL REVIEW In witness whereof, as of the Effective Date, City and Consultant have executed this First Amendment WHSEEXS thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: City of Chula Vista By:. David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny. City Attorney Vollmer Associates, LLP. By: [Signature] By: By: [Signature] By: [Print Name and 'Title] J: ~kngmeer ~,~DMIN- !si-exlen-volkner-conrract. DOC Page 2 A'!q-ACHMEN} FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. FOR FINANCIAL-BASED APPRAISAL OF TOLL FRANCHISE This first amendment to the agreement for Financial-based appraisal of toll franchise is entered into effective as of August 7, 2001 by and between the City of Chula Vista, (CITY) a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California, and Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. (CONSULTANT). RECITALS WHEREAS, the CITY has approved an Agreement with CONSULTANT dated November 27, 2000 and approved by Resolution 2000-404 (Agreement); and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT cannot meet the Date for completion of all Consultant services due to circumstances beyond CONSULTANT's control; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is required to do additional work not anticipated in the original Agreement; and WHEREAS, both CITY and CONSULTANT desire to amend the Agreement to revise the Date for Completion of all consultant services and to revise the scope of work to include additional items requested by CITY. WHEREAS, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the agreement is hereby amended as follows: ,",mend h-xnloit A, Section SA, by expanding the Detailed Scope of Work as set forth in the original agreement, as follows: A. Detailed Scope of Work: 9. Attend up to two additional City Council meetings/workshops as directed by the City's Contract Administrator to discuss valuation approach, preliminary valuation and final evaluation report. J:\Engineer~ADMIN\lst-exten-IMG-contract.doc Page 1 i 0. Revise preliminary sensitivities and valuation model refinements using updated draft evaluation report based on updated information. (Deliverable No. 1) 11. Upon request of the City Contract Administrator, initiate and participate in preliminary discussions with City, other City advisors and CTV to review and update CTV's 1999 offer to the City, to examine and advise City regarding areas of probable initial agreement between the parties and to begin the process that could establish a workable framework for City acquisition of CTV's toll road franchise. II. Exhibit A, Section 8C, is amended to read as follows: C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. 2: Final Valuation Report -- To be delivered by no later than November 6, 2001 III. Exhibit A, Section 8D, is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: November 6, 2001 IV. Exhibit A, Section 11 A, the first two paragraphs shall be amended to read as follows: For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for time expended, at the rates set forth below, and reasonable materials costs incurred, in a total amount not to exceed $148,000 for tasks 1 through 10 inclusive and in a total amount not to exceed $35,000, including travel expenses, for task 11. Consultant shall bill City no more than once a month. Installments for Tasks 1 through I0 shall be paid based on invoices submitted by Consultant for time expended at the rates set forth below and reasonable materials costs incurred. The maximum amount invoiced by the Consultant for Tasks 1 throt~h I U snail not exceed $133,000 prior to completion of Deliverable No. 2. Any amounts billed for Tasks 1 through 10 in excess of $133,000 prior to completion of Deliverable No. 2 shall be carried over to, and be due and payable with, 'Consultant's final invoice for those tasks. City payments shall be due and payable within 15 days after receipt and approval of the submitted invoices. The final invoice for tasks 1 through 10 shall be submitted with Consultant's submittal of the Final Valuation Report and shall be due and payable within 15 days after City receipt and approval of the submitted invoice and report. Rate Schedule (Unchanged) J:\Engineer¼DMIN\l st-exten-lMG-contract doc Page 2 V. Except as modified herein, all other provisions of the Agreement approved by Resolution No. 2000~-03 on November 7, 2000 shall remain in full force and effect. END OF FIRST AMENDMENT SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS J:\Engineer~ADMIN\lst-exten-IMG*contract.doc Page 3 SIGNATURE PAGE TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETVVEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. FOR FINANCIALLY-BASED APPRAISAL OF TOLL FRANCHISE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the Effective Date, City and Consultant have executed this First Amendment thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: City of Chula Vista By:. David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. By: [Signature] My: [Print Name and Title] By: [Signature] By: [Print Name and Title] J:\Engin eer~ADMI N\lst-exten..IMG-contract doc Page 4 ~-~ACHMEN~'~.z.. SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND VOLLMER ASSOCIATES LLP FOR TOLL ROAD OPERATIONAL REVIEW This second amend ment to the agreement for toll road operational review is entered into as of January 22, 2002 by and between the City of Chula Vista (CITY) a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California, and Vollmer Associates LLP (CONSULTANT). RECITALS: WHEREAS, the CITY has approved an Agreement with CONSULTANT dated November 27, 2000 and approved by Resolution 2000-403 (Agreement); and WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a first amendment to the agreement effective as of August 7, 2001; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT cannot meet the Date for completion of all Consultant services due to circumstances beyond CONSULTANT's control; and WHEREAS, both CITY and CONSULTANT desire to amend the Agreement to revise the Date for Completion of all consultant services. NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: I. Exhibit A, Section 8D, is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: June 30, 2002 II. Except as modified herein, all other provisions of the Agreement approved by Resolution No. 2000-403 on November 7, 2000 and modified by Resolution No. 2001-251 shall remain in full force and effect. END OF SECOND AMENDMENT SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS J:\Engineer~ADMIN\2nd-exten-vollmer-contract. DOC Page 1 o?-cz/' SIGNATURE PAGE TO SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND VOLLMER ASSOCIATES LLP FOR TOLL ROAD OPERATIONAL REVIEW In witness whereof, as of the Effective Date, City and Consultant have executed this Second Amendment thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: City of Chula Vista By: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Vollmer Associates, LLP. By: [Signature] By: [Print Name and Title] By: [Signature] By: [Print Name and Title] J:\Engineer~ADMIN\2nd-exten-vollmer-contract. DOC Page 2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETVVEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. FOR FINANCIAL-BASED APPRAISAL OF TOLL FRANCHISE This second amendment to the agreement for Financial-based appraisal of toll franchise is entered into effective as of January 22, 2002 by and between the City of Chula Vista, (CITY) a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California, and Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. (CONSULTANT). RECITALS WHEREAS, the CITY has approved an Agreement with CONSULTANT dated November 27, 2000 and approved by Resolution 2000-404 (Agreement); and WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a first amendment to the agreement effective as of August 7, 2001; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT cannot meet the Date for completion of all Consultant services due to circumstances beyond CONSULTANT's control; and WHEREAS, both CITY and CONSULTANT desire to amend the Agreement to revise the Date for Completion of all consultant services. NOW, THEREFORE, the agreement is hereby amended as follows: I. Exhibit A, Section 8D, is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: June 30, 2002 II. Except as modified herein, all other provisions of the Agreement approved by Resolution No. 2000-403 on November 7, 2000 and modified by Resolution No. Z001-252 snail remain ~n tull torce and effect. END OF SECOND AMENDMENT SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS J:\Engineer~ADMIN\2nd-exten-IMG-contract,doc Page 1 SIGNATURE PAGE TO SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. FOR FINANCIALLY-BASED APPRAISAL OF TOLL FRANCHISE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the Effective Date, City and Consultant have executed this Second Amendment thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: City of Chuia Vista By:. David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. By: [Signature] [Print Name and Title] By: [Signature] By: [Print Name and Title] J:\Engineer~ADMIN\2nd-exten4 MG-contract,doc Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH VOLLMER ASSOCIATES LLP FOR A TOLL ROAD OPERATIONAL REVIEW FOR THE SR-125 PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT WHEREAS, on November 7, 2000 the City Council authorized staff to enter into an agreement with Vollmer Associates LLP (Vollmer), to conduct a "peer" review of information used by California Transportation Ventures, Inc. (CTV) in making traffic and revenue projections for the SR-125 Toll Road Facility; and WHEREAS, the agreement, as originally approved, anticipated that completion of certain items would require input from third parties; and WHEREAS, the third party could not provide the information in a timely manner and City and Consultant entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. 2001- 251 to provide for additional time; and WHEREAS, due to circumstances beyond the consultants and city's control, those items still have not been made available to our consultants and an amendments to the agreement extending the date of completion needs to be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Vollmer Associates LLP for a toll road operational review for the SR-125 Project, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to sign the Second Amendment to the Agreement on behalf of the City of Chula vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works J~~y~ City Attorney J,IATTORNEy\RSSOIVolimec 2" Amecd {Jacoacy 14, 2002 {w,19AMIl ~-tf5" RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. FOR A FINANCIALLY-BASED APPRAISAL OF THE SR-125 FRANCHISE, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT WHEREAS, on November 7, 2000 the city Council authorized staff to enter into an agreement with Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. (IMG) to conduct a financially based appraisal of the SR-125 Franchise; and WHEREAS, the agreement, as originally approved, anticipated that completion of certain items would require input from third parties; and WHEREAS, the third party could not provide the information in a timely manner and City and Consultant entered into a First Ämendment to the Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. 2001- 252 for additional time; and WHEREAS, due to circumstances beyond the consultants and city's control, those items still have not been made available to our consultants and an amendments to the agreement extending the date of completion needs to be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city council of the city of Chula vista does hereby approve a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. for a financially-based appraisal of the SR-125 Franchise, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Manager is hereby authori*ed to sign the Second Amendment to the Agreement on behalf of the ~ity of Chula vista. present$d by Approved as to form by John P.: Lippitt Director of Public Works @ çfJ1\ '~ J~. Kaheny city Attorney JIATTORNEYIRE!SOllMG 2"' Amocd (Jacoacy14,2002{10,9AM)] c2~~ Page 1, ltem ~ Meeting Date: 01-22-02 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, Acting in Its Capacity as the Legislative Body of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) Declaring the Results of a Special Election in Improvement Area A of such Community Facilities District. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works (~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X) On December 17, 2001 City Council approved the Resolution for the consideration to increase the principal amount of bonded indebtedness authorized to be incurred within Community Facilities District No. 2001-1(San Miguel Ranch) for Improvement Area A. On January 15, 2002 a public hearing was held to Make Findings and Determinations and submitting the question of Increasing the Authorized Bonded Indebtedness for Improvement Area A of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch), to the Qualified Electors of such Improvement Area; calling for a Special Election and Establishing Procedures and Conditions for Conducting such an Election. At the public hearing of January 15th, no public testimony was received by the City Council and no protests to the proposed increase in the bond authorization for Improvement Area A were received. On January 17, 2002, in the office of the City Attorney's Office, the City Clerk, acting as the election official, held a Special election of the qualified electors of Improvement Area A, i.e., the owners of property within Improvement Area A, on the question of increasing the Authorized Bonded Indebtedness for Improvement Area A of Community Facilities District No. 2001 (San Miguel Ranch). The outcome of the election was that 100% of the qualified voting property owners voting on the question voted in favor of the proposed increase in the bonded indebtedness. Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch)(CFD No. 2001-1) will fund the construction of public facilities, such as roadways and other public improvements for the San Miguel project from the proceeds of any bonds issued for [mprovemer~t Area A In addition, a potion o{' such bond proceeds may be authorized to be used for certain Transportation projects, as directed by the City. Tonight's actions will require the City Council, as the legislative body of CFD No. 2001-1, to certify the election results. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date: 01-22-02 RECOMMENDATION: That Council: · Approve the Resolution, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch), declaring the results of a special election in Improvement Area A of such Community Facilities District. DISCUSSION: Background As previously noted on January 17, 2002, in the City Attorney's office, the City Clerk, acting as the election official, conducted a special election with the qualified electors of Improvement Area A. The owners of land within Improvement Area A were asked to vote if the authorized bonded indebtedness for Improvement Area A of CFD No. 2001-1 should be increased from $13,500,000 to $15,000,000. The City Clerk and the Special Tax Consultant presided over the proceedings, verified the eligible voters, signatures, and presented the election ballots. At the conclusion of the election, the City Clerk caused the canvas of the ballots received. All of votes received were in favor of authorizing the increase in the bond authorization for Improvement Area A. The actual results of the voting are shown on the Certificate of Election Official and Statement of Votes Cast which is Exhibit A to the accompanying resolution. The Resolution There is one Resolution on today's agenda, which, if adopted, will accomplish the following: RESOLUTION DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR Improvement Area A in Community Facilities District No 2001-1 (San Miguel Ranch) and perform the following: · Certifythe election results Notice The property owl~ers within the district h~vc been noti fled o [the election nnd x, oting procedures that took place on January 17, 2002 in the City Attorney's office. Future Actions There are no further actions or findings for the City Council to consider at this time. Page 3, Item ~-~ Meeting Date: 01-22-02 Fiscal Impact: There will be no direct fiscal impact to the City. The developer has paid all formation costs and has deposited money to fund consultant costs and City costs related to the issuance of the bonds for improvement Area A in accordance with the approved Reimbursement Agreement. The City will receive the benefit of the full cost recovery for staff time involved in district formation and administration activities. Staffanticipates that most of the CFD No. 2001-1 administration will be contracted out. J:\Engineer~AGENDA\CAS 1-22-02 clean doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 200H (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN IMPROVEMENT AREA A OF SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT WH~REAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (the "City !Council"), has previously undertaken proceedings to create and did establish a Communit)1 Facilities District and to designate two separate improvement areas therein pursuant t01the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982," being Cha ter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California the "Act") and the City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Ordinance enacted pu~suant to the powers reserved by the City of Chula Vista under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of Article *1 of the Constitution of the State of California (the "Ordinance") (the Act and the Ordinance ¡nay be referred to collectively as the "Community Facilities District Law"). This Communit~ Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT! NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) (the "District") and the improvement areas shall be de ignated as IMPROVEMENT AREA A and IMPROVEMENT AREA B; and, W EREAS, subsequent to the formation of the District, this City Council did undertake roceedings to consider increasing the authorization for the issuance of bonds for Improvem nt Area A of the District and did call for and order to be held an election to submit to the qual fied electors of Improvement Area A of the District a proposition relating to the proposed i crease in the authorization for the issuance of bonds for Improvement Area A secured by the levy of special taxes within such improvement area; and, W EREAS, at this time said election has been held and the measure voted upon and such meas re did receive the favorable 2/3 's vote of the qualified electors voting on the measure, a d this City Council desires to declare the results of the election in accordance with the provisi ns of the Elections Code of the State of California. NOW, T EREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFOR lA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRIC NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH), DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, DE ERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SE TION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. SEtTION 2. This City Council hereby receives and approves the CERTIFICATE OF ELECTIO OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST, as submitted by the City 1 I 3-¥ I ! Clerk, actinf' in her capacity as the Election official, said Statement setting forth the measure voted upon, and the number of votes given for and/or against the measure voted upon. A copy of said Cerificate and Statement is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", referenced and so incorporate. SEC ION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed, pursuant to the provisions of the Elections C de of the State of California, to enter in the minutes the results of the election as set forth in aid STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST. PREPARE BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: John P. Lip itt Director of blic Works ~~~- John Kaheny City Attorney "~""""+'" ","" _'0, ,"". ~^&" ~,,~ 2 ..3-t; EXHIBIT "A" CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) The undersigned, ELECTION OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to the provisions of Section 53326 of the Government Code and Division 12, commencing with Section 17000 of the Elections Code of the State of California, I did canvass the returns of the votes cast at the CITY OF CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (SAN MIGUEL RANCH) IMPROVEMENT AREA A SPECIAL ELECTION in said City, held January 17, 2002. I FURTHER CERTIFY that this Statement of Votes Cast shows the whole number of votes cast in said Improvement Area of such Community Facilities District, and the whole number of votes cast for the Measure in such Improvement Area, and the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for the Measure are full, true and correct. Improvement Area A VOTES CAST ON QUESTION 1: YES NO WITNESS my hand this day of ,2002. CITY CLERK ELECTION OFFICIAL CITY OF CHULA VISTA STATE OF CALIFORNIA J:\cngineer\AGENDA\Rcs Declar Election Results, 1 22-02 ~ IA A Bond Auth doc 3 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 1/22/02 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Implementation Agreement for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works /~// REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ v (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X ) This agreement will be entered into by the County of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, E1 Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista. It establishes the responsibilities of each party with respect to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit regulations, which are administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the authority granted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA) and its 1987 amendments, the Water Quality Act (WQA). RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed regulations (published December 8, 1988 in the Federal Register) for the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits to regulate storm water discharge into the waters of the United States. The final version of these regulations, Municipal Permit Order No. 90-42, was issued on November 16, 1990. Pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, on February 21, 2001, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted the new NPDES Municipal Permit Order No. 2001-01 (Permit), which supersede the previous NPDES Permit (NO. 90-42). The EPA regulations require NPDES permits for dischargers from municipal storm drains on a system-wide or jurisdiction-wide basis. Based o~ these rcgalatious, thc Permit rcqui~cs all parties (named as Copermittees), the Coumy o1' San Diego, the incorporated Cities of San Diego County, and the San Diego Unified Port District, to cooperate in the implementation of a Storm Water Management Plan including the execution of an agreement (Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Attachment 1). The following differentiate the responsibilities of the Principal Permittee and the Copermittees: Page 2, Item '7~ Meeting Date 1/22/02 I - PERMITTEE REPONSIBILITIES A. Responsibilities of the Principal Permittee (County of San Diego) The Copermittees have designated the County of San Diego as the Principal Permittee to be responsible for the overall coordination and support. The responsibilities of the Principal Permittee may be amended by a vote of the Management Committee to include additional tasks or responsibilities necessary to meet the requirements of the Permit, or to provide additional water quality benefits as determined appropriate with consent of the Principal Permittee (see the MOU attached for more details). B. Responsibilities of all Copermittees including the Principal Permittec As a Copermittee the City of Chula Vista will be responsible for management of stormwater and urban runoff management programs within the City's limits including activities listed below: 1. Individual Program Responsibilities a. Individual Programs are urban runoff management activities and programs which are required of individual Copermittees as defined in the Permit (excluding the collaborative development of model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation P1 ans (SUSMPs)). b. Within their sole jurisdiction, each of the Copermittees shall incur each of the following Individual Program responsibilities: i. Establish and maintain adequate legal authority to control pollutant discharges from its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) as required by the Permit and to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Permit. ii. Provide data, information, and reports within the time frames agreed upon by the Management Committee, to the Principal Permittee as necessary for program development, assessment, and reporting purposes. iii. Cooperate with the SDRWQCB in pursuing enforcement action as necessary to ensure compliance with their URMP. iv. Enti)rce local laws, codes, and ordinances as necessary to ensure implementation of plans where it has statutory authority to pursue such enforcement actions. v. Ensure adequate response to emergency situations such as accidental spills, leaks, and illicit discharges. vi. Prepare and submit to Principal Permittee an individual jurisdictional URMP document. vii. Prepare and submit to Principal Permittee individual jurisdictional URMP annual reports. Page 3, Item ¢ Meeting Date 1/22/02 viii. Abide by the terms of the MOU where it does not conflict with any other statutory requirements. 2. General Program Responsibilities General Programs are urban runoff management activities and programs which are required of, or provide a general and collective benefit to, all Copermittees or groups of more than one, but less than all Copermittees. General Programs must be mandated by the Permit, or be necessary to implement activities mandated by the Permit, or otherwise be conducted with the consent of all Copermittees participating or cooperating in the particular activity or program. a. The following definitions shall apply to General Programs. i. Regional General Programs are activities and programs that apply to all Copermittees of the Permit. ii. Watershed General Programs are activities and programs that apply to the Copermittees within any of the Watershed Protection Areas (WPAs) def'med by the Permit. iii. Other General Programs are activities and programs that apply to multiple Copermittees, but which do not apply to Regional or Watershed General Programs as described above. II - REGIONAL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE A. Establishment of the Regional Storm Water Management Committee In the MOU, a Regional Storm Water Management Committee (Management Committee) is established to provide regional coordination of urban runoff management activities, to develop and implement Regional General Programs, and to develop a framework for consistency between Watershed or Other General Programs and Individual Programs. The development of urban runoff management activities at the regional, watershed, and individual program levels requires the input and participation of all Copermittees. The Management Committee will provide a forum for the representation of interests, and the development of consensus during the presentation, discussion, and evaluation ot proposed activities anct program elemeuts. B. Management Committee Representation The Management Committee Representation is established as follows (please see the attached MOU for more information): 1. The Management Committee shall be chaired by the Principal Permittee who shall record all votes in the meeting summaries. 2. Each of the Copermittees (18 cities, the County and the Port) shall be allocated one Page 4, Item 7- Meeting Date 1/22/02 vote. 3. Each of the Copermittees shall have one representative as a member of the Management Committee. 4. A quorum of two-thirds rounded up to the next whole person of the Management Committee must be present for a vote to be held. 5. Except as noted elsewhere in the MOU, approval of all Management Committee recommendations shall require a two-thirds affirmative vote of the total number of Copermittees present. In all instances, a majority affirmative vote of the total Management Committee rounded up to the next whole person shall be required. C. Responsibilities of the Management Committee The Management Committee shall be responsible for the following: 1. Developing, implementing, and/or arranging for implementation of, Regional General Programs (see the MOU for more details). 2. Addressing common issues, promoting consistency among Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Programs (Jurisdictional URMPs) and Watershed Urban Runoff Management Programs (Watershed URMPs), and planning and coordinating activities required under the Permit. 3. Jointly developing standardized format(s) for all reports required under the Permit (e.g., annual reports, monitoring reports, fiscal analysis reports, and program effectiveness reports. 4. Approving an annual Budget (see the MOU for more details). 5. Establishing by-laws for the conduct of all meetings. 6. Establishing subcommittees or workgroups to review specific issues and make recommendations. III - WATERSHED ACTIVITIES For each of the nine watersheds listed in the Permit, each Copermittee shall collaborate with other Copermittees within its watershed and shall develop and implement a Watershed URMP as required by the Permit. IV - FISCAL RESPONSIBILITIES Fiscal responsibilities are defined in the MOU as follows (see the MOU for more details): A. General Responsibilities 1. The Copermittees shall each pay a yearly assessment into a fund established for Program operations for their assigned portion of the Management Committee approved Budget (Budget). The proportionate share of the Budget that each Copermittee shall PageS, Item ~ Meeting Date 1/22/02 pay is defined in Section IV. B below. 2. Any individual Copermittee, or group of Copermittees, may enter into separate agreements with other Copermittees, including the Principal Permittee, for services necessary to fulfill "Individual Program Responsibilities" as described in Section I.B. 1. above. 3. Each Copermittee shall pay its share of expenses within 60 days of receipt of an invoice from the Principal Permittee. 4. Unless amended by a vote of the Management Committee, annually budgeted shared costs for Regional General Programs and activities shall include the following elements. Copermittees shall be responsible for their proportionate share of the amount approved pursuant to this section for each of these elements: a. Stormwater Permit Fees ($10,000 per year unless amended by the SWRCB). b. Receiving Waters Monitoring and Reporting Program. c. Regional Outreach and Education Program. Activities not required for Permit compliance shall be considered other General Programs rather than Regional General Programs. d. Regional Stormwater Hotline. The County agrees to continue operation of a Regional Stormwater Hotline as an in-kind contribution to the Copermittees' Regional Outreach and Education Program (see the MOU for more information). e. Contribution to the California Stormwater Quality Task Force (cost related to operation and contracts). The purpose of the Task Force is to assist the State in implementing the NPDES stormwater mandates of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Task Force recommends objectives and procedures for stormwater discharge control programs. f. Additional elements which have received unanimous consent of the Management Committee. 5. Each Copermittee shall timely submit a budget request, sufficient to fund the Copermittee's assigned share of the approved Management Committee Budget for the ensuing fiscal year, to that Copermittee governing body for approval. The submission shall reference and provide information on the approved Management Committee Budget, and shall inform the governing board that if the requested funds are not provided thc Copermittec will bc excluded fi'om further Management Cmmni~tec participation and will be in violation of RWQCB Order No. 2001-01. 6. Subject to approval by the Copermittees participating in a particular shared General Program, individual Copermittees may provide in-kind rather than monetary contributions toward the cost of that activity. Page6, Item /~ Meeting Date 1/22/02 B. Division of General Program Costs The following shall apply to the development and administration of the annual Management Committee Budget described in IV.A. above. Only shared Regional General Program costs described in Section IV.A.4 above are required to be included as part of this Budget. However, for convenience and/or economy, groups of Copermittees may elect to include Watershed and/or Other General Programs within this overall Budget. The cost share basis between the participating Copermittees for Watershed and/or other General Programs included in the budget may differ from the cost allocation formula described below. Prior to the allocation of shared costs, each proposed or approved budget element or sub-element shall be identified as either a Regional General Program, a Watershed General Program, or an other General Program, and the Copermittees sharing that cost shall be identified. The cost of any particular budget element shall be subject to the approval of only the Copermittees to which it applies. For each, costs shallbe divided among participating Copermittees. Thecost of Regional General Programs shall be allocated according to the following formula (see the MOU for more details): 1. Ten percent (10%) of the cost shall be divided equally among all Copermittees. 2. Forty-five percent (45 %) of the cost shall be divided based on population. 3. Forty-five percent (45%) of the cost shall be based on urbanized land area to be divided among all participating Copermittees. C. Division of Individual Program Costs During the life of the MOU, it may be necessary or desirable for Copermittees or groups of Copermittees to enter into agreements for services necessary to fulfill Individual Program responsibilities. Determination of costs for these services is solely the responsibility of participating Copermittees. FISCAL IMPACT: It should be noted that significant additional expenditures by the City will be required to achieve compliance under the NPDES Program and the Permit. Each of the parties to this agreement will have similar obligations under the Permit within their own jurisdictions. The MOU does not set precedent on the sharing of future compliance costs. Each agency pays those compliance costs within its jurisdiction. In FY01/02, the City's share, for the NPDES Stormwater Permit Fees and the Wet Weather Monitoring Program, is approximately $50,000. The total expenditures required for compliance with the NPDES Program and the Permit are still being evaluated and will be submitted for Council's approval in two phases. The initial phase, Page7,Item~ Meeting Date 1/22/02 which represent what the City's immediate needs are for this current fiscal year ( FYOIlO2), will be presented in a separate report later next month. Secondly, annual estimated continuing costs for the NPDES compliance (including staff, regional, watershed, and individual programs, etc.) will be presented before the beginning of next fiscal year. Funding sources to cover these additional expenditures has not yet been determined. Attachment 1, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) File # 0780-70-KYI8 1 1/15/026:32:28 PM J:\Engineer\ADVPLAN\NPDES\NPDES MOU 2001 ¡.naLiloc L/- ? RESOLUTION NO.2002------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) WHEREAS, this agreement will be entered into by the County of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinita$, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista; and WHEREAS, it establishes the responsibilities of each party with respect to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit regulations, which are administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the authority granted by the Federal Water pollution Control Act (CWA) and its 1987 amendments, the Water Quality Act (WQA). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Implementation Agreement for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) , 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 be, and she is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by CL ŸYt~ ~~ John M. Kaheny - City Attorney John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works J, \Attorney\ReBo\NPDES Implementation Agreement 1/- ¡; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System San Diego Regional Stormwàter Copermittees MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING December 3, 2001 This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), entered into by the County of San Diego (herein called County), the San Diego Unified Port District (herein called Port), and the incorporated cities of San Diego, Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, San Marcos, Del Mar, EI Cajon, Encinitas, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista (herein called Cities), collectively called Copermittees, establishes the responsibilities of each party with respect to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit regulations administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) under the authority granted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) 33 USCA 1251 et. seq. as amended. RECITALS WHEREAS, in 1987 Congress amended Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USCA 1342p) to require the U.S. EPA to promulgate regulations for applications for permits for storm water discharges; and WHEREAS, the U.S. EPA adopted final permit regulations on November 16,1990; and WHEREAS, these permit regulations require the control of pollutants from storm water discharges by requiring a NPDES permit which would allow the lawful discharge of storm waters into waters of the United States; and WHEREAS, the County, the Port, and the Cities desire to implement an integrated storm water management program with the objective of improving surface water quality in the County of San Diego; and WHEREAS, the California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) as designee of the U.S. EPA has delegated authority to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for administration of the NPDES storm water permit within the boundaries of its region; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2001, the Regional Board issued a NPDES permit and Board Order No. 2001-01 (herein called Permit) governing waste discharge requirements for storm water and urban runoff from the County, the Port, and the Cities, naming these entities as Copermittees; and WHEREAS, said permit and order require that the Co permittees cooperate in the implementation of a Storm Water Management Plan including the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: San Diego Regional Storm water Copermittees MOU - 1 - y- c¡ December 3, 2001 Record all Management Committee votes and provide meeting summaries. j. Maintain a current mailing list of interested parties. k. Coordinate public input process(es) for proposed regional management and implementation plans where applicable. Provide a repository for the centralization of urban runoff data and information. m. Conduct data management and analysis. n. Maintain knowledge of and advise the Copermittees regarding current and proposed State and Federal policies, regulations, and other NPDES programs; assist the Copermittees in the development and presentation of positions on these issues before local, State, and Federal agencies. o. Represent the Copermittees on the California Storm Water Quality Task Force. However, Copermittees do not waive their right to represent themselves individually as they deem appropriate. p. Formally advise appropriate State and Federal agencies of termination or amendment of this MOU. q. Formally advise Copermittees in advance of official votes to be taken by the Management Committee. 3. Responsibilities of the Principal Permittee may be amended by a vote of the Management Committee to include additional tasks or responsibilities necessary to meet the requirements of the Permit, or to provide additional water quality benefits as determined appropriate with consent of the Principal Permittee. B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL COPERMITTEES 1. INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES a. Individual Programs are urban runoff management activities and programs which are required of individual Copermittees as defined in Sections F, G, H, and I of the Permit (excluding the collaborative development of model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) required in Section F.1b.(2)). b. Within their sole jurisdiction, each of the Copermittees shall incur each of the following Individual Program responsibilities: Establish and maintain adequate legal authority to control pollutant discharges from its MS4 as required by Section D (Legal Authority) of Order No. 2001-01 and to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section F of the Permit. ii. Provide data, information, and reports within the time frames agreed upon by the Management Committee, to the Principal Permittee as necessary for program development, assessment, and reporting purposes. iii. Cooperate with the SDRWQCB in pursuing enforcement action as necessary to ensure compliance with their URMP. iv. Enforce local laws, codes, and ordinances as necessary to ensure implementation of plans where it has statutory authority to pursue such enforcement actions. San Diego Regional Stormwater Copermittees MOU - 3 - ~-// December 3, 2001 C. III 3. Each of the Copermittees shall have one representative as a member of the Management Committee. 4. A quorum of two-thirds rounded up to the next whole person of the Management Committee must be present for a vote to be held. 5. Except as noted elsewhere in this MOU, approval of all Management Committee recommendations shall require a two-thirds affirmative vote of the total number of Copermittees present. In all instances, a majority affirmative vote of the total Management Committee rounded up to the next whole person shall be required. 6. Meetings of the Management Committee, including any closed sessions with legal counsel, shall be conducted in accordance with the "Brown Act" (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) The individual Copermittees have differing opinions on whether the Brown Act legally should be interpreted as applying to members of the Management Committee. In executing this Agreement, the Copermittees do not waive their right to take the position that the Brown Act legally does not apply, but voluntarily agree to follow Brown Act procedures for Management Committee meetings. Except for official meetings of the Management Committee, nothing herein shall be interpreted to require meetings between staff members of the individual Copermittees (including designated representatives of the Copermittees) to be subject to the Brown Act, where the Brown Act would not otherwise apply. Each Copermittee is individually responsible for ensuring that it complies with the Brown Act. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE The Management Committee shall be responsible for the following: 1. Developing. implementing, and/or arranging for implementation of, Regional General Programs (see Section I.B.2.a.i.). Addressing common issues, promoting consistency among Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Programs (Jurisdictional URMPs) and Watershed Urban Runoff Management Programs (Watershed URMPs), and planning and coordinating activities required under the Permit. Jointly developing standardized format(s) for all reports required under the Permit (e.g., annual reports, monitoring reports, fiscal analysis reports, and program effectiveness reports). Approving an annual Budget (see Section IVA). Establishing by-laws for the conduct of all meetings. Establishing subcommittees or workgroups to review specific issues and make recommendations. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. WATERSHED ACTIVITIES For each of the nine watersheds listed in Table 4 of the Permit, each Copermittee shall . collaborate with other Copermittees within its watershed and shall develop and implement a Watershed URMP as required by the Permit. San Diego Regional Storm water Copermittees MOU - 5 - 7""-/...::$ December 3, 2001 iii. Copermittees or other agencies, and provide basic educational information. The cost of producing and/or distributing written or other materials in response to Hotline requests shall be the sole responsibility of the Copermittee to which those requests apply. With consent of the County, such materials may be provided under separate agreement. The County may discontinue providing this service at its own discretion, but in such case agrees to provide Copermittees sufficient notice to allow the establishment of other services as necessary to meet their Permit obligations. This period shall be at the discretion of the County, but shall include no less than 60 days written notice. iv. e. Contribution to the California Stormwater Quality Task Force. f. Additional elements which have received unanimous consent of the ManaQement Committee. 7. Following the end of each fiscal year, the Principal Permittee shall provide a detailed accounting of the costs and expenses. The Principal Permittee shall aiso provide the Management Committee quarterly Budget Baiance and Expenditure Status Reports. 8. The Principal Permittee agrees to waive administrative or other costs necessary to fulfill the responsibilities described in Section IA above. 9. Each Copermittee shall timely submit a budget request, sufficient to fund the Copermittee's assigned share of the approved Management Committee Budget for the ensuing fiscal year, to that Copermittee's governing body for approval. The submission shall reference and provide information on the approved Management Committee Budget, and shall inform that Copermittee's governing body that if the requested funds are not provided the Co permittee will be excluded from further Management Committee participation and will be in violation of RWQCB Order No. 2001-01. 10. Subject to approval by the Copermittees participating in a particular shared General Program, individual Copermittees may provide in-kind rather than monetary contributions toward the cost of that activity. 11. Should a dispute arise among any of the parties regarding any matter related to this MOU, the parties agree to first meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the dispute. If that fails to resolve the dispute, they will submit the matter to mediation. If mediation fails to resolve the dispute, they shall submit it to non- binding arbitration. If they cannot agree on a single arbitrator, they shall each select one arbitrator and the two arbitrators shall select a third arbitrator. The matter shall then be decided by a panel of the three arbitrators by a majority vote. B. DIVISION OF GENERAL PROGRAM COSTS The following shall apply to the development and administration of the annual Management Committee Budget described in IVA above. Only shared Regional General Program costs described in Section IVA6. above are required to be included as part of this Budget. However, for convenience and/or economy, groups of Copermittees may elect to include Watershed and/or Other General Programs within this overall Budget. The cost share basis between the participating San Diego Regional Storm water Copermittees MOU ~,;/ 5"' December 3, 2001 the urbanized land areas of each of the respective Port member cities (San Diego, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, and Imperial Beach). C. DIVISION OF INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM COSTS During the life of this MOU, it may be necessary or desirable, for Copermittees or groups of Copermittees to enter into agreements for services necessary to fulfill Individual Program responsibilities. Determination of costs for these services is solely the responsibility of participating Copermittees. v LIFE OF AGREEMENT A. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this MOU commences on its execution by each and all of the duly authorized representatives in the County, the Port, and the Cities. The life of the MOU shall run with the life of the current Permit plus six months, unless the Copermittees agree to put a revised MOU in place sooner. For purposes of this paragraph, any permit renewal or replacement after January 2006 shall be considered a new permit; any earlier amendment of the Permit increasing the obligations of the Principal Copermittee may at the County's sole option, be declared to be a new permit; and the Management Committee shall determine whether any other earlier amendment to the Permit is of such significance as to effectively be a new Permit. B. WITHDRAWAL OF COPERMITTEE 1. Participation in this MOU may be withdrawn by any Copermittee for any reason only after the Copermittee complies with all of the following conditions of withdrawal: a. The Copermittee shall notify all of the other Copermittees in writing 90 days prior to its intended date of withdrawal. b. The withdrawing Copermittee shall have its name deleted as a Copermittee to the Permit. 2. Any expenses associated with withdrawal, including but not limited to, filing and obtaining the withdrawing Copermittee's individual NPDES permit and the amendment of the Permit will be solely the responsibility of the withdrawing Copermittee. 3. The withdrawing Copermittee shall be responsible for their portion of any shared costs incurred according to the conditions of this MOU up to the time that each of the conditions in Section V.B.1. above has been met. 4. Any monies paid by withdrawing Copermittee in excess of the amount due under the terms of the MOU shall be refunded to the Copermittee at the time the withdrawal becomes final as set forth in Section V B.1.a. above. 5. The withdrawing Copermittee shall not be entitled to participate in the division of proceeds in any reserve fund account, if any, if, and when, the MOU is dissolved. San Diego Regional Storm water Copermittees MOU - 9 - //'-/7 December 3, 2001 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM: 5 MEETING DATE: 01/22/2002 ITEM TITLE: Resolution amending the FY 2001-02 General Fund Budget to provide funding necessary for professional assistance in implementing new reporting requirements of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manager Powell~ Director of Public Works ~C-'-- REVIEWED BY: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager ~ In order to maintain the highest standards of financial reporting, the City is required to implement newly mandated reporting requirements for this year's report. Professional assistance is required in order to insure an accurate and orderly transition and additional appropriations are necessary to pay for these services. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution amending the FY 02 budget by appropriating $75,2z~0 from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund for GASB 34 implementation assistance and Capital Asset valuation services. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: GASB Implementation Services A major challenge facing the Finance Department in FY 03 is the implementation of GASB Statement 34. In June of 1999, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) unanimously approved the issuance of GASB Statement 34, which represented the most significant changes in the history of financial reporting for state and local governments. While retaining some of the information currently provided by governments in their annual financial reports, the Statement requires additional information intended to make the annual reports more comprehensive and easier to understand and use. Among the new requirements of GASB 34, perhaps the most significant and far reaching are those dealing with the reporting of general infrastructure Item ~ Page 2 Date 01/22/02 assets. Examples of infrastructure assets include roads, bridges, tunnels, drainage systems, water and sewer systems, dams and lighting systems. The City of Chula Vista is a "first wave" city,' which means that we will be required to prepare our audited Financial Statements under GASB 34 requirements beginning with fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. The audit firm of Caporicci, Cropper & Larson, LLP, Certified Public Accountants provides auditing, accounting, and advisory services to numerous governmental entities throughout California. With offices located in Costa Mesa, Oakland and Sacramento and a staff of 25 audit professionals, the audit firm serves a variety of cities and counties throughout California as well as conducting financial related services to the State of California and various Federal agencies. Caporicci, Cropper & Larson, LLP, are currently under contract with the City of Chula Vista for Financial Statement auditing services. Due to their excellent work performed during the audit and their experience in GASB 34 implementation, we selected them to assist us in converting our 2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) under GASB 34 requirements. This will assist us in identifying any issues or necessary adjustments prior to the required deadline. Compliance with GASB 34 is critical in order to be meet professional standards, maintain comparable financial statements with other cities and to prevent a negative impact on the City's bond rating. Caporicci, Cropper & Larson were acknowledged by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board for participating in the early implementation of GASB 34 with the City of Corona. They are currently assisting other cities in their implementation efforts. Infrastructure Valuation Services The most significant change brought about by GASB 34 is the requirement to report major infrastructure assets. A Request for Proposal was distributed for infrastructure valuation services. We received two proposals, with MuniFinancial Services submitting the second proposal. American Appraisal was selected due to their experience with GASB 34 implementation and competitive price. American Appraisal will provide a physical inspection and inventory of City fixed assets and will prepare accounting records for Land, Building, Improvements Other than Buildings and Infrastructures. American Appraisal, founded in 1896, is the oldest and largest independent professional valuation firm in the world. Currently, it has over 1,000 employees located in 65 offices throughout the world. Services include appraisals of tangible and intangible ~Ssets, valuations of businesses and Item .~ Page 3 Date 01/22/02 closely held stock, real estate appraisals, physical inventories and appraisals of machinery and equipment, and financial advisory and property management consulting services. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact to the general fund will be $75,240. The funds will be appropriated to the Finance Department ($36,740), for implementation assistance by Caporic¢i, Cropper & Larson and Public Works Department ($38,500), for infrastructure valuation from American Appraisal Associates. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE FY 2001-02 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDING NECESSARY FOR PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE IN IMPLEMENTING NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (GASB), AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, in June of 1999, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) unanimously approved the issuance ofGASB Statement 34, which represented the most significant changes in the history of financial reporting for state and local governments; and WHEREAS, while retaining some ofthe information currently provided by governments in their annual financial reports, the Statement requires additional information intended to make the annual reports more comprehensive and easier to understand and use; and WHEREAS, the audit firm of Capoorici, Cropper & Larson, LLP, Certified Public Accountants, provides auditing, accounting, and advisory services to numerous governmental entities throughout California and are currently under contract with the City of Chula Vista for Financial Statement auditing services; and WHEREAS, due to the excellent work performed during the audit and their experience in GASB 34 implementation, the City selected the firm to assist in converting the 2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) under GASB 34 requirements; and WHEREAS, the most significant change brought about by GASB 34 is the requirement to report major infrastructure assets and a Request for Proposal was distributed for infrastructure valuation services; and WHEREAS, MuniFinancial Services and American Appraisal submitted proposals and American Appraisal was selected due to their experience with GASB 34 implementation and competitive price. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby amend the FY02 budget by appropriating $75,240 from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund for GASB 34 implementation assistance and Capital Asset valuation services. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Robert Powell Assistant City Manager ~~===--¡ J . Kaheny L-..---" Ity Attorney 5-4 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT REVISED 1/22/02 Item~ Meeting Date 1/22/02 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving reclassifications, salary adjustments and/or changes in benefit group for three classified positions and appropriating funds and amending the FY03 spending plan therefor. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Human Resources REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sth Vote: Yes --X- No~ The following requests for reclassification, salary adjustments and/or changes in benefit group are a result of increases in the level and complexity of duties and responsibilities assigned to three classified positions in two departments. These classifications now have three-incumbents. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Council adopt the resolution and amend the FY02 adopted budget by: a. Reclassifying one Community Development Specialist II to a Sr. Community Development Specialist and one Senior Community Development Specialist to a Principal Community Development Specialist in the Community Development Department and appropriating $6,228 based on unanticipated reimbursement revenue and appropriating $3,371 fÌ'om the available fund balance of the Redevelopment Low Mod Housing Fund and $2,857 fÌ'om the available balance of the Merged RDA Fund to reimburse the General Fund for these costs. b. Reclassifying one Nature Center Volunteer Coordinator to Nature Center Programs Manager and appropriating $1,172 based on unanticipated program revenue. II. Council Amend the FY03 Adopted Spending Plan by: a. Increasing Community Development's personnel services budget by $16,683 based on unanticipated reimbursement revenue; increasing the other expenses budget of the RDA Low-Mod Income Housing Fund by $8,062 and the RDA Combined Project Area Fund by $8,621 to reimburse the General Fund for these expenses. b. Increasing the Nature Center's personnel services budget by $2,810 based on unanticipated revenue. Salarylbenefit adjustments and lor changes in benefit group, to be effective pay period beginning January 25,2002. 6-1 Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 1/22/02 BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/ A DISCUSSION: Position: Community Development Specialist II (CVEA to Middle Management) Department: Community Development Department, Housing Division Recommendation: Reclassify an incumbent in the Housing Division fÌ'om Community Development Specialist II to Sr. Community Development Specialist. Discussion: In the last one and a half year the incumbent's position has evolved to include responsibility for assisting the Housing Coordinator by analyzing or presenting issues that arise during negotiations; implementing and managing affordable housing agreements in the eastern master planned communities and new buildings in the City; updating, implementing and monitoring compliance with the City's Housing Element and related guidelines; and amending, administering, and monitoring Mobile Home Ordinance. The incumbent also assists the Housing Coordinator by representing the Department on policy matters to the City Manager, City Council and other high profile outside parties. These main areas of responsibility will continue to be assigned to the incumbent and support the position upgrade as said duties are not typically assigned to other Community Development Specialist II in the Housing Division. The complexity of assignments is more aligned to the Sr. Community Development Specialist level of responsibilities such as analyzing policy issues, making recommendations, preparing high-level reports, and dealing with property owners, developers, and business representatives. Fiscal Impact: Salary range will increase by 10% to an annual E step of $ 64,836. Current year fiscal impact is $3,371 and $8,062 for FY93. Position: Senior Community Development Specialist (Middle Management) .' Department: Community Development, Redevelopment Division . Recommendation: Reclassify to Principal Community Development Specialist Discussion: This recommendation is based on a recognized increase in the level of complexity and responsibility assigned to one of two Senior Community Development Specialist positions in the Redevelopment Division. The duties currently assigned to this incumbent include a higher level of project management responsibility for several major redevelopment project areas along with managing complex real estate transactions and development of revitalization strategies involving the assigned projects. These duties more closely align with the Principal Community Development Specialist than the incumbent's current classification. The incumbent is independently responsible for the day-to-day management of the Redevelopment Agency's largest project area, the Southwest Project Area, which is over 1,000 acres of under-developed blighted areas in need of major, complex redevelopment efforts in an urban built-out context as well as the Fenton Commercial Project Area. The incumbent is responsible for a wide variety and heavy workload of development projects that require a high degree of project management skills and abilities which include dealing with developers and property owners, negotiating the purchase and sale of redevelopment agency property 6-2 Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 1/22/02 including terms and price ofland, hiring and overseeing consultants work in areas such as property appraisals, fiscal impact and cost and benefit studies. The incumbent is also responsible for a high level of coordination with various agencies or interested parties in complex land-use issues, property acquisition, relocation, infÌ'astructure and fiscal analyses. These project areas have complex and sensitive development issues and constraints that require a sophisticated level of real estate and development planning expertise to achieve redevelopment goals within the urban built-out physical environment. Also assigned is responsibility of participation as a member of the Department's General Plan Update team to assist on complex, sensitive and long-range planning matters associated within the southwestern community planning area of the City. Additionally, the incumbent works with the Broadway Business Association and leads efforts for the Community Development and Planning and Building departments to extend and expand cooperative planning and economic development education and communication efforts with appropriate local officials in Tijuana. Fiscal Impact: Salary range will increase by 10% to an annual E step of $ '74,563. Current year fiscal impact is $2,857 and $8,621 for FY93. Position: Nature Center Volunteer Coordinator (Middle Management) Department: Nature Center Recommendation: Create a new classification of Nature Center Programs Manager. The new classification will address the specialized nature of the duties performed by the incumbent and will better reflect the scope and level of responsibilities currently assigned. Discussion: This position was originally intended to design and implement volunteer programs to staff and operate the Nature Interpretive Center, and to aid in the restoration and enhancement of the Sweetwater Marsh complex. The responsibilities of this position have since evolved to include managing and conducting educational programs that serve not only the City ofChula Vista, but also San Diego County's students and adults alike. The scope of the incumbent's responsibilities in managing the educational programs consists of program development and implementation; program and exhibit design; research and preparation of training manuals, handbooks, and reports; presentation to students, teachers, and general public; teacher trainings and workshops; and the coordination of the Center's programs and activities with other agencies, divisions, private groups, and City departments. Duties also include management responsibility at the Center on weekends or when the Director is absent. Fiscal Impact: Salary range will increase by 5% to an annual Estep of$ 53,139. Current year fiscal impact is $1,172 and $2,810 for FY93. