HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/08/30 (5)
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
August 30, 1995
TO: Chairman Tuchscher and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otay Ranch Project Team
SUBJECT: Sewer Service Master Plan SPA One
Recommendation: Review and discuss the Sewer Master Plan and direct staff to make changes if
necessary.
Background: A Sewer Master Plan is required by the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan/Subregional Plan for each Otay Ranch village at the SPA level of planning.
Overview: SPA One is within the Telegraph and Poggi Canyon sewer basins and will be
served by interceptors within those basins. The report prepared by Wilson Engineering, entitled
Overview of Sewer Service For Specific Planning Area 1 of the Otay Ranch Project dated
Revised June 14, 1995 (SMP), addresses the impacts to the existing facilities within those basins,
required new improvements and the cost of those facilities. The costs indicated in the report will
be used in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) and will be discussed at the workshop with
that documents discussion.
Each basin was evaluated utilizing sewerage generation criteria contained in Tables 2-1 and 2-2,
approved development plans within each basin and development indicated in the April 21, 1995
SPA Plan. It should be noted that different generation factors were used in the analysis of the two
basins. The reason for the difference will be discussed in the write-up for that basin.
TELEGRAPH CANYON BASIN
Approved Improvement and Financing Plans
The City Council has adopted two programs for providing improvements and financing of sewer
facilities within the Telegraph Canyon Basin The first program, entitled Telegraph Canyon
Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan dated July 1992 (TCSB92), was adopted to
establish improvements within the natural gravity basin necessary to serve the proposed
development as determined by the Growth Management Program (GMP). The GMP forecast was
based upon final maps, tentative maps, general development plans approved in 1992 and an
estimate of the development within the Otay Ranch.
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 2
The second study entitled Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Improvement and Financing Plan
Amendment Incorporating Pumped Flows dated June 9, 1993 (TCSB93) expanded the study to
include proposed pumped flows from a portion of EastLake Greens and the Olympic Training
Center.
The studies determined a fee for both situations and improvements required under each scenario
Developers are required to either pay the appropriate fee or upgrade the interceptor as indicated
in the studies.
Sewerage Flow Projections
Table 2-1 of the SMP indicates the generation rates used in the two adopted studies for the
Telegraph Canyon Basin. The rate of 250 gallons per day (gpd) per unit for single-family
residential and 187 gpd/unit for multi-family was determined by staff to be appropriate for the
Telegraph Canyon Basin because that was the approximate average for the existing development
within the basin as determined by metered flow
Replacement and Design Criteria
Existing sewer Jines were not considered deficient until the ratio of the depth of flow in the
existing main (D) to diameter of existing sewer main (d) exceeded 0.85 (ratio D/d).- Therefore,
the flow in the existing sewer main is allowed to reach D/d of 0.85 before upgrading of the main is
required. The existing system will be metered at critical locations to determine when
improvements will be needed.
Although a higher D/d ratio is allowed prior to requiring a portion of existing main to be replaced
or paralleled, design of all replacement or parallel pipes is required to be based upon peak flows of
0.50 D/d for 12 inch diameter facilities and smaller and 0.75 D/d for pipes larger than 12 inches in
diameter. Designing at the lower D/d ratio provides a larger margin of safety to account for
underestimated flows which may occur due to land use changes.
SPA One Impact
As indicated in Table 3-4 of the SMP, SPA One will contribute less total equivalent dwelling units
(EDU) to the Telegraph Canyon Interceptor than considered in the reports approved by the City
Council. Consequently, the impact of SPA One is less than anticipated by the approved studies.
No additional evaluation was required in the SMP to revise the previously approved plans because
they reflect a conservative analysis.
City staff periodically revises the fee program to include updated costs and changes to the plan as
a result of differences associated with more precise development plans as compared to those
cO!1.sidered in the last update. Staff will include the changes associated with SPA One and other
changes with the next update.
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 3
POGGI CANYON BASIN
Sewerage Flow Projections
The Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin was analyzed in the same manner as the Telegraph Canyon
Gravity Basin (TCGB) except that the generation rates were changed to use the City standard of
280 gpd/unit for single-family and 210 gpd/unit for multi-family. The higher rates were used to be
conservative because a larger percentage of the basin is undeveloped in comparison to the TCGB.
By doing so, sizing of new portions of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor as well as replacement or
parallel installations will definitely be adequate to serve future needs. Densities of 10 dwelling
units per acre (DU/ AC) or less were considered single-family units and densities of greater than
. I) DU/ AC were considered multi-family.
Sewage generation was determined based upon currently approved SPA and General
Development Plans within the basin using the rates for the various uses listed in Table 2-2.
Replacement and Design Criteria
Portions of the existing sewer main were considered for replacement when the D/d of 0.60 was
met for 8- and 1O-inch mains and 0.85 D/d for mains 12 inches and larger.
As with the TCGB, new segments, parallel or replacement lines are required to be designed as
follows: 0.50 D/d for mains 12 inches in diameter or less and 0.75 D/d for mains greater than 12
inches in diameter
Poggi Canyon Interceptor Analysis
Four flow scenarios were modeled using a computer program to determine when eXlstmg
segments of main would need to be replaced and what size of main would be required for new and
upgraded segments based upon the replacement and design criteria indicated above. Page 15 of
the SMP indicates what each computer run was intended to provide.