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund as sufficient unanticipated revenues have been identified to offset the increased costs associated with these reclassifications. 6-3 RESOLUTION NO.2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING RECLASSIFICATIONS, SALARY ADJUSTMENTS AND/OR CHANGES IN BENEFIT GROUP FOR THREE CLASSIFIED POSITIONS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AMENDING THE FY03 SPENDING PLAN THEREFOR WHEREAS, the addition of higher level duties and changes in level of authority and responsibility necessitates reclassification and/or change in benefit group for the following seven classified positions: Position: Community Development Specialist II. (CVEA to Middle Management) - Department: Community Development Department, Housing Division Recommendation: It is recommended to reclassify an incumbent in the Housing Division from Community Development Specialist II to Sr. Community Development Specialist. The complexity of assignments handled by the incumbent is more aligned to the Sr. Community Development Specialist level of responsibility such as analyzing policy issues, making recommendations, preparing high-level reports, and dealing with property owners, developers, and business representati ves. The salary range will increase by 10% to an annual E-Step salary of $64,836. Position: Senior Community Development Management) Department: Community Development, Redevelopment Division Recommendation: It is recommended to reclassify a Sr. Community ". Development Specialist to Principal Community Development Specialist. This recommendation is based on a recognized increase in the level of complexity and responsibility assigned to one of two Senior Community Development Specialist positions in the Redevelopment Division. The salary range will increase by 10% to an annual E-step salary of $74,563. Specialist (Middle Position: Nature Center Volunteer Coordinator (Middle Management) Department: Nature Center Recommendation: Create a new classification of Nature Center Programs Manager. The new classification will access the specialized nature of the duties performed by the incumbent and will better reflect the scope and level of responsibilities currently assigned. The salary placement will increase by 5% to an annual E-Step salary of $53,139. G,-Lj .-------.--. WHEREAS, the salary/benefit adjustments and/or changes in benefit groups, will be effective the pay period beginning January 25, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby reclassify one Community Development Specialist II to a Senior Community Development and one Senior Community Development Specialist to a Principal Community Development Specialist in the Community Development Department and appropriate $6,228 based on unanticipated reimbursement revenue and appropriate $3,371 from the Redevelopment Low Mod Housing Fund and $2,857 from the Combined RDA Fund to reimburse the General Fund for these costs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Cquncil of the City of Chula Vista does hereby reclassify one Nature Ce~ter Volunteer Coordinator to Nature Center Programs Manager and appropriate $1,172 based on unanticipated revenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY03 Adopted Spending Plan is hereby amended by: a. Increasing Community Development's personnel services budget by $16,683 based on unanticipated reimbursement revenue; increasing the other expenses budget of the RDA Low-Mod Income Housing Fund by $8,062 and the RDA Combined Project Area Fund by $8,621 to reimburse the General Fund for these expenses. b. Increasing the Nature Center's personnel services budget by $2,810 based on unanticipated revenue. Presented by Approved as to form by Candy Emerson Director of Human Resources JIATTORNEY\RESOI ""a""oatio", 1-15 (Jaoua'Y 22, 2002 (11"AM») G-S COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT I Item' n Meeting Date 1/22/02 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving reclassifications, salary adjustments and/or changes in benefit group for three classified positions and appropriating funds and amending the FY03 spending plan therefor. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Human Resources LV REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ () IL--' (4/5th Vote: Yes..x... No--> The following requests for reclassification, salary adjustments and/or changes in benefit group are a result of increases in the level and complexity of duties and responsibilities assigned to three classified positions in two departments. These classifications now have three incumbents. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Council adopt the resolution and amend the FY02 adopted budget by: a. Reclassifying one Community Development Specialist II to a Sr. Community Development Specialist and one Senior Community Development Specialist to a Principal Community Development Specialist in the Community Development Department and appropriating $6,228 based on unanticipated reimbursement revenue and appropriating $3,371 from the available fund balance ofthe Redevelopment Low Mod Housing Fund and $2,857 from the available balance ofthe Merged RDA Fund to reimburse the General Fund for these costs. b. Reclassifying one Nature Center Volunteer Coordinator to Nature Center Programs Manager and appropriating $1,172 based on unanticipated program revenue. II. Council Amend the FY03 Adopted Spending Plan by: a. Increasing Community Development's personnel services budget by $16,683 based on unanticipated reimbursement revenue; increasing the other expenses budget ofthe RDA Low-Mod Income Housing Fund by $8,062 and the RDA Combined Project Area Fund by $8,621 to reimburse the General Fund for these expenses. b. Increasing the Nature Center's personnel services budget by $2,810 based on unanticipated revenue. Salaryfbenefit adjustments and lor changes in benefit group, to be effective pay period beginning January 25, 2002. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A fo -I Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 1/22/02 DISCUSSION: Position: Community Development Specialist II (CVEA to Middle Management) Department: Community Development Department, Housing Division Recommendation: Reclassify an incumbent in the Housing Division from Community Development Specialist II to Sf. Community Development Specialist. Discussion: In the last one and a half year the incumbent's position has evolved to include responsibility for assisting the Housing Coordinator by analyzing or presenting issues that arise during negotiations; implementing and managing affordable housing agreements in the eastern master planned communities and new buildings in the City; updating, implementing and monitoring compliance with the City's Housing Element and related guidelines; and amending, administering, and monitoring Mobile Home Ordinance. The incumbent also assists the Housing Coordinator by representing the Department on policy matters to the City Manager, City Council and other high profile outside parties. These main areas of responsibility will continue to be assigned to the incumbent and support the position upgrade as said duties are not typically assigned to other Community Development Specialist II in the Housing Division. The complexity of assignments is more aligned to the Sf. Community Development Specialist level of responsibilities such as analyzing policy issues, making recommendations, preparing high-level reports, and dealing with property owners, developers, and business representatives. Fiscal Impact: Salary range will increase by 10% to an annual E step of $ 64,836. Current year fiscal impact is $3,371 and $8,062 for FY93. Position: Senior Community Development Specialist (Middle Management) Department: Community Development, Redevelopment Division Recommendation: Reclassify to Principal Community Development Specialist Discussion: This recommendation is based on a recognized increase in the level of complexity and responsibility assigned to one of two Senior Community Development Specialist positions in the Redevelopment Division. The duties currently assigned to this incumbent include a higher level of project management responsibility for several major redevelopment project areas along with managing complex real estate transactions and development of revitalization strategies involving the assigned projects. ïÌ1ese duties more closely align with the PrinclpaJ Community Development Specialist than the incumbent's current classification. The incumbent is independently responsible for the day-to-day management of the Redevelopment Agency's largest project area, the Southwest Project Area, which is over 1,000 acres of under-developed blighted areas in need of major, complex rcdcvclopmcnt efforts in an urban built-out context as well as the Fenton Commercial Project Area. The incumbent is responsible for a wide variety and heavy workload of development projects that require a high degree of project management skills and abilities which include dealing with developers and property owners, negotiating the purchase and sale of redevelopment agency property including terms and price ofland, hiring and overseeing consultants work in areas such as property appraisals, fiscal impact and cost and benefit studies. The incumbent is also responsible for a high level of coordination with various agencies or interested parties in complex land-use issues, property ~ Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 1/22/02 acquisition, relocation, infrastructure and fiscal analyses. These project areas have complex and sensitive development issues and constraints that require a sophisticated level of real estate and development planning expertise to achieve redevelopment goals within the urban built-out physical environment. Also assigned is responsibility of participation as a member of the Department's General Plan Update team to assist on complex, sensitive and long-range planning matters associated within the southwestern community planning area of the City. Additionally, the incumbent works with the Broadway Business Association and leads efforts for the Community Development and Planning and Building departments to extend and expand cooperative planning and economic development education and communication efforts with appropriate local officials in Tijuana. Fiscal Impact: Salary range will increase by 10% to an annual E step orS 64,836. Current year fiscal impact is $2,857 and $8,621 for FY93. Position: Nature Center Volunteer Coordinator (Middle Management) Department: Nature Center Recommendation: Create a new classification of Nature Center Programs Manager. The new classification will address the specialized nature of the duties performed by the incumbent and will better reflect the scope and lcvel of responsibilities currently assigned. Discussion: This position was originally intended to design and implement volunteer programs to staff and operate the Nature Interpretive Center, and to aid in the restoration and enhancement of the Sweetwater Marsh complex. The responsibilities of this position have since evolved to include managing and conducting educational programs that serve not only the City of Chula Vista, but also San Diego County's students and adults alike. The scope of the incumbent's responsibilities in managing the educational programs consists of program development and implementation; program and exhibit design; research and preparation of training manuals, handbooks, and reports; presentation to students, teachers, and general public; teacher trainings and workshops; and the coordination of the Center's programs and activities ~vith other agencies, divisions, private groups, and City departments. Duties also include management responsibility at the Center on weekends or when the Director is absent. Fiscal Impact: Salary range will increase by 5% to an annual E step orS 53,139. Current year fiscal impact is $1,172 and $2,810 for FY93. FISCAL iMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund as sufficient unanticipated revenues have been identified to offset the increased costs associated with these reclassifications. RESOLUTION NO.2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING RECLASSIFICATIONS, SALARY ADJUSTMENTS AND/OR CHANGES IN BENEFIT GROUP FOR THREE CLASSIFIED POSITIONS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AMENDING THE FYO3 SPENDING PLAN THEREFOR WHEREAS, the addition of higher level duties and changes in level of authority and responsibility necessitates reclassification and/or change in benefit group for the following seven classified positions: Position: Community Development Specialist II (CVEA to Middle Management) Department: Community Development Department, Housing Division Recommendation: It is recommended to reclassify an incumbent in the Housing Division from Community Development Specialist II to Sr. Community Development Specialist. The complexity of assignments handled by the incumbent is more aligned to the Sr. Community Development Specialist level of responsibility such as analyzing policy issues, making recommendations, preparing high-level reports, and dealing with property owners, developers, and business representatives. The salary range will increase by 10% to an annual E-Step salary of $64,836. Position: Senior Community Development Management) Department: Community Development, Redevelopment Division Recommendation: It is recommended to reclassify a Sr. Community Development Specialist to Principal Community Development Specialist. This recommendation is based on a recognized increase in the level of complexity and responsibility assigned to one of two Senior Community Development Specialist positions in the Redevelopment Division. The salary range will increase by 10% to an annual E-step salary of $64,836. Specialist (Middle Position: Nature Center Volunteer Coordinator (Middle Management) Department: Nature Center Recommendation: Create a new classification of Nature Center Programs Manager. The new classification will access the specialized nature of the duties performed by the incumbent and will better reflect the scope and level of responsibilities currently assigned. The salary placement will increase by 5% to an annual E-Step salary of $53,139. 6-+ WHEREAS, the salary/benefit adjustments and/or changes in benefit groups, will be effective the pay period beginning January 25, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby reclassify one Community Development Specialist II to a Senior Community Development and one Senior Community Development Specialist to a Principal Community Development Specialist in the Community Development Department and appropriate $6,228 based on unanticipated reimbursement revenue and appropriate $3,371 from the Redevelopment Low Mod Housing Fund and $2,857 from the Combined RDA Fund to reimburse the General Fund for these costs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby reclassify one Nature Center Volunteer Coordinator to Nature Center Programs Manager and appropriate $1,172 based on unanticipated revenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY03 Adopted Spending Plan is hereby amended by: a. Increasing Community Development's personnel services budget by $16,683 based on unanticipated reimbursement revenue; increasing the other expenses budget of the RDA Low-Mod Income Housing Fund by $8,062 and the RDA Combined Project Area Fund by $8,621 to reimburse the General Fund for these expenses. b. Increasing the Nature Center's personnel services budget by $2,810 based on unanticipated revenue. Presented by Approved as to form by Candy Emerson Director of Human Resources (;)ç;>.Jr ,K'L- ð ~ M. Kaheny~ ity Attorney JIATTORNEYIRESOI oeo"""oal;oo, 1-15 (Jaooacy 15, 2002 (419PM)] C;-s- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: '] Meeting Date: 01/22/2002~ ITEM TITLE: Consideration of request for designation of the George Sample House as a Historic Structure- 466 "E" Street Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista designating the house at 466 "E" Street as the Galligan House and placing it on the City of Chula Vista List of Historic Sites in accordance with the Municipal code Section 2.32.070(A) SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building~ ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes __No X ) The property owner, Elizabeth Galligan, has requested that her property 466 "E" Street be considered for inclusion on Chula Vista's List of Historic Sites. (Attachment 1) The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 1533, Class 31, Historical Resources Restoration and Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council find that 466 "E" Street meets the local criteria for designation of a site and therefore should designate it as the Galligan House (historic site//50) on the City of Chula Vista List of Historic Sites. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation Commission considered the designation of the property at their December 3, 2001 meeting and recommends that the City Council designate the George Sample House, 466 "E" Street as Historic Site #50 on the City of Chula Vista List of Historic Structures. (Attachment 2) '--7 Page 2, Item No.: / Meeting Date: 01/22/2002 DISCUSSION: Municipal Code Authority In accordance with Section 2.32.070 of the Municipal Code, the RCC "shall recommend to the City Council the designation of any site, which it has found to meet the local criteria as a historical site and the commission shall also recommend if the Historic Site Permit Process should be imposed on the site." The Historical Site Permit Process has provisions to stay the issuance of permits for demolition or modification in order for the RCC to make a recommendation to the City Council about potential actions that could be taken to preserve the site. The RCC elected not to recommend the Historic Site Permit for this property. The City has adopted six criteria that are used to determine if a particular property should be included on the Historic Site List. A site must meet one of the six criteria. Owner Participation On October 18, 2001, staff received an application for historic designation from the property owner, Elizabeth Galligan. (Attachment 3) Ms. Galligan was in attendance when her house was considered for designation at the December 3, 2001 Resource Conservation Commission meeting. A letter has been sent to the property owner notifying her of the current pending action regarding her property. Background on Proposed Historic Site 1. Past History The 1985 City of Chula Vista Historic Resources Inventory states that the home was built in 1929. George A. Sample and his wife, Myrtle, had this house built for them. They sold the house to George T. Galligan in early 1937. The house has remained in the Galligan family for over 60 years. Since the early 1930's, Mr. Galligan and his family have been active Chula Vista residents. The applicant, the daughter of Mr. Galligam states in her application that her father was a lemon grove owner and one time president of the local lemon packing organization, which was one of the primary mainstays of Chula Vista's economy for many years. (Attachment 4) The house was listed on the Historic Resources Inventory as the George Sample house because Mr. Sample was the first owner of record. Typically, for inventory purposes, the historic name of the property is the first property owner of record though according to other jurisdictions such as San Diego and Escondido it would be reasonable to designate a Page 3, Item No.: 7 Meeting Date: 01/22/2002 property with the family or person historically associated with the house, which in this case would be the Galligan family. Though the house was included in the Historic Resources Inventory, the house was not placed on the City's List of Historical Sites. 2. Tudor Style Architecture: According to several reference guides on architectural styles, this house can be specifically categorized as "French Eclectic" more than simple Tudor style. French eclectic houses often resemble the contemporaneous Tudor style that is based on the English precedent but usually lack the dominant front facing cross gables characteristic of Tudor architecture. Identifying features include: · Tall, steeply pitched hipped roof · Upward flared eaves ,, Brick, stone or wall cladding · Decorative half-timbering French Eclectic architecture is a relatively uncommon style dating back to 1915. It is believed that American architects gained their inspiration from France during WWI and subsequent photographic studies of modest French houses that were published in the 1920's. This style demonstrates a great variety in form and detailing but is united by the characteristic high-pitched roof. 3. Features of the Site According to the Historic Resources Inventory, the house is a one-story house that features a stucco exterior and a high, cross gable roof. A round tower with a conical roof contains the carved front door. The wooden shingles on the house roof have been laid in a staggered pattern to create an interesting effect. A large exterior chimney exists at the right end of the house. Windows in the home contain multiple diagonal panes. The inventory classifies the architectural style as Tudor. The historic resources inventory states that at the time it appeared that there was an addition to the rear of the house Staff has determiued and confirmed with the current owner that this was misinformation as there never was an addition to this house. (Attachment 5) Page 4, Item No.: ~ Meeting Date: 01/22/2002 Conclusion This home of relatively mfique architecture contributes to Chula Vista's eclectic housing inventory. The house has remained in the Galligan family for 65 years. The Galligan family has been active in the community for several decades, including Mr. George Galligan, who was a leader and active force in Chula Vista's lemon grove industry for years. Ms. Galligan, the current owner, has been committed to retaining the historical character of the house and she would like for the house to be designated with the Galligan name since it has been in the family for so long. Therefore, Staff recommends that the house be placed on the City Of Chula Vista List of Historic Sites as the Galligan House To date, the house retains the integrity of its original design and materials. From all available research, .it appears that the house meets at least two of the local criteria. The RCC is recommending that the City Council find that the George Sample house meets these criteria, distinguishing architecture (Criteria #4), and continues to have evidence of the original features (Criteria #6). Therefore the RCC recommends placing the home on the City's List of Historic Sites. The RCC has further recommended that a Historic Site Permit not be issued for this site. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with inclusion of 466 "E'? Street, the George Sample house, on the Chula Vista List of Historic Sites. Attachments: 1. Locator Map 2. Resource Conservation Commisssion Minutes (December 3, 2001) 3. Application for Historic Designation 4. Historic Resources Inventory Worksheet 5. Photos J:\Planning\Lym~erte\historic designation\466 E designation AGENDA STATEMENT2.doc CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR Pao~C-CT ELIZABETH A. GALLIGAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPUCAh'T:  PROJECT 466 "E" STREET Proposed Historical Site Desi~Ination SCALE: ~lU~ ~U~B~ ATTACHMENT 1 NORTH No Scale h 4h""'~planning\tocators 11/13/01 7~..%--~ RCC Minutes - 4- December3 2001 Amend motion to add that no historic site number will be placed on the house until the windows are replaced. This was agreed to by the motion maker and second. Vote: (5-0-0-1) with Burrascano absent. 2. Historic Designation, 466 'E' Street (George Sample House) Ms. Lopez indicated that the owner, Ms. Elizabeth Galligan, has requested designation based upon the distinguishing architecture character, the house is over 69 years old and retains many of its original features, and it is a unique subtype of Tudor style architecture. The house was built in 1929 for George A. Sample. The City of Chula Vista Historic Resources Inventory of 1985 states that it appears that there was an addition to the rear of the house. Staff has determined and confirmed with the current owner that this was misinformation as there was never an addition made to this house. The house appears the meet Criteria #4 and #6. Commissioner Reid asked if the owner had applied for the Mills Act. Ms. Lopez stated that Ms. Galligan does not wish to apply for the Mills Act Agreement. MSC (BensoussanFFhomas) to approve for historic designation. Vote: (5-0-0- 1) with Burrascano absent. Chair Bull recommended that it be noted on the Historic inventory that the back of the house is not an addition. Ms. Ponseggi stated that staff could do that. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd) 4. Mills Act Contracts for: 311 'D' Street: The Frank Damren House 21 'F' Street: The Starkey House 279 'J' Street: The Victor Day House 200 'K' Street, The Edmund Russ House 665 Del Mar Avenue: "El Nido" The Mary Miller House 224 Fig Avenue: The George Steese House 124 Hilltop Drive: The Leo Christy House 344 Hilltop Drive: The Dupree-Gould House 614 Second Avenue: ]'he Nadine Davies House 616 Second Avenue: The Greg Rogers House 642 Second Avenue: The Garrettson-Frank House 644 Second Avenue: The Jennie MacDonald House 640 Fifth Avenue: The Stafford House ATTACHMENT 2 ~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~ PLANNING & BUILDI2~G DEPARTMENT Historic Designation cy~ o~ 276 Fourth Avenue CHULA VIS'lA Chula Vist~ CA 91910 APPLICATION FORM EC,o/lC.,~lt/Owner Name: ELLzabeth A. GaZ2.igan--0wne~ Case #: Date Submitted: /~' /'¢ '4) / Applicant/Owner Address: 466 E S~ee.t, Chuf..a V.~ta, CA Phone: 619-420-3739 Secondary Owner Name: (not appZicableJ Owner Address: Phone: DATE: / ///Z¢--/~:¢--/¢/ ,¢ DATE: PROPERTY INFORMATION [ Property Address: 466 ESt. cee~, Chu.~z' Vx~.t~t, CA Common name: 466 E Stytec,t Historic name: Sample home YearBuilt: ;93¢.ic/,,~ Approximate Property size (in feet) or approximate acreage b0 ' x 141' Ownership is: Private X or Public Present Use: PeJusormZ home Original Use: Pe~orm! home Architectural Style:. FRENCH ECLECTIC Assessor's Parcel Number (Required): ¢568-012-02 Zone: R - 1 Use the ,'everse side of this form or a separaie piece of paper may be attached for questions 1. Please describe, in detail, historical aspects of the site or structure as well as any other significant factors ~which may determine the property as a historic site/landmark (i.e. special aesthetics; cultural, architectural, or engineering factors; and any dates, events, or persons associated with the site or structure). See attached established criteria for designation. (See accompanying attachment) 2. Has the site or structure been altered in any way from its original design? Yes No X (If yes, explain) 3. Briefly describe the present physical condition of the property include a rating of poor, fair, good, or excellent. The lawns and shrubbery {back and froth} a~e cZipped, fertAZized and ' watered on a regula~ basis. The home is regularly pair~ maintained and yea~y checked for ~e~mite comCrol b~ a service contract. The physical condition o~ the property ~ v_~._y ~od to excellent. ATTAE~FNT 3 (I OF ATTACHMENI TO HISTORIC DESIGNATION FORM Prope~y Owner: Etizab~h A. G~ligan HISTORIC/LANDMARK INFORMATION Item 7 ..... Th~ home ~ a one story house wi~h a Stucco exterior, a high cross gable roo~, a round tower wi~ a conical roof con~ng a ca~ved fron~ door entrance. A large exte~or chimney ex~s on the right end (west s~e) o~ the ho~se. The windo~ on t~e front section o~ the house contain multiple diagonal panes. The ~ront ex~e~or of ~he house has been described ~s a TUDOR type home by some reviewers. However, in revie~ng the text - A Field G~ide to American Homes, by Vi~i~ia and Lee McAlester, pu~ by Alfred A. Knoll, Inc., 1984, the following descriptive pa~raphs appea~ which more clos~ apply to t~ home's arch~ect~ form and type: FRENCH ECLECTIC (1915-1945) The ~ent~fying ~ea~es of t~ type in,de: Ta~l steeply pitched hipped roof (occassion~y gabled in the Towered subtype) without dominant front fa~ng cross gables; eaves commonly flared upward at roof w~ junction; b~ick, stone, or stucco wall clodding; somet~es ~h deco~ive half- timbering. There are three subtypes in this c~egory: i.e. symmetrical, asymmetrical, and towered. TOWERED: Th~ common su~pe ~ immedi~ely identifie~ by the presence o~ a high prominent round tower ~h a conical roo~. The tower gene~y houses the principal do~way. IAs the enclosed photog~ph~ of the front of my home ~t~es, my home classy approximates the FRENCH ECLECTIC style ~er than any o~ the TUDOR styles. ) The h~tory of indivi~ ownership ~or t~ prope~y at 466 E S~ee~ st~ w~ the purchase of the lot by Mr. and M~. George A. Sample in Febru~ of 1929. Mr. Sample ~ an adv~ising exec~ve w~h the outdoor a~ve~ing company known as Foster an~ Klieser. The home, relied to as Sample home, was not immedial~ b~il~ on the proper~y a~ter i~ purchase. The compl~ion of the co~tru~ion occurred in 1932. The senior Samples and the~ son and daughter-in-~ lived in ~he home u~il e~y 1937 when ~eor~e ~. ~ai~gan purchase~ i~ ~rom them. Since that year the Galligan ~am~ly has owned and lived in the home. A~o, in i937, Mr. G~gan purebred a ~enty acre lemon grove ~ocated in the eustern hal~ of the area desc~bed by F~t Avenue b~tween F. And G street~. He held t~s property for several years. He joined the lemon packing organization refe~ed to MOD that occupied the area near the intersection of F s~e~ and 4th avenue. For several year~ he was a board member of that fi~ and ul~ately s~rved as ~ president~ ATTACHMENT 3 (2 OF 2) -- ~'~-A~-M~-O~ND RECREATION L HAJ~S HAER NR -- SHL -- Ht~TORIC RESUrgeS INVENTORY c D ~ ~ '- iDENTI FICTION ~ · - -l~zabeth Galligan House 2. Ni~oric name: George S~ple House 3~ Sb-eet or ~ral ~Jdl'~:.. 466 "E" Street C~. Chula Vista ~ 92010 San Diego 568-012-02 4. ~t numar: 5. ~n~ner: Elizabeth 'A. Galligan ~dr~:_ 466 "E" Street g~ Chula Vista ~ 92010 .~i~is: ~blic ~iv~z, x [ ~z U~: residential ~gi,.l ~:. residential o ESCR I~ION 7~ ~i~ ~te: ~dor ~1 ~ido.: This cha~ing one sto~ house feat~es a stucco exterior and a high, cross g~le roof. A round tower with 'a conical roof contains the ca~ed front door. The wooden shingles on the house roof have been laid in a staggered pattern to create an interesting effect. A large exterior chi~ey graces the right end of this house. Windows in the home contain multiple diagonal panes. There appears to be an addition at the rear of this house. The high g~le roof, the multiple pane windows and the large ch~ey are all typical of ~e Tudor style. Builder t~know~ .~4~l:m~. ~,ropert~ siz. (in Frontm~ 53 D~ 141 1985 ATTACHMENT 4 (1 OF 2) oossib!e addition in the rear 14. Alte'r-atior~: - 15. Surrounctngs: {Ch,.,-~ moo, ~tan o~e if rmc~sary) Open land ~:at-tered buildings Dem~y buitt-u~ y R eslden'dal '~ I~ Coe'mmet-~at 1 ~- Threats to s~te: Nor~ lcnov~3 E P~ d~vetoDcnen~ Z~nir~g Vandalism Public Works Drojec~ __ Other: 1 7. Is The s'~ructure: On its original r4-te? >~ Moved? __ Unknown? 18. Related feazures: ~aracTe, landsca,Din~ SIGNIFICANCE Briefly :~m h~orical and/or ~it~-turai importance (include deter. ~e~t~, a~d ~o~ a~xfiated wf6~ the site.) On Feb. 2, 1929, George A. Sample and his wife, Myrtle, purchased this property and had this house built for them before long. George Sample was an advertizing executive. George A. Sample Jr and his wife, Charlotte, also lived her~ for a time. George Sample Jr. was a local advertizing man from 1930 to 1935. He later moved to Tacoma and became a restaurant owner. This house appears to retain integrity of design and materials, and is one of the few with this style in Chula Vista. The Tudor~ style was popular in the United Statues from 1890 to 1940. ~rr~undimj ~ roa~, and Ixomine~t tam, market: 20.Main ~m of ~e h~ ~: (If m ~an o~ is ~ n~ in ~ of i~) ~NOR~ A~ x ~ & ~ 21. ~ (~ ~~~ mi i~ SD Union -. 7/21/50 City ~iractcrias ~ Tax Assessment Rolls ATTACHMENT 4 (2 OF 2~ Front Rear 7 -~// RESOLUTION NO.- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DESIGNATING THE HOUSE LOCATED AT 466 E STREET, ORIGINALLY KNOWN AS THE GEORGE SAMPLE HOUSE, AS A HISTORIC SITE AND PLACING THAT STRUCTURE ON THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S LIST OF HISTORIC SITES AS THE GALLIGAN HOUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.32.70(A). WHEREAS, the structure originally known on the Chula Vista's Historic Resources Inventory as the George Sample House is a house of Tudor. architecture located at 466 E Street in the City OfChula Vista (APN 568-0\2-02) constructed in 1929; and, WHEREAS, staff received communication from the property owner, Elizabeth Galligan, requesting that the George Sample House be designated as a historical site on the City of Chula Vista List of Historic Sites as the Galligan House; and, WHEREAS, State of California Historic Eligibility Criteria requires that a site be found significant at a local, state, or national level, under one or more of the criteria for designation; and WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that the George Sample House meets one of the local criterion for designation because it is shown that it has distinguishing architectural characteristics that are identifiable and, WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that the George Sample House meets one of the local criterion for designation because it continues to have' evidence of the original features. WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission at their regular meeting on December 3,200\ voted 5-1 (with Commissioner Burrascano absent) to recommend that the City Council place the George Sample House on the City of Chula Vista List of Historic Sites; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 1533\, Class 3\, Historical Resources Restoration and Rehabilitation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the designation of the house located at 466 E Street, originally known as the George Sample House on the Chula Vista's Historic Resources Inventory, as a Historic Site and hereby places that structure on the City ofChula Vista List of Historic Sites as the Galligan House. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning & Building D~ 7. »-- John M. Kaheny City Attorney 7-/2... Revised 1-18-02  /~I]~' Council Agenda Statement ~ Item: 8 cflY O1: CHULA VISIA Meeting Date January 22, 2002 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Providing Funding Necessary for Special Counsel Attorney Services Challenging State Permitting of the Ramco Chula Vista Il Peaker Generation Station and Amending the FY 2001-02 General Fund Budget therefor SUBMITTED BY: Michael T. Meacham, Special Operations Manager~ Glen R. Googins, Assistant City Attomey~lZfZ:~ REVIEWED BY: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager ~fz ~ ~' (4/5ths Vote Yes X No ~ BACKGROUND: In June of 2001 the City engaged the services of McKenna &Cuneo, L.L.P to provide technical legal assistance regarding the City's opposition to the Ramco Chula Vista 11 Peaker Generation Station proposed for Albany Avenue, south of Main Street. On short notice, McKenna & Cunco assisted with the development of a strategy to oppose the RAMCO Chula Vista Peaker II Generating Station, prepared opposition letters and judicial appeals, and attended California Energy Commission (CEC) hearings. After being a significant part of a successful effort to encourage RAMCO to not proceed with its project, City staff directed McKenna & Cunco to continue its efforts to challenge project permits to prevent RAMCO from reinstituting or selling the project. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution as submitted and amend the FY 2001-02 budget by appropriating $76,065 from the available fund balance of the General Fund for legal services regarding the Ramco II Peaker Plant. BOARD AND COMMISION RECOMMENDATION: No boards or commissions where involved in this process. DISCUSSION: In the spring of 2001, Ramco proposed to place a 66-megawatt electrical generating plant on Albany Avenue south of Main Street. This plant would be the second at this site. It would more than double the capacity of thc existing 44-megawatt operation and would not have the environmental controls required by the first plant. The City felt strongly that the City and South Bay region had donc more than its fair share in siting electrical generating facilities which included the approved 500 megawatt Otay Plant, the existing 708 megawatt South Bay Plant in Chula Vista and up to five additional peaker plants proposed for the South Bay area. Council directed staff to oppose the development and operation of the second peaker plant proposed for Chula Vista. The City's effort was able to generate enough public comment opposed to the plant to encourage the applicant to withdraw its application. Staff continued the effort and legal services to assure that the project could trot be continued at some later date under the current application. That meant thc filling of several documents and the appearance at subsequent hearings before the CEC. Staff was very impressed and satisfied with the quality and timeliness of the highly specialized legal services provided by the McKenna & Cuneo lawyers. McKenna also offered the City a competitive "blended" hourly rate of $280. (The actual rates of the partners doing the vast majority of the work were $350 to $375 per hour). The technical assistance required to oppose the plant on a variety of health and environmental justice points and the postponement of the hearings caused the initial estimates of approximately $45,000 to increase to $94,000. Due to the extent to which costs exceeded initial estimates, McKenna voluntarily agreed to reduce this amount to $76,065. This is a substantial discount (over 20%) on the cost of actual work perforated that staff fees reflects favorably on the integrity of the finn. Staff remains confident that it was in the public's best interest to oppose the plant and protect the community from the potential health and safety issues that could result from a proliferation of plants in the South Bay. These expenses represent the "out-of pocket," costs of confronting and winning that challenge. City staff itself also committed substantial staff time to presentations at public hearings, a public forum at the Otay Recreation Center and research to oppose the project. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact to the general Fund will be $76,065 in the FY 2001-02 Budget. This is a one-time expense, therefore, using the available General Fund balance is appropriate. Had the project been approved, the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Division would have generated additional tax increment funds. RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PROVIDING FUNDING NECESSARY FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL ATTORNEY SERVICES CHALLENGING STATE PERMITTING OF THE RAMCO CHULA VISTA II PEAKER GENERATION STATION AND AMENDING THE FY 2001-02 GENERAL FUND BUDGET THEREFOR WHEREAS,in June of 2001 the City engaged the services of McKenna & Cuneo, L. L. P to provide technical legal assistance regarding the City's opposition to the Ramco Chula Vista II Peaker Generation Station proposed for Albany Avenue, south of Main Street; and WHEREAS, on short notice, McKenna & Cuneo assisted with the development of a strategy to oppose the RAMCO Chula vista Peaker II Generating Station, prepared opposition letters and judicial appeals, and attended California Energy Commission (CEC) hearings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby appropriate $76,065 from the available fund balance of the General Fund for Special Counsel Attorney services challenging State permitting of the Ramco Chula vista II peaker Generation Station and amend the FY 2001-02 General Fund Budget therefor. Presented by Approved as to form by ..... \' J:t~ ~~ Michael Meach~ Special Operations Manager J, \Attorney\reso\ramco appropriation ~-3 ~\ft. --- Council Agenda Statement CIlY OF (HUlA VISTA Item: 8 Meeting Date January 22, 2002 SUBMITTED BY: Resolution Providing Funding Necessary for Special Counsel Attorney Services Challenging State Permitting of the Ramco Chula Vista II Peaker Generation Station and Amending the FY 2001-02 General Fund Budget therefor Michael T. Meacham, Special Operations Manager~ Glen R. Googins, Assistant City Attorney~ David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager út OW (4/Sths Vote Yes l No--> ITEM TITLE: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In June of 2001 the City engaged the services of McKenna & Cuneo, LLP to provide technical legal assistance regarding the City's opposition to the Ramco Chula Vista II Peaker Generation Station proposed for Albany Avenue, south of Main Street. On short notice, McKenna & Cuneo assisted with the development of a strategy to oppose the RAMCO Chu1a Vista Peaker II Generating Station, prepared opposition letters and judicial appeals, and attended California Energy Commission (CEC) hearings. After being a significant part of a successfu1 effort to encourage RAMCO to not proceed with its project, City staff directed McKenna & Cuneo to continue its efforts to challenge project permits to prevent RAMCO from reinstituting or selling the project. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution as submitted and amend the FY 2001-02 budget by appropriating $71,255 from the available fund balance of the General Fund for 1egal services regarding the Ramco II Peaker Plant. BOARD AND COMMISION RECOMMENDATION: No boards or commissions where involved in this process. DISCUSSION: In the spring of2001, Ramco proposed to place a 66-megawatt electrical generating plant on Albany Avenue south of Main Street. This plant would be the second at this site. It would more than double the capacity of the existing 44-megawatt operation and would not have the environmental controls required by the first plant. The City felt strongly that the City and South Bay region had done more than its fair share in siting e1ectrical generating facilities which included the approved 500 megawatt Otay Plant, the existing 708 megawatt South Bay P1ant in Chula Vista and up to five additiona1 peaker plants proposed for the South Bay area. Council directed staff to oppose the development and operation of the second peaker plant proposed for Chula Vista. The City's effort was able to generate enough public comment opposed to the plant to encourage the applicant to withdraw its application. Staff continued the effort and legal services to assure that the project could not be continued at some 1ater date under the current application. That meant the filling of several documents and the appearance at subsequent hearings before the CEC. f-I Staff was very impressed and satisfied with the quality and timeliness of the highly specialized legal services provided by the McKenna & Cuneo lawyers. McKenna also offered the City a competitive "blended" hourly rate of $280. (The actual rates of the partners doing the vast majority of the work were $350 to $375 per hour). The technical assistance required to oppose the plant on a variety of health and environmental justice points and the postponement of the hearings caused the initial estimates of approximately $45,000 to increase to $94,000. Due to the extent to which costs exceeded initial estimates, McKenna voluntarily agreed to reduce this amount to $71,255. This is a substantial discount (over 20%) on the cost of actual work performed that staff fees reflects favorably on the integrity of the firm. Staff remains confident that it was in the public's best interest to oppose the plant and protect the community from the potential health and safety issues that cou1d result from a proliferation ofp1ants in the South Bay. These expenses represent the "out-of pocket," costs of confronting and winning that challenge. City staff itself also committed substantial staff time to presentations at pubJic hearings, a pub1ic forum at the Otay Recreation Center and research to oppose the project. FISCAL IMPACT: The fisca1 impact to the general Fund will be $71,255 in the FY 2001-02 Budget. This is a one-time expense, therefore, using the available General Fund balance is appropriate. Had the project been approved, the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Division would have generated additional tax increment funds. . jl-"¿ RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PROVIDING FUNDING NECESSARY FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL ATTORNEY SERVICES CHALLENGING STATE PERMITTING OF THE RAMCO CHULA VISTA II PEAKER GENERATION STATION AND AMENDING THE FY 2001-02 GENERAL FUND BUDGET THEREFOR WHEREAS,in June of 2001 the City engaged the services of McKenna & Cuneo, L. L. P to provide technical legal assistance regarding the City's opposition to the Ramco Chula Vista II Peaker Generation station proposed for Albany Avenue, south of Main Street; and WHEREAS, on short notice, McKenna & Cuneo assisted with the development of a strategy to oppose the RAMCO Chula Vista peaker II Generating Station, prepared opposition letters and judicial appeals, and attended California Energy Commission (CEC) hearings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby appropriate $71,255 from the available fund balance of the General Fund for Special Counsel Attorney services challenging State permitting of the Ramco Chula vista II Peaker Generation Station and amend the FY 2001-02 General Fund Budget therefor. Presented by Approved as to form by J, \Attorney\reso\ramco appropriation ~~ Special Operations' Manager ¡-¿ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item q Meeting Date 01/22/02 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Consideration of establishing Utility Undergrounding District No. 133 along Fourth Avenue from "L" Street to Orange Avenue Resolution Establishing Utility Undergrounding District No. 133 along Fourth Avenue from "L" Street to Orange Avenue and authorizing the expenditure of Utility Allocation Funds to subsidize private service lateral conversion SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/~//(~t~// REVIEWED BY: City Manager 91.t,/ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes No X ) On December 18,2001, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2001-445 and ordered a Public Hearing to be held on January 22, 2002 to determine whether the public health, safety or general welfare requires the formation of a utility undergrounding district along Fourth Avenue from "L" Street to Orange Avenue. The purpose of forming the district is to require the utility companies to underground all overhead lines and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the proposed district. The proposed utility undergrounding district is about 6,630 feet long and is estimated to cost approximately $1,I50,000. SDG&E's allocation funds (Rule 20-A) will be used to cover the cost of the project including reimbursements to affected property owners for their respective trenching cost. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. Conduct a Public Hearing on the formation of Utility Underground District No. 133; 2. Approve a resolution forming the district and authorizing the use of approximately $1,150,000 in utility allocation funds to cover the cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead £aciii[ies, and private property conversion reimbursements. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC), consisting of representatives from Chula Vista Cable, Cox Communications, Pacific Bell, SDG&E, and the City, agreed to propose to the City Council the formation of a utility undergrounding district for the conversion of overhead utilities Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 01/22/02 along Fourth Avenue, between "L" Street to Orange Avenue, a distance of 1.25 miles. Currently, the undergrounding of overhead utilities along Fourth Avenue from "H' Street to "L" Street is in the construction phase. Undergrounding of overhead utilities along Fourth Avenue from "lq" Street to the northerly City limits has been completed. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count on Fourth Avenue between "L" Street and Orange Avenue is approximately 14,433. Section 15.32.130 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the City Council to set a public hearing to determine whether the public health, safety, and general welfare requires the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities within designated areas of the City. The intent of the public hearing is to give persons the opportunity to speak in favor of or against the formation of a proposed district to underground utilities. The formation of the district will require the utility companies to underground all overhead lines and other facilities, and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the District. All property owners within the proposed district will also be required to convert their service connections to underground. A couple of dusk-to-dawn lights on private properties are proposed to be removed, one each at 1035, and 1067 Fourth Avenue. Dusk-to-dawn lights are strictly serviced from overhead lines only and not from any underground source. Mounted on wooden poles, the dusk-to-dawn lights are owned by SDG&E and are rented out to the property owners. Staff has contacted the property owners and informed them of the possibility that the rented dusk-to-dawn lights will be removed as part of the proposed district, lqowever, such removal will not be fully determined until after SDG&E has completed their electrical design. SDG&E has said during the initial plarming that they will look at alternate sources for these lights. If an alternate source is not available, then the property owners, at their discretion, could install their own lights. It is not yet known if the SDG&E North "Otay" Substation located within the District on the 900 block of Fourth Avenue, ~viI1 be included in the Underground District. SDG&E is currently completing a preliminary facility design and cost estimate for conversion of the property. Once the evaluation is completed, SDG&E will know if it feasible to include the Substation in the Underground District. The undergrounding of utilities will be coordinated with the City of Chula Vista street light design project. Said project, which will replace existing street lights on wooden poles with street lights on concrete poles, and the addition of street lights where applicable, is the responsibility of the City of Chu!a Vi~t~ C~nstrnctio~ for the street light dcsig~ project is a~ticip~ed to begi~ shortly after the beginning of construction of SDG&E's undergrounding of electrical utilities within the street right- of-way. Staff recommends the formation of this conversion district along this section of Fourth Avenue because: Page 3, Item Meeting Date 01/22/02 1. Fourth Avenue is a major North/South thoroughfare in the western portion of Chula Vista. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will contribute to the creation of an aesthetically pleasing major street. 2. This segment of Fourth Avenue is classified in the General Plan's Circulation Elements as a Class I Collector street. 3. Undergrounding has been completed on Fourth Avenue from the north City limit to "H" Street, a distance of 1.25 miles. 4. Undergrounding construction work is currently in progress along Fourth Avenue, from "H" Street to "L" Street, a distance of one mile. 5. When completed, this undergrounding district will make the proposed district an extension of an undergrounded section 3.5 miles in length. The conversion work by the property owners involves trenching, backfill and conduit installation from property line to point of connection. Chula Vista City Council Policy No. 585-1 established a mechanism that helps property owners with the cost of the conversion work from the distribution lines to the structure. This policy provides for the reimbursement of property o~vners at a rate of $35 per lineal foot of trenching (up to 100'), and $300.00 for properties with electrical meter panels less than 200Amp service or $400.00 with 200amp services or greater. The approximate reimbursement amount is currently estimated to be $100,000 and is included in the overall cost estimate of $1,I 50,000. A public hearing notice has been mailed to all property owners and occupants of property (see Exhibit "C"), located within the boundaries of the proposed district. F1SCAL IMPACT: The cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facilities and private property conversion reimbursements as outlined above is estimated to be approximately $1,150,000. SDG&E's allocation funds (Rule 20-A) will cover the estimated cost of the project. The cost of street light construction, associated with the installation of new street lights and conversion from wooden to concrete poles is approximately $220,000 and will be proposed as a separate CIP in next year's budget. All staff costs associated with the formation of this district are estimated to be the general fund. Attachment: Exhibit A Boundary Map Exhibit B Reimbursement Schedule Exhibit C - Mailing List Exhibit D - Council Agenda Statement (Intention to Create District) J:\Engineer~AGENDA\UUD133 Public Hearing.jcm.doc Dis~ct ~B~,ndary Existing ~-'OleS u'nUTY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 133 Parcels inUnderground District FOURTH AVE. L ST TO ORANGE AVE Utilities affected E: ae~,c~ BOUNDARY MAP ~ T: Taepho.~ EXHIBIT"A" C: Cable EXHIBIT "C" FOURTH AVENUE FROM "L" STREET TO ORANGE AVENUE UNDERGROUNDING MAILING LIST DECEMBER 20,2001 6180721900 6181911200 Villasenor, Juan & Olga Medina, Daniel & Rafael 904 4a' Ave 943 Hilltop Dr Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6180722000 Occupant Holguin, Ana 405 4th Ave 910 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6181911300 6184000900 Fuller, Steven M & Suzan M Seaton Family Trust 45 East I St 952 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 Occupant 6184001700 1006 4th Ave Washburn, Maurice & Denise Chula Vista, CA 91911 974 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 6181911600 Develasco, Bertha Living Trust 6183720400 1010 4th Ave Cordova, Steven & Caroline Chula Vista, CA 91911 976 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 6181911900 Sweetwater Union high School District 6183720300 1130 5th Ave Dominguez, Maria E Chula Vista, CA 91911 980 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Occupant 1034 4th Ave 6183720200 Chula Vista, CA 91911 DeLeon, Jorge S. Jr., Carlos & Ivette 986 4"~ Ave 6184200100 Chula Vista, CA 91911 Pena, Revocable Trust 1056 4th Ave 6183720100 Chula Vista, CA 91911 Ortiz, Juan J & Maria G 992 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 EXHIBIT "C" 6181901900 6182703900 Gaetan, Sergio Ennis, Kathleen A 1080 4~ Ave 749 Dorothy St Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6181902000 Occupant Mendez, Nicolas Jr & Mary Q 1184 4th Ave 1094 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6182703800 6182302200 Nunez, Javier P & Marina L Acosta, Bertha 1188 4th Ave 405 Naples St Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6182704000 6182301800 Ballow Family Trust Rodriguez, Victor M & Herrera Maria 1192 4th Ave 1110 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula vista, CA 91911 6182704100 6182301900 Heredia, Ernestina, Irazema L Casanova, Manuel O & Nancy 1196 4th Ave 116 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6183501000 6182302000 Amjadi, Maria J Barnhart, Dana S Trust 1208 4~h Ave 1122 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6183501100 6182501200 Clyde & Janet Family Trust Wolf, Thomas H & Victoria G 1216 4th Ave 1128 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6183504000 6182500100 Pineda, Leticia Zavala, Victor M & Esther E 1236 4th Ave 401 Emerson St Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula ¥'Jsta, CA 9i91 I 6183501800 6182601600 Shearer, Mark D & David A Schuh, Albert R Living Trust 1240 4th Ave 404 Queen Ann Dr Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista,, CA 91911 EXHIBIT "C" 6184100100 6183203200 Aleman, Albert & Phillips Reorganized Church of Jesus 1246 4th Ave 1320 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6184100200 6183203800 Richardson, Linda A Lopez, Mario Jr. 702 Melrose Place 55 Bonita Rd San Diego, CA 92114 Chula Vista, CA 91910 Occupant Occupant 1252 4th Ave 402 Anita June Ct. Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6184100300 6183422600 Garcia, Alejandro M & Hortensia Gilmer, Darlene M 1258 4th Ave 834 Loma Valley Rd Chula Vista, CA 91911 San Diego, CA 92106 6184100400 Occupant Tovar, Humberto 1360 4th Ave 410 Orsett St Chula Vista, CA 919t 1 Chula Vista, CA 91911 Occupant 6183032100 1362 4~h Ave Le Xuan T & HA M Chula Vista, CA 91911 127 Leoma Lane Chula Vista, CA 91911 6183422700 Pasarin, Armando Occupant 1364 4th Ave 1272 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6183421500 6183031800 Harter, Elden N; First Church of Christ Enriquez Gilbert & Maria G 175 Huntington Ave. 2003 Morgan Lane Boston, MA 02115 Redondo Beach, CA Occupant ©ccupant i 366 4t!~ Ave 1280 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6183421800 6183031800 Campos, Rafael Berlanga, Joe A & Sara 1374 4th Ave 1286 4th Ave Chula vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 EXHIBIT "C" 6183421900 6191101400 Gonzalez, Jose L & Maria E Leos, Manuel J & Geraldine R 1380 4th Ave 1195 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6192902100 6191101300 Acuna, Lupe M Trust Celestin, Gerald C 1353 4th Ave 1191 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6192909200 6191101200 Paul & Christine Family Jacobson, Grant D 1345 4th Ave 208 Childrens Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Ft Worth, Texas 761226 Occupant Occupant 1347 4th Ave 1187 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6192908800 619I 102200 Martinez, Martha & Mark A Zepeda, Juan & Guzman Consuelo 1329 4th Ave 1183 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6192901200 6191102100 Grim, James J & Jane O Riego Family Trust 1323 4th Ave 458 Westby St Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6192113600 Occupant Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego 1179 4th Ave P.O. Box 85728 Chula Vista, CA 91911 San Diego, CA 92186 6191101000 Occupant Avila, Victor & Norma 1239 4th Ave 1173 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 0192112200 61')0500400 Salas, Angela Garcia, Alicia 1223 4th Ave 1097 4t~ Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 EXItlBIT "C" 6190503600 6190102500 Block, Robyn N San Diego Gas & electric Co. 1089 4~ Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 6190104400 Chula Vista Elementary School District 6190510300 350 L St Winberly Living trust Chula Vista, CA 91911 481 G St Chula Vista, CA 91911 Occupant 1015 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 6190510200 Martinez, Josie V 1011 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Occupant 1011 4th Ave Ch~tla Vista, CA 91911 6190510100 Olea, Pedro & Carmela 395 Moss St Chula Vista, CA 91911 6190102200 Yamada, George 690 Del Mar Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 Occupant 991 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 6190105400 -I'akeguchi, Masahige 987 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 EXHIBIT "C" INFORMATIONAL MAILING LIST 6180722100 6183501100 Reynoso, Mario & Reynoso, Hector Ibarra, Guillermo C & Ernestina I 1109 Red Maple Drive 402 Emerson St Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 9191 ! Occupant 6182601500 916 4th Ave Olivarez, Amado & Ruiz Erika Chula Vista, CA 91911 403 Queen A~me Dr Chula Vista, CA 91911 6180718900 Medrano, Rafael & Navarrete, Ana 6183501900 Vetasquez Catolico, Manuel K & Gomez-Catolico, 401 Westby St Rosa Chula Vista, CA 91911 1274 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 6180717600 Messer Family Trust 6183031700 400 Westby St Ramirez, Gerardo Chula Vista, CA 91911 1288 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA91911 6184001000 Molina, Albert P & Ofelia 6183203100 906 Kittiwake Ln Security Title Insurance Co. Chula Vista, CA 91911 P.O. Box 121589 San Diego, CA 92112 6184001100 Thatcher, Erma & Sanders, Bertha L Occupant 5800 Lake Murray Blvd #57 405 Palomar St La Mesa, CA 91942 Chula Vista, CA 91911 Occupant 6183204600 970 4th Ave Carrillo, Mario A & Irene Chula Vista, CA 91911 403 Anita June Ct Chula Vista, CA 91911 6184202000 Falk, Jerry C & Evelyn P Trust 6183422000 10714 4'!