Results of the Analysis
The results of the computer analysis are indicated on page 16, in Table 4-2 on page 17 and on
Exhibit "C" of the SMP. Table 4-2 depicts the number of additional dwelling units which can be
accommodated by the existing segments of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor. As indicated in Table
4-2, there are segments of the existing line which are currently overloaded and will be required to
be replaced prior to any development. The table also designates the replacement size necessary to
accommodate ultimate buildout flow.
Funding of Facilities
Funding of required improvements will be determined in the future. The developer has indicated
that they may work with the other two land owners (EastLake and Sunbow) to see if each will
contribute toward construction of the improvements stated in the SMP report. If an agreement is
not reached, the developer may be required to construct the improvements and have the City
establish a reimbursement district. Another possibility would be for the City to adopt a fee
program similar to that established for the Telegraph Canyon Basin.
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 4
SPA One Impact
Development of SP A One will require the installation of on-site sewer mains to the sizes shown
on Exhibit "C" between nodes 311 and 315. In addition, Table 4-4 indicates additional off-site
improvements which will be required as conditions of approval of the tentative map to be installed
with full development of SPA One. Segments of the existing system will be replaced with the size
of sewer main indicated on Exhibit "C" when those facilities exceed the criteria indicated above.
Sewer metering will be required at critical locations in the system as directed by the City
Engineer. Table 4-2 will be used as a guide in determining when improvements will be required.
Timing of sewer improvements will be included in the conditions of approval for the tentative
map.
ON SITE SEWER PLAN (Both Basins)
Exhibit "A" depicts a possible on-site sewer layout within SPA One. This layout should be
considered conceptual in that the final design will not be known until detailed grading and
improvement plans have been prepared. Exhibit "A" was used to determine where proposed
flows would be introduced into the Telegraph and Poggi Canyons Interceptors in order to
determine impact to existing facilities and to design new facilities. Some variation will occur with
final design of the development.
Attachment
Sewer Master Plan w/o computer runs
winword\wau\planscoms.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
August 30, 1995
TO: Chairman Tuchscher and Members ofthe Planning Commission
FROM: Otay Ranch Project Team
SUBJECT: Water Conservation Plan
Action Requested: Review and discuss the Water Conservation Plan (WCP) and direct staff to
make changes, if necessary.
Background: A water conservation plan is required the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SP) for each Otay Ranch village at the SPA level of planning. The
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the GDP/SP also required a WCP as mitigation.
Goals: Promote water conservation through increased efficiency in essential uses and use low
water demand landscaping.
Elements of the Water Conservation Plan:
1. Analysis of water use
2. Compliance with the Metropolitan Water Districts (MWD) Water Use Efficiency
Guidelines.
3. Water Conservation Measures
a) Indoor
b) Outdoor
c) Other
4. Water Conservation Costs
Analysis of Water Use: The WCP has an estimate of the potable and reclaimed water demands
included as Tables 1 and 2. The Policy Committee made the decision that only parks and open
space will be required to be irrigated with reclaimed water consequently, the WCP only included
estimated use in those areas, whereas, the Water and Reclaimed Water Master Plan (SAMP)
estimates assume use on all area allowed by law and the health department. The SAMP included
some areas that potentially could utilize reclaimed water in the future to assure that the facilities
to be installed will have adequate capacity to supply the reclaimed water, if available. The
difference in the estimates has no impact on the conclusions or recommendations of the WCP,
therefore, the numbers have not been requested to match in both plans.
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 2
MWD Water Use Efficiency Guidelines: These guidelines are required to be met by MWD
when an area is annexed into the district All of SPA One is currently within the MWD, therefore
compliance with the guidelines is not required, however, many of the guidelines are being
addressed by the City in the SAMP and Drainage Master Plan (DMP). Appendix "A" contains
MWD's guidelines
Water Conservation Measures: Some water conservation measures are required by the State of
California and by the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Faucets are required to have a maximum
flowrate of 2.2 gallons per minute and toilets must comply with a 1.6 gallon per flush
requirement. These measures are mandatory and will be included in the construction of the
structure The WCP considered additional measures and have separated those measures into
indoor, outdoor and other measures. A full discussion of those measures is contained on pages 6
through 9 and Appendix "B" of the WCP.
Water Conservation Cost: Various methods of water saving measures were analyzed to
determine which had benefit/cost ratios which would make the measure feasible to implement. A
benefit/cost ratio of greater than I represents a measure that would be cost effective. Table 4
depicts the measures considered in the WCP. Items recommended for implementation in SPA
One all have benefit Cost Ratio's greater than 1.
Attachment: Water Conservation Plan dated July 25,1995.
WORDlWAU\PLACOMWC.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
August 30, 1995
TO: Chairman Tuchscher and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otay Ranch Project Team
SUBJECT: Water And Reclaimed Water Master Plan
Recommendation: Review and discuss the Subarea Master Plan (SAMP) for water and
reclaimed water and direct staff to make changes, if necessary.
Background: A water and reclaimed water master plan is required by the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan/Subregional Plan for each Otay Ranch village at the SPA level of planning.
Both water and reclaimed water operations are controlled by the Otay Municipal Water District
(OMWD). The plan before you has been reviewed by OMWD as well as City staff.
The SAMP was evaluated based upon the April 21, 1995 SPA One submittal.
Process in Reviewing the SAMP: Since OMWD controls the approval of master plans for
water and reclaimed water facilities, the City's review was focused on the water application rate,
locations where reclaimed water will be used along with application rate, and meeting EIR and
GDP requirements The EIR required that a Reclaimed Water Uses and Restrictions Plan be
prepared in conformance with the Water Reclamation Plan and current engineering and health
standards to promote the maximum use of reclaimed water allowed by law. A separate plan has
not been prepared because the SAMP was prepared with those issues considered and
incorporated in the planned facilities. See Attachment "A" for more detail of issues addressed
(Response to Barabara Bamberger).
Contents Of The SAMP: The SAMP determines the on-site and off site facilities needed to
provide service to SPA One. The plan also estimates the water and reclaimed water demand
created by SPA One and estimates the cost of the facilities. Figures 4-6 and 5-3 depict the onsite
and offsite facilities determined by the study to be required for the development of SPA One.
Potable Water System (PWS): SPA One is in OMWDs Central System 711 and 980 pressure
zones. However, the proposed grading of the site permits the development to be served by the
711 Pressure Zone. Water will ultimately be delivered by two pumping stations. One station is
currently operating and a future station will be built in the same structure as a proposed 980
pressure zone station.
Planning Commission
August 30, ] 995
Page 2
Operational Storage is required to provide 1.3 times the maximum day demand plus fire flow
The existing reservoirs do not have adequate storage capacity to meet OMWD criteria
Additional reservoir capacity is required for SPA One development. One reservoir will have to be
provided to meet the demand. Two storage facilities are proposed to be provided and are in the
OMWD Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and will ultimately be constructed by OMWD.
Terminal Storage Facilities are also required to provide a five day water supply to the area for
emergency use. Adequate Terminal Storage is available to provide for development of SPA One
(OMWD has recently reduced their policy relative to storage requirements from a 10 day supply
to a 5 day supply).
Reclaimed Water System: Currently reclaimed water is provided from the Ralph W. Chapman
Water Recycling Facility (RCWRF). The RCWRF has a ].3 million gallon per day (mgd) output
of which an average of 0.67 mgd was used in ] 994. The RCWRF will be able to provide all of
the reclaimed water necessary for SPA One. If additional reclaimed water is necessary for any
reason, potable water will be used to supplement the available reclaimed water supply
Raw water might also be used when the County Water Authority (CW A) completes conversion of
Pipeline #3 from filtered potable water to raw water. This is scheduled to be completed in
1996/97.
Initially SPA One will be served from the Reclaimed Pressure Zone 950. Ultimately, SPA One
will be served from Pressure Zone 700. Zone 700 currently has no facilities and reclaimed water
in this zone will not be available until the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant is on line. That
plant is scheduled to be in operation in the year 200 I.
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATIONAL MEMOMORANDUM
August 30, 1995
TO: Chairman Tuchscher and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otay Ranch Project Team
SUBJECT: Master Drainage Plan for Otay Ranch SPA One
Action Requested: Review and discuss the Master Drainage Plan (MDP) and direct staff to make
changes, if necessary.
Background: A MDP is required by the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan
(GDP/SAP) for each Otay Ranch village at the SPA level of planning. The plan is required to
address the adequacy of drainage facilities and improvements necessary to meet City criteria.
The plan includes proposed facilities and methods to accomplish the following:
a) Reduce the post development 100 year runoff from the site to a level equal to or less than
that which occurred prior to development of the SPA.
b) Address methods to reduce siltation and comply with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) as implemented by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB).
Existing Conditions: SPA One is within two drainage basins. The northerly portion of the SPA
is within the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin (TCDB), and the southerly portion of the SPA is
within the Poggi Canyon Drainage Basin (PCDB).
Telegraph Canyon Creek is improved from the upper end of the basin in EastLake to 1-805. The
entire length of the channel within SPA One is improved with an open vegetated channel which
was designed to convey the 100-year runoff. There are two existing detention basins upstream of
the project. These facilities were considered in the modeling performed for the MDP The
segment west of 1-805, just east of Fourth Avenue, is unimproved. The City and Corps of
Engineers completed channel improvements from Fourth Avenue to San Diego Bay. The
unimproved segment is currently in the preliminary design stage to determine what can be
constructed within the area to accommodate the 100-year flow.
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 2
Poggi Canyon Creek is in its natural state within SPA One. The drainage basin under
consideration constitutes the upper two thirds of the entire basin.
Downstream of SPA One, Poggi Canyon Creek is natural as it crosses the Sunbow parcel. Near
Bmndywine Avenue, the flow is conveyed in an underground conduit system until (TO BE
COMPLETED)
Methodology: Drainage runoff quantities were calculated using the HEC-l computer program
utilizing the kinematic wave model. This methodology was used in order to compare the results
of previous studies for the TCDB. Detention basins were modeled and analyzed using the Pond-2
software from Haestad Methods. The computer runs have not been included in your packet
because they do not provide information that can be evaluated unless trained in the modeling
process. Mr. Glen Van Peski of Hunsaker & Associates (H&A) will be at the workshop to
address any questions you might have concerning the processes used to determine runoff
quantities or evaluate detention facilities.
Comparisons To Previous Reports: Table 3 on page 19 of the MDP indicates that the peak
flows are lower than peak flows determined by previous studies. Staff, in reviewing the results,
questioned why the peak was significantly lower than the previous studies done by Leedshill-
Herkenhoff (L-H),the Corps of Engineers (COE) and Rick Engineering (RICK). This concerned
staff because the detention facilities would be reduced in size/capacity from facilities designed to
detain higher peak flows. H&A indicated that they had found an error in the data input for the
model run by L-H and RICK (Rick used the L-H data and modified it to include detention
facilities so the error was also in the RICK calculations). The HEC-l Model requires an input of
the amount ofrain which will occur in a given period oftime. L-H used the rainfall for a 100-year
storm with a six-hour duration just as H&A did in their computer run except their run had the
same quantity of water falling over a three-hour time frame instead of six-hour time frame.