~ Ave Cox, John R & Maria Chula Vista, CA 91911 1384 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 6181904400 Raines, Sherry & Torres, Phyllis A 6183422100 402 Naples St Abille, Rolando M & Lydia S Chula Vista, CA 91911 1398 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 EXHIBIT "C" 6192904600 6192120200 Brown, Josephine A Living Trust 6192120100 1142 Camino Regalado Chula Vista Elementary School District San Diego, CA 92154 84 East J St Chula Vista, CA 91911 Occupant 398 Quintard St Occupant Chula Vista, CA 91911 390 Palomar St Chula Vista, CA 91911 6192904500 Garcia, Gustavo & Guadalupe C 6192112000 1391 4th Ave Ricchiut Shenza Chula Vista, CA 91911 1227 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 6192904400 Cecena, Family Trust 6192112100 1385 4th Ave Coming, Richard G Jr. & Maria A Chula Vista, CA 91911 1225 4t" Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 6192904200 Munoz, Juan M 6192110400 1379 4th Ave Lilly Mary M Family Trust Chula Vista, CA 91911 405 Halsey St Chula Vista, CA 91910 6192904100 Garcia, Delia & Garcia, Tarsis R Occupant 673 Morehouse PI 1211 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 91911 6192902200 6191100900 Anguiano, Francisco & Maricela G Cono Charles R Trust 372 Morehouse P1 5550 Baltimore Dr Chula Vista, CA 91911 La Mesa, CA 91942 6192901100 Occupant Sun An Sea Properties 1151 4th Ave 4688 Oregon St Chula Vista, CA 91911 San Diego, CA 92116 Occupant 1311 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 EXHIBIT "C" 6191104600 6190512000 Borden, Donald F & Patricia K Richard Elliot RV MGMT Corp Vista Pacific Villas 3444 Camino Del Rio N #202 344 Camino Del Rio N #202 San Diego, CA 92108 San Diego, CA 92108 Occupant Occupant 1145 4th Ave 1035 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Chula Vista, CA 9191 l 6191104700 6190511800 6191104800 Lones, Elaine A 6191104300 4318 Vista Coronado Dr Southbay Consolidated Properties LL Chula Vista, CA 91910 Hanken Cono Asad 5550 Baltimore Dr # 200 Occupant San Diego, CA 91942 1029 4th Ave Chula Vista, Ca 91911 Occupant 1121 4th Ave 6190512702 Chula Vista, CA 91911 Vista Del Mar Assoc. LLC 230 Stanford Ave 619506200 Kensington, CA 94708 HCA Villa Seawind Apartments LTD 5550 Baltimore Dr # 200 Occupant San Diego, CA 91942 1025 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 Occupant 1067 4th Ave 6190102100 Chula Vista, CA 91911 Machuca, Juan L & Maria E 398 Moss St 619051300 Chula Vista, CA 91911 South Bay Manor L RV MGMT Corp 6190102500 3444 Camino Del Rio N #202 SDGE North Otay Substation San Diego, CA 92108 6190105200 Occupant BWY Ralph i053 4th Ave 252> t~atnino De Rio S #250 Chula Vista, CA 91911 San Diego, CA 92108 Occupant 971 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 EXHIBIT "C" 6190102700 Cordova, Steven & Caroline Family Trust 963 4th Ave Chula Vista, CA 91911 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Declaring City's intention to underground overhead utilities along Fourth Avenue from "L" Street to Orange Avenue and setting a public hearing for the formation of Utility Underground District Number 133 for January 22, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works {~/// REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~"l)P' (4/5'tbs Vote: Yes No X ) On November 12, 1991, the City Council approved Resolution No. 16415 accepting a repot1 on the City's Utility Undergrounding Conversion Program and approving a revised list of utility underground conversion projects. On September 7, 2001, and October 12, 2001, Underzround Utility Advisor3., Committee (UUAC) meetings were held at the site to determine the proposed boundary of an underground utility district for the conversion of existing overhead utilities. The proposed boundary is shown on attached Exhibit A. The district's limits extend along Fourth Avenue fi-om "L" Street to Orange Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution declaring the City's intention to underground ox erhead utilities along Foui~.h Ax enue from "L" Street to Orange Avenue and settina a public hearing for the formation of Utility Underground District Number 133 for January 22.200fat 6:00 p.m. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The Underground UtiIity Advisory Committee (UUAC), consisting of representatives of SD&E, Pacific Bell, Cox Communications, Chula Vista Cable and the City, agreed to propose to the City Council the formation of a district for the corn ersion of overhead utilities to under~ound alon~ Faurlb Avenue. hetwee~ "L" Stres~ to O~ angc ~x'c:~uc. Thc proposed utility undcrgro~ldillg distn~ along Fourth Avenue is about 6,630 feet long (see Exhibit A). The estimated cost for undergrounding the utilities is $1.15 Million. North of the proposed district, undergrounding of overhead utilities is currently being conducted. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count on Fourth Avenue between "L" Street and Orange Avenue is approximately 14,433. There is currently no date scheduled for the undergrounding of utilities along Fourth Avenue, south of Orange Avenue. q -Al Page 3, Item Meeting Date 12/17/01 Approval of this resolution will set a public heanng to be held during the City Council meeting of January 15, 2002 at 6:00 p.m., in accordance with Section 15.32.130 of the Municipal Code for the formation of this district. Section 15.32.140 of the City Code requires the City Clerk to notify all affected persons and each utility company of the time and place of the public hearing at least 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing. Notice is to be given by mail to all property owners and occupants of property located within the boundaries of the proposed district. The City Clerk is required by said section of the Code to publish the Resolution of Intention, setting the public hearing in the local newspaper no less than five days prior to the date of the public hearing. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facilities and private property conversion reimbursements as outlined above is estimated to be approximately $1.15 Million. SDG&E's allocation funds (Rule 20-A) will cover the estimated cost of the project. All staff'costs associated with the formation of this district are estimated to be approximately $50,000 and are not reimbursable from the allocation funds. All staffcosts are borne by the general fund. ~,~tachment: Exhibit A - Boundary Map Exhibi~ B - Reimbursemen~ Schedule .l ENGExrEER :~xGEND 5.'~UUD ] t ~, lnten!ion_lcm.doc District Bounaary Existing Poles UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 133 Proposed Poles Parcels in Underground District FOURTH AVE, L ST TO ORANGE AVE UIi~t,es affec[ed E: Electrical EXHIBIT A cuu~v~-r^· ~ T: Telephone c. Cable ~_.2.~OVE RVlEW ~d~ Bounda~ Proposed~isting PoleSpoles UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 133 Parcels inUndergroun~ Bistrict FOURTH AVE~ L ST TO ORANGE AVE T: Tolophoae 1320 ~NGE AV District Boundary Existing Poles Proposed Pe~es UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 133 Parcels in Underground District FOURTH AVE, L ST TO ORANGE AVE Utilities affected I~ E: Electrical EXHIBIT A T: Telephone C: Cable PAGE 2 OF 2 FOURTH A VENUE FROM "L" STREET TO ORANGE A VENUE UNDERGROUNG UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 133 (AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS) EXHIßlT "B" San [ - OWNER'S NAME UUD REIMBURSEMENT --- COMMENTS ~ APN UTILITIES & ADDRESS ADDRESS FEET TRENCH METER COST 'iego Gas & Electric Co. 619-010-25-00 E 40 $ 1.400.00 $ 300.00 $ 1.700.00 SDG&E I ViSla Elelileniary Sehoul Disillel 350 L 51. (,[ V-IlIO-'14-1~1 Ere 411 I 1,4IX).(J() $ 3UO.[)( $ 1.7UO.IX! 5""",1 I I $ 90,890.00 TOTAL 2194 $ 74,690.00 $ 16,200.00 i CONTINGENCY $ 9,110.00 SAY $ 100,000.00 I Chui, 1- lli2I.F . ,,' -ACTUAL REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT WILL BE DETERMINED AFTER SUBMISSION OF REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST AND FIELD INSPECTION ~) MAXIMUM REIMBURSABLE TRENCH IS 100 FEET ~ ~ DUD 133 lisLxls Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 133 ALONG FOURTH AVENUE FROM "L" STREET TO ORANGE AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF UTILITY ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSION WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2001-445, a public hearing was called for 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, the 22nd day of January, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the City of Chula vista at 276 Fourth Avenue in said City, to ascertain whether the public health, safety or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar or associated service within that certain area of the City more particularly described as follows: All that property lying along Fourth Avenue from" L" Street to Orange Avenue and enclosed within the boundary as shown on the plat attached hereto as Attachment "A" of subject Underground Utility District. WHEREAS, notice of such hearing has been given to all affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, and to the utility companies concerned in the manner and for the time required by law, and WHEREAS, such hearing has been duly and regularly held, and all persons interested have been given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula vista hereby finds and determines that the public health, safety and welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated structures, and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar associated services, the above -described area is hereby declared an Underground Utility District, and is designated as such in the City of Chula vista. Attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference is a map delineating the boundaries of said District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall, by subsequent resolution, fix the date on which affected property owners must be ready to receive underground service, and does 1 9-33 hereby order the removal of all poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar associated service within said underground utility District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLvED that the city Clerk is hereby instructed to notify all affected utilities and all persons owning real property within said Underground utility District of the adoption of this resolution within fifteen days after the date of said adoption. Said City Clerk shall further notify said property owners of the necessity that, if they or any person occupying such property desires to continue to receive electric, communication or other similar or associated service, they, or such occupant shall, by the date fixed in a subsequent resolution provide all necessary facility changes on their premises so as to receive such service from the lines of the supplying utility or utilities at a new location, subject to the applicable rules, regulations and tariffs of the respective utility or utilities on file with the Public utilities Commission of the State of California as of the date of adoption of this resolution. Such notification shall be made by mailing a copy of this resolution to affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the affected utility companies. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds that the underground Utility District herein created is in the general public interest for the following reasons: 1. Fourth Avenue is a major north/south thoroughfare in the western portion of Chula vista. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will contribute to the creation of an aesthetically pleasing major street. 2. The segment of Fourth Avenue is classified in the General Plan's Circulation Element as a Class I Collector street. 3. Undergrounding has been completed on Fourth Avenue from the north city limit to "H" Street, a distance of 1.25 miles. 4. Undergrounding construction work is currently in progress along Fourth Avenue, from "H" Street to "L" Street, a distance of one mile. 5. When completed, this undergrounding district will make the proposed district an extension of an undergrounded section 3.5 miles in length. 2 7' - 3'1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby authorize the use of approximately $1,150,000 in utility allocation funds to cover the cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facilities, and private property conversion reimbursements. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works ~~~ Clty Attorney J \atorney\re,o\uud ..tabli,h 133 3 t-3~ City Council Meeting January 22, 2002 Item 10 The Village Six SPA Plan and Final EIR 98-01 were previously distributed to the City Council on January 11,2002. The Agenda Statements reporting the conclusions of the ErR and analyzing the SPA Plan are included in the January 22 agenda. If you have any questions concerning the plans, please call Rick Rosaler at 476-5394 on the SPA Plan and Marisa Lundstedt at 409-5922 concerning the EIR. H:\PLANNINGlOtay_RanchlViliage _6IV6 SPACOUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM.doc /0-/ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: Meeting Date: 1/22/02 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-01) for the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. Resolution No. of City Council of the City of Chula Vista certifying that the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-01) for the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area Plan; making certain Findings of Fact; adopting a Statement Of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes No X In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act a Second Tier E1R has been prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed City of Chula Vista Village Six SPA Plan and conceptual Tentative Maps (Attachment 1). City Council action on the certification of the EIR must be taken prior to action on the proposed Village Six SPA project. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution certifying that the final Second Tier Environmental hnpact Report (EIR 98-01) has been prepared in accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; making certain findings of fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: A meeting was scheduled for the Resource Conservation Commission's (RCC) review of the Draft EIR on November 5, 2001. After reviewing and discussing the document, the RCC recommended that project traffic report be revised to specify what the level of service (LOS) would be after mitigation. The RCC then voted 4-0-1-1 (Bull abstained; Bensoussan absent) to recommend certification of the Final EIR (see attached meeting notes in Attachment 2). Page 2, Item No.: /~)~ Meeting Date: 1/22/02 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 9, 2002 and at that time, the Commission voted 6-1 (Commissioner Thomas dissenting) to certify Final EIR 98-01, adopt the findings of fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council also certify the document and adopt the findings of fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Attachment 3). At the Planning Commission hearing, the Commission also recommended further clarification for traffic Mitigation Measure 5.10-7. This mitigation measure was revised to clarify that there will be a formal review process for any adjustments to the existing traffic capacity threshold which limits the issuance of building permits for new dwelling units. This revised language and clarification is included in the Final EIR Errata (see Attachment 1). Commissioner Thomas voted not to certify the EIR based on his concerns related to existing and projected traffic levels of service on 1-805 (with and without SR-125). DISCUSSION: McMillin Land Development has submitted an application requesting approval of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for Village Six. The Village Six EIR evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Ama (SPA) Plan, and the subsequent Conceptual Tentative Map (TMs). The Village Six SPA Plan and Conceptual TM proposes development of 2,086 residential units, as well as a village core area containing commercial uses, public and community purpose facilities, an elementary school, parks, and open space areas. A private Catholic high school is also proposed at the southeastern comer of the project site. Should the proposed private high school not be developed, the underlying land use would permit the construction of 146 single-family homes. If single-family homes are built instead of the high school, the total number of units proposed would be 2,232. CEQA Compliance Because of the size, complexity of issues and extended buildout time frame of the Otay Ranch Project, both the planning and environmental documentation associated with Otay Ranch were tiered from the general to the specific. The first tier of planning and approvals included approval of the Final Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program EIR (90-01). The Final Program EIR for Otay Ranch was prepared and certified jointly by the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego. Thc Program E~R for the Otay Ranch was certified with the intent that the individual SPA planning projects within Otay Ranch would be reviewed as "second-tier" projects pursuant to Section 15153 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Under such tiering principles, the Village Six SPA and TM analysis are analyzed at a second-tier level of review (project level). The Village Six EIR incorporates by reference and serves as a second-tier EIR to the following documents: the Chula Vista General Plan EIR; the Final Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program EIR (90-01), the City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update (94-03); Otay Ranch SPA One Page 3, Item No.: Meeting Date: 1/22/02 and Annexation Final Second Tier EIR (95-01); Final Second Tier EIR for Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments (97-03); the Otay Water District Resources Master Plan Final Master EIR (97-04); the Village Six SPA Plan; the Village Six Public Facilities Finance Plan; the Olympic Parkway Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 00-33); the Final Eastlake III Woods and Vistas Replanning Program EIR (01-01), as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Comments on the Draft EIR Letters of comment were received on the Draft EIR from the following agencies and individuals: 1. California Department of Toxic Substance Control 2. California regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region 3. California Department of Fish and Game 4. California Department of Transportation - District 11 5. City of San Diego 6. County of San Diego, Department of Public Works 7. Otay Water District 8. San Diego County Archeological Society 9. Sweetwater Valley Civic Association 10. Otay Ranch Company 11. McMillin Land Development The letters and responses are included in the Final EIR 98-01. The Final EIR also includes minor changes and clarifications, which have been added as a result of the comments received. Findings of the Final EIR 01-02 The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or "impacts") that would result from the proposed SPA Plan and conceptual TMs. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Other impacts cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives. In order to approve the proposed project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included as a part of the proposed "Findings of Fact." Implementation of the proposed project will result in significant unmitigated impacts, which are listed below and further described in the attached Fiudings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 4). Summary of Environmental Impacts The following discussion contains a summary of the impact conclusions for the Final EIR. Project level and cumulative impacts are identified and divided into three categories: significant and unmitigated, significant and mitigated to less than significant, and less than significant. Page 4, Item No.:/~ Meeting Date: 1/22/02 Significant and Unmitigated Impacts The significant, umnitigable impacts identified in the Village Six Final EIR are either cumulative or regional in nature. Cumulative impacts are significant when the project is combined with other projects in the subregion, whereas an impact that is regional in nature is beyond the sole control of the City of Chula Vista. The Otay Ranch Program EIR 90-01 identified several significant and unmitigated impacts associated with the development of the Otay Ranch. All identified significant and unmitigated impacts associated with the Village Six project and described below, are consistent with the previously identified significant unmitigated impacts in the Otay Ranch Program EIR 90-01. The Village Six project does not result in any uew unmitigated impacts, which have not been already been identified in the Otay Ranch Program EIR 90-01. Land Use (Cumulative): Implementation of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan/TMs would contribute to the conversion of vacant land throughout the Otay Ranch area to urban uses. The overall loss of open space associated with the conversion of the proposed Village Six SPA, in conjunction with buildout of the cumulative projects, would result in a significant, cumulative and unmitigable impact. Landform Alteration and Aesthetics (Cumulative): Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan/TMs would contribute to an overall change in visual character of the region from rural to an urban setting. The overall loss of the rural setting associated with the development of Village Six SPA would result in a significant, cumulative and unmitigable impact. Biological Resources (Cumulative): Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan/TMs would result in significant unmitigable impacts to raptor foraging areas. These impacts would be directly related to implementation of the proposed SPA/TMs. Agricultural Resources (Cumulative): Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan/TMs would contribute to the loss of important agricultural lands throughout the Otay Ranch area. The combined conversion of open space to developed land represents a significant, cumulative and unmitigable impact. Transportation, Circulation and Access (Cumulative): For the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020, and the buildout scenario, significant cumulative impacts are identified for 1-805, between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. The mitigation for these impacts is continued freeway planning efforts by Caltrans and SANDAG to determine acceptable mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. Freeway improvements are regional in nature and beyond the control of either a single developer or the City. Therefore, the impacts to freeways are considered cumulatively significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant. Air Quality (Project and Cumulative): The proposed project will generate air pollutants during construction as well as during long-term operation. Pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin Page 5, Item No.:/OA/ Meeting Date: 1/22/02 exceed federal and state standards, and the basin is therefore classified as non-attainment. Any incremental increase in pollution, therefore, is considered a significant impact. The regional impact of the proposed project is beyond the control of the City and the applicant, and cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. Significant and Mitigated to Less than Significant Significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas. Implementation of mitigation measures required in the EIR will reduce the impacts to less than significant. · Landform Alteration and Aesthetics (project) · Biological Resources (project) · Geology/Soils (project) · Paleontological Resources (project and cumulative) · Agricultural Resources (project) · Water Resources and Water Quality (project and cumulative) · Transportation, Circulation and Access (project and cumulative, except as discussed above) · Cultural Resources (project and cumulative) · Noise (project and cumulative) · Water Supply and Facilities (project and cumulative) · Sewer Service (project and cumulative) · Integrated Waste Management (project and cumulative) · Law Enforcement (project and cumulative) · Fire Protection (project and cumulative) · Schools (project and cumulative) · Library Services (project and cumulative) · Parks and Recreation (project and cumulative) · Hazards/Risk of Upset (project and cumulative) Less than Significant Impacts Less than significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas: · Land Use, Planning and Zoning (project) · Housing and Population (project and cumulative) · Geology and Soils (cumulative) · Mineral Resources (project and cumulative) · Gas/Electric Service (project and cumulative) Page 6, Item No.:/0,q Meeting Date: 1/22/02 Conclusions: At the time the Otay Ranch Program EIR (90-01) was certified and adopted in October 1993, the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors jointly determined that substantial social, environmental and economic benefits of the Otay Ranch project outweighed the significant and unmitigable impacts associated with the project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Otay Ranch project was approved. The proposed Village Six SPA/TMs are consistent with the adopted Otay Ranch GDP, which was comprehensively and carefully considered at that time. All feasible mitigation measures with respect to project impacts for the Village Six SPA/TMs have been included in the Final EIR 98-01 (see Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as Attachment 5). As described above, the Village Six project will result in unmitigable impacts that would remain significant after the application of these measures; therefore in order to approve the project, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093 (see Attachment 4, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section XI). The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, other than the proposed project described in the Final EIR. Based on this examination, the City has determined that neither of the alternatives meets the project objectives, or is environmentally superior to the project (see Attachment 4, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section X). Staff believes that the Final EIR 98-01 meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, therefore recommends that the City Council find that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and recommend adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this staff report FISCAL IMPACT: The preparation and processing of the EIR is covered by the applicant's deposit account. Attachments 1. Final EIR 98-01 a. Comments and Responses b. Errata ~ 2. November 5, 2001 - RCC Minutes 3. January 9, 2002 - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ' 4. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ,,~ 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program J:\Planning\Marisa\Projects\Otay Ranch\Village 6\Hearings\CC Hearing\ V6 CC EIR Agnda Snnt.doc RCC Minutes - 2 - November 5, 2001 Episcopal Community Services Head Start Program proposes to utilize an existing church building and modify a recreational area to include a playground. The Head Start Program will operate 179 days a year and is licensed for a maximum of 100 children ranging in age from 3 to 5 years. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning regulations and development standards. Staff received one written response from a property owner along the southwest boundary who was concerned about additional traffic and noise from the playground area. Potential impacts of noise would be less than significant, and the additional traffic of 245 ADT would not create a significant impact on the adjacent street segments. Staff Recommendation: Adoption of the Negative Declaration. Vice-Chair Reid asked if staff typically looked at requiring solid fencing or acoustical walls with daycare uses associated with pre-existing church uses. Ms. Muett indicated that projects of this nature are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, if it is determined that a noise study is needed and a significant impact is identified, an acoustical wall may be required as a mitigation measure. This particular use at this site did not create a significant noise impact because the proposed project contains the following features: solid wooden fencing around the perimeters, distance of 50- 240 feet away from surrounding residential uses and, due to the level of ambient noise from the surrounding streets, the noise associated with the child development center and playground would not be significant. MSC (Thomas/Reid) to accept the Negative Declaration for the Episcopal Community Services Head Start Program. Vote: (5-0-0-1) with Bensoussan absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Cont'd) MSC (Burrascano/Thomas) to approve the minutes of October 15, 2001. Vote: (4-0-1-1) with Reid abstaining and Bensoussan absent. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd) 2. Otay Ranch Village Six EIR Chair Bull recused himself from this item. Ms. Marilvn Ponseggi (Environmental Review Coordinator) relayed to the Commissioners some of the discussion City Council had during the Village 11 EIR hearing. Staff reported to City Council that the RCC vote was 4-2; that one Commissioner did not state why she was opposed, and one Commissioner was opposed because of regional traffic issues. The concern that the City Council raised was to remind the RCC they are charged with determining the adequacy of an EIR and not in making a decision on the project itself. If the RCC does not believe that an EIR is adequate, the RCC should state for the record why the document itself is not adequate. Ms. Ponseggi cautioned the RCC that, if the EIR is adequate, and it has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and the RCC does not see any problems RCC Minutes - 3 - November 5, 2001 with the document, even if the RCC does not like the project, they should vote to certify the document. Ms. Ponseggi stated that, If the RCC feels that the document is not adequate, and it has not met the requirements of CEQA, and it has not met the requirements of the environmental review guidelines, then the RCC needs to take a second motion to oppose and state for the record why the RCC does not believe the document is adequate. The City Council is looking to the RCC for their input in considering an EIR. Commissioner Burrascano stated that she was frequently going to have a problem with traffic because, in terms of it meeting the City requirement, the traffic documents do. The impacts are disclosed, but they are not adequately dealt with in terms of significance because she does not agree with the way Chula Vista has chosen to interpret what an "F" means. Ms. Ponseggi stated that, if Commissioner Burrascano felt that the description of level of service "F" is not adequate for CEQA and, therefore, she felt that the document was not adequate, she should state that she was voting against certification because she did not feel that this section of the traffic analysis meets the requirement of CEQA. CEQA requires the lead agency (in this case the City) to establish significance criteria. If Commissioner Burrascano had a problem with the significance criteria that is being used, that should be a separate motion. Mr. Rick Rosaler (Principal Planner) gave an overview of the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan via PowerPoint graphics. There are three property owners in Village Six: the Catholic Dioces. The Otay Ranch Company and McMillin Companies. McMillin Companies proposes 482 single-family dwellings and 212 townhomes. The Catholic Dioces proposes a parish and private high school. The Dioces wanted to have an underlying land use if for some reason their funding for the private high school fell apart, so this has been designated with 146 single-family units that the EIR has analyzed as a secondary land use. The Otay Ranch Company is proposing 401 single-family lots and 991 multi-family units in their northeast portion and 202 single- family homes on 41 acres in their southeast portion. Ms. Marisa Lundstedt (Environmental Projects Manager) gave an overview of the Otay Ranch Village Six Draft EIR. The EIR covers 443 acres that is fully covered with agriculture fields and non-native grasses. The EIR is currently in the 45-day public review period, which ends November 14 at the Planning Commission hearing. Because of traffic concerns, this project, along with the other two major projects that the RCC has seen, LLG performed shod-term model runs because there is a concern about when SR-125 will be constructed This proiect is also subject to the 9,400 dwelling unit cap prior to construction of SR-125. There are unavoidable significant impacts to the cumulative traffic impacts on 1-805. There are cumulative visual quality impacts from the conversion of open space to urban uses. There is an unavoidable significant impact to the lose of raptor foraging land and unavoidable air quality impacts. Commissioner Burrascano noted a typo on page 128 of the Traffic Report, Table 35, #7 of the Draft Mitigation Measures. Change Village "11" to Village "6". RCC Minutes - 4 - November 5, 2001 Commissioner Diaz inquired about the elevation of SR-125 and the trolley alignment. Mr. Rosaler responded. Commissioner Burrascano had problems understanding what the mitigation brings the level to in terms of traffic. Mr. Jon Boarman (Linscott Law & Greenspan, 1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92108) referred to Table 21 on page 87 of the Traffic Report. All the levels of service "F" are mitigated to "D" or "E". Commissioner Burrascano wanted to know where in the document does it show how the level of service "F" is mitigated. Mr. Boarman indicated that it might not be explicitly stated in the document. Commissioner Thomas wanted to know where the sewage was going to end up. Mr. Robert Pletcher (McMillin Companies, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA 91950) stated that it would be going to the Point Loma treatment plant. Ms. Ponseggi indicated that, in the long-term, it would be going to the South Bay plant. Commissioner Thomas asked if the City has a contract with the Otay Water District to supply water. Mr. Rosaler responded that no one has a contract with Otay Water District. Commissioner Thomas would like to see a motion that would give the City of Chula Vista the option of keeping some of the paleontological that have been sent to the Natural History Museum. Ms. Ponseggi stated that, if the City had a facility to house and display the artifacts, the Natural History Museum would likely assist in displaying these artifacts. The developers are talking of some of those kinds of displays within the Ranch at various community buildings. None of that has come to fruition yet. Vice-Chair Reid noted that it was not shown on the map if the FAA still owns vortac. Mr. Rosaler responded that they do. Vice-Chair Reid recalled a discussion regarding the Ranch Complex. A report was supposed to be prepared as a result of that discussion. Mr. Rosaler stated that an analysis report of what was there had been prepared. MSC (Diaz/Thomas) to accept the draft Village Six SPA Plan EIR. Vote: (4-0-1-1) with Bull abstaining and Bensoussan absent. Commissioner Burrascano made a request that the EIR adequately reflect what the level of service would be after mitigation for all the areas that are shown as level of service "F" prior to mitigation. MS(; (Burrascano/Thomas) that the EIR be revised to include information on post mitigation of levels of service "F". Vote: (4-0-1-1) with Bull abstaining and Bensoussan absent. Chair Bull returned to the meeting. RCC Minutes - 5 - November 5, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR COMMENTS 3. 2002 Preservation Design Awards information was distributed by Ms. Ponseggi. 4. Police Department Annual Report was presented by Ms. Ponseggi who asked if anyone wanted a copy. Chair Bull requested a copy. Ms. Ponseggi announced that the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) is doing a nuts and bolts CEOA workshop at Sempra Headquarters on November 16, 2001. If anyone is interested, she would check if there is a budget for RCC members. CHAIR COMMENTS: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas thought Item #3 would be the Governor's Historic Preservation Awards because she wanted to be able to make a motion recommending the City of Chula Vista for the award. Ms. Ponseggi indicated that staff had not received that information as yet. When it does arrive, the RCC members would have to put together the nomination package because there is no staff available. Staff can put it on the next agenda. Chair Bull and Commissioner Diaz stated that they would not be at the November 19, 2001 meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Bull adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m. to a regular meeting on Monday, November 19, 2001, at 6:30 p.m. in the Mercy Building Conference Room, 430 'F' Street, Chula Vista, CA. Prepared by: Linda Bond Recording Secretary (A:~IIb\RCC#1\RCC 110501MINS.doc) Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - January 9, 2002 2. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Consideration of the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-01) for the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. b. PCM 99-05; Consideration of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities finance Plan, Affordable Housing Program and other regulatory documents for 2,232 dwelling units on approximately 386 acres in village Six of Otay Ranch located generally in the north central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of Olympic Parkway, east of La Media Road, north of Birch Road and west of future SR-125. Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager gave an overview of the project as presented in staff report. She reported that a Second Tier EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the project. The Final EIR contains responses to comments received during the public review period. The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental impacts that would result from the proposed SPA Plan and conceptual TMs. Some of these significant impacts can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others cannot be avoided by adoption of feasible miti9gation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives. In order to approve the proposed project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted. Project Level and cumulative impacts are identified and divided into three categories. They are: Significant and Unmitigated; these are either cumulative (project is combined with other projects) or regional in nature (beyond the sole control of the City of Chula Vista. They are: - Land Use (Cumulative) - Agricultural Resources (Cumulative) - L~ndform Alteration & Aesthetics (Cumul~ti~e) - Transportation, Circulation & Access - Biological Resources (Cumulative) - Air Quality (Project & Cumulative Significant and Mitigated to Less than Significant; Mitigations measures required in the EIR would reduce the impact to less than significant. Landform alterations and aesthetics (project) Biological Resources (project) Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - January 9, 2002 Geological/Soils (project) Paleonotological Resources (project) Agricultural Resources (project) Water Resources & Water Quality (project & cumulative) Transportation Circulation & Access Cultural Resources (project & cumulative) Noise (project and cumulative) Water supply and facilities (project and cumulative) Sewer Service (project and cumulative) Integrated Waste Management (project and cumulative) Law Enforcement (project and cumulative) Fire Protection (project and cumulative) Schools (project and cumulative) Library Services (project and cumulative) Parks & Recreation (project and cumulative) Hazards/Rick of Upset (project and cumulative) Less than Significant Impacts Land use, Planning and Zoning (project) Housing and Population (project and cumulative) Geology and Soils (cumulative) Mineral Resources (project and cumulative) Gas/Electric Service (project and cumulative) At the time the Program EIR 90-01 was certified and adopted in October 1993 the City Council and Board of Supervisors jointly determined that substantial social environmental and economic benefits of the Otay Ranch project outweighed the significant and unmitigable impacts associated with the project and a Statement of Overriding Consideration was approved. Village Six will result in unmitigable impacts that would remain significant after the application of these measures, therefore in order to approve the project, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA. The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives and based on this examination, the City has determined that neither of the alternatives meets the project objectives, or is environmentally superior to the project. Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner, gave an overview of the project as presented in staff report. He further reported that the SPA Plan proposes 2,232 dwelling units on 386.4 acres of land in Village Six. The ownership is split between three property owners; McMillin Otay ranch, LLC, the Otay Ranch Company and the Catholic Diocese of San Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - January 9, 2002 Diego. McMIIlin is proposing 482 single-family dwellings and 212 multi-family units on their portion of Village Six, while Otay ranch Company is proposing 401 single-family dwellings and 1,392 multi-family units. The Catholic Diocese is proposing a church on an 11.5 acre site and a 32.5 acre private high school in a neighborhood zoned residential. Commission Discussion: Chair O'Neill stated that with ownership of the land by the Diocese, it becomes tax exempt and was wondering what would happen if the plans for private high school fall out. Rick Rosaler responded that although this is out of the City's purview and he cannot speak for the Diocese, if the plans for the high school fall apart, they would most likely then sell the property to a merchant builder, at which time the tax exemption on the property would be removed. Cmr. O'Neill further stated that the accessory unit component, as part of satisfying the affordable housing requirement (six units), was innovative and in actuality a homeowner can qualify for more house with less income under this scenario. Additionally, whether one likes it or not, State law would allow a secondary unit (attached or detached) to go in later. Surprisingly, the plaintiff in the Santa Monica decision was the Coalition For Affordable Housing; apparently they seem to think there is some affordability that accrues from these accessory units. Commissioner Thomas stated he did not support the accessory unit in lieu of the six affordable housing units because the homeowner would be able to rent the unit at market rate, which would then defeat the purpose of calling it affordable. Commissioner Hall inquired about the progress the diocese is making in purchasing the land. Rick Rosaler responded that they have other sites under consideration and they are presently evaluating the Carmel Mountain site, however they are encountering some problems with the City of San Diego for that site and they will be looking next at the Otay Ranch site. The Diocese has stated that the school would not be open until SR 125 is built because this is ~, regional facility and people would need SR 125 to get to the school. Commissioner Hall expressed concern that within the Otay Ranch and Eastlake development, the City is not achieving the full realm of smart growth and asked if the plans for the private high school fall out, has the City considered commercial / industrial office park for that site, thereby creating a job base for Chula Vista residents. He Rick Rosaler stated that in 1993 the County of San Diego jointly approved the GDP and the plan envisioned Otay Mesa as being the employment base for the area. However, Planning Commission Minutes - ? - January 9, 2002 there are office uses focused into the Freeway Commercial and Eastern Urban Center, but not in the Villages. Additionally, Cmr. Hall stated that he would like to see a survey conducted of the residents in the eastern portion of the City in order to access whether they plan to use SR-125, knowing that it will be a toll road. Cmr. Hall further stated that he is concerned that regional jurisdictions and the development community believe that SR-125 will be the panacea for improving traffic conditions that currently exist and future conditions at build out. The fact that SR-125 will be a toll road, in his opinion, will be a deterrent for its use and, therefore, the region will not reap the optimal benefits of its usage. Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager, stated that although conducting a survey would be an excellent way to gauge the community, it would not be within the purview of an Environmental Impact Report, Commissioner O'Neill stated that the same concerns were expressed about the Coronado Bridge, which turned out to be unfounded. Furthermore, he stated that no one from eastern Chula Vista needs to use the toll road in order for it to be effective because SR-125 will effectively take the pre-load from the border off of 1-805, to the benefit of the residents of Chula Vista who use 1-805. Commissioner Castaneda stated that he concurs with Commissioner Hall's comments regarding the under-utilization of SR-125 and although he agrees with Chair O'Neill's comments on the Coronado Bridge, he believes that SR-125 is more analogous to the 73 toll road in Orange County, which has not met expectations in terms of reaching capacity. Additionally, although SR-125 may take some of the load off of 1-805 with traffic coming from the border, unless residents from eastern part of Chula Vista use the roll road, there are still going to be problems on surface streets. Commissioner Castaneda inquired if any consideration has been given to incorporate into the monthly Home Owners Association fee the cost for the transponder to the toll road. He further stated that it would be a lot more feasible to do it now, rather than later Alex Al-Agha, Sr. Civil Engineer, stated that the City has not conditioned this specific requirement on the entitlement process for any project in the past because it would be considered as a private matter between the HOA and the developer. Ann Moore, Sr. Assistant City Attorney stated that although this is an interesting concept, the City has limitations with respect to such a condition, however, the developer would have far more latitude to fashion such a provision in their HOA documents and perhaps include it as a line item in their HOA budget. P~anning Commission Minutes - 8 - January 9, 2002 Commissioner Castaneda expressed concern that Mitigation No. 5.10-7 contained in the EIR does not allow for more public input when adjustments or changes are made to the 9,429 traffic capacity threshold. Ann Moore responded that the language would be clarified stating that the City Council would be involved in a more formal review process for any adjustments to the 9,429 cap which limits the issuance of building permits for new dwelling units. Commissioner Castaneda stated that he shares Cmr. Thomas' concerns on the lack of control on affordability of the accessory units. He is also concerned with potentially changing the make-up of a single family residential neighborhood and creating a multi- family neighborhood. He asked if there could be a requirement that states that the secondary unit must be attached to the existing home, thereby increasing the likelihood of these units being occupied by a family members. Rick Rosaler stated that the design regulations, as now written, allow a detached structure in the rear yard. Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification on the new legislation which requires developers to ensure water availability from the water authorities. Ms. Moore responded that the new legislation requires Cities to place a condition on the Tentative Map requiring the developer to acquire proof of water availability from the local water authority and present it to the City. Commissioner McCann stated that he is not as skeptical about the use of SR-125 and believes it will relieve some of the surface street traffic going to jobs located in Otay Mesa. Cmr. McCann stated he supports the project and believes it is a well-designed project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 8:05. Bob Pletcher McMillin Company, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City stated that they have 6 units of affordable housing that need to be satisfied and initially they had considered transferring the obligation to a future village and deal with it, as in most cases, within a large apartment unit complex. The GDP currently allows the accessory units, and the GDP and affordable housing policies encourage, at least, an attempt to come up with other options to satisfy these requirements. This proposal is not a final action and the City would need to be satisfied that the affordable housing requirements have been met. Mr. Pletcher addressed the comments made regarding the HOA collecting fees for the transponders. He indicated that SR-125 is a regional solution to a regional problem and to make a connection between an HOA and a regional requirement would not be appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - }anuary 9, 2002 In closing, Mr. Pletcher stated that this is a project that has been in the planning stages since 1998 and they, as well as staff, have worked diligently in designing a quality project. Village 6 is a logical extension of existing development programmed for Otay Ranch, utilizing existing infrastructure that's already in place, particularly Olympic Parkway. This was a project that was envisioned to provide some of the funding and the commitment to construct Olympic Parkway, which is under construction. He, therefore, urged the Commission to approve the project. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:15. MSC (Willett/O'Neill) (6-1-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt: a. Resolution EIR 98~01 recommending the City Council certify that the final Second-Tier EIR (EIR 98-01) for the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; making certain findings of fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program with the following recommendation: That a clarification be made to Mitigation No. 5.10-7 stating that the any adjustments to the 9,429 cap would be considered by the City Council. Motion carried with Commissioner Thomas voting against the motion. MSC (Willett/O'Neill) (5-2-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt: b. Resolution PCM 99-05 recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Village Six SPA Plan and other regulatory documents including the Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Affordable Housing Program, Air Quality Improvement Plan, Water Conservation Plan, Non- Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, and adopt an Ordinance approving Planned Community District Regulations in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including the following Condition No. 51 contained in the SPA Conditions of Approval for Otay Ranch Village Six: ".~1 I~ue to the development standards established for the SPA Plan and accessory second units, accessory units are only allowed by Conditional Use Permit for specific models or units in Neighborhoods R-2a or R-2b (not to exceed a total of 100 units) and Neighborhood R-I or R-3 (not to exceed a total of 100 units) which traffic impacts have been included in the EIR 98-01 analysis." Motion carried with Commissioners Castaneda and Thomas voting against the motion. SECOND TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS December 17, 2001 /0/1-/7 r ,'¡ " " -T ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION TI. DEFINITIONS 2 ill. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 IV. BACKGROUND 6 V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 6 VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA 9 VTI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS 11 Vill. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11 IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MmGATION MEASURES 11 A. Land Use 16 B. Landfonn AlterationlVisual Quality 17 C. Biological Resources 19 D. Cultural Resources 21 E. Geology 23 F. Paleontological Resources 25 G. Agriculture 27 H. Water Resources and Water Quality 28 I. Transportation/Traffic 31 J. Air Quality 35 K. Noise 38 L Public Facilities 40 /o/¡- If X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES A. Land Use B. Landfonn AlterationlVisual Quality C. Biological Resources D. Cultural Resources E. Agriculture F. Water Resources and Water Quality G. Transportation/Traffic H. Air Quality I. Public Facilities XI. FEASffiILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A. No Project Alternative B. Reduced Density Alternative XTI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS It! /J -/'1 51 51 52 52 52 53 53 54 62 63 67 70 72 74 FINDINGS OF FACT I. INTRODUCTION The Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 1 prepared for this project addressed the potential environmental effects of a proposed project for Village Six of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) area, the adoption of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan with associated regulatory documents, and the adoption of an amendment to the circulation element of the Chula Vista General Plan. In addition, the EIR evaluated two alternatives to the proposed project: the No Project alternative, which assumes no development of the Village Six SPA Plan area, and a reduced intensity alternative. These findings have been prepared to comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, 15000 et seq.). 1 The EIR (City of Chula Vista 98-01) incorporates previously prepared documents, including the City of Chula Vista General Plan EIR, Final Program EIR for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub- Regional Plan EIR (90-01), City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Final Program EIR (94-03) Otay Ranch SPA One and Annexation Final Second Tier ErR (95-01), Final Second Tier EIR for Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments (EIR 97-03), Otay Water Disttict Water Resources Master Plan, Final Master EIR (EIR 97-04), Olympic Parkway Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 00-33), Village Six SPA Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan for Village Six, EastLake III Woods and Vistas Replanning Program EIR (EIR OJ-OJ) by reference. 1 /014--<' 0 TI. DEFINITIONS "ADT" means average daily traffic. "APCD" means San Diego Air Pollution Control District. "BMPs" means best management practices. "CDFG" means California Department of Fish and Game. "CEQA" means California Environmental Quality Act. "City" means City of Chula Vista. "CNEL" means community noise equivalent level. "Conceptual TMs" means Conceptual Tentative Map. "CPF' means Community Purpose Facilities. "dB (A)" means A-weighted decibels. "du/ac" means dwelling units per acre. "EIR" means Second Tier Environmental Impact Report. "GDP" means General Development Plan. "GMOC" means Growth Management Oversight Comrnittee. "gpd" means gallons per day. "LOS" means level of service. "mgd" means million gallons per day. "MSCP" means Multiple Species Conservation Program. "NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. "OTC" means Olympic Training Center. 2 /O,Lf--c2/ "OWD" means Otay Water District. "PFFP" means Public Facilities Financing Plan. "RAQS" means Regional Air Quality Standards. "SAMP" means Subarea Water Master Plan. "SANDAG" means San Diego Association of Governments. "SCAQMD" means South Coast Air Quality Management District. "SPA" means Sectional Planning Area. "SR" means State Route. "SWPPP" means stonn water pollution prevention plan. "SWRCB" means State Water Resources Control Board. "USACE" means U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers. "USFWS" means U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3 /O/f-~.). ill. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Village Six SPA Plan proposes development of 2,086 dwelling units (883 single-family and 1,203 multi-family units) on approximately 237 acres. The remaining 149 acres would be developed with non-residential uses, including community purpose facilities, schools, a public park, commercial uses, open space, and circulation rights-of- way. A private high school is proposed for the southern area of the project. Should the high school not be developed, the underlying land use would pennit the construction of 146 single-family homes. If the single-family homes are built instead of the high school, the total number of units proposed for the project would be 2,232. Both the high school and the residential use options are considered in the EIR. A tentative map would have to be processed for these residential units to be developed, and subsequent environmental review, if needed, would be completed by the City of Chula Vista. A private high school and associated church facilities are proposed in the southeast corner of the village within the areas designated R-lllS-2 and CPF-2, respectively. The high school is proposed to include 245,000 square feet of building space and associated outdoor activity areas. The school is anticipated to have a capacity of 2,200 students, a faculty of about 150, .and a staff of approximately 50 employees. Approximately 7.2 million cubic yards of earthwork is proposed in two separate operations as a part of the project. All graded material will be reused on-site to achieve balanced earthwork. The Village Core will be generally flat and grading will be designed to be sensitive to the requirements for the regional transit. A 14.3-acre borrow/storage site will be located south of Birch Road and will be used for the borrowing or storage of up to 300,000 cubic yards of material. A 42-acre borrow/storage site will be located east of SR-125 within Planning Area 12 and will be used for the borrowing or storage of up to one million cubic yards of material. Discretionary Actions The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista include the adoption of a SPA Plan for Village Six and the reclassification of Birch Road between La Media and SR-125 from a four-lane major to a six-lane major arterial road. The City Council will also detennine whether the final EIR is complete and in compliance with CEQA as part of the certification process. With the adoption of a SPA Plan, specific development can occur only after the approval of a variety of pennits and maps. Subsequent environmental review will be required for 4 /Ofl-.)3 the tentative maps and conditional use pennits. The actions to which the final EIR applies are the adoption of the SPA Plan for Village Six, and the amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP and Circulation Element of the General Plan that are necessary to reclassify Birch Road to a six-lane major arterial. The City is the Lead Agency and has discretionary power of approval for all the actions sought by the applicant for the proposed project. The final EIR is intended to satisfy CEQA requirements for environmental review of those actions. Future discretionary approvals may be required. No other actions by other agencies or jurisdictions have been identified that would be required to accomplish the project as proposed. Project Goals and Objectives As specified in the Village Six SPA plan, the objectives of the proposed project are detailed as follows: . Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, particularly the Otay Ranch General Development Plan; . Implement Chula Vista's Growth Management Program to ensure that public facilities are provided in a timely manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for, and benefiting from, the improvements; . Foster development patterns that promote orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl; . Maintain and enhance a sense of community identity within the city of Chula Vista and surrounding neighborhoods; . Establish a pedestrian-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce reliance on the automobile and to promote walking, as well as the use of bicycles, buses, and regional transit; . Promote synergistic uses between villages to balance activities, services, and facilities; . Accentuate the relationship of the land plan with its natural setting and the physical character of the region, and promote effective management of natural resources by concentrating development into less sensitive areas, while preserving large contiguous open space areas with sensitive resources; . Contribute to the unique Otay Ranch image and identity that differentiates Otay Ranch from other communities; 5 /o/f-~Lj . Wisely manage limited physical resources; . Implement development consistent with the provisions of the Otay Ranch resource conservation and management plans; and . Establish a land use and facility plan that assures village viability in consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions. IV. BACKGROUND Village Six is one of 11 urban villages in the Otay Ranch GDP. The Otay Ranch is a master-planned community encompassing approximately 23,000 acres and includes a broad range of residential, commercial, retail, and industrial development. Civic and community uses-such as libraries, parks, and schools-and about 11,375 acres preserved as open space are also included within the Otay Ranch. Each village is based on the "village concept" that blends multi-family homes and shops with parks, schools, and civic activities in a core area within the Village. The Village Core is surrounded by single-family houses in secondary areas. All are tied together by pedestrian facilities. The Otay Ranch GDP was adopted by the City and the County of San Diego in October 1993. Both agencies were involved in the development and approval of the plan because the planning area included land falling within the jurisdiction of both agencies. The Otay Ranch GDP established goals and objectives for the development of the area. As part of the review and approval process for the GDP, a Program EIR was prepared. Under the implementation program for the Otay Ranch GDP, SPA plans are required to be approved before final development entitlements can be considered. The proposed SPA Plan will further refine the development standards, land plans, goals, objectives, and policies for Village Six. V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall consist of the following: 6 /o/1-,?S- . The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project; . The Draft and Final Second Tier EIR for the project (EIR #98-01), including appendixes and technical reports; . All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters, and other planning documents prepared by the planning consultant, the project applicant, the environmental consultant, the McMillin Companies, the Otay Ranch Company, and the City, that are before the decisionmakers as detennined by the City Clerk; . All documents, comments, and correspondence submitted by members of the public and public agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on the EIR for the project; . All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with this project, up through the close of the public hearing; . Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City, or videotapes where transcripts are not available or adequate, with respect to this project or the EIR for the project; . Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public hearings for this project; . All findings and resolutions adopted by City decisionmakers in connection with this project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; and . Matters of common knowledge to the City which the members of the City Council considered regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and including but not limited to the following: - Chula Vista General Plan; - Relevant portions of the Zoning Codes of the City; 7 /0 If- ,( (0 - Final Program EIR for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-Regional Plan EIR (90-01); - City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update Final Program EIR (94-03); - Otay Ranch SPA One and Annexation Final Second Tier EIR (95-01); - Final Second Tier EIR for Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments (EIR 97-03); - Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan, Final Master EIR (EIR 97-04); - Olympic Parkway Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 00-33); - Village Six SPA Plan; - Public Facilities Finance Plan for Village Six SPA; - EastLake ill Woods and Vistas Replanning Program EIR (EIR 01-01); and - Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk to the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, 91910. The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Village Six SPA plan, even if not every document was fonnally presented to the City Council or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the Village Six SPA Plan. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in approving the Village Six SPA Plan. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Cal.Rptr. 620].) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents fonn part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the Village Six SPA Plan. (See Pub. Resources Code, section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54].) 8 /O/!'ø?7 VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Emphasis added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects." The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, section 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency múst issue written findings reaching one or more of three pennissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second pennissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential finding is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors ("Goleta TI") (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410].) The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar V. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal.Rptr. 898].) "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, 9 /01-.:<8 environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182].) The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must therefore glean the meaning of these tenns from the other contexts in which the tenns are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the tenn "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory tenn is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Resources Code, section 21002.) For purposes of these findings, the tenn "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast, the tenn "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Lourel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question (e.g., the "regional traffic problem") less than significant. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less than significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR. In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a), (b).) 10 /0/T-.,.¿9 With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, sections 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, section 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he wisdom of approving. . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be infonned, and therefore balanced." (Goleta TI, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) VTI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City (or "decisionmakers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including the applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely infonnational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution(s) approving the project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the mitigation monitoring reporting program adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project. VTII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(l), the City, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) as prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described in the document entitled Village Six SPA Mitigation Monitoring 11 /0 /f-.Jð Reporting Program. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Second Tier EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or "impacts") that the project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others cannot be avoided. The project will result in significant irreversible environmental changes with regard to the following issues: land use, transportation/traffic, biological resources, hydrology/drainage, landfonn alteration/visual quality, geology/geologic hazards, noise, air quality, cultural/paleontological resources, and public facilities. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in Subsequent EIR 98-01 in Table 1-2 on pages 5-22 and in Chapter 5.0, pages 57-243. Land Use Development of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in a significant change in the character of the site from undeveloped to an urban use. Landfonn Alteration/Aesthetics The overall change to the original Otay Ranch topography and the change from a rural to more urban use constitute a significant, adverse landfonn and aesthetic impact. Development would require grading over the entire village. The proposed grading would reflect the original topography by incorporating a step-down design from east to west. The proposed project would result in long-tenn direct potentially significant nighttime view impacts. The direct lines of sight to the field lighting and the general illumination over the stadium and baseball field would also have long-tenn direct and indirect potentially significant nighttime impacts. Sound barriers built as part of the project would represent a significant visual impact if the portion of the barrier that is constructed as a wall is higher than eight and a half feet. 12 /0/1-3/ Biology There are no direct, adverse impacts to biological resources. Because biological condi- tions change over time, there is the potential for burrowing owl and northern harrier to occupy the site between project approval and development. The Village Six SPA Plan would have indirect, long-tenn significant impacts on biological resources if the project fails to preserve the Otay Ranch GDP regional open space proportionally and concurrently with development. Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan and Conceptual TMs would eliminate approximately 386 acres of agricultural fields used for foraging by raptor species. The Program EIR 90-01 identified loss of raptor foraging habitat as a significant impact. The Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to this significant impact. Cultural Resources Impacts to the recorded sites on the property are considered significant. Because of the extent of past agricultural disturbance to the area, only midden-bearing subsurface deposits represent potentially significant cultural resources. Geology The exposure of a residential community and individual persons to ground acceleration generated from potential earthquakes along off-site faults would be a direct, long-tenn, significant impact associated with implementation of the proposed project. Compliance with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions, building codes, and standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California, would reduce the potential impact resulting from seismic-induced ground shaking below a level of significance. Paleontological Resources Grading impacts to alluvium would potentially impact paleontological resources. Destruction of the paleontological resources from either the Otay Fonnation or the San Diego Fonnation would result in a significant, direct, long-tenn impact. Agriculture The loss of agricultural land and land suitable for the production of crops would result in a significant impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impainnent of limited agricultural resources. Noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with 13 /o/l-:3.2.J agricultural operations would create indirect, short-tenn, potentially significant impacts between the agricultural uses and urban uses. Housing and Population No significant adverse housing and population impacts have been identified. Water Resources and Water Ouality Project implementation may result in on-site flooding and off-site runoff flooding effects downstream, which would have long-tenn, direct and indirect, significant impacts. Project implementation may also result in uncontrolled discharge of pollutants with "first flush" events which would have a long-tenn, indirect, significant impact. Traffic. Circulation. and Access Direct impacts could result to traffic on Otay Lakes Road between H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road as a result of project approval. Cumulative impacts could result to Olympic Parkway between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway, and between EastLake Parkway and Hunte Parkway. Cumulative impacts could also occur on Otay Lakes Road between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway, between H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, and between Bonita Road and H Street. Without the completion of SR-125, other intersections and roadways would be significantly impacted. These include the intersection of Olympic Parkway and Wueste Road and the segment of 1-805 between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. At the time off-site improvements are designed and proposed, additional environmental review may be required to detennine potential impacts related to construction, including water quality, traffic, and impacts to paleontological resources, and the need for specific mitigation measures to address these potential impacts. Air Oualitv The construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of significant temporary construction equipment exhaust emissions, plus long-tenn significant cumulative emissions from project-generated vehicle trips. The proposed project would result in long-tenn operational emissions, primarily from vehicle emissions that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. 14 /ð/j-:3ð Noise Potential sources of noise related to the proposed Village Six SPA Plan include construction noise, traffic-generated noise, and commercial noise. Traffic on La Media, Olympic Parkway, Birch Road, and SR-125 would cause a significant noise impact. Public ServiceslUtilities POTABLE WATER The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in water consumption and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The impact to water storage and pumping facilities would be significant if construction of facilities does not coincide with the anticipated growth associated with the Village Six SPA. RECYCLED WATER The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the use of recycled water and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The increase in use of recycled water has been planned for by OWD and will not have a significant impact. However, the impact to recycled water storage and distribution facilities would be significant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the project's anticipated growth. SEWER The existing sewage disposal system does not have enough capacity to accommodate flows from the Village Six SPA Plan, which would result in a near-tenn significant impact until upgrades to the system are completed. LAW ENFORCEMENT Development of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in a significant impact to law enforcement because of the predicted increase in calls for service and the additional travel time required to answer these calls. FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES The Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for response time for the City, including the Otay Ranch community. Impacts to fire and emergency medical services would be significant if construction of these facilities does not coincide with the project's anticipated population growth and increased demand for services. 15 /o/f - ..:J tf SCHOOLS Project implementation would result in a significant impact to schools unless construction of facilities coincides with student generation and associated service demands. LmRARY SERVICE A significant impact would result if construction of new library facilities and provision of additional documents does not coincide with project implementation and associated population growth. PUBLIC SERVICESIUTILITIES: PARKS AND RECREATION Project implementation would generate increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. A significant impact could result if dedication of parkland and construction of new facilities does not coincide with project implementation and project population growth. HazardslRisk of Upset Potentially significant impacts related to the transport of hazardous materials could result from implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan. A. LAND USE Standards of Significance: A significant land use impact is identified if the project could: . physically divide an established community. . conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. . conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Significant land use impacts would also occur if the project fails to comply with the applicable mitigation measures established by the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR and the Otay Ranch GDP findings of fact, as amended by subsequent projects. These measures include the requirement that SPA plans establish standards for landscaping, grading, and 16 /0 /'1-.:3;¡;- buffering to prevent land use interface impacts such as noise, lighting, and loss of privacy from occurring between internal land uses, particularly between single- and multi-family residential land uses and between residential and non-residential land uses. In addition, the Program EIR requires that the applicant implement the RMP to protect biological resources within Otay Ranch. Impact: . Development of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in a significant change in the character of the site from undeveloped to an urban use. [EIR, Subchapter 5.1, page 75]. Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in the conversion of the site from undeveloped to intensive urban uses, as identified in Program EIR 90-01. Mitigation Measure:. No feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated. B. LANDFORM ALERATIONNISUAL QUALITY Standards of Significance: A significant land use impact is identified if the project could: have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or obstruct or substantially alter the visual character of a designated public view. substantially degrade scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within view of a state scenic highway. conflict with the goals and policies established for preserving scenic highways and roads. result in architecture, urban design, landscaping, or landfonns that negatively detract from the prevailing aesthetic character of the site or surrounding area. 17 / ()/f -.3 b create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Impact: . Development of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in a significant change in the character of the site from undeveloped to an urban use, and would have a significant impact resulting from field lighting and general illumination at the high school stadium and baseball field. [EIR, Subchapter 5.2, pages 87-99]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in the conversion of the site from undeveloped to intensive urban uses, as identified in Program EIR 90-01. Under both the CEQA Guidelines and the Program EIR, the proposed project would result in long-tenn direct potentially significant nighttime view impacts. The direct lines of sight to the field lighting and the general illumination over the stadium and baseball field would also have long-tenD direct and indirect potentially significant nighttime impacts. Mitigation Measures: 5.2-1 Prior to approval of grading plans, the applicant shall prepare grading and building plans that confonn to the landfonn grading guidelines contained in the proposed Village Six SPA Plan and grading ordinance, the Otay Ranch GDP, and the General Plan. The plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. 5.2-2 Prior to approval of the final maps, the developer of the private high school shall prepare a lighting plan that shows the proposed height, location, and intensity of streetlights and athletic facilities lights on-site. The plan shall comply with the City's minimum standards for roadway lighting and shall address all exterior lighting. The plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. 5.2-3 The conditional use pennit (CUP) for the private high school shall include a provision that requires that stadium and baseball field lights shall not be used after 10:00 P.M. on Sunday through Thursday and shall not be used after 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday. 18 /t) /}- - .3 7 5.2-4 As a condition of the CUP, the installation of lights at the stadium or at the baseball field shall not be pennitted until a lighting consultant experienced in stadium lighting designs lighting standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. To the extent feasible, for the events to be conducted within the stadium and baseball field the lights shall be designed to direct downward and shall be shielded such that the light bulbs are not exposed to any residential areas in either Village Six or Village Seven. Lights shall be installed pursuant to the lighting plan approved by the Director of Planning and Building. 5.2-5 Noise barriers in excess of eight feet in height shall consist of a wall and benn combination. The wall height in this combination barrier shall not exceed eight feet, with the remaining portion of the overall height accomplished through benning. Appropriate landscaping of the walllbenn combination shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Noise barrier details and plans shall be reviewed and approved as part of the review and adoption of tentative maps. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it: . has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. . has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. . has a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. . interferes substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites. 19 /01/- :3/3 Impact: . The Village Six SPA Plan would have indirect, long-tenn significant impacts on biological resources if the project fails to preserve the Otay Ranch GDP regional open space proportionally and concurrently with development. [EIR, Subchapter 5.3, page 112]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or shall be incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR below a level of significance. Explanation: There are no direct, adverse impacts to biological resources. Because biological conditions change over time, there is the potential for burrowing owl and northern harrier to occupy the site between project approval and development. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.3, page 113]. 5.3-1 Focused surveys for the burrowing owl shall be conducted prior to grading. If occupied burrows are detected, passive relocation of the species shall be conducted to avoid impacts from grading. 5.3-2 Focused surveys for active nests of the northern harrier shall be conducted prior to grading. If active nests are detected, and if construction activities occur between March 1 and July 31, construction activities shall be restricted within 900 feet of the active nest sites. 5.3-3 Prior to recording each final map, the applicants shall convey land within the Otay Ranch RMP Resource Preserve at a ratio of 1.188 acres for each acre of development area. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact: . The Program EIR 90-01 identified loss of raptor foraging habitat as a significant impact. The Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to this significant impact. Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. 20 /(j/f ::19 Explanation: Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan and Conceptual TMs would eliminate approximately 386 acres of agricultural fields used for foraging by raptor species. Mitigation Measure: No feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would: . cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. This includes: a) resources that are eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register of Historic Places; and b) resources that are locally designated as historically significant, or the City finds the resource historically significant based on substantial evidence. . cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. This includes: a) resources that are associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or American history or of recognized scientific importance in prehistory; b) resources that can provide infonnation that is of demonstrable public interest and is useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable research questions; c) resources that have a special or particular quality such as the oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; and d) resources that are at least 100 years old and possess substantial stratigraphic integrity, and/or involve important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods. 21 /0 /f-¥O . directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. . disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of fonnal cemeteries. Impact: . Development of the proposed project could adversely affect cultural resources. [EIR, Subchapter 5.4, page 117]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: There are eight sites that could potentially be affected by the completion of the project. Several of these resources are recorded as single, isolated artifacts, while others are recorded as including a variety of flaked and ground stone artifacts. It is possible that these resources no longer exist on the property. Current vegetative cover is too dense to pennit adequate field inspection and evaluation of potential remains. Because of the restricted surface visibility and the potential for prehistoric cultural resources on the property, impacts to cultural resources are considered significant. Because of the extent of past agricultural disturbance to the area, only midden-bearing, subsurface deposits represent potentially significant cultural resources. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.4, pages 117-118]. 5.4-1 Concurrent with the start of grading, the project area should be brushed and a field reconnaissance should be conducted and the presence or absence of midden- bearing deposits detennined. All brushing and grading within Village Six shall be monitored. The monitoring of the brushing and grading shall be conducted by one or more archaeologists, as dictated by the size of the grading operation. All utility excavations, road grading, and brush removal shall be coordinated with the archaeological monitor. Any resources that are graded shall be intensively monitored during grading to ensure that any important features, isolates, or deposits are either recorded and collected or excavated. Should any resources be encountered during the monitoring of the brushing or grading which were not previously recorded, the grading shall be temporarily stopped or redirected to another area while the nature of the discovery is evaluated. Any resources that may be encountered shall require testing to detennine their significance. If the 22 /6/1-4/ testing demonstrates that a resource is significant, then a data recovery program shall be prepared in accordance with mitigation measure 5.4-2. 5.4-2 If, as a result of the reconnaissance conducted in accordance with 5.4-1 above, a midden deposit is identified, a research program shall be prepared to recover a valid sample of the materials present within the site. 5.4-3 If a midden-bearing deposit is identified, a data recovery program shall be completed prior to the issuance of a grading permit. This program shall be completed under the direction of a qualified archaeologist to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. E. GEOLOGY Standards of Significance: Impacts to geology and soils are considered significant if the proposed project: . exposes people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (1) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (2) strong seismic ground shaking. (3) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. (4) landslides. . results in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; . is located on a geologic unit or on soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; . is located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn Building Code (1994), creating a substantial risk to life or property; and . has soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for disposal of waste water. 23 /Ó/!-/j'J-., In addition, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it fails to comply with the applicable geology and soils mitigation measures established by the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR. Therefore, a significant impact would result if the project: Impact: . fails to provide site-specific geotechnical studies based on proposed development plans to specifically evaluate soil conditions and characteristics, areas of potential slope instability, landslides, faults, liquefaction, and rippability characteristics for the tentative map review; . fails to incorporate mitigation measures developed by qualified geotechnical engineers in compliance with statutes and state-of-the-art professional standards; . fails to conduct on-site soils investigation by a qualified geotechnical consultant to evaluate the potential for significant impacts due to erosion and expansion for the tentative map review; and . fails to incorporate mitigation measures for erosion control and soil expansion. . The exposure of a residential community and individual persons to ground acceleration generated from potential earthquakes along off-site faults would be a direct, long-tenn, significant impact associated with implementation of the proposed project. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: There are no active faults underlying the project site. The La Nacion fault zone is potentially active, which means it has not offset geologic fonnations younger than 11,000 years old and does not present a risk to residential development. The only potential for significant seismic hazards is associated with ground shaking due to seismic activity within the Rose Canyon fault zone. The most significant probable seismic event with the potential to affect Village Six would be a 7.0 magnitude event on the Rose Canyon fault zone resulting in an estimated peak ground acceleration of 0.19 g. A seismic event with the potential to affect noncritical structures would likewise emanate from the Rose Canyon fault zone, with a magnitude of 6.5 and a corresponding ground acceleration of 0.14 g. Expansive soils within pavement, foundation, or slab subgrade could heave when wetted, resulting in cracking or failure of these development improvements. Development on compressible soils could potentially settle under increased load and damage structures, 24 /0/1-71'3 roads, and property. The design of proposed Village Six SPA Plan structures would comply with the requirements of the Unifonn Building Code and standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.5, page 126]. 5.5-1 During construction, liquefiable soils within the colluvium/alluvium shall be removed and replaced with compacted fill. 5.5-2 During construction, highly expansive soils shall be kept below finish grade. Where excavations expose highly expansive materials at finish grade, these materials shall be excavated a minimum of four feet below finish grade. Where excavations expose very highly expansive material at finish grade, these materials shall be excavated a minimum of five feet below finish grade. The excavations shall be replaced with a compacted fill soil that has a low to moderate expansion potential. 5.5-3 During construction, the developer shall remove loose, compressible soils and replace as compacted fill in areas that will be subjected to new fill or structural loads. 5.5-4 During grading, the developer shall construct earthen buttresses on unstable slopes with drains installed, as warranted, at the rear of the buttresses to control groundwater. 5.5-5 Grading of building pads shall be designed so that foundations bear entirely on a relatively unifonn depth of compacted fill. This may be accomplished by over excavating the cut portion of the building pad. 5.5-6 Prior to approval of grading plans for the proposed project, the applicant shall submit an additional geotechnical investigation. The detailed analysis shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. The analysis shall include, but not be limited to, a delineation of specific locations where liquefiable, compressive, and expansive soils would affect structural stability and where graded slopes would expose bedrock susceptible to instability. F. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it: 25 /O/J-f!¥ . Directly or indirectly destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Impact: . Grading impacts to alluvium would potentially impact paleontological resources. Destruction of the paleontological resources from either the Otay Fonnation or the San Diego Fonnation would result in a significant, direct, long-tenn impact. [EIR, Subchapter 5.6, page 130]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities cut into geological fonnations and destroy the buried fossil remains. Areas of the Otay Fonnation may be exposed during grading and construction activities. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.6, page 131]. 5.6-1 Prior to issuance of anyon-site (or off-site) grading pennits, the applicant shall confinn to the City that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out the following mitigation program. The paleontologist shall attend pregrade meetings to consult with grading and excavation contractors. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.) 5.6-2 A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic fonnations (Otay and San Diego Fonnations) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall periodically (every several weeks) inspect original cuts in deposits with an unknown resource sensitivity (Quaternary alluvium). (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials.) 5.6-3 If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In instances where recovery requires an extended salvage time, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. 26 /0/1- ß- Where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor), a screen-washing operation for small fossil remains shall be set up. 5.6-4 Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photographs, and maps, shall be deposited (with the applicant's pennission) in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summary report shall be completed which outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussion of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. G. AGRICULTURE Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on agriculture if it: . converts Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use. . conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. . involves other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Impact: . The loss of agricultural land and land suitable for the production of crops would result in a significant impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impainnent of limited agricultural resources. Noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with agricultural operations would create indirect, short- tenn, potentially significant impacts between the agricultural uses and urban uses. [EIR, Subchapter 5.7 pages 134-135]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Historically, the Village Six SPA Plan area has been used for dry farming, as well as cattle and sheep grazing. Crop production was limited to hay and grains due to limited water availability; however, with advancements in water importation and irrigation, tomato cultivation increased and truck farming was introduced. Cattle grazing and cultivation of wheat and barley continue as active uses on-site. The Agricultural 27 /O/f-¥~ Management Map for Otay River, Jamul-Proctor Valley, and San Ysidro Mountains (Baldwin Vista 1989) delineates intensities of allowed agricultural use within Otay Ranch. According to this map, cultivation and cattle grazing activities are allowed on the Village Six SPA Plan property. There is no land currently subject to the Williamson Act on the Village Six property. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.7, pages 135-136]. 5.7-1 The agricultural plan included in the Village Six SPA Plan shall be implemented for the area as development proceeds on the project. The following measures shall be implemented by the developer, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building: a) A 200-foot buffer shall be maintained between developed property and ongoing agriculture operations; b) Vegetation shall be provided to shield adjacent urban development (within 400 feet) from agriculture activities where pesticides are to be applied; c) Notification of adjacent property owners of potential pesticide application shall be given through newspaper advertisements; and d) Fencing shall be provided to ensure the safety of Village Six SPA residents. H. WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on water resources and water quality if it: . violates any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including City of Chula Vista Engineering Standards for stonn water flows and volumes; . substantially depletes groundwater or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level; 28 /O/t- tl7 Impact: . substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; . substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increases the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; . creates or contributes runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stonn water drainage systems or provides substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrades water quality; . alters an existing IOO-year floodplain or flood regime; . places housing within a loo-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows; . exposes people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and/or . exposes people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. . Project implementation may result in on-site flooding and off-site runoff flooding effects downstream, which would have long-tenn, direct and indirect, significant impacts. Project implementation may also result in uncontrolled discharge of pollutants with "first flush" events which would have a long-tenn, indirect, significant impact. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)( 1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan would result in an increase in the amount of runoff during stonns due to the overall increase in impervious surfaces area. Based on the amount of additional development area, the surface runoff in a IOO-year stonn event would increase with implementation ofthe Village Six SPA Plan. The existing Qso and QIOO flows associated with the Village Six area is 221 cfs and 272 cfs, respectively. When SR-125 is constructed these flows will increase to 248 cfs and 306 cfs, respectively. With the proposed completion of the Village Six SPA Plan, 29 /()/f-t/l and the construction of SR-125, Qso flows are anticipated to be 437 cfs and QIOO flows will be 538 cfs. The increase in runoff flows has the potential to impact downstream drainage facilities in Poggi Canyon. The existing Poggi Canyon detention basin has been designed to handle projected flows from Village Six. This detention basin is intended to serve as a regional drainage facility and has been constructed to reduce impacts to downstream facilities. In the short tenn, Village Six SPA Plan site preparation and grading, including clearing, trenching, and other earthwork, will generate sediment that could affect water quality. To reduce the impacts to water quality, construction activities will have to comply with all applicable regulations established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pennit requirements for urban runoff and stonn water discharge. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.9, pages.148-149]. 5.9-1 Prior to issuance of a grading pennit, a detailed drainage system design study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and shall include: a) peak runoff at each inlet, outlet, interceptor, concentration, or confluence point, both predevelopment and postdevelopment conditions; b) the integration of the proposed system with the existing and proposed downstream drainage facilities to effectively control flows within the entire system; and c) maps showing existing and postdevelopment conditions for existing topography and proposed grading plans incorporating a drainage system design with main lines and detention/desilting facilities pursuant to Section 3-202.1 of the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual; and on-site detention/desilting facilities shall be incorporated in the design for the various phases of construction and postconstruction. 5.9-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading pennit, the applicant shall submit a SWPPP including assignment of maintenance responsibilities for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading pennits. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the BMPs of the RWQCB. BMPs identified in the SWPPP shall include but shall not be limited to the following: 30 /0;1- -¥9 a) Temporary erosion control measures designed in accordance with the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance shall be employed for disturbed areas and shown on the grading plans; b) No disturbed surfaces shall be left without erosion control measures in place during the winter and spring months; c) Sediment will be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other appropriate measures, and shown on the grading plans; d) Silt and oil and other contaminants will be prevented from entering the stonn drain system or removed from the system, by a means acceptable to the City Engineer. Stonn drain inlets shall be labeled "No Dumping- Drains to Ocean"; e) All parking lots shall be designed to allow stonn water runoff to be directed to vegetative filter strips or oil-water separators to control sediment, oil, and other contaminants; and f) Pennanent energy dissipaters will be included for drainage outlets. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. I. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS Standards of Significance: The City has developed traffic standards, which were used by LLG to evaluate the proposed project. The traffic impacts would result in a significant transportation/traffic impact if they would exceed the following thresholds for intersections, street segments, freeways, and Congestion Management Program thresholds. The following criteria are from "Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies" (February 13, 2001). Short-term (Study Horizon Year 0 to 4) 1. Intersections a. Project specific impact if both the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F; and ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume. 31 /0/1-50 b. Cumulative impact if only #1 is met. 2. Street Lines/Segments If the ADT methodology indicates LOS C or better, the impact is not significant. If the ADT methodology indicates LOS D, E, or F, the GMOC method should be used. The following criteria would then be used. a. Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS ElF; ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume; and iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to segment. b. Cumulative impact if only #1 is met. 3. Freeways a. Project specific impact if both the following criteria are met: i. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F; and ii. Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway segment. b. Cumulative impact if only #1 is met. Long Term (Study Horizon Year 5 and later) 1. Intersections a. Project specific impact if both the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F; and ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume. b. Cumulative impact if only #1 is met. 2. Street Lines/Segments 32 /ot1-Si Use the planning analysis using the volume-to-capacity ratio methodology only. The GMOC analysis methodology is not applicable beyond a four- year horizon. a. Project specific impact if all three of the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS ElF; ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume; and iii. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to segment. b. Cumulative Impact if only #1 is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is considered not significant since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If segment Level of Service is LOS F, impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the impact identified in paragraph (a) above occurs at study horizon year 10 or later, and is off-site and not adjacent to the project, the impact is considered cumulative. Study year 10 may be that typical SANDAG model year which is between 8 and 13 years in the future. In this case of a traffic study being perfonned in the period of 2000 to 2002, because the typical model will only evaluate traffic at years divisible by 5 (i.e., 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020) study horizon year 10 would correspond to the SANDAG model for year 2010 and would be 8 years in the future. If the model year is less than 7 years in the future, study horizon year 10 would be 13 years in the future. d. In the event a direct identified project-specific impact in paragraph (a) above occurs at study horizon year 5 or earlier and the impact is off- site and not adjacent to this project, but the property immediately adjacent to the identified project-specific impact is also proposed to be developed in approximately the same time frame, an additional analysis may be required to detennine whether or not the identified project-specific impact would still occur if the development of the adjacent property does not take place. If the additional analysis concludes that the identified project-specific impact is no longer a direct impact, then the impact shall be considered cumulative. 33 /0/1-5..2.. 3. Freeways a. Project -specific impact if both the following criteria are met: i. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F; and ii. Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway segment. b. Cumulative impact if only #1 is met. Congestion Management Program (CMP) Project traffic and roadway improvements must be in compliance with the SANDAG CMP. The CMP was adopted by SANDAG on November 22, 1991, and is intended to directly link land use, transportation, and air quality through level of service perfonnance. The CMP requires an enhanced CEQA review of all large projects that are expected to generate more than 2,400 ADT or more than 200 peak hour trips. In 1993, the Institute of Transportation Engineers California Border Section and the San Diego Region Traffic Engineer's Council established a set of guidelines to be used in the preparation of traffic impact studies that are subject to the enhanced CEQA review process. This published document, which is titled 1993 Guidelines for Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Reports for the San Diego Region, requires that a project study area be established as follows: . All streets and intersections on CMP roadways or on "regionally significant arterials" where the project will add 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction. . Mainline freeway locations where the projects will add 150 or more peak hour trips in either direction. Per these guidelines, East H Street, 1-805, Telegraph Canyon Road, and SR-125 were analyzed, as required to satisfy the CMP. Impact: . Direct project impacts would occur on Otay Lakes Road between H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, page 177]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, to a level of insignificance. 34 /0/1-53 Explanation: If development exceeds 944 units without SR-125, widen to six lanes or construct intersection improvements on Otay Lakes Road that provide additional capacity to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, page 181]. 5.10-1 If development exceeds 944 units without SR-125, it is necessary to widen Otay Lakes Road to six lanes or construct intersection improvements on Otay Lakes Road that provide additional capacity to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. J. AIR QUALITY Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on air quality if it: . conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. . violates any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. . results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). . exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations such as ozone or respirable particulates (PM-IO). . creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, the APCD has recommended using the following thresholds (Table 5.11-1) adopted from those established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD): 35 /0 ff-- 5'1- TABLE 5.11-1 SCAQMD THRESHOLDS Pollutant Carbon monoxide Reactive organic compounds Project Construction 550 pounds/day 75 pounds/day 100 pounds/day 150 pounds/day 150 pounds/day Nitrogen oxide Sulfur dioxide Particulates Project Operation 550 pounds/day 55 pounds/day 55 pounds/day 150 pounds/day 150 pounds/day SOURCE: SCAQMD (2000). Exceeding these thresholds, either during project construction or upon buildout and occupancy, would result in a significant air quality impact. Impact The construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of significant temporary construction equipment exhaust emissions, plus long-tenn significant cumulative emissions from project-generated vehicle trips. The proposed project would result in long-tenn operational emissions, primarily from vehicle emissions that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds. . Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. With implementation of all feasible mitigation, construction activity emissions would still exceed the identified significance threshold for NOx and PM-IO by a wide margin. The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: Project operations related emissions, including those from stationary and mobile sources, are projected to exceed SCAQMD. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures for air quality impacts are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.11, page 195]. 5.11-1 The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction and placed as notes on all grading plans: 36 /Ó/}-S5' a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) j) Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units; Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment; Use electrical construction equipment as practical; Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment; Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment; Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust; Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust; Pave pennanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust; i) Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building; Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site prior to public road entry; k) Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads; I) Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence; m) Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred; n) Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads; 0) Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling; and p) Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated. 37 /O/J-5?p K. NOISE Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to noise if it: Impact: . results in exterior noise levels that exceed 65 CNEL in residential areas and outdoor recreational areas and 70 CNEL in office and commercial districts. . results in interior noise levels that exceed 45 dB CNEL for single-family and multi-family residential homes. . creates a substantial or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. . results in noise levels that violate the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 19.68.010 of the Municipal Zoning Code). . Potential sources of noise related to the proposed Village Six SPA Plan include construction noise, traffic-generated noise, and commercial noise. Traffic on La Media, Olympic Parkway, Birch Road, and SR-125 would cause a significant noise impact. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.12, pages 204-206]. 5.12-1 Prior to the approval of tentative maps, the applicant shall submit an acoustical study for approval by the Director of Building and Planning, which includes the following: a) Location and heights of noise barriers in accordance with Figure 5.12-1 of the EIR; 38 /0/;-57 b) A detailed analysis which demonstrates that barriers or setbacks have been incorporated into the project design, such that noise exposure to residential receivers placed in useable exterior areas are at below 65 dB CNEL; and c) A detailed analysis, which demonstrates that barriers or setbacks have been incorporated into the project design, such that, when considered with proposed construction specifications, interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 db CNEL. Should grading or traffic assumptions change during the processing of the tentative map, the barriers shall be refined to reflect those modifications. 5.12- 2 The applicant shall grant an easement to the City along that portion of the project adjacent to SR-125 for future construction of required noise mitigation barriers. The applicant shall construct the noise barriers adjacent to SR-125 as shown on Figure 5.12-1 prior to the issuance of the first building pennit within the adjacent neighborhood or the opening of SR-125, whichever occurs earlier. Noise barrier design and construction adjacent to SR-125 shall be coordinated with the City, Caltrans, and California Transportation Ventures (CTV). All other required noise barriers adjacent to Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, and Birch Road shall be shown on the grading plan or a wall and fence plan to be approved prior to issuance of the first grading pennit within any adjacent neighborhood. Walls adjacent to Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, and Birch Road shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the adjacent neighborhood. 5.12-3 Prior to approval of building pennits for commercial development, a report shall be prepared demonstrating that HV AC equipment is designed to ensure that noise levels from the equipment will not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance Standards. 5.12-4 If balconies are proposed for the multi-family uses adjacent to SR-125, prior to approval of building plans an acoustical analysis of site plans and building plans shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the Director of Planning and Building to ensure that they meet the 65 dB(A) CNEL exterior. 5.12-5 The water pump station shall be placed within an enclosure capable of reducing the noise of the pumps such that, when operating, the sound pressure level at a distance of 50 feet from the pumps is 50 decibels or less. Prior to the installation of the pump station, the applicant shall provide an acoustical report demonstrating that the proposed pumps and enclosure meet this condition, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. 39 /a/f-sP 1.. PUBLIC FACILITIES POTABLE WATER Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on potable water if it: . encourages activities which result in the use of large amounts of water or use of water in a wasteful manner. . results in substantial need for new, altered, or expanded services. . contributes to a capacity deficiency in a regional facility. In addition, according to City threshold standards, impacts to water resources would be significant if the proposed project exceeds City threshold standards which ensure that adequate supplies of quality water, appropriate for intended use, are available. The standards require the following actions: a) The applicant must request and deliver to the City service availability letters from the appropriate water district for each project at the tentative map level; b) The project applicant is required to submit a Water Conservation Plan along with a SPA Plan application; and c) The project plans shall ensure an adequate supply of water on a long-tenn basis prior to the development of each Otay Ranch SPA. Impact: . The proposed project could result in significant impacts to potable water supply and storage. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 216]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in water consumption and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The impact to water storage and pumping facilities would be significant if construction of facilities does not coincide with the anticipated growth associated with the Village Six SPA Plan. 40 /0/1- S7 Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pages 216-217]. 5.13.1-1 The final Subarea Water Master Plan shall be approved prior to the approval of any tentative map. The Master Plan shall include the design of water system infrastructure including timing and cost by phase of development and must be in compliance with the OWD Master Plan. 5.13.1-2 Priorto approval of the first tentative map, the applicant shall provide the City with a letter from the OWD stating that adequate pumping and storage capacity is available or will be available concurrent with need. 5.13.1-3 Prior to approval of each Tentative Map, the applicant shall provide the City with a letter from the OWD stating that adequate storage capacity exists or will be available concurrent with need. 5.13.1-4 Water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off-site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Finance Plans (PFFP) for the Village Six SPA Plan. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. RECYCLED WATER Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on recycled water service if it: . encourages activities which result in the use of large amounts of water or use of water in a wasteful manner. . results in substantial need for new, altered, or expanded services. . contributes to a capacity deficiency in a regional facility. . creates a public health risk. 41 /01}--6 0 Impact: . The proposed project could result in significant impacts to recycled water supply and storage. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pages 219-220]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in recycled water use and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. There is a projected recycled water demand of 121,644 gpd for Village Six. The increase in recycled water demand has been planned for by the OWD and will not have a significant impact. The impact to recycled water storage and pumping facilities could be significant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the project's anticipated growth. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 220]. 5.13.2-1 The applicant shall provide for adequate recycled water storage and distribution facilities, which shall be constructed in accordance with the Subarea Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the OWD. These water infrastructure improvements are described in the Village Six PFFP and the SPA Plan. The proposed PFFP identifies the development impact fees that the applicant shall pay to mitigate impacts, the estimated cost of the facility, the applicant's obligation to construct or pay for the necessary mitigation, and the phasing improvements. Prior to approval of the first final map, the applicant would provide written proof from OWD that adequate water storage and distribution facilities are available to serve the proposed project area. 5.13.2-2 A complete Subarea Master Plan shall be required prior to approval of the tentative map. The recycled water system shall be designed at that time and the timing and cost shall be identified by phase of development. 5.13.2-3 The final Subarea Water Master Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approved by OWD prior to the approval of any tentative map. The Master Plan shall include the design of water system infrastructure including timing and cost by phase of development and must be in compliance with the OWD Master Plan. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. 42 /O/f-6/ SEWER Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on sewer service it if: . results in substantial need for new, altered, or expanded services. . contributes to a capacity deficiency in a regional facility. . creates a public health risk. . exceeds City Engineering Standards. Impact: . Development of the proposed project could result in significant impacts to sewer services. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 225]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The City has established criteria to estimate sewage flows from different land uses. Single-family dwelling units are estimated to produce an average of 265 gpd and multi-family dwelling units are assumed to produce 75 percent of the sewage generated in a single-family dwelling unit, or 199 gpd. Commercial/industrial uses, and CPFs generate 2,500 gpdlacre. Elementary schools are assumed to produce 15 gpdlstudent and high schools are assumed to produce 20 gpdlstudent. The average daily sewage flow from the proposed Village Six SPA Plan is estimated to be 581,692 gpd. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pp. 225]. 5.13.3-1 Prior to recording final maps, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that the Poggi Canyon Interceptor has adequate capacity in the interim to handle projected sewage flows. The calculation of existing and anticipated sewage flow has detennined that two capital improvement projects are needed to provide capacity for the proposed development. These include the completion of the Salt Creek Interceptor Reach 9B connection to regionally exceed 947 EDUs (Improvement P-l) and increasing the size of the Poggi Canyon line beneath 1-805 (Improvement P-2) to regionally exceed 3,770 EDUs. 43 /rJ/f-6..l- 5.13.3-2 Sewer facility improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off-site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Financing Plan. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. LAW ENFORCEMENT Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on police services if it: . exceeds threshold standards, such as the ability to respond to Priority One emergency calls throughout the city within 7 minutes in 84 percent of the cases and maintain an average response time to all Priority One calls of 4.5 minutes or less. . exceeds threshold standards to respond to Priority Two urgent calls, throughout the city within 7 minutes in 62 percent of cases, and maintain an average response time to all Priority Two calls of 7 minutes or less. Impact: . The project would cause an incremental increase in calls for police services. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 229]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The Police Department is not currently meeting the threshold standards for either Priority One or Priority Two calls. Development of Village Six would result in an incremental increase in calls for police service. Given the location of the project, officers would be required to travel additional distances to respond to calls for service. Increased travel time lengthens response time. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 229]. 5.13.5-1 Significant impacts to police services shall be addressed on a citywide level through the payment of public facility fees. The proposed PFFP describes public facilities fees for police services based on equivalent dwelling units by 44 /0/J'b3 development phase. The applicant shall pay the public facilities fees at the rate in effect at the time building pennits are issued. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on fire protection services if it: . reduces the ability to respond to calls throughout the city within seven minutes in 85 percent of the cases. Impact: . The project would increase the demand for fire services. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pages 230-231]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for response time for the City, including the Otay Ranch community. However, as population growth in the service area warrants, fire stations would be constructed within Villages Two and Nine of the Otay Valley parcel and within Village Thirteen of the Proctor Valley parcel. These stations would help ensure adequate service within the requirements of the GMOC threshold standards. Impacts to fire and emergency medical services would be significant if construction of these facilities does not coincide with the project's anticipated population growth and increased demand for services. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 231]. 5.13.6-1 Fire service facilities shall be financed or provided in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved PFFP for the Village Six SPA Plan. 5.13.6-2 The City shall continue to monitor Fire Department responses to emergency fire and medical calls and report the results to the Growth Management Oversight Committee on an annual basis. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. 45 /O/l-h~ SCHOOLS Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on fire protection services if it: results in a residential population that exceeds the capacity of existing or planned schools. results in the need for new, altered, or expanded school services. According to Otay Ranch GDP, impacts would be significant if the proposed project locates schools: in areas where disturbing factors such as traffic hazards, airports, or other incompatible land uses are present. in areas where they are not integrated into the system of alternative transportation corridors, such as bike lanes, riding and hiking trails, and mass transit. where private elementary and secondary schools are not spaced far enough from public schools and each other to prevent an overconcentration of school impacts. without at least 10 usable acres for an elementary school. without a central location to residential development. adjacent to a street or road which cannot safely accommodate bike, foot, and vehicular traffic. in areas not adjacent to parks, thereby discouraging joint field and recreation facility uses. at an unsafe distance (as required by law) from contaminants or toxins in the soil or groundwater from landfills, fuel tanks, agricultural areas, power lines, utility easements, and so on. inside of floodplains; on unstable soils; or near fault lines. Impact: . Project implementation would result in a significant impact to schools unless construction of facilities coincide with student generation and associated service demands. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pages 233-234]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. 46 lolJ--tÇ' Explanation: Project implementation would have a significant impact on schools. The estimate of the number of students to be generated by the proposed project upon buildout was based on the current student generation factors used by each of the school districts. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,366.4 students between elementary, middle school, and high school grades. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 234]. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. LIBRARY SERVICE Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on library services if it: fails to meet the threshold standard of 600 gross square feet of library space, adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000 population. fails to meet the minimum planning guidelines for space requirements and size of collection of library facilities which are outlined in the Pubic Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan (Chapter 3, Section 5.6): (1) library space of 0.5 gross square feet per capita; (2) three books per capita; and (3) one periodical subscription per each 150-200 residents. Impact: . Impacts to library services are considered significant. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 236]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The City currently does not meet the 3.0 books/capita criteria established by the Public Facilities Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in an increased demand on existing library services, 47 ¡, - /0/1- b including a need for a total of 4,161 square feet of library facilities based on the expected project population of 6,279 people. If the housing alternative is developed on neighborhood R-lllS-2 the population is projected to be 6,718 people with a proportional increase in the requirement for library facilities. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 236]. 5.13.8-1 Library facilities, supplies, and services shall be financed in accordance with the approved fees and phasing in the PFFP for the Village Six SPA Plan. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. PARKS AND RECREATION Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on park and recreational facilities if it: . results in a residential population that exceeds the capacity of existing or planned park and recreation facilities. . does not confonn to the park dedication standard of three acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents. . is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and other adopted plans addressing parks, trails, and other recreational amenities. . does not provide 15 acres of regional park and open space per 1,000 Otay Ranch residents. Impact: . A significant impact could result if dedication of parkland and construction of new facilities does not coincide with project implementation and project population growth. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. 48 /0/1-67 Explanation: A 7.6-gross-acre neighborhood park (7.0 acre net) is planned in the Village Core adjacent to the elementary school site (Figure 5.13-5). The remainder of the parkland requirement would be provided with funding and phasing of community parks as identified in the PFFP. The regional parks requirements would be met through fair- share contribution to the funding for regional park acquisition and facilities development, or satisfied through the dedication of off-site parkland per the Director of Parks and Recreation. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 240]. 5.13.9-1 Neighborhood parks shall be financed and constructed on-site in accordance with the fees and phasing approved in the PFFP for the Village Six SPA Plan. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. HAzARDOUS MATERIALS Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to hazardous materials if it: . creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. . creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. . emits hazardous emissions or handles hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. . is located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, a significant hazard to the public or the environment would be created. . is located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 49 /O/1-tfl . is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. . impairs implementation of or physically interferes with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. . exposes people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas. Impact: . Potentially significant impacts related to the transport of hazardous materials could result from implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: Village Two West and Village Three, located on the western edge of the Otay Valley parcel, include planned industrial land uses. In addition to industrial land use, the Program EIR identified that there could be risks from future Otay Ranch development. Planning Area 12 and the proposed University sites are anticipated to include a variety of research facilities, university laboratories, and major retail centers. The above uses could involve hazardous materials. These materials would be transported on the future regional circulation system. Because of this, there is a minor potential for traffic accidents involving hazardous materials to occur in the project area. The use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials would be conducted in compliance with the relevant regulations of federal, state, and local agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health Services, and Caltrans. Due to the low probability of an uncontrolled spill, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 243]. 5-14.1 The transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials shall be conducted in compliance with the relevant regulations of federal, state, and local agencies, including the EPA, California Department of Heath Services (DHS), and California Department of Transportation- 50 /0/7 -69 x. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects" (Pub. Resources Code section 21082.2, subd. (b». Several development proposals have been submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and the County of San Diego in proximity to Village Six. These "current or probable future" development proposals would affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as development of the Village Six SPA Plan. In fonnulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative impacts have been taken into consideration. Many of the mitigation measures adopted for the cumulative impacts are similar to the project level mitigation measures. This reflects the inability of the Lead Agency to impose mitigation measures on surrounding jurisdictions (Le., City of San Diego, City of National City, Caltrans, and Mexico) and the contribution of these jurisdictions to cumulative impacts. The project along with the other related projects will result in the following irreversible cumulative environmental changes. All page numbers following the impacts refer to pages from the EIR. A. LAND USE Impact: The proposed Village Six SPA Plan, in conjunction with buildout of the Otay Ranch and other surrounding properties, would contribute to the conversion of over 30,000 acres of vacant land to urban uses. The overall loss of open space associated with the conversion would have a significant cumulative land use impact. Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: In adopting the Findings of Fact to approve the Otay Ranch GDP, the City Council found that there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The City Council detennined that the cumulative land use impact was acceptable because of the specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measure: No mitigation, other than the No Project alternative, is available to lessen or avoid this impact. 51 /0/1--70 B. LANDFORM AL TERA TION/ VISUAL AESTHETICS Impact: Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to a change in the visual quality of the region. Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: The visual quality would be affected by the change in character from a rural to an urban setting and overalilandfonn alteration. Impacts to the nighttime visual setting would also occur from the cumulative addition of lights as Otay Ranch and surrounding proposed projects are implemented. Mitigation Measure: Cumulative visual impacts related to the change in visual character for the Otay Ranch and other major projects in the region would remain significant. No mitigation has been identified for the Village Six SPA Plan to reduce this impact, and therefore, the Village Six SPA Plan would result in significant cumulative impacts related to a change in the visual character of the Village Six Project Area that cannot be fully mitigated. c. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact: Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to a significant cumulative loss of raptor foraging habitat. Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan and Conceptual TMs would eliminate approximately 386 acres of agricultural fields used for foraging by raptor species. The Program EIR 90-01 identified loss of raptor foraging habitat as a significant impact. The Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to this significant impact. Mitigation Measure: No mitigation has been identified for the Village Six SPA Plan to reduce this impact, and therefore, the Village Six SPA Plan would result in significant cumulative impacts related to raptor foraging habitat that cannot be fully mitigated. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact: Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to a significant cumulative loss of cultural resources. 52 /0/1-7/ Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: The Otay Ranch Program EIR made a Finding of Overriding Considerations, whereby the benefits of the Otay Ranch project outweigh the significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources. No new cumulative impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the original Program EIR would occur from implementation of the project. However, because of the continuing depletion of the archaeological record through general development, cumulative impacts to cultural resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Mitigation Measure: No mitigation has been identified for the Village Six SPA Plan to reduce this impact. Therefore, the Village Six SPA Plan would result in significant cumulative impacts related to raptor foraging habitat that cannot be fully mitigated. E. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Impact: Cumulative development of Otay Ranch and surrounding properties would result in the pennanent loss or impainnent of lands suitable and historically used for production of coastal-dependent crops. Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: Although the area is not currently used for this type of agricultural production, the region represents an agricultural resource because of its coastal climatic conditions. The cumulative commitment of agricultural land to urban uses would be irreversible. Mitigation Measure: No mitigation has been identified for the Village Six SPA Plan to reduce this impact. Therefore, the Village Six SPA Plan would result in significant not mitigated cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources; such impacts cannot be fully mitigated. F. WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY Impact: The increase in runoff and decrease in water quality would have a significant cumulative impact to the quality and quantity of runoff. 53 /6/1-- 7Ài Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) ofthe CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Explanation: The recently developed and proposed communities would involve the creation of substantial areas of new impervious surfaces. These additional impervious surfaces would reduce the amount of infiltration of stonn water. A decrease in potential recharge to the groundwater basin and an increase in the runoff would result. Urban activities, including but not limited to construction, would add contaminated materials to this increased quantity of surface water runoff. The surface water quality, particularly in the Otay River, Poggi Canyon, and Telegraph Canyon drainage basins, would be affected. Mitigation Measure: The increase in runoff and decrease in water quality would have a significant cumulative impact on these drainage basins. The mitigation measures, as specified above, will be incorporated into final design plans based on the surface water modeling and will reduce the potential cumulative impacts to a level below significance. G. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS Impact: The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts on Olympic Parkway between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: At buildout, Olympic Parkway from SR-125 to EastLake Parkway is anticipated to operate at LOS F. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, Table 5-10.6 page 181]. 5.10-2 The General Plan shall be amended to designate this portion of the roadway as an Enhanced Prime Arterial with eight lanes. The required amendment shall be adopted no later than the first General Plan Amendment considered for adoption in 2002. The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards construction of the two additional lanes. 54 /o/f-73 Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact: The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts on Olympic Parkway between EastLake Parkway and Hunte Parkway. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: At buildout, Olympic Parkway from EastLake Parkway to Hunte Parkway is anticipated to operate at LOS F. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, Table 5-10.6 page 181]. 5-10.3 The applicant shall contribute a fair share toward the construction to six-lane Prime Arterial standards. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact: The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts on Otay Lakes Road between SR-125 and Eastlake Parkway. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: At buildout, Otay Lakes Road from SR-125 to EastLake Parkway is anticipated to operate at LOS F. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13 Table 5-10.6 page 181]. 5.10-4 The General Plan shall be amended to designate this portion of the roadway as an Enhanced Prime Arterial with seven lanes. The required amendment shall be 55 /0;1-'7/ adopted no later than the first General Plan Amendment considered for adoption in 2002. The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards construction of the additional eastbound lane. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact: The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts on Otay Lakes Road between H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: Until improvements are made, Otay Lakes Road between H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road operating as a four-lane major is anticipated to function at LOS F. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, Table 5-10.6 page 182]. 5.10-5 The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards widening to six lanes or towards intersection improvements that provide additional capacity along Otay Lakes Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant Impact: . The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts on Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road and H Street. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. 56 /ot1-7;;'- Explanation: Until improvements are made, Otay Lakes Road between H Street and Bonita Road, operating as a four-lane major, is anticipated to function at LOS F. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 182]. 5.10-6 The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards the widening to six lanes or towards intersection improvements that provide additional capacity along Otay Lakes Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact: Other intersections and roadways prior to the construction of SR-125 would be significantly impacted if developed units exceed 9,429 dwelling units. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: Prior to the construction of SR-125 the capacity of the circulation system is projected to be limited. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 182] 5.10-7 Prior to the construction of SR-125, the City shall stop issuing new building pennits for Village Six when the City, in its sole discretion, detennines: a) building pennits for a total of 9,429 dwelling units have been issued for projects east of 1-805. b) an alternative measure has been selected by the City in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance. The start date for counting the 9,429 dwelling units is January 1, 2000. Notwith- standing the foregoing, the City may issue building pennits if the City decides in its sole discretion that: (1) traffic studies demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; (2) that the circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding the GMOC traffic threshold standards; (3) other improvements are 57 /OfT-- 7/P constructed which provide additional necessary capacity; (4) the City selects an alternative method of implementing the GMOC standards. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact: The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts to the intersection of Olympic Parkway and Wueste Road if SR-125 is not completed. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: At buildout, the intersection of Olympic Parkway and Wueste Road is anticipated to operate at LOS F. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 182]. 5.10-8 The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards the future signalization of this intersection. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact: . The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts to 1-805 between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such other changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. In the case of improvements required to 1-805 between Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road, the changes or alterations required are the responsibility of Caltrans. Explanation: Additional lanes are required to maintain an acceptable level of service on Interstate 805. 58 /0/f-77 Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 183]. 5.10-9 Additional lanes would be required to maintain acceptable LOS on 1-805. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will detennine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated. Impact: Access to the project from perimeter roadways is required prior to project development. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, Table 5-10.6 pages 178-180]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: Circulation system improvements are required to ensure adequate access to the subject project. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 183]. 5.10-10 Prior to approval of the first final map, which triggers the installation of the related street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct and secure a fully activated traffic signal including interconnect wiring at the following intersections: . La Media and J Street; La Media and Birch Road; Birch Road and Street R; and Birch Road and CPF-3 Access. . . . The applicant shall fully design the aforementioned traffic signals as part of the improvement plans for the related street and shall install underground improvements, standard luminaries in conjunction with the construction of the related street improvements. In addition, the applicant shall install mast arms, signal heads, and associated equipment if traffic signal warrants are met as detennined by the City Engineer. 59 jOlt-?? Once 75 percent of the residential units within Village Six have been constructed, the applicant shall conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis at the Palomar Street/"R" Street and the "R" Streetl"J" Street intersections. If traffic signal warrants are met at either or both of the intersections, the applicant shall construct a fully activated traffic signal including interconnect wiring. Prior to approval of the first final map, which triggers the installation of the related street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct and secure the necessary modifications, as required by the City Engineer, including interconnect wiring to the following intersections: . Olympic Parkway and La Media Road; and Olympic Parkway and East Palomar Street. . The applicant shall fully design the aforementioned traffic signals as part of the improvement plans for the associated street. Prior to the approval of a CUP for the private high school, the applicant shall prepare a site-specific access study and provide the required improvements acceptable to the City Engineer. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant Impact: Village Core traffic operations would have significant traffic impacts. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, page 184]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: Circulation issues internal to the Village Core need to be reviewed to ensure that traffic flows are adequately considered for non-residential uses. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, page 184]. 5.10-11 All site plans for non-residential uses (with the exception of schools) shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City Engineer may require a project-specific traffic study if the project has the potential for resulting in unanticipated circulation impacts. Recommendations to reduce 60 /ó/t71 potentially significant impacts shall be incorporated into the site plan or required as a condition of project approval. Potential traffic impacts resulting from development and operation of the schools shall be reyiewed by the respectiye school districts when specific projects are under consideration. All street improvements shall be coordinated with the City and the City shall request review of all draft plans. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Secondary Impacts Associated with Off-Site Traffic Mitigation Improvements Impact: At the time off-site improvements are designed and proposed, additional environmental review may be required to detennine potential impacts related to construction, including water quality, traffic, and impacts to paleontological resources, and the need for specific mitigation measures to address these potential impacts. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, page 186]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: The off-site traffic improvements described above for direct and cumulative traffic impacts could create secondary impacts associated with land use, biological resources, construction-related water quality impacts, construction-related traffic impacts (potential land closures, traffic delays, and hazards), aestheticsllandfonn alteration, noise, and cultural/paleontological resources. Although these off-site roadway improvements have not been designed or engineered, the area potentially affected by the widening is described below along with an evaluation of potential impacts. Program- level mitigation requirements are identified below to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance at the time the improvements are designed. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13, pages 186-187] 5.10-12 Prior to approval of a roadway improvement project, a biological reconnaissance based on detailed grading and design plans shall be conducted by the applicant to document any impacts to sensitive biological resources. Any impacts to sensitive biological habitats shall be mitigated pursuant to the 61 t'Ó rr - I'D 5.10-13 5.10-14 5.10-15 5.10-16 5.10-17 5.10-18 mitigation ratios described in the draft or approved Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Prior to issuance of any grading pennits for a roadway improvement, a detailed acoustical study for the affected roadway segment shall be prepared to detennine the need for any noise attenuation measures for adjacent sensitive land uses. Prior to the approval of the design plans for a roadway improvement, a detailed landscaping plan shall be prepared to ensure that potential aesthetic impacts associated with any grading necessary for the improvement are mitigated. As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval, monitoring of any grading for the presence of cultural and paleontological resources shall be required. If such resources are encountered during grading operations, the protocol described in Section 5.6 of this EIR shall be required. As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval, applicable construction-related water quality mitigation measures shall be required by the City Engineer. As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval, preparation of a traffic control plan for delays and hazards associated with construction impacts shall be prepared by the applicant and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. For the widening of Otay Lakes Road between H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, plans prepared for the improvements shall be designed to avoid impacts to the church and the library. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. H. AIR QUALITY Impact: Cumulative impacts to air quality related to long-tenn mobile emissions would be significant. Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. 62 /O/J-P/ Explanation: The development of Village Six will impact air quality through the vehicular traffic generated by project residents. Regionally, site-related travel will add to regional trip generation within the local air basin. Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant levels. I. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES WATER Impact: Cumulative impacts to water quality would be significant. Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: The proposed project plus cumulative development would incrementally increase regional water consumption. Water supplies in southern California fluctuate with precipitation. climatic conditions, and disputes over water rights from imported sources. Cumulative impacts to water supply associated with ongoing development on a regional scale are anticipated. The additional demand for the Village Six SPA Plan in conjunction with the other proposed and approved projects within the Chula Vista area would be approximately 77.2 mgd. Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant levels. SEWER Impact: The cumulative impact to the sewer system is significant. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: The combined effect of buildout of the Otay Ranch GDP with other surrounding GDPs would result in a total estimated sewage flow of 35.6 mgd. Additional wastewater transmission and treatment facilities would be necessary to handle this flow level. 63 /o/!-iJ-.. Mitigation Measure: Proposed mitigation requires that each applicant construct or contribute toward the cost of constructing required regional wastewater facilities in proportion to the flows contributed. The provision of regional facilities in conjunction with project-specific improvements would reduce the impacts to below the level of significance. INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT Impact: The cumulative impact to integrated waste management is significant. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: Buildout of the southern portion of San Diego County would result in a substantial increase in the generation of solid waste. Landfill capacity in the region is limited. The cumulative impact is potentially significant. All new development within the region would have to comply with the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego programs and regulations concerning long-tenn solid waste disposal. Mitigation Measure: The cumulative impact will be reduced by providing additional solid waste facilities and recycling facilities, transporting trash outside the region to less impacted areas, and meeting state-mandated recycling goals. The PFFP establishes the fees and phasing associated with contributing toward the cost of construction of any regional facilities. The implementation of these measures reduces the cumulative impact to below the level of significance. LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE PRoTECTION, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Impact: The cumulative impact to law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services is significant. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: The overall population growth would substantially increase demands on law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services. The cumulative 64 /O/f-P :3; impact would be significant. Staffing and new facilities would be required to adequately accommodate the population increase expected at buildout. Mitigation Measure: The measures specified in the PFFP will ensure that these services are provided incrementally but concurrent with need. With the development of master plans for fire service, law enforcement, and emergency medical services, the cumulative impacts would be reduced to a level below significance. SCHOOLS Impact: The cumulative impact on the school districts is significant. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: The combined new students that would be generated by the residential development proposed in the region would continually require new schools, staff, and supplies be provided throughout buildout. As development occurs, school fees or assessments would be paid. Elementary, junior, and high school sites have been designated within specific Otay Ranch villages under the Otay Ranch GDP. Mitigation Measure: The measures specified in the PFFP will ensure that schools are provided in accordance with need. Implementation of the PFFP along with the development of the school master plan would mitigate the cumulative impact on schools to below a level of significance. LIBRARY SERVICES Impact: The cumulative impact on the libraries is significant. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: Population growth in the Village Six SPA Plan region would result in the need for substantial additional library space, books, and staff. The impact would be cumulatively potentially significant. The Otay Ranch GDP provides for the establishment of a "main library" as part of the Eastern Urban Center development. 65 /0/1- it! Mitigation Measure: Payments of the development impact fees established for libraries would reduce the cumulative impact to a level of insignificance. PARKS AND RECREATION Impact: The cumulative impacts on local and regional park and recreational facilities would be significant. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: Cumulatively, the proposed and approved projects in the region would place substantial demands on neighborhood, community, and regional parks. Mitigation Measure: Regional park and community park financing would be provided through the PFFP requirements. Implementation and design would be addressed through the Village Six Neighborhood Park Conceptual Master Plan. The cumulative impacts would be reduced to below the level of significance with the long-tenn provision of both local and regional parks. HAZARDSIRISK OF UPSET Impact: The cumulative impacts resulting from the risk of upset and potential exposure to hazardous materials is significant. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Implementation of the measures described below in addition to adherence with applicable laws and regulations would mitigate significant impacts below a level of significance. Explanation: The potential risk of adverse health effects associated with the use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste would increase with build out of cumulative projects. Mitigation Measure: The potential for a significant cumulative impact would be reduced to a level less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR and adherence to applicable laws and regulations. 66 /ð /f-J1;- XI. FEASffiILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the project will cause some unavoidable significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the project as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental effects. Where, as in this project, significant environmental effects remain even after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the decision -makers must evaluate the project alternatives identified in the Subsequent EIR. Under these circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives. In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the project as mitigated (Lourel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]). Accordingly, for this project, in adopting the findings concerning project alternatives, the City Council considers only those environmental impacts that, for the finally approved project, are significant and cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation. If project alternatives are feasible, the decisionmakers must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the decisionmakers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the project. Proposed project alternatives considered must be ones that "could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project." However, the CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives "capable of eliminating" environmental effects even if these alternatives "would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives." [CEQA Guidelines section 15126.] The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible" pursuant to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the tenn "feasible" as it applies to the findings requirement: feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." [Pub. Resources Code section 21061.1] The CEQA Guidelines provide a broader definition of 67 /o/J--Plo "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines section 15364 states, "the lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or technological factor." (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410].) Accordingly, "feasibility" is a tenn of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a different meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: (1) "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(1)] (2) "Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(2)] (3) "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." [CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subd. (a)(3)] The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal.Rptr. 898]). "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182]). These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate that the selection of the finally approved project, while still resulting in significant environmental impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal and other benefits. In rejecting certain alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the finally approved project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to 68 /0 /j-- f 7 meet the objectives. The decisionmakers believe that the project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least environmental impact. The detailed discussion in Sections IX and X demonstrate that all but three significant environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided through the imposition of existing policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, fonnal mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. The remaining unmitigated impacts are the following: . Air quality (direct and cumulative - confonnance with regional plans, construction emissions project operations emissions); . Transportation/traffic circulation (cumulative - 1-805: Bonita Road to Telegraph Canyon Road); and . Landfonn alteration and visual quality (cumulative - contribution to open space conversion). Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by detennining whether any alternatives identified in the EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the impacts listed above. (Lourel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426].) As the following discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts. To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects, and the extent to which particular alternatives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to them, these findings will not focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also address the environmental merits of the alternatives with respect to all broad categories of impacts--even though such a far-ranging discussion is not required by CEQA. The findings will also assess whether each alternative is feasible in light of the City's objectives for the Project. The City's review of project alternatives is guided primarily by the need to reduce potential impacts associated with the Project, while still achieving the basic objectives of the Project. Here, the City's primary objective is to comprehensively plan, coordinate and implement development over a large area. More specific objectives include those previously listed in Section ill. 69 /011--11-' A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Section 15126, subdivision (d)(4), of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the "No Project" alternative. Such an alternative "shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." Under the No Project alternative, the Village Six SPA Plan area would remain essentially in its existing undeveloped condition. The impacts associated with project implementation and the potentially significant cumulative impacts of proposed and approved developments in the area would not occur under this scenario. The No Project alternative would thus nullify impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural/paleontological resources, geology/geologic hazards, hydrology, land use, noise, public facilities, traffic/circulation, and utilities/service systems. However, as part of the City's General Plan and adopted GDP, the Village Six SPA Plan area is an area planned for development, and it is likely that similar development would be proposed for the site in the future. With respect to water quality, no structural systems are currently in place to control the pollutants associated with the existing land uses of dry farming and grazing, such as organic matter, animal wastes, pesticides, and fertilizer. Based on the proximity to the lakes and the streambed, the potential hazards to runoff and water quality are considered moderate to high. The No Project alternative would thus continue the current runoff conditions. Although the No Project alternative is considered environmentally preferable to the proposed project, it would not accomplish several of the goals and objectives of the proposed project. Finding: 1. The No Project alternative would not provide housing, which conflicts with the housing goals of the General Plan which recommends that housing be provided for all income groups. 2. This alternative does not provide employment opportunities. 3. This alternative provides little or no support for public transit, conflicting with the adopted General Plan transit goals. 4. Retention of the project site in its existing state as primarily agricultural fields would be inconsistent with the approved General Plan and existing Otay Ranch 70 /0/1'- PI General Development Plan land use designations for the site. In addition, key subregional traffic routes established in the Circulation Element would not be implemented. 5. Retention of the site in its current vacant condition would not implement the goals of the General Plan and would require re-evaluation of the existing GDP. The project proposes to provide regional-serving public facilities designated in the community plan, including Circulation Element roads, schools, parks, open space, water conveyance facilities, and other infrastructure. These facilities would be needed to support surrounding developments whether the project is implemented or not. The No Project alternative would require that these facilities be provided without the benefit of the dedications and financial participation from private development, which may delay or preclude facilities from being provided. The reduction in dwelling units will result in a loss of contributions into the PFFP from the dwelling units/structures that would otherwise have made payments upon issuance of building pennits. The loss of units under the No Project alternative would result in a shortfall of contributions into the PFFP and potentially lead to insufficient funding for the remaining public facilities currently identified in the PFFP for construction in this area. 7. The City and County would receive much lower long-tenn revenues in the fonn of property and sales tax, resulting from the nondevelopment of residential areas. Implementation of the No Project alternative would achieve very few of the objectives established for the project. Although this alternative would at least temporarily preserve the open space and other natural features on the project site, it would amount to a failure to attempt to plan the site for eventual development, despite the planned community designation contemplated by the General Plan and GDP. The No Project alternative is inconsistent with the City's objectives: to plan the project area in a comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of public services and utilities; to plan for parks and open space to serve residents; to complete the City's circulation; and to create densities sufficient to pay for all required services and infrastructure. The alternative also fails to meet objectives favoring an accommodation of future projected population in an area reasonably close to future job-growth areas within the city, as well as the construction of affordable housing consistent with the City's goals. For these reasons, the City Council concludes that the No Project alternative is not feasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at 715.) 71 /o/f-90 B. REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE Under the Reduced Density alternative, the residential intensity of development would be reduced by approximately 29 percent by decreasing the total number of multi- and single- family residential units. The Reduced Density alternative would retain the high school and the church and reduce both the single-family and multi-family densities. It retains the elementary school, public park, open space, and circulation roadways. The grading for this alternative would remain essentially the same. The entire site would be graded to accommodate the modified residential use. Because grading would remain essentially the same, impacts to biology, cultural resources, geology and soils, agriculture, paleontology, and landfonn are equivalent between the proposed project and the Reduced Density alternative. The traffic generated by the Village Six Reduced Density alternative would be reduced by approximately 4,995 ADT, for a total of 27,784 ADT. The significant traffic impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan would be reduced but would not be avoided. As the significant traffic impacts are cumulative, the traffic mitigation measures would be unchanged from those required of the proposed project; this is because the 15 percent reduction in ADT would not bring significant traffic impacts below the thresholds for significance. Air quality impacts associated with vehicular trips would also be reduced under this alternative. While short-tenn air quality impacts associated with construction would not be reduced, because the area and extent of grading would remain essentially the same as that for the proposed project, there would be a slight decrease in overall long-tenn air quality impacts associated with power generation and the operation of on-site commercial facilities due to the reduced population. Overall, the reduction in air quality impacts would be minor and the cumulative impact would remain significant and unmitigable. Development of Otay Ranch is based on the Village Concept, which plans for a Village Core with land uses that will meet the day-to-day needs of the village residents. The Reduced Density alternative reduces the amount of multi-family dwelling within the Village Core. The Reduced Density alternative does not provide the multi-family housing needed to meet the housing needs of future residences as well as to support the commercial and public uses in the Village Core. The Reduced Density alternative would reduce the amount of housing available within Village Six by approximately 29 percent. This would reduce the ability of the City to meet the projected need for an additional 13,500 dwelling units by 2005. The Reduced Density alternative would not be in confonnance with the policies outlined in SANDAG's Growth Management Plan. The lack of housing concurrent with needs as 72 /0/1-7/ shown in SANDAG forecasts and in the Growth Management Plan woú1d result in a potentially significant impact. The grading plan for the Reduced Density alternative would be very similar to the grading plan required for the proposed project. The proximity of future development to major roadways would remain unchanged. The mitigation measures for noise impacts to future development areas would also be expected to remain unchanged. Mitigation measures for noise impacts associated with construction would remain unchanged. The Reduced Density alternative, therefore, does not avoid or lessen noise impacts. Since the Reduced Density alternative does not propose significant grading modifica- tions, there would not be a measurable reduction in the volume or quality of the runoff from the site. The following project objectives would be achieved by the Reduced Density alternative: 1. Promote synergistic uses between Village Six, the neighborhoods of EastLake, and adjacent Otay Ranch villages to balance activities, services, and facilities; 2. Implement the City's Growth Management Program to ensure that the public facilities are provided in a timely manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for and benefiting from the improvements; 3. Foster development patterns that promote orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl; 4. Develop, maintain, and enhance a sense of community identity; 5. Accentuate the relationship of the land use plan with its natural setting and the physical character of the region and promote effective management of natural resources by concentrating development into less sensitive areas while preserving large, contiguous open space areas with sensitive resources; and 6. Add to the creation of a unique Otay Ranch image and identity that differentiates Otay Ranch from other communities. The Reduced Density alternative would not meet the following goals and objectives: 1. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, particularly the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the Resource Management Plan, the Facility Implementation Plan, the Village Phasing Plan, and the ServicelRevenue Plan; 73 /o/f -9..2..- 2. Establish a pedestrian-oriented village with an urban core to reduce reliance on the automobile and to promote walking as well as the use of bicycles, buses, and public transit; 3. Establish a land use and facility plan that assures the viability of Village Six in consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions; and 4. Wisely manage limited natural resources. The GDP envisions higher residential densities than proposed by the Reduced Density alternative. The purpose of the higher densities is to promote pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-oriented development and to wisely manage limited natural resources through the concentration of development in the least environmentally sensitive areas while preserving large tracts of open space. Reduction in density, as proposed under the Reduced Density alternative, would provide insufficient density in the Village Core to support transit facilities and to promote pedestrian-oriented land use design. For these reasons, the City Council concludes that the Reduced Density alternative is not feasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at 715.) XTI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED VILLAGE SIX SPA PLAN EIR The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in detail in these Findings of Fact: . Land Use; . Landfonn Alterations/Aesthetics; . Biological Resources; . Agricultural Resources; . Transportation, Circulation and Access; and . Air Quality. The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these 74 /0/1-:;3 significant impacts, adoption of the measures will, for many impacts, not fully avoid the impacts. Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on this examination, the City has detennined that none of the alternatives (1) meets project objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the proposed project. As a result, to approve the project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15043 and 15093. This provision allows a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided. The provision explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. Where another substantive law (e.g., the California Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts) prohibits the lead agency from taking certain actions with environmental impacts, a statement of overriding considerations does not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions. Rather, the decision-maker has recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis contained in the Final EIR, recognizing that other resource agencies have the ability to impose more stringent standards or measures. CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse." (Pub. Resource Code Section 21068.) The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse" impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be addressed. (See, Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206 [132 Cal.Rptr. 377].) Nevertheless, decision-makers benefit from infonnation about project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.) The City finds that the proposed project would have the following substantial, social, environmental and economic benefits. Anyone of the reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section IV. Environmental Protection and Preservation The Village Six SPA Plan will convey 332.73 acres into the Otay Ranch open space preserve. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) has established perfonnance standards 75 /olT-9~ for achieving an 11,375-acre Otay Ranch open space preserve. Compliance relies on progressive acquisition, or funding for acquisition, of the designated Otay Ranch Preserve areas with each development approval. Village Six would have an indirect, long-tenn, potentially significant impact related to biological resources management unless the Otay Ranch regional open space is preserved proportionally and concurrently with development. The preserve includes an open space system that incorporates public education programs, links community to natural areas, and preserves and restores sensitive habitats, special landfonns, and wildlife corridors. In addition, a system of paths and trails will connect the urban villages and their parks, fonning a passive and active recreation network throughout the area. The RMP adopted by the Chula Vista City Council has the following functions. . Serves as a plan-wide multi-specieslhabitat and cultural resources management program; . Provides the funding, phasing, and ownership mechanisms necessary to effectively protect and manage on-site resources over the long tenn; . Plans for coordinated, controlled public use and enjoyment of the Management Preserve established as part of the RMP consistent with protection of sensitive resources; . Provides certainty that the open space will be preserved in perpetuity by requiring irrevocable dedications of open space acreage; and . Preserves/protects cultural resources. The RMP provides for management, resource enhancement and restoration, research, education, and interpretive activities to ensure that resource values in areas to be preserved are maintained and enhanced in perpetuity. The RMP also addresses cultural, paleontological, recreational, and agricultural resource protection needs in addition to sensitive habitats. Finally, the RMP provides an opportunity to establish large blocks of interconnected natural open space. By linking the Otay Ranch Management Preserve system to large and adjacent publicly owned open space lands with resource values similar to those found on the Otay Ranch property, the RMP contributes to the creation of an overall regional open space system, providing more than 35,000 acres of interconnected open space in Otay Ranch and the immediate vicinity. The RMP identifies the preservation of sensitive habitats that contain approximately 100 species of sensitive plants and animals. 76 /O¡<J -9s- Community Planning and Development Development Patterns Which Minimize the Adverse Impacts of Development on Air Quality and Congestion. The Otay Ranch area contributes to air pollution in the San Diego air basin. Most of this pollution is attributable to motor vehicles. The Village Six SPA Plan and the Village concept of the Otay Ranch GDP are designed to minimize automobile trip length and thereby reduce pollutant contributions to regional air quality that would otherwise result if jobs and housing were provided for in a typical suburban development pattern. Otay Ranch's location adjacent to the Otay Mesa industrial area will provide housing proximate to this employment center. A mixed-use development, the GDP will promote linkage of trips, reduce trip length, and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation such as biking, walking and use of transit. The GDP creates a multi-modal transportation network that minimizes the number and length of single-passenger vehicle trips. Designed to encourage walking, biking, use of transit and reduced reliance on automobiles, the GDP clusters high-density, high-intensity development in villages near transit and light rail tenninals. Jobs, homes, schools, parks, and commercial centers are close by and linked by pedestrian and bicycle routes. Comprehensive Regional Planning The GDP and the Village Six SPA Plan provide the opportunity to comprehensively plan development that meets the region's needs for housing, jobs, infrastructure, and environmental preservation. These benefits are made possible by Otay Ranch's size and scope. The Otay Ranch GDP includes a provision for regional pJlrpose facilities and public services that are typically not undertaken for smaller development projects. The regional planning process undertaken for the GDP involved long-range inter- jurisdictional coordination, ensuring maximum achievement of policies and regulations of both the City of Chula Vista and San Diego County. The benefits offered by the regional planning process utilized for the GDP include the following: . Comprehensive consideration of the GDP cumulative effects; . Consistency in the approach to resolving regional issues such as transportation, air quality, habitat preservation, infrastructure, and public services planning; and . Long-range coordination of local and regional public facilities. The GDP includes a provision for designating land for regional purpose facilities. These facilities are provided by the County and are currently housed in County-owned facilities, 77 /0/1 -t16 where available, but are more commonly located in leased or rented space. Designation of land for regional purposes will facilitate the provision of these services and provide better opportunities for users of these facilities than is currently available with new development. Housing Needs The GDP will help meet a projected long-tenn regional need for housing by providing a wide variety of housing types and prices. In recent years, the cost of housing compared to other uses (e.g., commercial, industrial) has risen disproportionately to the cost of other uses in the Otay Ranch area, reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The GDP will help reduce the cost of housing by designating an adequate supply of suitable land for residential development. The Village Six SPA Plan would increase the housing stock in the City by approximately 2,086 dwelling units. This proposed level of development is included in the adopted planning for the City. The project represents a future housing supply for the region. Phasing will occur in response to market conditions, which will help fulfill the demand for housing. If the high school is not built, an additional 146 units could be constructed for a total of 2,232 units. SANDAG has forecasted a need for an additional approximately 13,500 additional dwelling units within the city of Chula Vista by 2005. The Village Six SPA Plan would enact the SANDAG policies by implementing a bus system, providing a pedestrian- oriented development, preserving open space adjacent to the project, offering new homes, increasing the tax base for the City, and providing right-of-way for the regional transit system. The Village Six SPA Plan would provide five percent low-income and five percent moderate-income housing. This constitutes 202 affordable units, half of which are designated as low-income housing and half as moderate-income housing. The proposed 10 percent affordable housing is consistent with the objectives of the City's Housing Element and the Otay Ranch GDP requirements. Fiscal Benefit The fiscal impact analysis conducted for the GDP and included in the Otay Ranch Service Revenue Plan concluded that, at buildout, the GDP will have a net positive impact on both the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Because it is anticipated that during buildout there will be short-tenn periods in which the costs to service Otay Ranch exceed revenues, the GDP includes a reserve fund program, which protects the City and County by correcting any operating deficiencies incurred by the affected jurisdiction during years where there is a fiscal shortfall. Financing of the 78 /0/1-97 reserve program and the cost of annual fiscal reviews will be the responsibility of the applicant. The project will provide for significant community-wide public facilities. As the plan is implemented, it will be responsible for constructing public facilities and infrastructure to serve the project and incidentally the subregion. These facilities include: . Improvements to regional backbone circulation system; . Schools serving the subregion including the on-site elementary; and . A public park and greenbelt and community trails. The project would also generate new temporary construction-related jobs that would enhance the economic base of the region. For these reasons, on balance the City Council finds there are economic, social, and other considerations resulting from the project that serve to override and outweigh the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects and, thus, the adverse unavoidable effects are considered acceptable. 