Intensity of rainfall is measured in inches per hour. By reducing the time the amount of rainfall
was considered, the resulting peak flows were increased.
Hunsaker & Associates was required to provide more proof to staff that the error had actually
impacted the results. H&A ran additional computer runs to address our concerns and to prove
that the error had occurred. After reviewing the information submitted and comparing the peak
flows to those calculated by the COE, staff accepted the lower runoff quantities. Appendix "H"
(less the computer runs) and Appendix "I" have been included in your packet for further
information concerning how the lower peak flows were determined to be reasonable.
Impacts of the Project: Grading and development of SPA One will result in an increase in the
volume of runoff and the peak flows. In addition, the grading will result in some diversion of flow
from one basin into another. As indicated on page 8 of the MDP, 0.18 square miles (115 acres)
of the TCDB will be directed toward the PCDB and 0.03 square miles (sq. mi.) of the Wolf
Canyon Basin (WCB) will also be directed into the PCDB. Total area diverted into the PCDB is
0.21 sq. mi. or, approximately, 134 acres.
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 3
The effects of development on runoff and peak flows is indicated on page 13 of the MDP. The
project will increase the runoff volume by 9 percent in the Telegraph Canyon Basin (TCB) and 18
percent in the Poggi Canyon Basin (PCB). Peak flows will be increased 8 percent in the TCB and
25 percent in the PCB.
The peak flows will be mitigated through the construction of detention facilities in the locations
shown on Figure 5 of the MDP. The effects associated with the detention facilities is summarized
on page 21 in Table 4. The detention facility will reduce the peak flows to 95 percent of the
existing flow in the TCB and to 86 percent of the existing flow in the PCB.
Retention will reduce the peak flow, but the total volume of water will not be reduced. This
means that water will flow in Poggi Canyon and Telegraph Canyon Creeks for a longer period of
time. Since the peak flow will be reduced, any flooding which might have occurred prior to
development of SPA One will not be worsened by development.
The longer flow time is of concern to the City in Telegraph Canyon Creek because there are flap
gates on the outlet of drain pipes in the Woodlawn area which remain closed or partially closed
when water runs deep enough in the channel to submerge the gate. This results in water backing
up in the local basin during times of high flows. Since SPA One is not increasing the peak flow,
staff does not consider the flap gate situation something which is the responsibility of this
development. SPA One will be paying Telegraph Canyon Drainage fees that are to be used to
correct downstream difficiencies. The City will look into ways to improve the function of the flap
gates as part of that fee program.
Further Analysis: At such time as the grading and improvement plans are submitted to the City
for review, staff will require on-site drainage calculations to determine the drainage facilities
necessary to convey the runoff from the development into the major drainage channels. At that
time, staff will review the MDP and determine if adjustments need to be made as a result of the
actual work being accomplished.
Compliance With Flood Plain Regulations: SPA One does not propose to construct any
structures within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodways.
However, the detention facility in Telegraph Canyon Creek and the grading and detention facility
in Poggi Canyon Creek will impact the base flood elevations in the creeks determined by FEMA.
This requires a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to be processed. The requirement to obtain a
LOMR will be placed on the project as a condition of tentative map approval.
Best Management Practices (BMP)
Many of the BMP's have been required of developers by the City for many years. Those items
an> as follows:
. Landscaping and irrigation on all manufactured slopes. Once the landscaping is
established, the amount of siltation which occurs is equal to or less than what happened
prior to development.
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 4
. Construction of on-site detention/desilting basins to retain siltation at various locations
within the project.
. Sandbagging around drainage inlets to trap silt before entering the drainage system and
ultimately be deposited into the main channel.
. Sandbagging within the graded streets at designated intervals to slow down the flow of
water and to trap silt behind the sandbags.
. Silt fences are often required at the toe of slopes to trap silt which is washed off the slope
during winter rains or from irrigation.
. Dust control is required during the construction phase of the project.
. Developers are informed with a certificate on the grading plans that a NPDES permit is
required from the RWQCB This permit is granted and enforced by the RWQCB. The
permit includes many of the items mentioned above and others that are mentioned in the
MOP.
. The City has a street sweeping program which is a post construction BMP.
Attachments:
Master Drainage Plan W/O Appendices
WORD61W AUIPLANCOMD. DOC
MEMORANDUM
August 30, 1995
TO: Chairman Tuchscher and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otay Ranch Project Team
SUBJECT: SPA One Parks Master Plan
Action Request: Review and comment on the Parks Master Plan for SPA One.
Background: The Otay Ranch GDP requires the preparation of a Parks Master Plan for
each SPA. The SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan is The
Baldwin Company's proposal to satisfies the GDP requirements. The Plan presents the
Otay Ranch Park System with its recreation facility requirements including plans for open
space, trails, and community gardens in SPA One. Phasing, funding and maintenance are
also part of the Plan. The Plan's proposals are different than the standard City parks and
open space requirements. The proposals have been reviewed extensively by the Technical
Committee and unresolved issues taken to the City Manager's Policy Committee for
direction. Based on the Policy Committee's direction, Baldwin has developed two
alternatives for park plans in SPA One. Alternative A represents the park plan based on
the direction of the Policy Committee and Alternative B is Baldwin proposal for parks in
SP A One. The SPA One Parks Master Plan is based on Alternative B.
Concerns Raised:
1. Location, size, credit and maintenance of Pedestrian Parks
2. Deferment of Community Park
3. Private ownership of and credit for Town Squares
4. Timing of park needs analysis
5. Recreation facilities in each type of park
6. Community gardens maintenance and credit
Resolution Of Concerns:
1. The City Manager Policy Committee determined that the smallest creditable park
maintained through the General Fund will be the 2.0-acre park in Village 5. The
Baldwin Company has proposed that they receive credit for the pedestrian parks
and that these parks be maintained by assessment district.
2. The GDP anticipates deficits and surpluses in community parks as the Otay Ranch
develops. Community parks are located in Villages 2, 10 and the EUC. A phasing
PCPKRPT.DOC
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 2
schedule for neighborhood and community parks is provided on page 77 of the
Parks Master Plan.
3. The GDP provides for credit and private ownership of the Town Square by
business associations or districts.
4. The Master Plan proposes that park needs analysis be conducted in accordance
with the City Landscape Manual just prior to the development of the parks in SPA
One.
5 The needs analysis will assist in determining the type of recreation facilities to
locate in each park. The GDP provides guidelines on the number of recreation
facilities required by population in each SPA.
6. The GDP suggests community garden opportunities be provided within each
village. The Subdivision Map Act permits park credit for community gardens.
PCPKRPTDOC
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
August 30, 1995
TO:
Chairman T uchscher and Members of the Planning Conunission
FROM:
Otay Ranch Project Team
SUBJECT:
Regional Facilities Report
Action Requested: Review and comment on the Regional Facilities Report for SPA One.
Background: The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) requires that SPA
applications be accompanied by a Regional Facility Report. This report identifies the forecasted demand for regional
fucilities generated by development of the SPA One plan and addresses how that demand will be satisfied. The regional
fucilities considered in this report, as required by the GDP, are Integrated Solid Waste Management, Arts and Cultural
Facilities, Child Care Facilities, Health and Medical Services and Facilities, Hospitals, Mental Health Facilities,
Community Clinics, Nursing Facilities, Community Health, Education, Screening, and Research Organizations, Medical
Practitioncrs, Community and Regional Purpose Facilities, Social and Senior Services, Correctional Facilities, Justice
Facilities and Cemetery Facilities.
Concerns Raised:
The following concerns emerged after the Regional Facility Report was circulated for comment. The points below were
raised by the Area Conunission on Aging. No other department or conunission felt a need to respond to this document.
I. Provision of areas for Churches
2. Provision of Mental Health Services are not the closest or accessible
3. Provision of Hospital service
4. Provision of Senior Facilities
Resolution Of Concerns:
I. Over 26 acres are identified within SPA One for Community Purpose Facility (CPF) uses. Churches are an
appropriate use for this CPF land.
2. The fullowing Mental Health Services arc outside the City of Chula Vista boundaries but include the City
within their service areas:
a. Paradise Valley Hospital is not located in Chula Vista but docs serve the entire South County
area.
b. Vista Hill Hospital currently provides out-patient services in South County through Vista Hill
Behavioral Center.
3. The Otay Ranch Facility hnplementation Plan and SPA One Regional Faci1ity Report concludes that SPA One
residents will be served by Sharp-Chula Vista Medical Center located west of the project. Office space for
lease or purchase will be available within the village core areas for health providers.
4. 26.2 acres of CPF land are included in the SPA One land use plan. This acreage is available to non-profit
social service agencies. In addition, a 2,500 sq. ft. village multi-use cultural arts facility is planned within the
Village One Village Core Park. This fucility will include community meeting space and related recreational
uses such as classes and indoor recreation.
'"
o
.1;;
'"
.8 ~
6~
o~
Uci
00'"
'" -
.5 '" N
~5h~
~3'"
""'....""'
~
~
:;
:;
~
'"
~
o
""'
;J
'"
~
~
==
U
<
...
~
Z
o
....
c.;i
;J
~
Z
o
<
""'
'"
'"
<!) 0
~ . .~
e ~
0.0 "'-0
o ~ '" u
....... .... ."!::: QJ u 0.)
aJ - U t:i :.=: OJ)
;::srf1Q)cd oDed
'" 0 -";;: ,,~
'';:: +-> - o..~
g 8.s ] '-..c:
u .~ .B >. -0 u
= C. _......... c: cd
.'" <!) 0.. ~lii '" <!)
::>- {/)._ tJ') c
- u C:'-
.'S ~.€ 2 .9 8
,;!2 0 rn ~ - ro
>o.o.~ Go.
cd .:!? = ~ ..Q rn
E ~ .~ ~ ~ ~
u~<=<!)s::uE
.....><!)-OO3'-'=
o ? -0 'm \-0 ..D
~:9 .1;; -€ g ,,{!
u~~85~&
~
~
::I::
,..
o
'"
~
-
,..
-
==
U
<
...
~
o
~
~
...:i
~
~
'"
;J
.5 ~
-0.-
<!)"'-<
:9-0
~ lii
... <!)
a.",
.80
:::::= 1G
.~ ~
~::3
<!)>
-4-<
'" 0
8 '"
-'" '"
U <!)
'" a
-9 <!)
"'...
" 0
~~
'" 00
.- '"
u .>
G<!)
~-5
~
~~
25~
;J~
o~
...
-0
<!)
.!:o
50
~
<!)