79 /01} -9.1 OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM Introduction This mitigation monitoring reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the City of Chula Vista for the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan to comply with Assembly Bill 3180, which requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures. This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project throughout the project approval process. This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation measures for the proposed project and generating infonnation on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes the following: . Monitoring team qualifications . Specific monitoring activities . Reporting system . Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures The proposed project is the adoption of a SPA plan for Village Six of the Otay Ranch GDP. There is also an amendment to the GDP to redesignate Birch Road to a six-lane major arterial between SR-125 and EastLake Parkway. It also includes an evaluation of two Conceptual Tentative Maps and the proposed use of an area as a church and private high school. Village Six is defined by the Otay Ranch GDP as an Urban Village and is planned for transit-oriented development. The proposed Village Six SPA Plan proposes development of 2,086 dwelling units (883 single-family and 1,203 multi-family units) on approximately 237 acres. The transit center and multi-family housing is located around a village core. One hundred forty-nine acres would be developed with nonresidential uses, including community purpose facilities (CPF), an elementary school, a private high school, a public neighborhood park, commercial uses, open space, and circulation rights- of-way. /0/1 - 7r An~)C',ììt.1 + :) A private high school is proposed for the southern area of the project within the area designated R-11/S-2. Should the high school not be developed, the underlying land use would pennit the construction of 146 single-family homes. If the single-family homes are built instead of the high school, the total number of units proposed for the project would be 2,232. Both the high school and the residential use options are considered in this document. A tentative map would have to be processed for these residential units to be developed, and subsequent environmental review would be completed by the City of Chula Vista. The proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP, Chula Vista General Plan, and adopting the SPA Plan are described in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) text. The EIR, incorporated herein as referenced, focused on issues detennined to be potentially significant by the City of Chula Vista. The issues addressed in the EIR include land use, traffic circulation and access, biological resources, landfonn alteration/aesthetics, water resources and water quality, geology and soils, noise, air quality, housing and population, agriculture, cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazards/risk of upset, and public services and utilities. The environmental analysis concluded that for all of the environmental issues discussed, some of the significant and potentially significant impacts could be avoided or reduced through implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation were identified for traffic circulation and access, water resources and water quality, geology and soils, agriculture, landfonn alteration/aesthetics, noise, air quality, cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazards/risk of upset, and public services and utilities. Assembly Bill 3180 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Village Six SPA Plan therefore addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above. Mitigation Monitoring Team A monitoring team should be identified once the mitigation measures have been adopted as conditions of approval by the Chula Vista City Council. Managing the team would be the responsibility of the Mitigation Monitor (MM). The monitoring activities would be accomplished by the Environmental Monitors (EMs), Environmental Specialists (ESs), and the MM. While specific qualifications should be detennined by the City of Chula Vista, the monitoring team should possess the following capabilities: . Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in working under trying field circumstances; 2 /O/!-/()I) . Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special features found in the project area; . Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost-effective mitigation options; and . Excellent communication skills. The responsibilities of the MM throughout the monitoring effort include the following: . Implement and manage the monitoring program; . Provide quality control for the site-development monitoring; . Administrate and prepare daily logs, status reports, compliance reports, and the final construction monitoring; . Act as liaison between the City of Chula Vista and the applicant's contractors; . Monitor on-site, day-to-day construction activities, including the direction of EMs and ESs in the understanding of all pennit conditions, site-specific project requirements, construction schedules, and environmental quality control effort; . Ensure contractor knowledge of and compliance with all appropriate pennit conditions; . Review all construction impact mitigation and, if need be, modify existing mitigation or proposed additional mitigation; . Have the authority to require correction of observed activities that violate project environmental conditions or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions; and . Maintain prompt and regular communication with the on-site EMs and ESs and personnel responsible for contractor perfonnance and pennit compliance. The primary role of the Environmental Monitors is to serve as an extension of the MM in perfonning the quality control functions at the construction sites. Their responsibilities and functions are to: . Maintain a working knowledge of the Village Six pennit conditions, contract documents, construction schedules and progress, and any special mitigation requirements for his or her assigned construction area; . Assist the MM and the applicant's construction contractors in coordinating with City of Chula Vista compliance activities; 3 /O/!-/O/ . Observe construction activities for compliance with the City of Chula Vista pennit conditions; and . Provide frequent verbal briefings to the MM and construction personnel, and assist the MM as necessary in preparing status reports. The primary role of the Environmental Specialists is to provide expertise when environmentally sensitive issues occur throughout the development phases of project implementation and to provide direction for mitigation. Program Procedural Guidelines Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved to initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority of the participants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed prior to any project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring effects. An effective reporting system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts. All parties involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted and these mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those that would have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Chula Vista would include the City of Chula Vista, the project applicant, the MM, and the construction crew supervisor. The MM would distribute to each Environmental Specialist and Environmental Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks and the appropriate time frame that these mitigations are anticipated to be implemented. In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring report (MMR) fonns, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the fonn. Below the stated mitigation measure, the fonn will have a series of questions addressing the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with the MM following the monitoring activity. The MM will then include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive construction report to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This report will describe the m~or accomplishments of the monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems, and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition, and if appropriate, each EM or ES will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the MM. The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status reports, as detennined appropriate, will be generated from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e., memoranda, telephone logs, and letters). This 4 /O/f-/O)-.. type of feedback is essential for the City of Chula Vista to confinn the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on the project. Actions in Case of Noncompliance There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted conditions of approval: . Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment; . Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action but does not result in work or task delay; and . Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or task delay. In each case, the MM would notify the applicant's contractor and the City of Chula Vista of the noncompliance, and an MMR would be filed with the MM on a daily basis. There are a number of options the City of Chula Vista may use to enforce this program should noncompliance continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include "stop work" orders, fines and penalties (civil), restitution, pennit revocations, citations, and injunctions. It is essential that all parties involved in the program understand the authority and responsibility of the on-site monitors. Decisions regarding actions in case of noncompliance are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language appropriate for such conditions. In addition, once the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan has been approved, and during various stages of implementation, the designated monitors, the City of Chula Vista, and the applicant will further refine the mitigation measures. 5 /O/t-/d.3 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM d- ~ ~ 'R Time Frame for T;me Frame ofM;ogaoon' Momtoring Verifieaoon Date of Date of Potenoal S;gnÔÍleant Impact M;ogaoon Measnee Reporong Agency Frequencv to Comple- VerirlCB- S.f~ C:;:;:L ~:::[ l.,::,~ Mon;tor Report oon oon 5.2-1 Prior to approval of grading plan" the X X Lay u~~~~~ ""a applicant shall prepare grading and building plans that confonn to the landfon:n grading guidelines contained in the proposed Village Six SPA Plan and from east to west. the grading ordinance. the Otay Ranch GDP. and General Plan. The plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the CitY Enmneer. The proposed project would result 5.2-2 Prior to approval of the final maps. the X X CCV in long-ten:n direct potentially developer of the private high school shall prepare a significant nighttime view lighting plan that shows the proposed height, impacts. The direct lines of sight location, and iatensity of streetlights and athletic to the field lighting and the facilities lights on-site, The plan shall comply with general illumination over the the City's minimum standards for roadway lighting stadium and baaeball field would and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the also have long-ten:n direct and Director of Planning and Building, The plan shall indirect potentially significant address all exterior lighting. nighttime impact" 5.2-3 The CUP for the private high school shall X X CCV include a provision that requires that stadium and baseball field lights shall not be used after 10:00 P.M. on Snnday through Thnraday and shall not be used after I 1:00 P.M. on Friday or Saturday. 5.2-4 As a condition of the CUP. the installation X X CCV of light, at the stadium or at the baseball field shall not be pen:niUed until a lighting consultant experienced in stadium lighting design de,igns lighting standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. To the extent feasible for the events to be conducted within the stadium and baaeball field. the lights shall be designed to direct downward and shall be shielded such that the light bulbs are not exposed to any residential areas in either Village Six nt Village Seven. lights shall be installed purauant to the lighting plan approved by the Director of Planning and Buildiug. tSPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tenlalive map Pre Consl: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Const: posl-construction 6 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ò ~ ~ "=' \Iì Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' Monitoring Verification Vale of Vale of Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measore Reporting Ageney Frenuenev to Comple- V.ri/ica- Si¡\¥ Pre ~~:f l.,:,~ tion tion ConsL Monitor Report :3 Sound barri.,,-s built as part of the 5.2-5 X X CCV projeçt would represent a height shall consist of a wall and benD combination. significant visual impact if the The wall height in this comhination barrier shall not portion of the barrier that is exceed eight feet. with the remaining portion of the constructed as a wall is higher ov.,,-all height accomplished through benning, than eight and a half feet. Appropriate landscaping of the wallJhenn combination shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Noise barri.,,- details and plans shall be reviewed and approved as part of the tion of tentative mans. ,mIRC!!SF :.FF: 3::::: :::::::: -:::::::: »/:: :::: :::::: There are no direct. adve"'" 5.3-1 X X CCV impacts to biological resoarces, ._A. Beçause biological conditions change over time. there is the potential for burrowing owl and 5.3-2 Focused surveys for active nests of the X X CCV northern harrier to occupy the site northern harrier shali be conducted prior to grnding. between project approval and If active n""ts are deteçted, and if construction development. activities occur between March I and July 31. The Village Six SPA Plan would construction activW"" shall be restricted within 500 have indirect.long-tenn feet of the active nest sites. significant impacts on biological 5.3-3 Prior to recording each final map. the resources if the projeçt fails to applicants shall eith.,,- convey land withio the Olay X X CCV preserve the Otay Ranch GDP regional open space Ranch RMP Resource Preserve at a ratio of 1.188 proportiooally and concurrently acres for each acre of development area or pay a fee with <levelooment in lieo. 'SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Const: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Const: post-construction 7 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (coot.) ~ :):, , cl ~ Time Frame for Time Frame of Miûgaûon' Monitoring Verifieaûon Date of Date of Potenûal Significant Impact Miûgaûon Measnre Repomng Agency FrMuenev to Comple- Verif...- S~ Pre 'f:~~~g Post ûon ûon Consl Consl Monitor Report 5.4-1 X X CCV the pmperty me considered significant. Becau", of the extent reconnai"ance should be conducted and the pre",nce of past agricultural dietmbance to or ab",uce of midden-bearing deposits detennined. the area. only midden-bearing. All brushing and grading within Village Six shall be subsurface deposits represent monitored. The monitoring of the brushing and potentially significant cultural grading shall be conducted by one or more resources, archaeologists. as dictated by the size of the grading operation, All utility excavations. mad grading, and brush removal shall be coordinated with the archaeological monitor. Any resources that are graded shall be intensively monitored duting gradiug to eusme that any important features. isolates. or deposits are either recorded and collected or excavated, Should any resources be encountered during the monitoring of the brushing or grading which were not previously recorded, the grading shall be temporarily stopped or redirected to another area while the nature of the discovery is evaluated, Any resources that may be encountered shall require testing to detennine their significance. If the testing demonstrates that a resource is significant. then a data recovery pmgram shall be prepared in accordance with mitigation measure 5.4-2. 5.4-2 If. as a result of the reconnaissance X CCV conducted in accordance with 5,4-1 above. a significant deposit is identified. a research pmgram shall be prepared to recover a valid sample of the materials present within the site, [SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: lentative map Pre Cons!: pre-construction During Cons!: during construction Post Const: post-construction 8 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T;me Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' Monitoring Verification Date of Date of Potential S;gnfficant Impact Mitigation Measure Reporting Agency Frenuenev to Comple- Verifica- SPA/ Pre ~~~:'.g !.-:::, tion tion TM Cons!. Monitor Report ~n1Øì!.LtU;1$ØI1;a: TT: :.:-ITTT TTI -TC CCTT'T C'T: 5,4-3 X CCV 'nf"~.."ìifip" :::." _m" m";,;';"t~ TIITT: TT'T:T -T TT TT 5.5-1 During con'truction. liquefiable soils X CCV community und individual within the colluvium/alluvium shall be removed und pernou, to ground acceleration «placed with compacted fill. gcnerated fmm potential earthquakes along off-site faults 5.5-2 During cnnstruction. highly expunsive X CCV would be a direct. long-tenD. soils shall be kept below finish grade. Where significunt impact associated with excavations expose highly expunsive materials at implementation of the proposed finish grade. these materials shall be excavated a project. Compliunce with the minimum of four feet below finish grade. Where requirements of the governing excavations expose very highly expansive material at jurisdictious. building codes. und finish grade. these materials shall be excavated a ,tundard practices of the minimum of five feet below finish grade. The Association of Structural excavations shall be replaced with a compacted fill Engineers of California would soil that has a low to moderate expunsion poteutial. reduce the potential impact 5.5-3 During construction the developer shall X CCV re,ulting from sei,mic-induced remove loose. compressible ,oil, und replace "' ground shaking below a level of compacted fill in areas that will be subjected to new ,ignificunce. fill or structural loads. ¡SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Const: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Const: post-construction 9 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (coot.) ~ ~ ~ ~ Time Frame for T;me Frame of Mi6ga60n' Monitoring Veriflca60n Date of Date of Poten6al S;gn;t;cant Impact Mi6ga60n Measure Repor6ng Ageu<y Frequency to Comple- VerirJca- SPA! C::'.. ~~~:t Post Monitor Report 60n 60u TM Cons" ii ii> 5.5-4 During gcading. the develope' shall X CCV construct eanhen but"ess", on unstable slopes with dmins installed. as watTanted. at the re'" of the battresses to con"ol gcoundwate,. 5.5-5 Gmding of building pads shall be X CCV designed so that foundations be", entirely on a ,elatively unifonn depth of compacted fill. This may be accomplished by overexcavatiug the cut poniou of the buildiug pad. X CCV 5.5-6 Prim to appmval of gcadiug plans fm the pmposed pmject. the applicant shall submit an additional geotechnical investigation. The detailed analysis shall be subject to appmval of the City Eugiue... The aaalysis shall include. but not be limited to. a delineation of specific locations where liquefiable. compressive. and expansive soils would affect structuml stability and where gcaded slopes would expose bedrock susceptible to instability, tSPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Cons!: pre-construction Doting Cons!: during construction Post Const: post-construction 10 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ , ~ '-'> Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' Monitoring Verification Date of Date of Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reporting Agency Freuuencv to Comple- Verifica- Sit! I C~~t- I ~~~::g 1.':::. Monitor I Report tion tion }}}(- 5.6-1 Prior to issuance of anyon-site (or off- X CCV site) grading permits. the applicant shall confinn to :... the City of Chula Vista that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out the following Formation or the San Diego mitigation progranL The paleontologist shall attend pregrade meetings to consult with grading and Formation would result in a excavation contractors- (A qualified paleontologist is significant. direct. long-tenn defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in impact. paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological proçednres and techniques.) 5.6-2 A paleontological monitor shall be on-site X X CCV at all times during the original cutting of previonsly undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (Otay and San Diego Formations) to inspeçt cnts for contained fossils. The paleontological monitor shall work nnder the direction of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall periodically (every seveml weeks) inspeçt original cuts in deposits with an uuknown resource sensitivity (Quateroary alluvium). (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials.) 5.6-3 If fossils are discovered. the X CCV paleoutologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In instance>< where recovery requires an extended salvage time. the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall he allowed to temporarily direct, divett, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor). a screen-washing operation for small fossil remains shall he set up. 'SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Const: pre-construction During Cons!: during construction Post Cons!: post-construction 11 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cout.) ~ f ~ '\::) Time Frame for Time Frame of Minganon' Monitoring Verificanon Date of Date of Potennal Signfficant Impact Minganon Measure Repornng Agency F",qnency to Comple- Ventka. SPA! C:;c.:t I ~~~:t ¿,~:~ non non TM Monitor Report 5.6-4 Prepared fossils. along with copies of all X X ccv pertinent field notes. photogmphs. and maps, shall be deposited (with the applicant's penrussionj in a scientific institntion with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summmy report shall be completed which outlines the results of the mitigation progmm. This report shall include discussion of the methods used, stmtigraphy exposed. fossils collected. and significance of recovered fossils. ~~ 5.7-1 The agricultuml plan included in the X X X CCV crops would result in a significant Village Six SPA Plan shall be implemented for the area as development proceeds on the project. The impact due to the inccemental and following measures shall be implemented by the i"eversible loss or impaimlent of developer, to the satisfaction of the Director of limited agricultural resources. Planning and Building. Noise. odors. insects. rodents. and chemicals associated with a) A 200-foot buffer between developed X X CCV agricnltnml opemtions would property and ongoing agriculture operations; create indirect. short-teOll. b) Vegetation to shield adjacent uman potentially significant impacts X CCV between the agricultural uses and development (within 400 feet) from agriculture ",ban uses. activities where pesticides are to be applied; cj Notification of adjacent property owners X X CCV of potential pesticide application through newspaper advertisements; and Fencing to ensure the safety of Village Six X CCV d) SPA residents. 'SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentalive map Pre Cons!: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Const: post-construction 12 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ ~ ~ Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' Momtoring Verification Date of Date of Potential Signfficant Impact Mitigation Measnre Reporting Agency Freonencv to Comple- Verifica- SPAI C~~:L I ~~:~ l.O::L tion tion TM Momtor Report « <-< «- --< 5.9-1 Prim to issuancc of a grading pcmllt- a X X CCV detailed wainage systcm design study shall be downstream. prepared to the satisfactioo of the City Enginee,. shall include: long-tem!. direct and indirect. significant impacts- Pmjeet a) Peak runoff at each inlel, outlct. implementation may also result in intcrœptm. concentmtion. 0' confluence point, both unconttolled disch"'ge of predevelopment and postdevelopmenl conditions: and pollutants with "fin;t flush" b) The integration of the pmposed system events which would have a long- tenD. indirect. significant impact, with the existing and proposed downstream wainage facilities to effeetively control flows within the entire system. c) Maps showing existing and postdeve\opment conditions fo, existing topography and proposed grading plans incoqx>mting a wainage system design with main lines and detentionldesilting facilities pun;uant to Seetion 3-202.1 of the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual: and on-site detentionldesilting facilities shall he incmpo,ated in the design fo, the various phases of construction and postconstruction. ¡SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Const: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Const: post-construction 13 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ I ~ ~ Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' Monitoring Verification Date of Date of Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measnre Reporting Agency Frennencv to Comple- Veriroca- SPA! C:;:;:L ë~::~ Post tion tion TM ConsL Monitor Report >+ 5,9-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading X X pennit. the applicant shaH submit a SWPPP including assignment of maintenance responsibilities for review and appcoval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading pennits. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the BMPs of the RWQCB. BMPs identified in the SWPPP shall include hut shall not be limited to the following: a) Temporary erosion control measures designed in accordance with the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance shall be employed for dis_ed areas and shown on the grading plans b) No disturbed surfaces shall be left without ecosion control measures in place during the winter and spring months. c) Sediment will be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins. traps. or other appcopriate measures. and shown on the grading pians. d) Silt and oil and other contaminants will be prevented from entering the Stonn drain system or removed fcom the system, by a means acceptable to the City Engineer. Stonn drain inlets shall be labeled "No Dumping-Drains to Ocean," e) All parking lots shail be designed to allow stonn water runoff to be directed to vegetative filter strips or oil-water separators to control sediment, oil, and other contaminants. f) Pennanent energy dissipaters will be included for drairutge outlets. g) A combinarion of on-site structural and non-structurnl BMPs for the treatment of urban pollutants in compliance with the Mnnicipal Pennit. ¡SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tenlative map Pre Cons!: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Cons!: post-construction 14 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ ~ u.; Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' Monitoring Verification Date of Date of Potential Signfficant Impact Mitigation Measure Frenuenc. to Comple- Veri£ica- SPA} C~:l During lo':::l Reporting Agency tion tion TM Consl Monitor Report '" " ", ", " Direct hnDact Otay Lak" Road: Between H 5.10-1 If development exceeds 944 nnits withont X CCV Street and Telegraph Canyon SR-125. it is necessary to widen to Otay Lakes Road Road. to six lanes or consh11ct intersection improvements on Otay Lakes Road that provide additional capacity to the satisfaction of the Citv Emrineer. Cumulative hnoacts Olympic Parl<way: The segment 5,10-2 The General Plan shall be amended to X X CCV between SR-125 and Eastlake designate this portion of the roadway as an Enhanced Parkway. Prime Arterial with eight lanes. The required ameodment shall be adopted no later than the first General Plan Amendment considered for adoption in 2002. The applicant shall contribute a fair share X CCV towards consh11ction of the two additional lanes. Olympic Patxway Between 5,1(1-3 The applicant shall contribute a fair share X CCV EastLake Parkway and Hnnte towards the consh11ction to six-lane Prime Arterial Parkway standards. atay Lakes Road: The segment 5.10-4 The General Plan shall be amended to X X CCV between SR-125 and Eastlake designate this portion of tbe roadway as an Enhanced Parkway. Prime Arterial with seven lanes. The reqnired amendment shall be adopted no later than the first General Plan Amendment considered for adoption in 2002. The applicant shall contrihute a fair share towards consh11ction of the additiooal easthonnd lane. Otay Lakes Road: The segment 5.10-5 The applicant shall contribnte a fair share X CCV between H Street and Telegraph towards widening to six lanes or towards intersection Canyon Road. improvements that provide additional capacity along atay Lakes Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. tSPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Cons!: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Cons!: post-construction 15 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cout.) ~ ~ ~ ~ Time Frame for Time Frame ofM;tigation' MonUoring Verification Date of Date of Poteatial Signüicant Impact M;tigation Measure Reporting Agency Freonency to Comple- Verilica- SPA! Pre ~::t c".'::L Monitor I Report lion lion TM ConsL -» Otay Lakes Road; The segment 5.10-6 The applicant shall contribute a fair share X CCV between BonUa Road and H towards the widening to six lanes or towards Street. intersection improvements that provide additional capacity along alay Lakes Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Othec intersections and roadways 5.10-7 Prior to the construction of SR-125. the X (only wUhout SR-125), City shall stop issuing new building pennits for CCV Village Six when the City. in its sole discretion. deternlines either; aJ Buiiding pennits for a total of 9.429 dwelling units have been issued for projects east of 1- 805. or bl An alternative measure is selected by the City in accordance with the City ofChula Vista Growth Management Ordinance. The start date for counting the 9.429 dwelling units is January I. 2000. Notwithstanding the foregoing. the City may i"ue buiiding pennits if the City decides in its sole discretion that either traffic studies demonstrate. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. that the circularion system has additional capacity without exceediug the GMOC traffic threshold standards; othec improvements are constructed which provide additional necessary capacity; or the City selects an alternalive method of implementing the GMOC standards. Olympic ParkwaylWueste Road 5.10-8 The applicant shall contribute a fair share X CCV Intersection towards the future signali",tion of this intersection. 1-805 Between Bonita Road and 5.10-9 Additional lanes would be required to X X Caltrans Telegraph Canyon Road maintain acceptable LOS on 1-805. Continued freeway planning efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will detennine mitigation strategies for the regional freeway system. tSPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Const: pre-conslruction During Cons!: during conslruction Post Cons!: post-construction 16 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ ~ Vi Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' Mmútoring VerifiC1ltion Date of Date of Potential S;gnifiC1lnt Impact Mitigation Measure Repornng Agency FrenueDCv to Comple- Verifi<a. SPA! (,~t ~~:.g l.~s~ tiou tio. TM Mon;to. Report @C C-'CX) XiX 'Xi C) XJ Access to the project from 5_10-10 Prior to approval of the fmal map, wrnch X CCV perimeter roadways is required triggers the installation of the related street prior to project development improvements. the applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct and secnre a fully activated traffic signal including interconnect wiring at the following intersection" La Media and Street J La Media and Birch Road Birch Road and Street R Birch Rnad and CPF-3 Access The applicant shall fully design the aforementioned traffic signals as part of the improvement plans for the related street and shall install underground improvementS, standard and luminaries in conjunction with the construction of the related street improvementS. In addition. the applicant shall instal! mast anns, signal heads. and associated equipment with traffic signal warrantS are met as determined by the City Engineer. Once 75 percent of the residential unitS within Village Six have been constructed. the applicant shall conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis at the Palnmar StreetIR Street and the R StreetJJ Street intersections. If traffic signal warrantS are met at either or both of the intersectinns. the applicant shall construct a fully activated traffic signal including interconnect wiring. ¡SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Const: pre-construction During Cons!: doting construction Post Cons!: p<>st-construction 17 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ ~ ~ Time Frame for Time Frame of MiDgaDon' Monitoring VerilicaDon Doreof Doreof PorenDal SIgnificant Impact Mirigation Measure ReporDng Agency Frequency to Comple- Verifica- SPA! C:;':. I 'l:~~~g l.:~~ Don Don TM Monitor Report Prior to approval ofthc first final map, which triggers the installation of the related street improvements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct and secure the necessary modifications. as requiced by thc City Engineer. including interconnect wiring to the following intersections: Olympic Parkway and La Media Rood Olympic Parkway and East Palomar Street The applicant shall fully design the aforemcntioned traffic signals as pan of the improvcment plans for the associated stceet. Prior to the approval of a CUP for the private high school. the applicant shall prepare a site-specific access study and provide the required improvements acceptable to the City Engineer. Village core traffic operations 5.10-11 All site plans for non-cesidential uses X CCV (with the exception of scbools) shall be pcepaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City Engineer may require a project-specific traffic study if the project has the potential for resulting in unanticipated circulation impacts. Recommendations to reduce potentially significant impacts shall be incorporated into the site plan or requiced as a condition of project approval. Potential traffic impacts multing from development and operation of the schools shall be ceviewed by the respective school districts when specific projects are under consideration. All street improvements shall be coordinated with the City and the City shall request ceview of all draft plans. 'SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Const: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Cons!: post-construction 18 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ \ ~ '-.¡ TUne Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' Monitoring Verilication Date of Date of Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Reporting Agency Freouencv to Comple- Veritica. s~ C~:L If:~~:[ !.~~L Monitor I Report tion tion :.H: At the time off-sitc improvemcnts 5.10-12 Prio' to approval of any off-site roadway X CCV are designed and propo""d. improvement project. a biological reconnaissance additional environmental review based on detailed wading and d.,ign plans shall be may bc required to detennine conducted by thc applkant to documcnt any impacts potential impacts ,elated to to sensitive biological resouoces. Any impacts to con"roction. including wat.. sensitive biological habitats shall be mitigated quality and traffic and impacts to punmant to the mitigation rotios d.,cribed in the <heaft paleontological resouoces and the 0' approved Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. ueed fm specific mitigatiou 5.10-13 Prim to issuance of any wadiug petmits X Ccv measures to address the"" poteutial impacts. fo' any off-sitc roadway improvement. a detailed acoostkal study fm the affected roadway segment shall be prepared to dctetminc thc need fo' any noise attenuation measures fo' adjacent sensitive land uses. X CCV 5,10-14 Prim to the approval of the design plans fo, any off-site roadway improvement. a detailed landscaping plan shall be prepared to ensure that potential aesthetic impacts associated with any grnding necessary fo' the improvement are mitigated. 5.10-15 As a condition of any off-site roadway X CCV improvement approval, monitoring of any grnding fo, the presence of culm..1 and paleontological resomc., shall be required. If such resouoces are encountered during wading ope..tions, the protocol described in Section 5.6 ofthis EIR shall be required. X CCV 5.10-16 As a condition of any off-site roadway improvement approval. applkable construction-related wat.. quality mitigation measures shall be required by the City Enginee" ¡SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Const: pre-conslruction During Const: during construction Post Const: post-construction 19 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (coot.) Tùne Frame for Time Frame of M;tigation' MOIútoring Verification Date of Date of Potential Signmcant Impact M;tigation Measnre Repocông Agency Freqnencv to Compte- Verif'lCB- SPA! c~ - ~~~:! l.~s,~ Monitor Report tion tion TM i( 5.10-17 As a condition of any off-site roadway X ccv improvement approval. preparation of a traffic control plan for delays and hazards associated with construction impacts shall be prepared by the applicant and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 5.10-18 For the widening of Otay Lakes Road X CCV between H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, plans prepared for the improvements shall be designed to avoid impacts to the church and the library. ~ ~ ~ ~ tSPA Plan: SecIional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Cons!: pre-construction During Cons!: during construction Post Cons!: post-construction 20 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ ~ ~ TUne Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' Monitoring Verilkation Date of Vateof Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Frequency to CompIe- Verifica- SPA! C~~L ~~~::g l.~s:t Reporting Agency Monitor I Report tion tiOB TM --~ ~~~~ T~T~ /~~ ~~ ~~ ii i/i/ The construction of the pmposed 5.11-1 The following mitigation measures shall X CCV projeçl would result in the be implemented during construction and placed as genecation of significant notes on all grading plans: temporary construction a) Minimize simultaneous operation of ,,!uipment exhaust emissions. multiple construction ,,!uipment units plus loug-tenn significant b) Use low pollutant-emitting construction cumulative emissions from pmjeçt-generated vehicle trips. ,,!uipment The pmposed pmjeçt would result c) Use eleçtrical construction ,,!uipment as in long-term operalioual practical emissions, primarily from vehicle d) Use catalytic reduction for gasoline- emissions that will exceed powered ,,!uipment SCAQMD thresholds, e) Use injeçtion timing retard for diesel- powered ,,!uipment I) Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust g) Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust h) Pave penrument roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust i) Use eleçtricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building. if available j) Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path withiu a construction site prior to public road entry k) Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior 10 vehicle entry on public roads I) Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of oceu""nce m) Wet wasb the construction access point al the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has oceurred tsp A Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Const: pre-construction During Cons!: during construction Post Cons!: post-construction 21 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ , £ \) Thne Frame for Time Frame ofM;tigation' Monitoring Verification Dare of Dare of Potential Signilicant Impact Mitigation Measure Reporting Agency Frequency to Compte- Verifica- SPA! Pre ~~~:[ l.:s:1 tion tion TM Cousl Mouitor Report .UU nl Pmlide sufficient perimeter emsion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public mads 0) Cove< haul trucks or "",intain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling pi Suspend all soil distmbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per hour . Nfilim. Hi~ Potential sources of noise related 5.12-1 Prior to the appmval of tentative maps. the X X CCV to the pmposed Village Six SPA applicant shall submit an acoustical study for Plan include construction noise. approval by the Director of Building and Planning. traffic-genemted noise. and which includes the following: conunercial noise. Traffic on La Media. Olympic Parkway. Birch al Location and heights of noise barriers in Road, and SR-125 would cause a accordance with Figure 5.12-1 of the EIR; significant noise impact h) A detailed analysis which demonstrates that barriers or setbacks have been incmpomted into the pmject design. such that noise exposure to residential receivers placed in useable exterior areas are at below 65 dB CNEL: and c) A detailed analysis. which demonstrates that barriers or setbacks have been incorporated into the pmject design. such that. when considered with pmposed construction spedfications. interior nnise levels shall nnt exceed 45 db CNEL. Shnuld wading nr traffic assumptions change during the processing of the tentative ""'I'. the barriers shall be refined tn reflect those modifications, tSPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Cons!: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Cons!: post-construction 22 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ \ ~ '-., Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' Monitoring Veri[..,ation Date of Date of Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measnre Reporting Ageney Frenoene. to Comple- Verifica. SPA! Pre '¡>,'::!.::g 1::::. tion tion TM ConsL Monitor Report ;,;; ..", " ,..; ,,; 5.12-2 Noise baniers shall be constructed as X CCV sho,,:",on Figure 5.12-1 with thefollowing provISIOns: The applicant sball construct the noise baniers as shown on Figure 5. I 2. I prior to the issuance of any building pennit for those lots within the noise contour of 65 CNEL or greater as described in the Noise Technical Reportfor Otay Ranch Village Six, dated September 24.2001. unless earlier modified by agreement with the City ofChnla Vista. California Transportation Ventures (CTV) or its su<xessor in interest, and applicant. All noise barrier design and construction adjacent to SR-125 shall be coordinated with the City of Chula Vista. Caltrans, and CTV or its snccessor in interest. Noise banier design and construction adjacent to SR-125 may be modified should a snbseqnent ""onstical study demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Bnilding that the applicable noise standards will be acbieved by a modified design. All other reqnired noise baniers adjacent to Olympic Parkway. La Media Road and Birch Road as shown on Fignre 5.12- I shall be constructed prior to the issnance of any bnilding pennit Co, lots adjacent to the aforementioned roadways. Noise baniers sball be shown on wall and fence plans to be approved prior to issnance of the fITst grading pennit to be approved by the City. tSPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Cons!: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Cons!: post-construction 23 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ ~ "- Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' Monitoring Verification Date of Date of Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measnre Reporting Agency Freqnency to Comple- Verifica- SPAI Cz.:L ë~::t Post tion tion TM ConsL Monitor Report 'is 5.12-3 Priorto approval of boil ding pennits for X CCV commcrcial development. a report shall be prepared demonstrating that HV AC equipment is designed to insure that noise levels from the equipment will not exceed the City of Chula Vista' s Noise Ordinance Standards. 5.12-4 If balconies are proposed for the multi- X CCV family uses adjacent to SR-125. prior to approval of building plans. an acoustical analysis of site plans and building plans shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by the Director of Planning and Building to ensure that they meet the 65 dB(A) CNEL exterior. 5.12-5 The water pump station shall be placed X CCV within an enclosure capable of reducing the noise of the pumps such that. when operating. the sound pressure level at a distance of 50 feet from the pumps is 50 decibels or less, Prior to the installation of the pump station, the applicant shall provide an acoustical report demonstrating that the proposed pumps and enclosure meet this condition. to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. ¡SPA Plan: Seclional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Const: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Const: post-construction 24 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) -¿,. ~ ~ ~ Time Frame for Time Frame of Mjtigation' Monitoring Verification Dale of DaleoC Potential Signòficant Impact Mitigation Measure Reporting Agency Freouencv to Compl.. Verifica- S:N "~~t- If,~~:.~ t.:s:. Monitor Report tion tion ;;- iii ii The pwposed pwject would <esult 5.13.1-1 The final Suba"", Water Master Plan shall X X in an inc<emental increase in be appwved prior to the appwval of any tentative water consumption and place map. The Master Plan shall iaelude the design of additional demands on water water system infrastructu<e ineluding timing and cost storage and pumping facilities. by phase of development and most be in compliance The impact to water storage and with the own Master Plan. pumping facilities would be 5.13.1-2 Prior to appwval of the fi"'t tentative map. X X CCVandOwn significant if construction of facilities does not coincide with the applicant shall pwvide the City with a letter from the anticipated growth associated the own stating that adequate pumping and storage with the Village Six SPA capacity is available or will be available concurrent with need- X X CCV and own 5.13.1-3 Prioe to appwval each TM. the applicant shall pwvide the City with a letter from the own stating that adequate stoeage capacity exists or will be available coucurrent with need. 5.13.1-4 Water facilities impwvements shall be X X CCV financed oe installed on- and off-site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the appwved PFFP for the Village Six SPA Plan. ¡SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Cons!: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Cons!: post-construction 25 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (coot.) ~ ~ ~ 1::, Time Frame for Time Frame ofMitiganon' Monitoring Verffieanon Date of Date of Potennal Signffieant Impact Mitiganon Measure Reporting Agency Freouenev to Comple- Verir...- S~ C~~~t ~~~::g l:::s~ MonUor Report non non « The proposed project would cesult 5.13,2-1 The applicant shall provide for adequate X X in an inccemental incecase in the recycled water storage and distribution facilities. use of recycled water and place which shall be constructed in accordance wUh the additional demands on water Suharea Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the storage aud pumping facilities. OWD. These water iufrastructuce improvemeu¡, ace The inccease in use of recycled described in the Village Six PFFP and SPA Plan, wate< has been planned for by The proposed PFFP identifies the development OWD and will not have a impact fees that the applicant shall pay to mitigate significant impact. Howev«. the impacts. the estimated cost of the facility. the impact to recycled water storage applicant's obligation to construct or pay for the and distribution facilities would necessary mitigation. and the phasing improvements, be significant if construction of Prior to approval of the first final map. the applicant new facilities does not coincide would provide written proof from OWD that with the project's anticipated adequate water storage and distribution facilities are growth. available to serve the proposed project area. A complete Subarea Master Plan shall be required for approval prior to approval of the tentative map. The recycled water system shall be designed at that time and the timing and cost shall be identified by phase of development. The final Subarea Water Master Plan shall be submitted to the City for ceview and approved by OWD prior to the approval of any tentative map. The Master Plan shall include the design of water system infrastructuce including timing and cost by phase of developmeut and must be in compliance with the OWD Master Plan. ¡SPA Plan: Seclional Planning Area Plan TM: tenlative map Pre Cons!: pre-construction During Cons!: during construction Post Const: post-construction 26 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ \ ~ If) Time Frame for Time Frame of Mitigation' MolÚtoring Verification Date of Date or Potential SiglÚficant Impact Mitigation Measnre Reporting Agency Frennenev to Comple- VeriIiea- SPAI C~":I. ',>,~:.g Post tion tion TM Consl. Monitor Report ii:i-i ii The existing sewage disposal 5.13.3-1 Prior to recording final maps. the City X CCV system does not have enough Engineer shall be satisfied that the Poggi Canyon capacity to accommodate flows Interceptor has adequate capacity in the interim to from the Village Six SPA Plan, handle projected sewage flows. The calculation of which would result in a near-term existing and anticipated sewage flows has determined significant impact until upgrades that two capital improvement projects are needed to to the system are completed. provide capacity for the proposed development These include the completion of the Salt Creek Interceptor Reach 9B connection to regionally exceed 947 EDUs (hnprovement P-l) and increasing the size of the Poggi Canyon line beneath 1-805 (hnprovement P-2) to regionally exceed 3.770 EDUs. » ii: ii >h Development of the Village Six 5.13.5-1 Significant impacts to police services shall X CCV SPA Plan would result in a be addressed on a citywide level through the payment significant impact to law of development impact fees. The proposed PFFP enforcement because of the describes public facilities fees for police services predicted increase in calls for based on equivalent dwelling units by development service aud the additional travel phase. The applicant shall pay the public facilities time required to answer these fees at the rate in effect at the time building pennits calls- are issued. »> >i >hi The Chula Vista Fire Department 5.13.6-1 Fire service facilities shall be financed or X X CCV does not cmrendy meet the provided in accordance with the fees and phasing in threshold standard for response the approved PFFP for the Village 6 SPA Plan. time for the City. including the 5.13.6-2 The City shall continue to monitor Fire X X CCV Otay Ranch community. hnpacts to fire and emergency medical Department responses to emergency fire and medical services would be significant if calls and report the results to the GMOC on an annual consrmction of these facilities basis. does not coincide with the project's anticipated population growth and increased demand for servtces. ¡SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Cons!: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Cons!: post-construction 27 VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (cont.) ~ ~ , ~ ~ Time Frame for Time Frame of Mirigarion' MonUoring Verificarion Date of Date of Potenrial Signmcant Impact M;rigarion Measure Reporring Agency Freqnency to Comple- Verifica- SfiY I C~" ~~~~g l.:.. Monitor Report rion rion ::::, Project implementation would 5.13.7-1 The applicant shall be required to pay all X CCV result in a significant impact to required school mitigation fees or fonn a community schools unless construction of facility district acceptable to the school district facilities coincides with student genemtion and associated secvice demands. PUBLIC SERVICESlUTILITŒs. LŒRARY SERVICE A significant impact would result 5,13.8-1 Libmry facilities. supplies. and services X X Ccv if construction of new libmry shall be financed in accordance with the approved fucilities and provision of fees and phasing in the PFFP for the Village Six SPA additional documents does not Plan. coincide with project implementation and associated population growth. PUBLlCSEltVICI!SltJTILITIEs.. PARKS ANIlRECREATION Project implementation would 5.13.9-1 Neighborhood pariŒ shall be financed and X X CCV generate increased demand for constructed on-site in accordance with the fees and pms and recreation facilitics. A phasing approved in the PFFP for the Village Six significant impact conld resnlt if SPA Plan, dedication of parkland and construction of new facilities does not coincide with project implementation and project population growth. Potentially significant impacts 5.14-1 The nse. transport. stomge. and disposal X X CCV related to the transport of of hazardous materials shall be condncted in hazardous materials could result compliance with the relevant regnlations of fedeml. from implementation of the state, and local agencies. including the EP A. Village Six SPA Plan. California Department of Heath Services (DHS). and Caltrans. 'SPA Plan: Sectional Planning Area Plan TM: tentative map Pre Const: pre-construction During Const: during construction Post Cons!: post-construction 28 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 98-01) FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, McMillin Land Development, submitted an application requesting approvals for approval of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for Village Six ("Project"); and WHEREAS, a Draft EIR 98-01 was issued for public review on September 28, 2001 and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for Draft EIR 98-01 on November 14, 2001 to close the public review period; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for the ErR 98-01 on January 9, 2002 and certified EIR 98-01 and adopted the findings of fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Further, the Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council certify the document and adopt the frndings of fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FErR 98-01) was prepared on the Village Six Sectional Planning Area Plan; and WHEREAS, FEIR 98-01 incorporates, by reference, the prior ErRs that address the subject property including the Chula Vista General Plan ErR; the Final Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program ErR (90-01), the City ofChula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update (94- 03); Otay Ranch SPA One and Annexation Final Second Tier ErR (95-01); Final Second Tier EIR for Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments (97-03); the Otay Water District Resources Master Plan Final Master ErR (97-04); the Village Six SPA Plan; the Village Six Public Facilities Finance Plan; the Olympic Parkway Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 00-33); the Final Eastlake III Woods and Vistas Replanning Program ErR (01-01), as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, dated December 17, 2001 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final ErR 98-01 are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the /0/9-/0<7 Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely infonnation or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the project. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, are expressed as conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings of fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City ofChula Vista does hereby find, detennine, resolve and order as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearings on EIR 98-01 held on January 9, 2002 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.). II. FEIR 98-01 CONTENTS That the FEIR 98-01 consists of the following: 1. Second Tier EIR for the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan (including technical appendices); and 2. Public Comments and Responses to Comment (All hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 98-01 ") III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIR 98-01 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 98-01, the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation /01l-/..<8 V. VI. Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk) are prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL That the City Council finds that the FE1R 98-01 reflects the independent judgment of the City ofChula Vista City Council. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Adoption of Findings of Fact The City Council does hereby approve, accepts as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the [IDdings contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. B. Statement of Overriding Considerations Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the fonn set forth in Exhibit "A," a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, identifying the specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. C. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 98-01 and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement the same. /ð/f /,1.9 D. Infeasibility of Alternatives As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 98-01 and in the Findings of Fact, Section XII, for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified in FEIR 98-01, were not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level or meet the project objectives. E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. The City Council further finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the pennittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council finds that the FEIR 98- 01, the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (EXhibit "B" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk) have been prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA (pub. Resources Code, §21O00 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista and therefore, the City Council certifies EIR 98-01 and adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. /fJ/I-/,3¡O Presented By: Approved as to fonn by: ~~ hn Kaheny City Attorney Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning /tJ/J -/:31 I:}lm -#- ltJ ¡ )~-:zpP-- January 22,2002 THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers City ofChula Vista 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, As you know, the City Council is considering the Village 6 SPA and related Planned District Community Regulations this evening. In the interest of continuing forward with this project without delaying the City and/or the principal project applicant, McMillin Otay Ranch L.P., The Otay Ranch Company will not object to the proposed Plan District Community Regulations. For the record, however, we would like to reiterate our belief that the Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and The Otay Ranch Company vests our right to move forward with development on our other properties in accordance with the same Planned Community District Regulations approved by the city in conjunction with SPA One. As such, our consent this evening should in no way be interpreted as a waiver of our right to vest the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations with regard to our future development proposals for our property in villages other than Village 6. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to give me a call. ~ Robert Cameron Executive Vice President cc: Ann Moore, City ofChula Vista 350 W. ASH STREET, SUITE 730, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 PH. (619) 234.4050 EX. (6191 234.4088 E.MAIL ¡,fo@otõy""h,om Agenda Item lOA Final Second Tier EIR for the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan Revised pages for the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Reporting Program. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Second Tier EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or "impacts") that the project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others cannot be avoided. The project will result in significant irreversible environmental changes with regard to the following issues: land use, transportation/traffic, biological resources, hydrology/drainage, landform alteration/visual quality, geology/geologic hazards, noise, air quality, culturallpaleontological resources, and public facilities. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in Subsequent EIR 98-01 in Table 1-2 on pages 5-22 and in Chapter 5.0, pages 57-243. Land Use Development of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in a significant change in the character ofthe site ITom undeveloped to an urban use. The EIR for the Village Six SPA plan ErR also includes an evaluation of adjacent roadways including Birch Road and La Media Road. The alignment of Birch Road has been designed in consideration of the proposed Birch Road interchange, which was evaluated in the Final EIR for State Route SR-l25 South, dated January 2000. The proposed design of Birch Road will not afTect the interchange alignment or location analyzed in the Final EIR for State Route SR-125 South. dated January 2000. Landform Alteration/Aesthetics The overall change to the original Otay Ranch topography and the change from a rural to more urban use constitute a significant, adverse landform and aesthetic impact. Development would require grading over the entire village. The proposed grading would reflect the original topography by incorporating a step-down design ITom east to west. The proposed project would result in long-term direct potentially significant nighttime view impacts. The direct lines of sight to the field lighting and the general illumination 12 over the stadium and baseball field would also have long-term direct and indirect potentially significant nighttime impacts. Sound barriers built as part of the project would represent a significant visual impact if the portion of the barrier that is constructed as a wall is higher than eight and a half feet. Biology There are no direct, adverse impacts to biological resources. The EIR for the Village Six SPA plan EIR also includes an evaluation of adjacent roadways including Birch Road and La Media Road. No biological resources were identified within the proposed alignments of Birch Road and La Media Road. The alignment of Birch Road has been designed in consideration of the proposed Birch Road interchange, which was evaluated in the Final EIR for State Route SR-125 South, dated January 2000. The proposed design of Birch Road will not affcct the interchange alignment or location analyzed in the Final EIR for State Route SR-125 South. dated January 2000. Because biological conditions change over time, there is the potential for burrowing owl and northern harrier to occupy the site between project approval and development. The Village Six SPA Plan would have indirect, long-term significant impacts on biological resources if the project fails to preserve the Otay Ranch GDP regional open space proportionally and concurrently with development. Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan and Conceptual TMs would eliminate approximately 386 acres of agricultural fields used for foraging by raptor species. The Program ErR 90-01 identified loss of rapt or foraging habitat as a significant impact. The Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to this significant impact. Cultural Resources Impacts to the recorded sites on the property are considered significant. Because of the extent of past agricultural disturbance to the area, only midden-bearing subsurface deposits represent potentially significant cultural resources. Geology The exposure of a residential community and individual persons to ground acceleration generated ITom potential earthquakes along off-site faults would be a direct, long-term, significant impact associated with implementation of the proposed project. Compliance with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions, building codes, and standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California, would reduce the 13 A. LAND USE Standards of Significance: A significant land use impact is identified if the project could: . physically divide an established community. . conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Significant land use impacts would also occur if the project fails to comply with the applicable mitigation measures established by the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR and the Otay Ranch GDP findings of fact, as amended by subsequent projects. These measures include the requirement that SPA plans establish standards for landscaping, grading, and buffering to prevent land use interface impacts such as noise, lighting, and loss of privacy from occurring between internal land uses, particularly between single- and multi-family residential land uses and between residential and non-residential land uses. In addition, the Program EIR requires that the applicant implement the RMP to protect biological resources within Otay Ranch. Impact: . Development of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in a significant change in the character of the site from undeveloped to an urban use. [EIR, Subchapter 5.1; page 75]. Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 1509l(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: rmplementation of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in the conversion of the site ITom undeveloped to intensive urban uses, as identified in Program ErR 90-01. The EIR for the Village Six SPA plan EIR also includes an evaluation of adjacent roadways including Birch Road and La Media Road. No biological resources were identified within thc proposed alignments of Birch Road and La Media Road. The 17 alignment of Birch Road has been designed in consideration of the proposed Birch Road interchange, which was evaluated in the Pinal EIR for State Route SR-l25 South, dated January 2000. The proposed design of Birch Road will not affect the interchangc alignment or location analyzed in the Pinal EIR for State Route SR-125 South, dated January 2000. Mitigation Measure:. No feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated. B. LANDFORM ALERATIONNISUAL QUALITY Standards of Significance: A significant land use impact is identified if the project could: have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or obstruct or substantially alter the visual character of a designated public view. substantially degrade scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within view of a state scenic highway. conflict with the goals and policies established for preserving scenic highways and roads. result in architecture, urban design, landscaping, or landforms that negatively detract ITom the prevailing aesthetic character ofthe site or surrounding area. create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Impact: . Development of the Village Six SPA Plan would result in a significant change in the character of the site ITom undeveloped to an urban use, and would have a significant impact resulting ITom field lighting and general illumination at the high school stadium and baseball field. [ErR, Subchapter 5.2, pages 87-99]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. 18 and plans shall be reviewed and approved as part of the review and adoption of tentative maps. Significance After Mitigation: Significant and not mitigated. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Standards of Significance: The proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it: Impact: . has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. . has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. . has a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. . interferes substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites. . The Village Six SPA Plan would have indirect, long-term significant impacts on biological resources if the project fails to preserve the Otay Ranch GDP regional open space proportionally and concurrently with development. [EIR, Subchapter. 5.3, page 112]. Finding: Pursuant to section 15091(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or shall be incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR below a level of significance. Explanation: There are no direct, adverse impacts to biological resources. The fIR for I the VilJage Six SF A plan EIR also inc1udes an evaluation of adjacent roadways inc1uding 20 J Birch Road and La Media Road. No biological resources were identified within the proposed alignments of Birch Road and La Media Road, The alignment of Birch Road has been designed in consideration of the proposed Birch Road interchange, which was evaluated in the Final EIR for State Route SR-125 South, dated January 2000. The proposed design of Birch Road will not affect the interchange alignment or location analyzed in the Final EIR for State Route SR-125 South, dated January 2000. Because biological conditions change over time, there is the potential for burrowing owl and northern harrier to occupy the site between project approval and development. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.3, page 113]. 5.3-1 Focused surveys for the burrowing owl shall be conducted prior to grading. rf occupied burrows are detected, passive relocation of the species shall be conducted to avoid impacts ITom grading. 5.3-2 Focused surveys for active nests of the northern harrier shall be conducted prior to grading. rf active nests are detected, and if construction activities occur between March 1 and July 31, construction activities shall be restricted within 900 feet of the active nest sites. 5.3-3 Prior to recording each final map, the applicants shall convey land within the Otay Ranch RMP Resource Preserve at a ratio of 1.188 acres for each acre of development area. Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact: . The Program ErR 90-0 I identified loss of raptor foraging habitat as a significant impact. The Village Six SPA Plan would contribute to this significant impact. Finding: The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Explanation: Implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan and Conceptual TMs would eliminate approximately 386 acres of agricultural fields used for foraging by raptor species. 21 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: /OB,C Meeting Date: 01/22/02 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 99-05; Consideration of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Affordable Housing Program and other regulatory documents for 2,232 dwelling units on approximately 386 acres in Village Six ofOtay Ranch located generally in the north central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel south of Olympic Parkway, east of La Media Road, north of Birch Road and west of future SR-125. Applicant: McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, part owner of Village Six Participant: Otay Ranch Company, LLC, part owner of Village Six Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving a Sectional Planning Area (SPA), and supporting regulatory documents including, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, and AfTordable Housing Program involving 386.4 acres of land known as Otay Ranch, Village Six. Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Planned Community District Regulations for Otay Ranch, Village Six. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X) McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, has submitted an application for a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and associated regulatory documents for Village Six in Otay Ranch. Village Six is located in the north central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel south of Olympic Parkway, east of La Media Road, north of Birch Road and west of future SR-125. The SPA Plan proposes 2,232 dwelling units on 386.4 acres ofland in Village Six. The ownership of Village Six is split between three property owners: McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, the Otay Ranch Company and the Catholic Diocese of San Diego. McMillin is proposing 482 single-family dwellin¡>:s and 212 multi-familv units on their portion of Village Six, while Otay Ranch Company is proposing 401 single-family dwellings and 1,392 multi-family units. The Catholic Diocese is proposing a church on an 11.5-acre site and a 32.5-acre private high school zoned residential. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and determined that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment; therefore, Final Second Tier Environmental rmpact Report (Final ErR 98-01) has been prepared. Certification of the Final Page 2, Item: If) 13, G Meeting Date: 01/22/02 Second Tier Environmental Impact Report for this project will be considered by the City Council as a separate item. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt: A Resolution approving the Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and supporting regulatory documents including the Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Affordable Housing Program, Air Quality rmprovement Plan, Water Conservation Plan, Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, . An Ordinance approving the Village Six Planned Community District Regulations. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 9, 2002 to consider the Project. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Castaneda & Thomas) to recommend approval of the Village Six SPA Plan and Planned Community District Regulations to the City Council. Commissioners Castaneda and Thomas, while indicating the Village Six was well designed, express concerns about traffic levels of service on r-805, even after SR-125 was built, the number of accessory units that could be built in Village Six and the lack of control on the affordability of the six affordable units. The Resource Conservation Commission met on November 5, 2001 to consider the Final Second Tier Environmental rmpact Report ErR 10-02 and voted 4-0-1-1 (Bull abstained; Bensoussan absent) certification of the document. WORKSHOPS: The Planning Commission held a workshop on Village Six SPA Plan documents on December 12, 2001. mSCUSSION: In October 1993, the City Council and County Board of Supervisors jointly approved the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan for the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch. The GDP authorized 990 single-family homes and 1,242 multi-family units for a total of 2,232 dwelling units in Village Six, The boundaries of Village Six were established by the major arterial circulation system. The GDP based the development concept for the Otay Ranch on the "Village Concept". The Village Concept provides villages that are transit-oriented and pedestrian friendly, with mixed commercial, office and multi-family residential uses along with schools and /~Æ~ Page 3, Item: /I),ð C- Meeting Date: 01/22/02 neighborhood parks within a village core. The cores are surrounded by single-family neighborhoods in secondary areas of the village. Village Six is a transit village that implements the Village Concept as described in the GDP. rn 1998, McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC became the owners of approximately 1,030 acres in the Otay Valley Parcel (in Villages One, Five, Six, Seven, Planning Area 12/Eastern Urban Center and Freeway Commercial) and initiated plans to develop their ownership in Village Five and Village Six. McMillin has completed development of Village Five and is now proposing a SPA Plan for the entire Village Six area as well as a Tentative Map for their ownership within the Village. The Otay Ranch Company and the Catholic Diocese have participated in the development of the SPA Plan and are proposing separate tentative maps and plans for their ownership. 1. Existing Site Characteristics Village Six, located at the north central section of the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch, consists of approximately 386 acres of gently rolling hills. rn the recent past, the area that constitutes Village Six was used for grazing and dry farming. Directly to the north of the Project adjacent to Olympic Parkway is Village Five, currently under development by the McMillin Company, the Otay Ranch Company and their guest builders. Planning Area l2/Freeway Commercial is located on Village Six's eastern boundary across the proposed right-of-way for SR-125, To the south is the area of the future development of Village Seven. The area for the future development of Village Two is located on the western boundary of the Project, separated from Village Six by the southern extension of La Media Road. 2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use The City's General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP designate the land within the Otay Valley Parcel for urban villages that are transit-oriented and pedestrian ITiendly. Otay Ranch villages are intended to contain higher residential densities and a variety of mixed-uses in the "Village Cores", surrounded by single-family homes in the secondary residential areas outside of the village cores. The General Plan designates residential land uses in Village Six as Low-Medium Village (LMV) at 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre, and Medium High at 11 to 18 dwelling units per acre. In addition, there is a Village Core (VC) land use, as well as land uses for parks and recreation and an elementary school, all consistent with the land use designations for the Otay Ranch GDP. The GDP, which authorizes 2,232 dwelling units for Village Six, further details the General Plan land uses and densities and separates them into various categories as outlined in the following table: /0 ßk-3 Page 4, Item: /tJ ð c.. Meeting Date: 01/22/02 VILLAGE SIX GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USES Chula Vista General Plan Land Otay Ranch GDP No. of Units Existing Municipal Use Designation Land Use Land Use Code/Zoning Designation PC Low-Medium Low-Medium 990 Units Vacant Village (3-6 Village (4.8 DUs/Acre) DUs/Acre) PC Village Core Medium-High 1,242 Units Vacant (18.0 DUs /Acre) PC Parks Parks N/A Vacant PC Elementary School Elementary School N/A Vacant The Otay Ranch is zoned Planned Community (PC) as are the other master planned communities in Chula Vista such as Sunbow and EastLake. Land development regulations are contained in the Planned Community District Regulations within each master planned community's Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan along with a zoning boundary map, which designates neighborhood zones. The Village Six SPA Plan Zoning Districts Map (SPA Plan, Exhibit PC-Ion page rI.3-6) identifies the individual zoning districts for the Village Six project. 3. Proposed Plan The Village Six SPA Plan implements the goals, objectives and policies found in the Otay Ranch GDP and defines, in more detailed terms, the development parameters for the village, including the land use mix, design criteria and guidelines, circulation pattern, open space and recreation concept and infrastructure requirements. The plans for Village Six are contained in a series of documents, including: I) SPA Plan; 2) Planned Community District Regulations; 3) Village Design Plan; 4) Public Facilities Finance Plan; 5) Affordable Housing Program; 6) Air Quality Improvement Plan; 7) Water Conservation Plan; 8) Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan; and 9) Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan (Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan). A brief summary of each of these plans follows: a. SPA Plan The GDP policies for Village Six identify the village as an Urban Village adjacent to existing urban development and planned for transit-oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses in the village core. The multi-family residential uses are to be located in the core area in order to provide housing opportunities adjacent to the planned San Diego Trolley extension. The village core design is to be based on the "Main Street" theme as an identifying feature, which will be developed at a later date with the submittal, review and approval ofa Village Six Core Master Precise Plan. /0 ð/c - Page 5, Item: /ó6j c.- Meeting Date: 01/22/02 Village Six is not as constrained as other villages in the Otay Ranch because it does not have steep topography, easements crossing the village, sensitive habitat and adjacent sensitive receptors. Village Six and the surrounding areas were most recently used for grazing and dry farming, The only constraint to Village Six may be the proximity of SR-125 immediately to the east, which precludes entries from the east and, therefore, there are only three village entry points. In addition, SR-125 poses a future noise source along Village Six's easterly edge. To address this issue, noise walls will be built along the property line between Village Six and SR-125. rdeally, the village cores should be located at the geographic center of each village in order to best serve the entire population. Due to the rout of the trolley from Village Five to the Freeway Commercial area, the Village Six Core is located northeast of the geographic center of the village. In the case of Village Six, the trolley right-of-way crosses Olympic Parkway from Village Five, passes through the Core and continues to the east over SR-125 to the Freeway Commercial area. The current alignment has been coordinated with the Metropolitan Transportation Development Board. Because of the location of the trolley line, all multi-family neighborhoods are located within a v.. mile of the core with detached single- family generally around the edges of Village Six. There are three entries into Village Six: East Palomar Street off of Olympic Parkway across from Village Five, Street "J" off of La Media Road across from Village Two and Street "R" off of Birch Road across from Village Seven. Because of the adjacency of SR-125 to the east, an eastern entry into Village Six is precluded. However, the trolley will continue east from the Village Six Core on a bridge over SR-125 into Planning Area l2/Freeway Commercial where it will turn south, go into the Eastern Urban Center and the future University site. The design of the Village Six Core is based on the "Main Street" concept. As with Villages One and Five, there will be a transit stop with mixed-use development, CPF uses, an elementary school and a neighborhood park in c1ose proximity. Diagonal parking is proposed on the southwest side of East Palomar along the mixed-use frontage. A 7-acre neighborhood park and la-acre elementary are located to the southwest of the mixed-use area, while a CPF site and a common usable open space area will be located to the northeast of the Core. Multi-family will be located to the north, south, east and west of the transit stop. The single-family developments are located in the out-lying secondary areas of Village Six. In addition, another CPF site and private high school are located in the secondary area. The CPF site is located at the south-central entrance to Village Six at Street "R" and Birch Road and will contain a church. The private high school campus is located next to the CPF site. /06k -5' Page 6, Item: / ¡) 13 [.-I Meeting Date: 01/22/62 SPA Plan Analysis The land use plan for Village Six is consistent with the GDP goals and objectives for the Village Concept. Densities in the village core are higher supporting the future trolley and, along with the community services, are located within a y,-mile radius of the Village Six Core. Only 2,086 dwelling units of the 2,232 authorized in the Otay Ranch GDP are utilized under the proposed Village Six SPA Plan with the private high school. The Village Six Planned Community (PC) District Regulations function as zoning regulations for the village. The PC District Regulations provide standards and regulations to guide the development of the Project. These regulations are applied in conjunction with the Village Six Design Plan. i. Residential Land Uses Eight single-family residential neighborhoods are proposed which will contain 883 single-family residences ranging from 4.0 to 6.8 dwelling units per acre on lot sizes averaging from 3,400 square feet to 6,000 square feet. The Applicant proposes to include several pedestrian-oriented features to serve the single-family neighborhoods including the continuation of the Village Pathway which is a IS-foot wide, landscaped and themed pedestrian walking/cart trail that comes from Village Five to the Village Six Core and from there leads to Village Two to the west and Village Seven to the south. The Village Pathway will eventually connect all villages in the Otay Valley Parcel and is a major common element throughout the villages and planning areas, The Catholic Diocese proposes to construct a private high school serving 2,200 students and 150 staff in Neighborhood R-ll. The Diocese has requested a residential alternative to construct 146 detached single-family dwelling units in Neighborhood R-l I if the private high cannot be funded. With the private high school, the total number of dwelling units proposed in Village Six, according to the Site Utilization Plan (Attachment 5, SPA Plan, Exhibit 5, Page II.2.l-13) is 2,086. However, if Neighborhood R-ll is developed with the 146 dwelling units, there will be a SPA Plan total of2,232 dwelling units, which is the GDP- authorized number of dwellings. Five multi-family developments provide an additional 1,203 dwelling units, which range from 7.5 to 28.8 dwelling units per acre. These multi-family developments will incorporate a variety of housing types inc1uding alley-product homes, townhouses and apartments. Each of the multi-family developments will provide street frontage to enhance the pedestrian experience and provide human scale. rn higher density multi- family neighborhoods, individual pedestrian connections to some of the units will be provided as well. The following table illustrates a summary of the residential land uses in Village Six. /O$c. -~ Page 7, Item: /0 6, 6 Meeting Date: 01/22/02 NEIGHBORHOOD LAND TARGET DWELLING AREA USE ACREAGE DU'S/AC UNITS R-I SF 26.2 4.0 105 R-2a SF 19.7 4.4 87 R-2b SF 21.3 5.4 lIS R-3 SF 35.6 4.5 159 R-4 SF 20.4 4.5 92 R-5 SF 16.6 6.7 III R-6 SF 20.4 6.2 126 R-7a SF 12.9 6.8 88 SUBTOTAL SF SF 173.1 5.1 883 R-II AI!. SF 32.5 4.5 146 SUBTOTAL W/R-ll SF 205.6 5.0 1,029 R-7b MF 5.8 28.4 165 R-8 MF 11.7 28.8 337 R-9a MF 21.8 7.5 163 R-9b MF 12.7 25.7 326 R-IO MF 12.1 17.5 212 SUBTOTAL MF MF 64.1 18.8 1,203 TOTAL WO/R-ll RESIDENTIAL 237.2 8.8 2,086 TOTAL W/R-ll RESIDENTIAL 269.7 8.3 2,232 Residential Land Uses Analysis The single-family and multi-family residential components of the land use plan in Village Six are designed to provide a variety of housing types, lot sizes and densities consistent with the goals and objectives of the GDP as well as the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. Lot sizes for single-family homes will range from averages of 3,400 square feet to 6,000 square feet with densities ranging ITom 4.0 to 6.8 dwelling units per acre. The Planned Community District Regulations contain detailed requirements for the Zoning Administrator Site Plan and ArehileetumÎ Review ¡md for ¡he administrative Design Review for model home complexes. Design Review Committee approval of multi-family and commercial projects is required, The regulations will ensure that all of Village Six is built in accordance with the principles and other criteria contained in the Village Design Plan. ii. Mixed-Use Commercial -7 Page 8, Item: /0 ~,V Meeting Date: 01122 02 As with all villages in the Otay Valley Parcel, Village Six will contain a mixed-use commercial core. This area is 3.0 acres in size and is intended to serve the day-to-day retail needs of the residents of Village Six. The mixed-use area will be more thoroughly examined when the Village Six Core Master Precise Plan is submitted by the Otay Ranch Company. A future SPA amendment will be processed to allocate residential units to the mixed-use site similar to SPA One process. Mixed-Use Commercial Analysis The 3.0-acre mixed-use area in Village Six is consistent with the GDP policies for the Village Core since commercial uses will be available for the day-to-day needs of the Village Six residents. The SPA Plan provides for a mixed-use area that will be refined at a future date and will be included in the Village Six Core Master Precise Plan. The design of the Village core will be analyzed in relationship to the GDP village policies. iii. Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) The Village Six Project is obligated to provide Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) pursuant to the Planned Community Zone of the City Zoning Ordinance. The PC zone requires 1.39 acres of CPF land per 1,000 persons. Based on the approximate GDP population of 6,336 persons in Village Six, the CPF land acreage requirement is 8.8 acres. The Otay Ranch Company is proposing a 5.2-acre CPF facility in the Village Core. The Catholic Diocese will also provide a second I 1.5-acre CPF site on the south central side of the village at the northeast corner of Street "R" and Birch Road next to the R-IIIS-2 private high school site. The Catholic Diocese is proposing to build a church on this CPF site next to the private high school. In addition to these two proposed CPF sites, the developers of Village Six are required to install three common usable open space (CUOS) areas that serve the residential neighborhoods of Village Six in conformance with the City Design Manual. These CUOS areas are required due to the large number of small lot single-family neighborhoods proposed in the project. The CUOS include passive and active recreation amenities such as tables, shaded seating areas, barbecues, courts and tot lots (page 1-3, City Design Manual). Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) Analysis The City has reviewed the permitted use of a "Recreational Facility" (for non-profit organizations) authorized in the CPF Ordinance of the Planned Community (PC) Zone. During the review of the Village I I SPA Plan, Brookfield Shea Otay requested their common useable open space that is maintained by a Master Homeowner's Association be permitted as a CPF use. After reviewing the recent CPF amendment for the EastLake Little League fields, staff determined that the privately owned Village 11 recreation /è Page 9, Item: /0.6, c.- Meeting Date: 01/22/02 facilities qualify as a CPF land use. The CPF credit for Village Six focuses on the ownership of the COOS. Otay Ranch Company is proposing that a homeowner's association own their CUOS sites while McMillin proposes their site be owned by the community facilities district (CFD). CFD's are public entities and in staffs opinion do' not qualify as a non-profit entity envisioned by the CPF zone amendment. This issue will be resolved at the tentative map level. McMillin has indicated they will propose a PC zone ordinance amendment to allow public entities to qualify for CPF credit. iv. Elementary School The 10-acre elementary school is located in the center of the village in order to provide close access ITom all locations in the village. The elementary school is also located next to the 7-acre neighborhood park to provide additional common uses between the school and the public park. The pedestrian-oriented design theme for Village Six allows for children attending the elementary school to walk to it rather than taking a bus. The Village Pathway and other trail connections will provide pedestrian access to the elementary school in the Village from Streets "R" and "J." Elementary School Analysis A I O-acre elementary school will be provided in Village Six. The location of and access to the school is consistent with the goals and objectives of the GDP. Locating an elementary school in Village Six is consistent with the facility needs of the Chula Vista Elementary School District. Access to the site from both Streets "J" and "R" has been reviewed and accepted by the school district. The developers have been conditioned to grade the school site in the first phase so it can be conveyed to the elementary school district as soon as the district needs the site to meet their threshold standards. v. Private High School The Catholic Diocese is proposing the construction of a private high school on 32.5 acres of land at the southeast quadrant of Village Six. The school is planned to comprised of 245,000 square feet of building area on a campus for 2,200 students, 150 faculty and 50 support staff. The campus will include buildings for administration, a library, fine arts, student support, classrooms and a gymnasium, and athletic facilities for football/soccer, baseball, softball, track and tennis. In order to avoid congestion in the Village Core around the elementary school, primary access to the private high school will be via an entrance from Birch Road just east of Street "R". Although there is an entrance off of Street "R" in the vicinity of the elementary school, this is a secondary access point. Private High School Analysis /0 -r¡ Page 10, Item: /06,6 Meeting Date: 01122/02 The Village Six SPA Plan specifies that private schools are a conditionally permitted use in residential neighborhoods, subject to design review, rn this case, the proposed private high is to be located in Neighborhood R-l I and will supplant 146 dwelling units. Private schools have been allowed as conditionally permitted uses in other SPA plans in the City. In addition, these sites require Design Review Committee approval. A private high school in Neighborhood R-I I can be considered consistent with the provisions of the Otay Ranch GDP since private schools are normally found in residential neighborhoods elsewhere in the City. The Diocese has acquired the land from the McMillin Companies and is concerned about the future approval process. Staff suggested that a complete description of the design and operation of the high school be part of the SPA Plan so that the use permit application can be analyzed in relationship to it. The high school use is described in the SPA Plan and a conceptual design was provide in the Village Design Plan. McMillin has proposed in the PC District Regulations that the Zoning Administrator approve the high school use permit. Staff, however, believes the facility is of sufficient size to warrant approval by the City Council. This requirement has, therefore, been included in the conditions of approval. Pursuant to the conditions of approval, the location, access points and circulation within and around the private high school would be reviewed when the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review applications are submitted to the City for processing. vi. Circulation The Village Six Circulation Plan (see SPA Plan, Page rI.2.3-4) details the hierarchy of vehicular circulation for internal neighborhood residential streets, promenade streets, village entry streets, and the roadways that define the boundary of Village Six: major streets, prime arterials and a freeway. Vehicular traffic, while important for the circulation in all Otay Ranch villages, is considered secondary to pedestrian traffic. Design alternatives that provide wider-than-normal pedestrian pathways, which were adopted with the original Otay Ranch GDP, have been implemented with the Project. Streets are designed to be narrower to reduce vehicle speeds, and the wide-spread use of dead-end cul-de-sacs is discouraged as being non-pedestrian friendly. Four Circulation Element roadways surround Village Six: SR-125, the proposed freeway which defines the eastern boundarY of Village Six: Olympic Parkway, which continues to be a "Scenic Corridor" and a Six-Lane Prime Arterial roadway, including its unique landscape theme, on the north; La Media Road, also a Six-Lane Prime Arterial, on the west: and Birch Road, a Six-Lane Major Street, on the south. Access to Village Six is provided from three Village Entry Streets: East Palomar Street, which serves as the main entry point, from Olympic Parkway on the north, Street "J" from La Media Road on the west and Street "R" from Birch Road on the south. Access to SR-125 is provided from the future Olympic Parkway and Birch Road interchanges. A /0 Page II,Item: /ð6~v Meeting Date: 01/22/02 Transit Village Entry Street for East Palomar and a Secondary Village Entry Street for Streets "J" and "R" provide the entrance into the Village, The Secondary Village Entry Streets extend about 500' into the village, at which point the median is eliminated and the streets become promenade streets. In order to connect the Village Six Core to the residential areas, three types of Promenade Streets are provided. Streets "J" and "R" south of East Palomar are Village Promenade Streets, Street "r" is a Residential Promenade Street and Streets "I" and "R" north of East Palomar are Core Promenade Streets. The Village Promenade streets in Village Six are 32 feet curb-to-curb with two 12-foot travel lanes and one 8-foot parking lane on one side of the street. The Core Promenade Streets "r" and "R" north of East Palomar Street are 36 feet wide and provide two l2-foot travel lanes and two 6-foot parking lanes. The promenade streets are wider than those built in Villages One and Five. The right-of-way for the promenade streets depends on the location and width of the Village Pathway, which is either 10 or IS feet wide. The Residential Streets consists of two types: Parkway Residential Streets and Alleys. All single-family neighborhoods are served by Parkway Residential Streets that are 32 feet wide curb-to-curb and allow parking on both sides. Alleys are 20 feet wide and paved with concrete consistent with City standards. Circulation Analysis The Village Six internal traffic study indicated that the three points of vehicular access to Village Six from Olympic Parkway, La Media Road and Birch Road are sufficient to provide adequate access to the village. The Promenade Streets provide connectivity throughout the Village to the core. All street designs, including curb-to-curb width conform to and implement the GDP Mobility policies and pedestrian-oriented design features. Based on the City's experience with Villages One and Five, staff has required wider promenade streets and at least two access points into each neighborhood. These access points plus the grid system within the neighborhoods will be provided on the tentative maps. Both the Police and Fire Departments have reviewed the internal circulation and access and believe the circulation system addresses their requirements. vii. Transit The proposed Transit Plan for Village Six consists of trolley and bus stops based on "Yellow Car", "Red Car", "Blue Car" and "Green Car" service concepts created by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), transit services to and within the City of Chula Vista. The Yellow Car is a regionally serving mode with fewer stops than the Red Car. One Yellow Car stop in the Eastern Urban Center is anticipated for the Otay Ranch. The Red Car is generally based on the San Diego Trolley and right-of-way is provided for this mode in East Palomar. A transit stop for the Red Car is planned for the Page l2,Item: /O6,v Meeting Date: 01/22/02 Village Six core. The Blue Car is based on local buses, which will stop at the transit station in the Village Six Core, The Green Car represents local circulators using mini to mid-size buses, The Green Car would act as a collector and provide feeder access to the Village Six Core. These four levels of service are planned to work together to provide improved service within the local village area and the region, and will compliment longer trips provided by Chula Vista Transit buses and regional fixed rail. The Transit First Planning Program will analyze transit service in the coming year. Transit Analysis A conceptual Transit Plan for Village Six has been prepared (see SPA Plan, Exhibit 14, Page II.2.3-14) consistent with the requirements of the SPA Plan and the policies of the GDP. Several transit stops, both bus and fixed-rail, are located within Village Six. The "Transit First" Planning Program will analyze transit service in the coming year. b. Planned Community District Regulations The Planned Community District Regulations will be adopted by ordinance as the zoning regulations for Village Six. These regulations set the development and land use standards for all property within the village for setbacks, building height, parking, landscape, lot sizes and sign regulations. These regulations contain the standards that implement the pedestrian orientated goals and design guidelines for the Village. Villages One and Five (SPA One) in Otay Ranch were the first villages designed for pedestrian-orientation based on the "Village Concept" as described in the Otay Ranch GDP. Both villages are c1ose to being built out, and have been successful at implementing the goals and objectives of the GDP. Staff believes, however, that through improved development standards, we can make future villages even more successful. To this end, staff has worked closely with both McMillin and Otay Ranch Company to refine the standards which are reflected in the Village Six Planned Community District Regulations. The standards for Village Six are more specific and have increased the requirements for pedestrian-oriented design over those found in SPA One for Villages One and Five. A definition of the goals and principals for pedestrian-oriented design has been included in the ViIlage Design Plan. Specifics such as garage setbacks from the streets for single-family residences have been increased. Also, the requirements have been increased to require pedestrian-oriented features on a greater number of all single-family residential units. The balance of homes are required to have strong entry features. Pedestrian-oriented architectural designs appear in Village Six in the form of porches, verandas, balconies and courtyards. These features are required to be the dominant architectural feature of the structure, rather than the garage. .~-_.._-~.>O_.._._------ Page 13,Item: /06,6 Meeting Date: 01/22/02 Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for single-family residences have increased from SPA One ITom 50% to 65% but will produce less intensive development. This reduction is because the requirement in SPA One was for 50% or a maximum of 4,SOO square feet, whichever was greater. In the vast majority of cases in SPA One, the maximum square footage was used, which in some cases led to a FAR greater than 70%. The Village Six SPA Plan FARs do not have an associated maximum square footage option. The City Council expressed concerns over the intensive development on the small lots in the master planned communities. Council directed staff to review the standards and find a solution to the intensity of the small lot single-family developments. Staff discussed this issue at length with the developers of the Otay Ranch. McMillin's proposed solution to the issue is to require a "Sky Exposure Plane" (see SPA Plan, PC District Regulations, Exhibit PC-2, Page 11.3-13). This standard requires second-story elements on one side of the house to be angled away ITom the neighboring property at a minimum 450 angle. The Sky Exposure Plane will result in either hip roofs or in an increased distance between houses. Staff believes this will address the City Council's concern in a simple and straight forward manner but not restrict the design options of the architect when developing architectural renderings for single-family homes. Single-family residences with three-car garages have been further restricted from but not eliminated ITom the SPA Plan. Three-car front-loaded garages off the street have been restricted to those neighborhoods with 60-foot wide lots with strict design requirements including additional standards for off-set garage doors, landscaping and architectural enhancements limited to one model in two neighborhoods, R-l and R-4. Other three-car designs are also restricted to "tandem" style or side-loaded for a "split" garage style. Based on the SPA One experience, three-car side-loaded styles have been eliminated due to the large amount of concrete paving one can observe in the front yard. Planned Community District Regulations Analysis The PC District Regulations have been refined since SPA One for Villages One and Five and are more pedestrian-oriented than before, further implementing the GDP goals and policies. Requirements for pedestrian-oriented design features have been increased in Village Six over those initiated in SPA One. c. Village Design Plan The Village Six SPA Plan and supporting Village Design Plan implement the design guidelines ITom the GDP "Village Concept" and the GDP Overall Design Plan. The Village Six Village Design Plan provides more detail and identifies the procedures for implementation of these documents. The design elements identified in the Village Six SPA Village Design Plan reflect the GDP policies but are more location-specific for Village Six. The GDP discusses the Village Concept for Otay Ranch and establishes the following policies for the "Core" area - the heart of each village: /o.ßlc. -/3 Page 14,Item:/I?Ó,ú Meeting Date: 01/22/02 Establish a unique character and sense of place within each village; . Land uses, roads and buildings shall be designed and located to encourage walking between uses and foster a pedestrian scale; and, Encourage a pedestrian-friendly village environment through the use of amenities such as: shade trees, street furniture, on-street parking, buildings fronting the streets, narrow streets, reduced design speeds, visible landmarks, entries and porches facing the street, commercial areas with decreased setbacks, plazas and courtyards in commercial areas and multi-modal circulation systems. The theme for Village Six is centered on the "California Heritage" architectural design concept established in Villages One and Five, which will be continued through the design criteria described in the Village Six Design Plan. Landscape and architectural elements ranging from Village Entry monuments to public buildings will incorporate the unique flavor of the California Heritage influence throughout the design of the village. The California Heritage design theme can embrace a variety of specific styles: Spanish Colonial, Mission, Ranch House, Bungalow, Moorish, Agrarian, Craftsman, etc. rn general, California Heritage architecture reflects the climate and materials indigenous to Southern California, which is generally relaxed, simple and somewhat rustic. The Village Six Design Plan offers more information on design specifics than was provided in SPA One for Villages One and Five. Sample plot plans of both single-family and multifamily products have been included in the plan indicating porch, front door and garage locations which are key to ensuring pedestrian orientation of the residential units. The Village Design Plan also provides a conceptual layout of the private high school. The school buildings are located toward the residential neighborhoods on the conceptual plan and the sports fields, including the lighted football field, are located toward the freeway and Birch Road. Village Design Plan Analysis The design theme for Village Six, which focuses on a "California Heritage" architectural framework for its communitv buildings in the village core. is detailed in the Village Six Design Plan. This document describes the design requirements for the entire village, consistent with the policies of the Otay Ranch GDP. The Village Six Design Plan represents a significant advancement in design of homes, community buildings and businesses from SP A One in order to meet a higher standard of pedestrian-oriented design for the Project. The purpose of the guidelines in the Village Six Design Plan is to guide the design of site plans, architecture and landscape architecture within the Project area. The residential design guidelines for Village Six were prepared utilizing the SPA One development as a base. The Applicant has added design features that promote pedestrian orientation including increased /661 -1'-1 Page l5,Item: /1J¡3J:~ Meeting Date: 01/22/02 single-family homes requirements for porches and other seating areas, as well as limited garage-oriented single-family homes. In addition to the styles listed in the previous section, the styles of single-family homes may also include American Colonial, Monterey and Spanish Revival architecture. Principle design criteria features include single-story elements, recessed front second-story, rear articulation, porches, verandas, balconies, roof forms, wrapping trim, garage treatments, variable garage setbacks and plotting and massing criteria as required in the Village Six Planned Community District Regulations. Special attention will also be devoted to enhancement of those side and rear house elevations, which are exposed to public view. Basic enhancement techniques include different roof planes intersecting at right angles, single-story element for a part of the house and off-set planes on the rear elevation. Rear elevation enhancement techniques include balconies, window pop-outs, recessed windows, enhanced window surrounds, window shutters, cornices at rear eaves and other criteria. Housing at the development edge will require special attention such as designing homes with different roof forms, interspersing single-story homes and other techniques to avoid ridgeline monotony. A greater emphasis on the design of multi-family developments will be used as well. The Applicant has detailed examples in the Village Design Plan. The design of these units will increase the front-door pedestrian connections on many of the multi-family developments in the Village Core. The multi-family, retail and commercial developments in the Village Core will be guided by the Village Design Plan criteria for site planning, architecture, building material and colors and special conditions. A separate "Master Precise Plan" for the Village Six Core will be prepared by the developer of that area prior to Design Review Committee approvals for any ofthe projects in the Village Core. The future private high school CUP application will be reviewed for consistency with the conceptual design in the Village Design Plan. d. Public Facilities Finance Plan Village Six includes a separate Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP), which implements the standards and policies for infrastructure improvements and demands for public service and the funding for such services. The PFFP also compares the Village Six development with the City Growth Management Program and Ordinance. The Village Six PFFP describes in detail the public facilities that are required for the development of 2,086 dwelling units for the village (2,232 if R-I I is developed as residential), and analyzes the phasing and thresholds for development. The intent of the PFFP is to ensure that development phasing of the village and the funding of infrastructure is consistent with the requirements of the City's General Plan for required public facilities and infrastructure, as well as compliance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance. /0 de -/S Page 16, Item: 10(3, c.... Meeting Date: 01/22/02 Public facilities and inITastructure such as water supply, sewer service, storm and drainage systems and roads and streets are analyzed in the development of the village. Other public facilities and services that are required for the village include: schools, child care facilities, police, fire and emergency services, and library and other social services. The PFFP also evaluates the demands on public facility services based on the estimated village population and phasing of development. Village Six will be developed in non-sequential phases, depending on which developer is ready to build first. Because two major developers own Village Six, the McMillin Company and the Otay Ranch Company, the phasing will be non-sequential in order to allow for the implementation of each developers' business plan. However, certain sites or facilities, such as the elementary school and the neighborhood park, even though on Otay Ranch Company-owned land, will be developed by the McMillin Company if they proceed faster than the Otay Ranch Company. rfMcMillin develops their portion of Village Six faster the Otay Ranch Company, dwelling unit thresholds have been established that will require McMillin to grade the elementary school and park sites and/or to install emergency access via East Palomar. The reverse condition has also been required. If Otay Ranch Company proceeds faster, Otay Ranch Company may be required to install emergency access via La Media and Streets "1" and "R" even though that area is under McMillin ownership. The two developers have indicated that in their land swap agreements with each other that they have agreed to this level of cooperation. The Catholic Diocese has indicated the timing of the construction of the private high school is dependent on the construction schedule of SR-125. Because the private high school serves the regional population, the Diocese anticipates most students will arrive via SR-125 to Birch Road to the main entrance. Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) Analysis The Village Six Project has been evaluated for implementation of public facilities, public services and infrastructure through the Village Six Public Facilities Finance Plan. The Project has also been analyzed to ensure compliance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance. Thresholds have been established to require the Applicant to provide infrastructure improvements and grading of the elementary school and park sites as the village builds out. The transportation thresholds include the same limitation on the overa!1 number of units for the remaining capacity on the arterial streets as was applied to EastLake and Village 11 SPA Plans. Standards adopted by City Policy require that the Project be thus analyzed to determine whether the approval of the project, as conditioned, will have an adverse impact on the City's adopted threshold standards. The fiscal analysis conducted as part of the Village Six PFFP indicates that the village will generate a surplus until the third year. The change is caused by the increase in population and, therefore, services required, when the multi-family residential units with lower property Page 17, Item: /Ò6¡C- Meeting Date: 01/22/02 tax revenue streams are constructed and occupied. The analysis was based on City standard fiscal assumptions and did not take into consideration the Property Tax Agreement with the County, When the SO% property tax split is assumed, the deficit is covered. rn addition, the Village Six SPA conditions of approval require the village to participate in the Otay Ranch Reserve Fund, which has been established to fund the update of the FIND Model and to reduce any deficit generated by the development of the Otay Ranch. There will not be a deficit under current conditions or in the future. A review of Final ElR 98-01, Village Six PFFP and other supporting Village Six SPA documents provide evidence that the project is consistent with the adopted threshold standards of the City including the Growth Management Ordinance. An analysis of thresholds is contained in the environmental document Final EIR-98-01 and the Village Six Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP). c. Affordable Housing Plan Consistent with the requirements of the General Plan's Housing Element and the Otay Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Program, the Village Six Project is required to provide affordable housing opportunities through the development of moderate and low-income housing in the village. A separate Affordable Housing Plan has been prepared with the Village Six SPA Plan, which requires a subsequent agreement between the Applicant and the City. In general, 10% of the dwelling unit total must be developed as affordable housing. Village Six would normally require 209 dwelling units to be dedicated to affordable housing, half of which must be for low-income (105) and half of which must be for moderate-income families. rn the case of Village Six, both major developers, the McMillin Company and the Otay Ranch Company, have affordable housing credits, which they earned in previous residential developments in Chula Vista by providing more affordable housing units than required. The McMillin Company's obligation in Village Six is for a total of 70 affordable (35 moderate- and 35 low-income) for-sale or rental housing units, Because of low-income credits, McMillin has from Rancho del Rey (17) and Village Five (12) their low-income affordable housing obligation for Village Six is six units. McMillin is proposing to fulfill their obligation for low-income affordable housing by providing Accessory Second Units in single-family detached product neighborhoods. The McMillin proposal is to provide one model in Neighborhood R-I or R-3 that will have an option for an accessory unit. McMillin is willing to cap the number of secondary units at the same number as the Otay Ranch Company. The City's traffic consultant has determined that an additional 200 secondary units be split evenly between the McMillin and Otay Ranch companies. McMillin has agreed to a IOO-unit cap for either R-I or R-3. Final number of the /0 Page 18, Item: /0/3 c.. Meeting Date: 01/22/02 cap will be in the affordable housing agreement. These accessory units are considered in the GDP as a viable form of affordable housing that have yet to be used in the Otay Ranch. The reporting requirements on affordability for six of these accessory units would be onerous for the individual property owners. So staff has assumed that within the 100 units at least six will be affordable. The 35 moderate-income units are proposed to be located in Neighborhood R- IO, McMillin's townhouse development. For Otay Ranch Company the obligation for 134 affordable housing units (67 moderate- and 67 low-income units) was satisfied by the mixed-use project in the Village One Core. The Otay Ranch Company would like to provide secondary units in either R-2a ofR-2b. Staff has proposed that 100 accessory units be limited to these two neighborhoods. Moderate affordable units will be located in Neighborhoods R- 7b, R-8 and/or R-9b. Affordable Housing Plan Analysis Except for McMillin's six-unit obligation, the Village Six affordable housing obligation has been satisfied in Villages One and Five or in the Rancho del Rey project. The provision of accessory second units for affordable housing is a goal of the Otay Ranch GDP and is consistent with the GDP affordable housing policies. Limiting the number of accessory units will ensure public facilities thresholds are maintained. The SPA housing plan complies with the requirements and policies of the Otay Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Program and the General Plan's Housing Element. The Applicant will be required to enter into a separate agreement with the City to ensure implementation of the affordable housing units. f. Air Quality Improvement Plan On November 14,2000, the City Council adopted the Carbon Dioxide (CO,) Reduction Plan, which included implementation measures regarding transportation, energy efficient land use planning and building construction measures for new development. It was recognized that the City's efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new developments are directly related to energy conservation and air quality. As a result, the City is initiating a pilot study in order to develop specific guidelines for the preparation of Air Quality rmprovement Plans. The pilot study involves the development of a computer model to evaluate the relative effectiveness of applying various site design and energy conservation features in new developments. The pilot study will analyze and produce the corresponding Air Quality Improvement Plan for the Village Six SPA project. Air Quality Improvement Plan Analysis The City's effort to develop guidelines for the preparation of an Air Quality rmprovement Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP. The attached City Council resolution contains a condition requiring the Applicant to process an amendment to the SPA incorporating the Air Quality Improvement Plan produced by the pilot study prior /0 Æ/c -If --,-- ..--- -- ,- --.-- Page 19, Item: !Ó6, r:... Meeting Date: 01/22/02 to, or concurrent with, the Project's Tentative Map or as otherwise directed by the Director of Planning and Building. g. Water Conservation Plan The City is in the process of developing guidelines for the preparation and implementation of Water Conservation Plans for each of the new planned communities in the City. This effort involves a pilot study to evaluate the relative effectiveness associated with the implementation of additional water conservation measures beyond those currently mandated in the Otay Ranch. The evaluation will encompass additional technical water saving devices, as well as expanded use of recycled water and possibly gray water. The pilot study will provide information to be used in finalizing a Water Conservation Plan for Village Six. Water Conservation Plan Analysis The City's effort to develop guidelines for the preparation of a Water Conservation Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP. The attached draft City Council Resolution contains a condition requiring the Applicant to file an amendment to the SPA Plan incorporating the Water Conservation Plan produced by the pilot study prior to, or concurrent with, the Project's first Tentative Map. h. Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan The Otay Ranch GDP requires a Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan for each SPA to address energy conservation within each village. This plan identifies the most feasible measures to reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy through land use and community design, transit facilities and alternative transportation modes, building siting and construction techniques. Transit-oriented development and pedestrian-friendly design of the village core are methods to reduce energy consumption. Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Analysis The preparation and implementation of a Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan for Village Six is consistent with the goals. objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GO? i. Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space The Village Six land use plan incorporates a pedestrian-oriented theme throughout the Village. This pedestrian orientation is connected through a network of parks, trails and common usable open space. Village Six has a total park obligation of 16,54 acres to meet the City park requirements. A 7.0-net acre public neighborhood park will be the major park element in Village Six. The 9.54-acre balance of parkland will be provided in the community /rJ --/9 Page 20, Item: /06, c.