'"
o
'"
S
...:i ...
o z
'" ~
~~:;
1::!;;~
<<c.;i
~~<
c.;i z
1:: ~
~
oj
<=
o
<!)
co
.!:!
;;;
.5
...
<!)
<=
8
c!::
0-
'"
o
o
.,.,
N
Q:i
0-
'"
.,.,
r--
'-D
'-D^
,
.s
~t 8 <!)
'" "'-"
;> 0._
't: tJ') v
c.. ~ ta
'" ""' -0
.!OUo
13~~
-0 '" 0
.> <!) u
e ~ ~
0.-0 lii
.8 lii u
0= v ~
';.EJ ~ lii
lii~'5!5
6 ...<="0
Q)Q)U_
-0 ~ 1i'! ~
..... u 0
o OJ c._
~E:S:€
00 0.<;:-0
"<T"<=~'"
'"
'" !;:,
!;:'",
"1'";'
0""
'" '" '"
~ ~ ~
-0 -0 -0
:E:E:E
u u u
.,., 00 r--
'-D 0""
r--"<T '"
~...:i"'~'"
~~EuE
~~e~e
<u~o~
'"
~'"
~~E
<~==~
i:"'u'S.
~~~ ;g
~u~=
=-z
~<
o
-
~8 G
p..o 5 ';ij
a 15..-o-o-a>
..c: ro'(;] 0 '- OJ
rn u e ~ ,9 ~
-ovQJ?:=::;:
c: ..c: .... ..c: ~'" ..,I
cd - .... .........c \...0
_VO;::sQ)cd
"';> 00:1""'
."!::: cd ~ r:f1 = "'0
0.-" ""' - '"
(/'J\-oC/)~1fcd
0(1)4-0-
:I:<=o13.'S~
-a U<!) '" u.~ C
.C 13.c: > 0
O~Q) ~_
E.~ c ~ ~ a3
QJ -0 ca Q) Q).-
;::EQ)u..c'Std
",:;ij;:;~P;<
2:.'S6;;:u:;
.C.~ <!).C 0 .
{.) > ~ c:: 1d '-"~
rncd-O:.E[s'~
-5"3~<~c~
0-"6<!)""''''<!)'''''
o:IU "'''"'U....
'"
<!)
;>
.5b
1J
o
'"
'"
<!)
;>
.5b
<!)
'"
g
..<=
-
O!
..
== '"
~ .S=
.2~
c .-
.. '"
::,;~
;;:
o
Q)
.!O
<!)
<!)
'"
.c
'=
=
S ~
e :5
=~
uu
<!) '"
bJ).~
~ '2
... "
~ 1::
<!) 0
'" a.
" a.
-0 0
lii~
= .>
~ e
~ c.. cJ':i
<!) <!) <!)
0.0 c:.a
-00:-;:
'" u
"'~&!
"'-<""'-0
"","',,,
U '" '"
.- 6
..1J13<!)
_",-0
..J"'~ ~
o _ .-
c '" '"
4-< 0 0
_ u_
co
'"
.1;;
...
"
'"
co .
'" ~
.- c
1;; "
.- 0
~U
.5 -5
- "
<!) 0
6",
<!) <!)
.!O -"
-0-
~ <=
=:.a
0_
-" .-
'" ;;:
-0 '"
'" <!)
cd '.p
6;;::
<!) u
OtIS
'"
13
.!O
r--
~
'"
Ci)'"
= O..Q
.~ ::
= '"
z~
x
i'S
'"
u
;;;
~
'"
"
o
.f7J
.; ~
0-
U 0"
OI)M
" -
.~ ~~
- .3 '"
""""""
......
o
'"
"
...
U
'"
~
~
....
o
-
7
-
...
<E
'"
"
-0 .
.;:: ~
o ;;J
~"";j
" .-
" ~
o "
~ ~
"" 0
<ZJ U
00
~
-
==
U
~
~
~
o
~
.J
~
""
00
~
~~
""""
UU
...... ......
o 0
'" '"
~ f:?
U U
'" '"
a, M
"<t'_
- -
" "
..c: ..c:
- -
~]
(1) Q) v
a " ;>
"Ofi:
.<:> " "
:= 01) 01)
.<;: '" '"
::> := :=
]>>
a~]
~.~ .~
~
E!2
C5~
~""
o~
~
"
~
.50
~
o
"
" "
;:g -s
~ca]
g ~.~ ~
.~ a..!.! 0
-5 0I){i ~
:E .,9 ""i ""
:>._ "' <ZJ
? CJ'} > 4-4
~ '"'" Cd 0
~<E~~
Q) ..2::::1 Q)
-;: {i.~ s
o,s U'J ~
(1) tf} Q) ~
'" uu
'" -0 .<;:
..c: " t:.-O
~ '" " ~
;;J U '"
o..~ '""' Cd
'"'" .J:;J ~'o
tB 5..9 ~
Q)<1)''p~
~ ~ u
- '"
0.. 0 1-0 0
C/'J. ....... c.. u
~
"
"
o
-
.~
0.
"5
'2
a
N
'"
.::: ~ r;
.~ g~'~ ~
= .. '':: ~ .t:i c; .s
s-"~=""'~
s'i~"O~~1i
a=~;g:;~
~M
"" .
<ZJ-
-
"'-0
<E ~
"2 "
1;; "
~O
.- "
~ ~
-0 -
'='
.~ >
-g.5 .
'" '" "
- .. ;>
~ L-.._
""aJ~
U a, 1;h
...... . '"
07-
rn--e
~ -5 .,.,
u.<;: C
Cd :;>.-
M <1) ~
. " ...
~OaJ
'"
"
!J
'"
'"
N
" ....
_ .<:>"
.~ 1J d' ~ ~
g 5;' .9 CJ'} ~
.'" a.<:> ~.1J '"
; g.~ .9~:!3
0. " .;:: ,," ~
o ;> 0 '" E
0. ~... .i;j]"
25Q)C. Q)o~'
.2 "", ..c:.- '" 01)
~ 0 8 ::: -g "" .5
" ~ .~ 1! I:: ~ ~
..c:",," -0"'''
-<ZJ'" -ou......g
........ aJ 1-0 ~ 1-0 0 \-0
1! ..c: .0 tj ~ <2 t 0.
_ _ 2"".- 0:1"
Q) ,.., ...... "'0 0.. Cd
"2 a ",,,,{i 3:! ",-a.
1;; .8 .5 - ~ " '" .....
c..4-I ::!Q) "'0""'"
._ -0 2 ..c: "" -o~ " ""
.~ 0) '" U "" " <ZJ
+-' ....... C. 4-4 ""-'! 'S
~ e.u 0 t.:J gp E 6
.~ ~.e .;. ".", 2::>
" O:I.-=: ..c: t:: " [I]
~ 0.0 o..U ~'';:'''OO
"
~
.50
~
o
c
~ ~
Z 0
~.J 00-
~~~f:1~~
....OO~~~
~~~~~~
o 0
u 00
c
o
c:: .~
o .<:>
rJ)] e
"'"20 0.
13..01-0 Q)
..DQ)~ ::3 5
........ :-= ...... 4i >
"3 5 ::s ~ ;> ~ .50
-g ;> -g 8.2, 8 "
M .2, <-: !:E 7!:E 8
NMNO~OC
~
&2
....
u
~
o
u
E' 8"oi
.... '" - ~
-S" !F{i '"
::S'<:>oi>-';;ji:'
0:= " ..... ~ "
~ .~ < ~ ~ g
..c: '" _ ~ ~ U
....... 0,) U .....
4-I'.+::j OJ U _ .J::
o :-3'5 1-0 r+-; "5
i:'u"'<20o
'0 ~ ~ "'0 :G en
~8~~!J1J
'" .'" 0 a '" -
U ~~ "6]
== .~ Clot "'0 V) ........
.1A 2 <ZJ .'" - .~
'" "" 1:: "
eaJ-:5(1)-5~
ucs:::E>>::I
.5 ":E ~.<:> ~
Q) U ........ """ ..... Q)
-s <d.~ ~ S 'Q)
08"20"a
-;; .50"2 ~.<:> 8
~Q)Q)~C::_
~~"<ZJ~<E
00
~
u
~
""
u
-
....
rJ:J
f:;
Q) (1) ....
s..c:..c: ;;J
- U 0
~ ~ s ~
;>,,, ~ ;;J
\-0 ~ ;>-...c
Q) 0 Cd........
0.-0'"
~"2,,-g
U "2 .]3 .0'
Cd Q) c:: 1-0
..,. C " ""
~
~
""
u
~
N
U
<:
""'
~
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 4
Future Issues:
I. Arts and Cultural: The additional 4,175 sq. ft. of demand from SPA One will be met in a 66,210 sq. ft. multi-
use cultural complex in the EVe.
2. Health and Medical Services and Facilities: Although there is a demand for increased clinic services, funding
has not been made availablc by governmental or other sources to expand this service. Should public or private
funding become available, cornmunity elinics could be located in the CPF wne.
3. Cornmunitv and Regional Purpose Facilities: A requirement of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP calls for thc
provision of Community Purpose Facility land within the first phasc of development to satisfy the Telegraph
Canyon Estates Speeific Plan requirements.
4. Justice Facilities: Should the region enact regional impact fees to assist in the funding of these facilities, SPA
Onc development would be obligated to equitable participation It is further noted that additional analysis
would be nccded as part of the EVC SPA.
RGNLFAC2.DOC
MEMORANDUM
August 30, 1995
TO: Chairman Tuchscher and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otay Ranch Project Team
SUBJECT: Annexation
Action Request: Receive the comprehensive annexation of Planning Areas 1 and 3 of the
Sphere Update Study and the Otay Ranch House property.
Background: Annexations are initiated at Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) by either voter/landowner petition or resolution of the City Council. The City
Council has approved a resolution to petition LAFCO for the annexation of the Otay
Ranch Annexation No. 1 and directed staff to submit an annexation application for
Planning Areas 1 and 3 of the Sphere Study and the Otay Ranch House property. The
Sphere Study and annexation application can then run concurrently, thereby saving
processing time and costs for all parties.
In order to expedite the annexation of the first Sectional Planing Area (SPA) of the Otay
Ranch for Villages One and Five to the City, staff recommended City Council direct staff
to file a resolution of petition with LAFCO. This filing will begin LAFCO processing of
the annexation request. The City's application for annexation will not be considered
complete by LAFCO until the SPA One EIR has been certified by the City Council and
submitted to LAFCO. It is anticipated that the EIR will be subrnitted to the City Council
for consideration in December, 1995. The SPA One EIR addresses the environmental
impacts of the City annexing Planning Areas 1 and 3 and the Otay Ranch House property.