- Meeting Date: 01/22/02 parks. The McMillin Companies and the Otay Ranch Company will be required to either dedicate land within their ownership for the community parks or pay fees in-lieu of land. Community parks are currently planned in Villages Two, Ten and the EUc. Three additional Common Usable Open Space recreational facilities for the Village Six residents are planned: one between Neighborhoods R-l and R-3; one between Neighborhoods R-2a and R-2b; and one associated with CPF-1. Each of these is approximately 0.8 acre in size and must be developed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and provide appropriate amenities. The Village Pathway, the pedestrian corridor between all the villages in the Otay Valley Parcel, is located along the south side of East Palomar through the Village Core and the north sides of Streets "J" and "R in Village Six, The Village Pathway in Village Six is 15 feet wide from Village Five through the Village Six core, but narrows to I 0 feet along the park and school and into the residential neighborhoods. This refinement ITom SPA One was requested by McMillin to reduce the amount of pavement along the promenade streets. As required by the GDP, an average 75-foot wide open space buffer surrounds Village Six along the frontages of the major Circulation Element roads. rn all, there are approximately 24 acres of open space in and around Village Six. Two pedestrian bridges are planned for Village Six. One will link the Village Pathway to Village Two to the west at Street "J" and La Media Road, while the other one will link to Village Five to the north at East Palomar and Olympic Parkway. In addition to the Village Pathway, there are six pedestrian access points around or within Village Six. Five of these are planned at various points along the edges of Village Six to the Circulation Element roads. rn addition to these five access points, additional access is proposed from Neighborhood R-4 to Streets "J" and "R" that will serve that neighborhood and be in close proximity to the elementary and private high schools. The Otay Ranch GDP Resource Management Plan requires Village Six developers to convey land to the Otay Ranch Preserve. The development of I acre of land in Otay Ranch requires a dedication of 1.188-acres of land to the Otay Ranch Preserve with the approval of each Final Subdivision Map. Pursuant to the requirements, the Village Six obligation is approximately 364 acres of land that are to be dedicated to the Otay Ranch Preserve. Parh, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Analysis The location of Village Six in the Otay Valley Parcel presents some unique opportunities to provide connectivity to parks, recreation, trails and open space in the Village. A 7-acre net public neighborhood park next to the elementary school in the Village Core is in a centralized location within the Village. As provided for in the GDP, the balance of parkland will be /0 -~ Page21,Item: jO6,C- Meeting Date: 01/22/02 provided in the community parks. The developers will either dedicate land that is acceptable to the Parks and Recreation Director or pay fees under the Parkland Dedication ordinance. The three Common Usable Open Space areas scattered around Village Six will also provide additional passive and active recreational opportunities in the single-family neighborhoods. The requirement of land conveyance in the Project to the Otay Ranch Preserve is consistent with the requirements of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan. The system, which includes parks, recreation, trails and open space that are provided in Village Six, complies with the policies, goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP and Resource Management Plan. 4. Conclusion: Within Village Six, the proposed land uses and development intensities directly implement the provisions of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. All designated public facilities are located within the areas designated by the General Development Plan, and the permitted density and land use intensities are consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and City of Chula Vista General Plan. Staff recommends approval of the Village Six SPA Plan and related documents. FrSCAL IMPACT: The cost associated with processing the project is covered by the applicant's deposit account. With the 50% share of property tax from the tax agreement with the County and the participation in the Reserve Fund, deficits generated by the development of Village Six will be covered. Attachments 'I. "2. ,3. :4. . 5. Locator Map Planning Commission Resolution (PCM-99-05) Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2002 meeting Proposed Village Six SPA Plan Disclosure Statement H.IPLANNINGIOtay _Ran,h\v;)Jag' -",V6 SPA CC STAFF REPORT.dn' /06/C -.,,21 VILLAGE 7 PROIICT I \ l "\ lOCATION ~ I I ~/ ( C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR Ä~~~I~~1T: MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH LLC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C9 SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA Ä~g~~~1: OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 6 Request: Proposed SPA Plan for Village 6 for 2.232 SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: dwelling units on 386.4 acres for an urban village NORTH No Scale PCM-99-05 served by transit. ATTACHMENT 1 h:lhDmelplanningIDAlllocatorsIPCM9905.cdr 12/18/01 /0 t3lc - d.J-, RESOLUTION NO. PCM-99-05 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AND SUPPORTING REGULATORY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY 386 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS OT A Y RANCH, VILLAGE SIX WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No. ~ and described on Chula Vista Tract 02-03, and is commonly known as Otay Ranch, Village Six ("Property"); and, WHEREAS, an application for adoption of the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on October 13,1998 by The McMillin Companies ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Company, being joint owners of Village Six with the McMillin Companies, is a participant in the development and implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan and related documents; and WHEREAS, the application requests consideration of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and supporting regulatory documents inc1uding Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, and Affordable Housing Program involving approximately 386 acres ofland known as "Otay Ranch, Village Six" located in the north-central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, between the future extension alignment of Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, Birch Road and SR-125; and, WHEREAS, The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and determined that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment, therefore, a Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (ErR 98-0 I) has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay Ranch, VilJage six Sectional 1'Ianning Area (Si:' A) Plan (PCM-99-05) and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within SOO feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p,m. .T anuary 9, 2002 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter c1osed. /0 s;f; -=<3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan forOtay Ranch Village Six (PCM-99-l5) is consistent with the CityofChula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice support the approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (PCM-99-05) and supporting regulatory documents including Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, and Affordable Housing Program involving approximately 386 acres ofland known as "Otay Ranch, Village Six" located in the north- central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, between the future extension alignments of Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, Birch Road and SR-125 in accordance with the findings contained in the attached City Council Resolution No. .; and, And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. /0 (?jc, -0('1 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 9th day of January, 2002 by the following vote, to-wit: A )lES: O'Nèill, Hall, Cortes, McCann, Willett NOES: Castaneda, Thomas ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: 41, ,kev":' cJ Ul2ckf Kevin'O'Neill, Chair ATTEST: ~~S Diana Vargas, Secretary ð H.\PLANNINGIOtaLR,ochIViliage _6IV6 SPA PC RESOLUTION.doc /0 Planning Commission Minutes .4- january 9, 2002 2. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Consideration of the Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-01) for the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. b. PCM 99-05; Consideration of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities finance Plan, Affordable Housing Program and other regulatory documents for 2,232 dwelling units on approximately 386 acres in village Six of Otay Ranch located generally in the north central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of Olympic Parkway, east of La Media Road, north of Birch Road and west of future SR-125. Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager gave an overview of the project as presented in staff report. She reported that a Second Tier EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the project. The Final EIR contains responses to comments received during the public review period. The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental impacts that would result from the proposed SPA Plan and conceptual TMs. Some of these significant impacts can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others cannot be avoided by adoption offeasible miti9gation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives. In order to approve the proposed project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted. Project Level and cumulative impacts are identified and divided into three categories. They are: Significant and Unmitigated; these are either cumulative (project is combined with other projects) or regional in nature (beyond the sole control of the City of Chula Vista. They are: - Land Use (Cumulative) - Landform Alteration & Aesthetics (Cumulative) - Biological Resources (Cumulative) - Agricultural Resources (Cumulative) - Transportation. Circulation & Access - Air Quality (Project & Cumulative) Significant and Mitigated to Less than Significant; Mitigations measures required in the EIR would reduce the impact to less than significant. Landform alterations and aesthetics (project) Biological Resources (project) /odG-~(;, Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - January 9, 2002 Geological/Soils (project) Paleonotological Resources (project) Agricultural Resources (project) Water Resources & Water Quality (project & cumulative) Transportation Circulation & Access Cultural Resources (project & cumulative) Noise (project and cumulative) Water supply and facilities (project and cumulative) Sewer Service (project and cumulative) Integrated Waste Management (project and cumulative) Law Enforcement (project and cumulative) Fire Protection (project and cumulative) Schools (project and cumulative) Library Services (project and cumulative) Parks & Recreation (project and cumulative) Hazards/Rick of Upset (project and cumulative) Less than Significant Impacts Land use, Planning and Zoning (project) Housing and Population (project and cumulative) Geology and Soils (cumulative) Mineral Resources (project and cumulative) Gas/Electric Service (project and cumulative) At the time the Program EIR 90-01 was certified and adopted in October 1993 the City Council and Board of Supervisors jointly determined that substantial social environmental and economic benefits of the Otay Ranch project outweighed the significant and unmitigable impacts associated with the project and a Statement of Overriding Consideration was approved. Village Six will result in unmitigable impacts that would remain significant after the application of these measures, therefore in order to approve the project, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA. The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives and based on this examination, the City has determined that neither of the alternatives meets the project objectives, or is environmentally superior to the project. Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner, gave an overview of the project as presented in staff report. He further reported that the SPA Plan proposes 2,232 dwelling units on 386.4 acres of land in Village Six. The ownership is split between three property owners; McMillin Otay ranch, LLC, the Otay Ranch Company and the Catholic Diocese of San /0 Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - January 9, 2002 Diego. McMillin is proposing 482 single-family dwellings and 212 multi-family units on their portion of Village Six, while Otay ranch Company is proposing 401 single-family dwellings and 1,392 multi-family units. The Catholic Diocese is proposing a church on an 11.5 acre site and a 32.5 acre private high school in a neighborhood zoned residential. Commission Discussion: Chair O'Neill stated that with ownership of the land by the Diocese, it becomes tax exempt and was wondering what would happen if the plans for private high school fall out. Rick Rosaler responded that although this is out of the City's purview and he cannot speak for the Diocese, if the plans for the high school fall apart, they would most likely then sell the property to a merchant builder, at which time the tax exemption on the property would be removed. Cmr. O'Neill further stated that the accessory unit component, as part of satisfying the affordable housing requirement (six units), was innovative and in actuality a homeowner can qualify for more house with less income under this scenario. Additionally, whether one likes it or not, State law would allow a secondary unit (attached or detached) to go in later. Surprisingly, the plaintiff in the Santa Monica decision was the Coalition For Affordable Housing; apparently they seem to think there is some affordability that accrues from these accessory units. Commissioner Thomas stated he did not support the accessory unit in lieu of the six affordable housing units because the homeowner would be able to rent the unit at market rate, which would then defeat the purpose of calling it affordable. Commissioner Hall inquired about the progress the diocese is making in purchasing the land. Rick Rosaler responded that they have other sites under consideration and they are presently evaluating the Carmel Mountain site, however they are encountering some problems with the City of San Diego for that site and they will be looking next at the Otay Ranch site. The Diocese has stated that the school would not be open until SR 125 is built because this is 9. regional facility ane! people woule! neee! SR 125 to get to the school. Commissioner Hall expressed concern that within the Otay Ranch and Eastlake development, the City is not achieving the full realm of smart growth and asked if the plans for the private high school fall out, has the City considered commercial! industrial office park for that site, thereby creating a job base for Chula Vista residents. He Rick Rosaler stated that in 1993 the County of San Diego jointly approved the GDP and the plan envisioned Otay Mesa as being the employment base for the area. However, /0 Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - January 9, 2002 there are office uses focused into the Freeway Commercial and Eastern Urban Center, but not in the Villages. Additionally, Cmr. Hall stated that he would like to see a survey conducted of the residents in the eastern portion of the City in order to access whether they plan to use SR-125, knowing that it will be a toll road. Cmr. Hall further stated that he is concerned that regional jurisdictions and the development community believe that SR-125 will be the panacea for improving traffic conditions that currently exist and future conditions at build out. The fact that SR-125 will be a toll road, in his opinion, will be a deterrent for its use and, therefore, the region will not reap the optimal benefits of its usage. Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager, stated that although conducting a survey would be an excellent way to gauge the community, it would not be within the purview of an Environmental Impact Report, Commissioner O'Neill stated that the same concerns were expressed about the Coronado Bridge, which turned out to be unfounded. Furthermore, he stated that no one from eastern Chula Vista needs to use the toll road in order for it to be effective because SR-125 will effectively take the pre-load from the border off of 1-805, to the benefit of the residents of Chula Vista who use 1-805. Commissioner Castaneda stated that he concurs with Commissioner Hall's comments regarding the under-utilization of SR-125 and although he agrees with Chair O'Neill's comments on the Coronado Bridge, he believes that SR-125 is more analogous to the 73 toll road in Orange County, which has not met expectations in terms of reaching capacity. Additionally, although SR-125 may take some of the load off of 1-805 with traffic coming from the border, unless residents from eastern part of Chula Vista use the roll road, there are still going to be problems on surface streets. Commissioner Castaneda inquired if any consideration has been given to incorporate into the monthly Home Owners Association fee the cost for the transponder to the toll road. He further stated that it would be a lot more feasible to do it now, rather than later Alex AI-Agha, Sr. Civil Engineer, stated that the City has not conditioned this specific requirement on the entitlement process for any project in the past because it would be considered as a private matter between the HOA and the developer. Ann Moore, Sr. Assistant City Attorney stated that although this is an interesting concept, the City has limitations with respect to such a condition, however, the developer would have far more latitude to fashion such a provision in their HOA documents and perhaps include it as a line item in their HOA budget. /0 .elL -.Jj Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - january 9, 2002 Commissioner Castaneda expressed concern that Mitigation No. 5.10-7 contained in the EIR does not allow for more public input when adjustments or changes are made to the 9,429 traffic capacity threshold. Ann Moore responded that the language would be clarified stating that the City Council would be involved in a more formal review process for any adjustments to the 9,429 cap which limits the issuance of building permits for new dwelling units. Commissioner Castaneda stated that he shares Cmr. Thomas' concerns on the lack of control on afford ability of the accessory units. He is also concerned with potentially changing the make-up of a single family residential neighborhood and creating a multi- family neighborhood. He asked if there could be a requirement that states that the secondary unit must be attached to the existing home, thereby increasing the likelihood of these units being occupied by a family members. Rick Rosaler stated that the design regulations, as now written, allow a detached structure in the rear yard. Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification on the new legislation which requires developers to ensure water availability from the water authorities. Ms. Moore responded that the new legislation requires Cities to place a condition on the Tentative Map requiring the developer to acquire proof of water availability from the local water authority and present it to the City. Commissioner McCann stated that he is not as skeptical about the use of SR-125 and believes it will relieve some of the surface street traffic going to jobs located in Otay Mesa. Cmr. McCann stated he supports the project and believes it is a well-designed project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 8:05. Bob Pletcher McMillin Company, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City stated that they have 6 units of affordable housing that need to be satisfied and initially they had considered transferring the obligation to a future village and deal with it, as in most cases, within a large apartment unit complex, The GDP currently allows the accessory units, and the GDP and affordable housing policies encourage, at least, an attempt to come up with other options to satisfy these requirements. This proposal is not a final action and the City would need to be satisfied that the affordable housing requirements have been met. Mr. Pletcher addressed the comments made regarding the HOA collecting fees for the transponders. He indicated that SR-125 is a regional solution to a regional problem and to make a connection between an HOA and a regional requirement would not be appropriate. /° 6/c 30 Planning Commission Minutes - 9 - January 9, 2002 In closing, Mr. Pletcher stated that this is a project that has been in the planning stages since 1998 and they, as well as staff, have worked diligently in designing a quality project. Village 6 is a logical extension of existing development programmed for Otay Ranch, utilizing existing infrastructure that's already in place, particularly Olympic Parkway. This was a project that was envisioned to provide some of the funding and the commitment to construct Olympic Parkway, which is under construction. He, therefore, urged the Commission to approve the project. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:15. MSC (Willett/O'Neill) (6-1-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt: a. Resolution EIR 98-01 recommending the City Council certify that the final Second-Tier EIR (EIR 98-01) for the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; making certain findings of fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program with the following recommendation: That a clarification be made to Mitigation No. 5.10-7 stating that the any adjustments to the 9,429 cap would be considered by the City Council. Motion carried with Commissioner Thomas voting against the motion. MSC (Willett/O'Neill) (5-2-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt: b. Resolution PCM 99-05 recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Village Six SPA Plan and other regulatory documents including the Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Affordable Housing Program, Air Quality Improvement Plan, Water Conservation Plan, Non- Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, and adopt an Ordinance approving Planned Community District Regulations in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including the following Condition No. 51 contained in the SPA Conditions of Approval for Otay Ranch Village Six: "51 Due to the development standards established for the SPA Plan and accessory second units, accessory units are only allowed by Conditional Use Permit for specific models or units in Neighborhoods R-2a or R-2b (not to exceed a total of 100 units) and Neighborhood R-1 or R-3 (not to exceed a total of 100 units) which traffic impacts have been included in the EIR 98-01 analysis." Motion carried with Commissioners Castaneda and Thomas voting against the motion. /0 .--".- -.----. _. - ..- Exhibit "B" PCM-99-05: Otay Ranch, Village Six SPA Plan January 9, 2002 SPA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR OT A Y RANCH VILLAGE SIX I. 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(s) as to any or all of the Property. 2. rf any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived ITom the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. 3. Developer(s) shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless ITom and against any and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the Final Environmental Impact Report, FErR #98-01, for the Project and/or any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. 4. The Developer(s) shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City of Chula Vista including its General Plan; the City's Growth Management Ordinance; Otay Ranch General Development Plan; Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan; Overall Design Plan; Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan; Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and all supporting documents including: Village Six Village Design Plan; Village Six Public Facilities Finance Plan; Village Six SPA Parks, Recreation Open Space and Trails Plan; Village Six SPA Affordable Housing Plan and the Non- Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. 5. The Developer(s) acknowledge(s) that the City is in the process of conducting an Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) Pilot Study to evaluate various transportation and energy efficient land use planning and building construction measures for new development, and that the Project area is part of that Study. The Developer(s) further acknowledge(s} that the AQrp Pilot Study will inc1ude 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 and are to be included in the Project. 6. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the first Tentative Map for the Project, unless the Director of Planning and Building allows other timing, the Draft AQrp must be considered and acted upon by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Developer(s) hereby agree(s) to implement the final AQrp measures as approved by the City Council, and to comply and remain in compliance with the AQIP. /0 6/G.- 3.L Village Six SPA Plan Conditions of Approval 7. The Developer(s) acknowledges that the City Council may from time to time modify air quality improvement and energy conservation measures related to new development as various technologies and/or programs change or become available. The Developer(s) shall be required to modify the AQrp 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 that received Final Map approval prior to effect of the subject new measures. 8. The Developer(s) shall implement all mitigation measures identified in Final ErR #98-01, the Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact, for this Project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reports Program. 9. The Developer(s) shall comply with all requirements and policies of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993, and Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP2), including the Preserve Conveyance Schedule, as approved by City Council on June 4,1996, or as amended ITom time to time, and shall enter into an agreement with the City prior to the approval of the first Tentative Map for this Project, in order to implement the provisions of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan. 10. The Developer(s) shall convey fee title, or upon the consent of the Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) and any lien holder, an easement restricting use of the land to those permitted by the RMP, to the POM upon the recordation of each final map for an amount of land equal to the final map's obligation to convey land to the Preserve, as required by the RMP. Where an easement is conveyed, the Developer(s) shall be required to provide subordination of any prior lien holders in order to ensure that the POM has a first priority interest in such land. Where consent and subordination cannot be obtained, the Developer(s) shall convey fee title. Where fee title or an easement is conveyed, each tentative map shall be subject to a condition that the Developer(s) shall execute a maintenance agreement with the POM stating that it is the responsibility of the Developer(s) to maintain the conveyed parcel until the Preserve Community Facility District has generated sufficient revenues to enable the POM to assume maintenance responsibilities. Where an easement is granted, each tentative map is subject to a condition that fee title shall be granted upon demand by the POM. 11- Improvement Area "A" of the existing Preserve Maintenance District (Communitv Facility District 97-2) shall include the Village 6 project area prior to the first final map. 12. The Developer(s) shall obtain any necessary permits and comply with any applicable requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game, the u.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. rfrequired, Developer(s) shall apply for and receive a take permit/authorization ITom the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game or comply with the approved City of Chula Page 2 of 12 ~ -33 r'" ----"..---..-...-- -----.----- Village Six SPA Plan Conditions of Approval Vista MSCP Subarea Plan or other equivalent take permit/authorization applicable to the Project. 13. Developer(s) acknowledge that transfer of dwelling units from one neighborhood to another within the Village Six SPA limits may be processed administratively if: a. The proposed unit count for all parcels remains within the density range(s) indicated in the General Development Plan for the land use category in which the subject neighborhoods fall; b. The proposed product types are consistent with those listed for each parcel on the Site Utilization Plan; and c. The GDP or SPA total number of dwelling units is not exceeded, whichever is more restrictive. Modifications which are not consistent with all these criteria shall require a formal SPA Plan amendment. Should such a transfer be approved, applicable statistics and maps in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Village Six SPA Plan shall be revised as an administrative matter without the necessity of a formal plan amendment. 14. Developer(s) acknowledge that approval of the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan does not constitute approval of the final lot configurations, grading, or street designs shown within the SPA plan. Modifications must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building, the Planning Commission or the City Council during the tentative subdivision map process. The ultimate total number of dwelling units for Village Six, resulting ITom more specific Tentative Map and Final Map planning and analysis, and/or the Site Plan/Design Review process, may cause a redistribution or a reduction in the number of total units as described in the Village Six SPA Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan. 15. The Developer(s) shall secure approval of a Master Precise Plan for the Village Six Core Area, prior to or concurrent with submitting any development proposals for commercial, multi-family and Community Purpose Facility areas within the ViIiage Six Core as described in the Village Six SPA Plan, except as related to neighborhood R-IO which will be addressed in the Village Design Plan. 16. Street cross sections shall conform to those standards contained in the Village Six SPA Plan. All other design criteria shall conform to the Otay Ranch Street Sections contained in the document entitled Design Standards and the Subdivision Manual both as amended ITom time to time, ("City Design Standards"). Any proposed variations ITom the City Design Standards, which are not addressed in the SPA Plan shall be subject to approval by the City and indicated on the appropriate tentative subdivision map. 17. As directed by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, the Developer(s) shall construct a pedestrian bridge connecting Village Six to Village Five in Page 3 of 12 /0 VilJage Six SPA Plan Conditions of Approval the vicinity of East Palomar Street crossing over Olympic Parkway at a location directed by the Directors of Planning and Building, and Public Works. The timing of the construction of said bridge shall coincide with the improvement of East Palomar Street between Olympic Parkway and the Village 6 Core. rn addition, Developer(s) shall: a. Prior to approval of the first final map that triggers the construction of improvements of East Palomar Street, enter into an agreement to construct said bridge; . b. Further agree to fund half of the cost of constructing the pedestrian bridge and shall cooperate with the City in order to establish, concurrently with the approval of the first final "B" map within Village 6, a development impact fee, or other funding mechanism to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to fund Developer(s') fair share of said bridge. The Developer shall not object to being inc1uded in said Development rmpact Fee program. The Developer(s) shall be solely responsible for the construction of said bridge. c. All elements of bridge design, including style, color, lighting, etc., shall be included in all cost calculations, said bridge design being the same as the bridge connecting Village One to Village Five over La Media Road. 18. Developer shall agree to fund half of the cost of constructing a pedestrian bridge connecting Village 6 with Village 2 over La Media Rd. in the vicinity of Santa Venetia Street and shall cooperate with the City in order to establish, concurrently with the approval of the first final "B" map within Village 6, a development impact fee, or other funding mechanism to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to fund Developer(s') fair share of said bridge. The Developer shall not object to being included in said Development Impact Fee program. The timing of the construction of said bridge shall be determined by the City and shall be a condition of approval of the first tentative map in Village 2. 19. Prior to the approval of the first final map, Developer(s) shall provide at Developer(s) own expense and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer a Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report, that: 1) determines the constmction cost estimate for the bridges; 2) establishes the DIF area of benefit; and 3) establishes the DIF amount. At the sole discretion of the City, the Developer(s) may submit for approval by the City Engineer an update to the existing SPA One Pedestrian Bridge Development rmpact Fee Report dated November 6, 1998 that adds the Village 6 project to the area of benefit and adjusts the fee as necessary and takes account of bridge design, including style, color, lighting, etc., in all cost calculations, said bridge design being the same as the bridge connecting Village One to Village Five over La Media Road /0 dc--3S Page 4 of 12 Village Six SPA Plan Conditions of Approval 20. Development of the Project 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 runoff 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 Developers shall file a Notice ofIntent 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 be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, and 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 Developers 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. Developers shall design the Project's storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 21. Prior to the approval of the first final map for the Project, or issuance of the first grading permit for the Project, whichever occurs earlier, each Developer shall, separately and individually, enter into agreements, which shall run with each Developers' land, with the City ofChula Vista, wherein the Developer(s) agree 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, inc1uding revision of plans as necessary. b. Indel11l1ify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all fines, costs, and expenses arising out of non- compliance with the requirements of the NPDES regulations, in connection with the execution of any construction and/or grading work for each Developers' respective portion of the Project, whether the non-compliance results from any action by the Developers, any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others. The Developers' 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. CASOl08758 Municipal Permit as determined by the City Engineer. Page 5 of 12 /o6L ...__.~_._-_. ..-_.~_.__._-_.- Village Six SPA Plan Conditions of Approval 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 monitoring ofNPDES 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. 22. Prior to approval of the first Tentative Map for the Project the Developer(s) shall provide a Sub Area Master Plan (SAMP) for Village Six, as approved by Otay Water District (OWD), which will also inc1ude an analysis of recycled water for open space slopes. When said SAMP is approved, the Developer(s) shall provide the water and recycled water improvements in accordance with the SAMP. The SAMP shall be consistent with the SPA Plan. rf the SAMP is inconsistent with the SPA Plan, upon request of the City Engineer the Developer(s) shall be responsible for obtaining the approval by OWD of any amendment to the Village Six SAMP in order for the Village Six SAMP to be consistent with the approved SPA Plan 23. The Developer(s) shall pay fees or have credits applied in accordance with the City of Chula Vista ordinance or provide trunk sewer improvements to Poggi Canyon trunk sewers as indicated in the McMilIin-Otay Ranch Village 6 Sewer Study (August 23, 2001) and Overview of Sewer Service for The Otay Ranch Company Village Six (Village Six Sewer Reports) (August 2001) or as may be amended from time to time by the Developers as approved by the Director of Public Works. The Village Six Sewer Reports shall be consistent with the approved SPA Plan. The Developers shall be responsible for obtaining the approval of any amendment to the Village Six Sewer Reports in order for the Village Six Sewer Reports to be consistent with the approved SPA Plan, upon request of the City Engineer. 24. The Developer(s) acknowledge(s) 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 Deve1oper(s) further acknowledge(s) that the WCP Pilot Study will inc1ude cost effectiveness and feasibility analyses of the various measures under consideration, and will result in recommending which measures are to be included in the Project. 25. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the first Tentative Map for the Proiect, unless the Director of Planning and Building allows other timing, the Deve1oper(s) shall have prepared, submitted and obtained the approval of the Planning Commission and City Council of a WCP for the Project which incorporates the Pilot Study recommendations. The Developer(s) hereby agree(s) to implement the final WCP measures as approved by the City Council, and to comply and remain in compliance with the WCP. 26. The Developer(s) acknowledge(s) that the City Council may ITom time to time modify water conservation measures related to new development as various technologies and/or /õ &é -.37 Page 6 of 12 r'~ - -.. ----..---- ---~ Village Six SPA Plan Conditions of Approval programs change or become available. The Developer(s) 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 Final Map areas, but shall not be retroactive to those areas that received Final Map approval prior to effect of the subject new measures. 27. Developer(s) shall acknowledge and agree that the City is in the process of preparing and adopting a Citywide Parks Master Plan, and agree to comply with the provisions of said plan as adopted and as it affects facilities and other related requirements for the Project's parks. 28. The Developer(s) acknowledge and agree to comply with the provisions of the City-wide Greenbelt Trails Master Plan, currently in the process of being prepared by the City, and to modify the Project as necessary in order to comply with, and remain in compliance with, the adopted Greenbelt Trails Master Plan. 29. Developer(s) agrees to immediately relocate, at Developer(s)'s sole expense, the necessary above and/or underground utilities to accommodate the required street trees within the street tree planting easement if determined necessary by the Director of Parks and Recreation or the City Engineer. 30. The Village Six Project shall satisfy the requirements of the City's Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide three (3) acres of local parks and related improvements per 1,000 residents. Local parks are comprised of community parks and neighborhood parks. The Project's Neighborhood Park portion of the local park requirement shall be satisfied through the provision of a 7.0 net-acre Neighborhood Park (P-l). The remaining requirement shall be satisfied in a future Community Park through the payment of park improvement fees and/or dedication of land in a manner acceptable to the Director of Parks and Recreation. 31. Developer shall satisfy its community parkland obligation in a manner consistent with Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 17. The community parkland obligation will be included within a proposed community park to be located within a service radius of Village Six. The location of the community parkland obligation is subject to the approval of the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department. 32. The Developer(s) shall install Chula Vista transit facilities, which may include but not be limited to benches and bus shelters, in accordance with the improvcment plans approved by the City. Since transit service availability may not coincide with project development, the Developer(s) shall install said improvements when directed by the City. The Developer(s), separately and individually, shall enter into (an) agreement(s) with the City prior to approval of each Developers' first map regarding Developer(s') funding of these facilities. Said transit stops shall be designed in the manner consistent with the transit stop details as described in the SPA Plan and Village Design Plan, and as approved by the City's Transit Coordinator and Director of Planning and Building. /ò6i-df Page 7 of 12 Village Six SPA Plan Conditions of Approval 33. In order to satisfy their fair-share contribution for financing the light rail transit system, the Developer(s) shall complete the following: I) dedicate to the City the Light Rail Transit (LRT) right-of-way on the final map containing said right-of-way, as indicated on the approved tentative map; 2) rough grade said LRT alignment; and 3) enter into an agreement with the City which states that the Developer(s) will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance the LRT. 34. The Developer(s) shall each enter into an agreement with the City ofChula Vista, prior to approval of each Developers' first final map, regarding the provision of affordable housing. Said agreements shall be a condition of approval of each Developers' first tentative map. Such agreements shall be in accordance with the Chula Vista Housing Element, the Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan and the Village Six Affordable Housing Plan. 35. No final "B" maps may be recorded within Village Six until such time that one or more annexable Mello-Roos District(s), or other financing mechanism approved by the elementary and high school districts to provide for the construction of needed elementary, middle and high schools, is/are established. 36. rf required by the City, the Developer(s), separately and individually, shall enter into agreements with the City of Chula Vista, prior to approval of each Developers' first final "B" map within Village Six, in order to participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP). 37. If required by the County of San Diego, the Developer(s) shall equitably participate in any future regional impact fee program for correctional facilities should the region enact such a fee program to assist in the construction of such facilities. The Developer(s) shall enter into an agreement, prior to approval of the first final map, with the City which states that the Developer(s) will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance correctional facilities. 38. The Developer(s) shall fund the Reserve Fund as required by the Reserve Fund Program. 39. The Developer(s) shall deliver to the Chula Vista Elementary School District the graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located within Village Six, prior to issuance of the 1,120'h (approximately 375 students) residential building permit. iITespective of the colored phase to which said I, 120th residential building permit is issued. The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. 40. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the Developer(s) shall fund the preparation of an annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and Page 8 of 12 Village Six SPA Plan Conditions of Approval services governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence following the first fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP. 41. The Developer( s) shall include its/their pro-rata share for maintenance of Poggi Canyon channel in an open space district formed for Village Six. 42. The owners of each Village shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate the processing of discretionary permit applications originating ITom the private sector and submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal package required of each developer to ensure a high standard of design and to ensure consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project manager shall have a well rounded educational background and experience, inc1uding but not limited to land use planning and architecture. 43. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch GDP, the Developer(s) shall prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities. 44. The Developer(s) acknowledges that the Otay Ranch General Development Plan is based on a village concept that provides for the construction of multi-family homes and commercial uses along with single-family residential homes within Village Six. The Developer(s) understands that it is the City's intent to require the Developer(s) to focus development on the village core in order to increase the viability of the core and to fulfill the objectives of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. 45. Phasing approved with the SPA Plan may be amended subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. 46. The Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) for Village Six or revisions thereto shall be adhered to for the Village Six SPA and tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of development within and outside of the Project area. Throughout the huild-out of Village Six. actual development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP. Neither the PFFP nor any other Village Six documents grant the Developer(s) an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit Village Six's facility improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements and market conditions, shall govern Village Six development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future transportation phasing plan Page 9 of 12 /rJ -.---. .---.- - - -- Village Six SPA Plan Conditions of Approval for the City of Chula Vista or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision 47. The Developer(s) shall enter into supplemental agreement(s) with the City, prior to approval of each final map for any phase or unit, whereby: a. The Developer(s) agree(s) that the City may withhold building permits for any units in Village Six if any one of the following occur: (1) (2) (3) When regional development threshold limits set by the g¡¡ adopted Chula Vista transportation phasing plan, liS amtmded ff6ffi time to time-, have been reached, or in order to have the Project comply with the Growth Management Program, as may be amended ITom time to time. Traffic volumes, level of service, public utilities and/or services either exceed the adopted City threshold standards or fail to comply with the then effective Growth Management Ordinance and Growth Management Program and any amendments thereto. The required public facilities, as identified in the Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP), or as amended or otherwise conditioned, have not been completed or constructed to the City's satisfaction. The Developer(s) may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements affected. rn such case, the PFFP may be amended after review and approval by the City's Director of Planning and Building and the Public Works Director. The Developer(s) agree(s) that the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the PFFP for Otay Ranch Village Six SPA if the required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program, have not been completed. Public utilities shall include, but not be limited to, air quality, drainage, sewer and water. The Developer(s) agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act from anv claim, action or proceeding against the City, its agents, officers or employees: b. (I) 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 the Project, and; PagelOofl2 Village Six SPA Plan Conditions of Approval (2) As to each Developers' respective subsequent development of their portions of the Project, provided the City promptly notifies the Developer(s) of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. 48. The Developer(s) acknowledge(s) its/their understanding that the City is in the process of amending its Growth Management Program and Ordinance in order to establish updated development phasing provisions necessary to ensure compliance with threshold standards. In order for the Otay Ranch Village Six Project to be consistent with the City's growth management provisions, the Developer(s) hereby agree(s) to comply with the Growth Management Program and Ordinance, as may be amended ITom time to time, in order for the City to approve this Project. Said provisions shall also be included as a condition of approval of all Tentative Maps within Village Six. 49. Prior to applying for any permit pursuant to the adopted Village Six SPA Plan, Applicant shall submit the entire adopted document in an electronic file format acceptable to the Director of Management and rnformation Services. Said file shall be in the format of Microsoft Word 2000, or current version acceptable to the City of Chula Vista, at the time of the adoption of the Village Six SPA Plan. Any exhibits as part of said SPA Plan (Maps, Plans, etc.), which are not in Microsoft Word format, shall be submitted in a format acceptable to the City of Chula Vista, Director of Management and rnformation Services. 50. Within 30 days of the City Council's action on the SPA Plan documents, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, forty-five (45) sets of all final SPA documents, each set in a three-ring plastic binder and in a format as prescribed by City staff. The final SPA documents shall include the following amendments: a. All references in the SPA documents to Parcels shall be renamed Neighborhoods. Planned Community District Regulations - Permitted Use Matrix shall be amended to require approval of the Private High School in SPA Neighborhood R-ll in the SF3 District by Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission. b. 51. Due to the development standards established for the SPA Plan and accessory second units, accessory units are only allowed by Conditional Use Permit for specific models or units in Neighborhoods R-2a or R-2b (not to exceed a total of 100 units) and Neighborhood R-I or R-3 (not to exceed a total of 100 units) which traffic impacts have been included in the EIR 98-01 analysis. /06/c. -~..u Page 11 of12 Village Six SPA Plan Conditions of Approval Exhibit B AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CrTY OF CHULA vrSTA AND MCMrLLIN OTAY L.P. AND OTAY RANCH, L.P. RELATED TO VILLAGE srx SPA APPROVAL The Property Owner and the Developer(s) shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the Property Owner and Developer(s) have each read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained in Resolution No._, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the City. Upon execution, this document and a copy of Resolution No.- shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Developer(s), and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City Clerk. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirty days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the Property Owner/Developer(s)'s desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Property Owner Date Attachment(s) H.IPlanmngIOtaLRanch\Village_6IExhibit A . SPA Conditions of AppmvaLdoc /c> 6IL - ~3 Page 12 of 12 THE CrT 4lI&.C-~Y'N¡Jf.- s- F CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STA .œNT You are required to me a Statement or Disclosure or certain owncrship or financial interests, paymentS, or campaign contrioutions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part or the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other omcial bodi",. The following inrormation must be disclosed: I. Lisl the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the suoject of the application or the contract. e.g., owner. applicant, contractor, suocontractor. material supplier. (Y\c.Mi\\¡'" ð~ ~cM l-LC 2. If any person' identified pur,uant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% or the sharc, tn the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is non.profil organization or a trusI, 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 S250 worth of business transacted with any member of Ihe 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 agenlS, employees, consulta"", or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. K~ ßo..u..vV\g(1..v~ 6rC-\.~ 'Ft.l"=-"'-l..jetw\"^- ~ob f!€-~h~ Gv.. 1"1 c\~h 6, Have you and/or your officers or agcnts, in the aggregate, contributed more than .$1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or pfeœdtng cJeclion peflod'! Yes- No~ !l yes, state which Councilmember(s): Date: \o/Blqß , , , (NOTE: Attach additional pages ~L.u:.. , Persnn" d<fined as: . Any indÙ'idua/, fin", co'panncrsh,p, joi'" ""Me, associa"m, social club, fro,mw/ o,!;anwHim, cmpo,atio" wo'e, tnJS, ",cei"" ')"ulicotc, tIus and any orho- cow"y, eisy and COW",!'. ciry mw,icipaliry, disrric, °' ad"" po/iliea/ subdÙ'"im, 0' any omer li'°up °' combil,a"on oe'¡ng as a wriL " /ó ~/c. - 74' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AND SUPPORTING REGULATORY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY 386 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE SIX. WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 02-03, and is commonly known as Otay Ranch, Village Six ("Property"); and, WHEREAS, an application for adoption of the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on October 13, 1998 by The McMillin Companies ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Company, being joint owners of Village Six with the McMillin Companies, is a participant in the development and implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan and related documents; and WHEREAS, the application requests consideration of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and supporting regulatory documents inc1uding Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, and Affordable Housing Program involving approximately 386 acres of land known as "Otay Ranch, Village Six" located in the north-central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, between the future extension alignment of Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, Birch Road and SR-125; and, WHEREAS, The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and determined that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment, therefore, a Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-01) has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay Ranch, Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (PCM-99-05) and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. January 9, 2002 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project and said hearing was thereafter c1osed; and, /oa!G - 1"5 WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the Village Six SPA Plan, and adopting the ordinance to approve the SPA's Planned Community District Regulations for Village Six, namely 6:00 p.m. January 22, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on January 9, 2002 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) c1aims. II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Second- Tier Final EIR 98-01 would have no new effects that were not examined in said Final EIR (Guideline 15168 (c)(2». III. ACTION The City Council hereby approves the Otay Ranch, Village Six SPA Plan and supporting regulatory documents including Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, and Affordable Housing Program involving approximately 386 acres of land known as "Otay Ranch, Village Six" based upon findings contained herein and is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support their approval and implementation. IV. SPA PLAN FINDINGS A. THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNrNG AREA (SPA) PLAN IS rN CONFORMITY WrTH THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CrTY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan reflects the land uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan. /ó 616 - f4 E. B. THE PROPOSED OT A Y RANCH VILLAGE srx SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE rNVOL VED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The ViUage Six SPA Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the Project. The Public Facilities Financing Plan specifies the public facilities required by Village Six in order for it to function properly and not become a public burden, and also the regional facilities needed to serve it. c. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH VrLLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN wrLL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The land uses within Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan are designed with an open space buffer adjacent to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area. The project wiU provide a variety of housing types compatible with existing adjacent land uses, as required by the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. A comprehensive street network serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed SPA Plan follows aU existing environmental protection guidelines and wiU avoid unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Final Second-Tier Environmental rmpact Report (EIR 98-01). D. rN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVERALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR rNDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESrRABILITY AND STABrLITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WrLL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE. The Project does not involve areas planned for industrial or research uses. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER SrMrLAR NONRESIDENTrAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WrLL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT. /0 ÆIc. - "/7 V. The Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan involves an Elementary School (S-I), a 7.0 net acre Neighborhood Park (P-l) and two Community Purpose Facility (CPF) sites. These land uses are considered appropriate for the area, location and over- all planning for Village Six in that such uses are called for in the GDP. They have also been evaluated for their adverse land use effects on proposed surrounding development and none have been identified. The Catholic Diocese is proposing to construct a private high school in Neighborhood R-ll. Such institutional uses require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with findings prior to their construction. At such time as a CUP is applied for by the Catholic Diocese for said use, it will be evaluated against the criteria found in this finding. F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUIT ABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The circulation system depicted in the SPA Plan is consistent with the Circulation system identified on the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan and contains adequate internal circulation consistent with the policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the City's General Plan. Road improvements will be constructed per the timing and threshold requirements outlined in the Village Six SPA Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan. G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN VrLLAGE srx CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMrCALL Y WITHIN THE PARAMETERS SET BY THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AT THE LOCATION PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCrAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION. The location of proposed commercial development area in the Village Six SPA Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the GDP in that the Village Core is intended to serve the residents of Village Six. H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. The Village Six SPA plan is consistent with the approved plans and regulations applicable to surrounding areas and, therefore, said development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said development. The proposed Village Six SPA Plan is consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan, as amended. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL /o~.# The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated in the Project. XI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the conditions listed in Exhibit "B" fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further condition issuance of all future building permits 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. XII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert Leiter Planning and Building Director £ ~~ J~aheny City Attorney H.\Planmng\Otay_RanchllVillage_61V6 SPA CC RESO /od --9'1 ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE SIX. WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 02-03, and is commonly known as Otay Ranch, Village Six ("Property"); and, WHEREAS, an application for adoption ofthe Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on October 13, 1998 by The McMillin Companies ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Company, beingjoint owners of Village Six with the McMillin Companies, is a participant in the development and implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan Planned Community District Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch, Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Planned Community District Regulations ("Project") are intended to ensure that the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan is prepared in accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), to implement the City of Chula Vista General Plan for eastern Chula Vista, to promote the orderly planning and long term phased development of the Otay Ranch GDP and to establish conditions which will enable the amended Otay Ranch, Village Six area to exist in harmony within the community; and, WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch, Village Six SPA Planned Community District Regulations are established pursuant to Title 19 ofthe Chula Vista Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 19.48 (PC) Planned Community Zone, and are applicable to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Land Use Plan of the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Planned Community District Regulations establish zoning regulations for the Single-Family Three (SF-3), Single-Family Four (SF-4), Residential Multi-Family One (RM- I), Residential Multi-Family Two(RM-l), Community Purpose Facility (CPF), Mixed Use (MU), Parks (P-l) and Open Space (OS) Zoning Districts located in Otay Ranch Village Six; and, WHEREAS, The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and determined that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment, therefore, a Second-Tier Environmental rmpact Report (EIR 98-01) has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (PCM-99-05) and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the /od - $V Ordinance No. Page 2 city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., January 9, 2002 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project to the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on January 9, 2002 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims. II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Second-Tier Final ErR 98-01, and Addendum thereto, would have no new effects that were not examined in said Final EIR (Guideline 15168 (c)(2)). III. ACTION The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Planned Community District Regulations, finding that they are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support their approval and implementation. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption Presented by Approved as to form by f£md]Yt~ oh aheny City Attorney Robert Leiter Planning and Building Director H.IPLANNINGIOtay_RanchIViliage _6IV6 PLND COMM DlST REG CC ORDINANCE.doc /04-_5/