The SPA One EIR is being prepared as part of the public review and hearings on SPA One
this fall. Since LAFCO is the approval authority for the annexation and the City is the
applicant, the Council can direct the application be filed without the EIR in final form.
Under the CorteselKnox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (GCS 5600, et.
seq.), an annexation can be initiated by either the property owner or the City. In this
instance, The Baldwin Company is primarily interested in annexing only SPA One:
Villages One and Five. City staff believes additional territory is necessary for proper
planning and future extension of City services to serve the entire Otay Valley Parcel.
Therefore, staff recommended that Planning Areas 1 and 3 from the Sphere of Influence
. Study, including the entire Otay Valley Parcel, the Inverted "L" and the non-Baldwin
owned properties, be annexed along with the Otay Ranch House property (Figure 3).
Planning Area One - The Otay Valley Planning Area is the largest of the Planning Areas
encompassing approximately 9,300 acres. This area is surrounded on the west, north and
PCANNRPT.DOC
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 2
east by the City of Chula Vista and is bounded by Telegraph Canyon Road on the north,
Heritage Road on the west, the southern slopes of Otay Valley on the south and Lower
Otay Reservoir on the east. The Otay River Valley comprises the southern boundary of
and is wholly included within the Planning Area. '
There are several parcels that are not part of the Otay Ranch included within this Planning
Area. These parcels range in size from approximately 9 acres to 250 acres and include the
Nelson/Sloane rock quarry, the Otay Water District land dedicated for future reservoirs,
the existing City of San Diego reservoir, a County landfill and several privately-owned
properties
Planning Area Three - Planning Area 3 is approximately 457 acres in size. This area
includes the Inverted "L" Parcel of the Otay Ranch, the Watson property and the two
smaller Clarkson and Turner parcels All of these parcels are part of the Sphere Study
These properties are adjacent northeast of the Salt Creek Ranch project and, due to
topography, relate more to the existing City limits than to Proctor Valley. Annexation of
this area represents logical extension of City services.
The Ranch House Property - The Ranch House property is approximately 132 acres in
size and owned by the Steven and Mary Patrick Birch Foundation. The area surrounding
the Ranch House is designated within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP)
as Special Conference Center and Low Density Residential. The Ranch House area is
within the City's existing Sphere of Influence. The existing Ranch House complex is
surrounded by the City on two sides and needs to receive sewer service.
Concerns Raised: None
Attachment: Figure 3
PCANNRPT.DOC
AREAS
OF
ANNEXATION
.. --
I~
...
Is
o
1m
.~
I _ _ - - - 10
Chula VISta
I
I
~
,
u
.
....
.....Chula Vista
- - - - - .-
-----,.
N I~
I Boundary
----
OIay Ranch Area
Figure 3
~'ft..
:--Jltt~
-C-~?
- -
Annexation Areas
0.93
o
0.93 Miles
CJ
Non-otay Ranch
Parcels
CI1Y Of
CHUlA VISTA
C[ocR.4.PHIC INf()~I\TlO1'l '!innld
MEMORANDUM
August 30, 1995
TO: Chairman Tuchscher and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otay Ranch Project Team
SUBJECT: Prezoning and the Public/Quasi-Public Zone
Action Requested: Review and comment on the proposed prezoning and Public/Quasi-Public
(PQP) zone.
Background: Certain parcels located within Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 3 of the Sphere
of Influence are not owned by the Baldwin Company and not a part of the Otay Ranch project.
These "out-parcels" are noted on the attached map and ownership list. Prior to annexation to the
City, LAFCO requires that these parcels be covered by the City's General Plan and be "pre-
zoned". While the parcels are currently covered by the General Plan, the pre-zoning is being
carried out concurrently with the annexation. Most of the out-parcels will be pre-zoned "Planned
Community"; however, there are exceptions to this which are noted below. Following is a brief
discussion of the parcels in question and their proposed pre-zone designation.
Planned Community (PC) Zone: The primary purpose of the Planned Community Zone is to
provide for orderly planning and long-term development oflarge tracts ofland in order to provide
an environment of stable and desirable character, provide the developer with reasonable
assurances that sectional development plans will be acceptable to the City, and to enable the City
to adopt measures providing for the development of the surrounding areas compatible with the
Planned Community Zone. Implementation of the PC Zone is currently restricted to parcels of
land under unified ownership and 50 acres or more. An amendment to the PC Zone is currently
under review by the Planning Department which would allow these parcels under 50 acres in size
to be zoned PC. In order to develop, the property owners would have to propose an amendment
to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). If the property owner decided they did not
want to be part of the GDP, they would then legally be entitled to the underlying permitted land
use of A-8 (Agricultural).
As can be seen from the list below, many of the individual out-parcels are less than 50 acres in
sIze.
EastLake Land Swap: Three parcels of approximately 161 acres, located adjacent to the
southwest corner of the EastLake Greens Community. This area is part of the EastLake General
Development Plan.
Dauz Parcel: Adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road within Otay Ranch SPA One and consisting of
approximately 7.82 acres.
Gorman Parcel: Located directly east of the Dauz Parcel and consisting of 1.82 acres.
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 2
Ross Parcel: Located along the future extension of Palomar Street and west of Paseo Ranchero
and consisting of approximately 10 acres.
Gerhardt Parcel: Two parcels located on Palomar Road and surrounded by Otay Ranch on three
sides and Sunbow on the west consisting of 11.89 acres.
Watson Parcel: Located in Planning Area 3 between the Inverted "L" and Salt Creek Ranch and
consisting of 160 acres.
Clarkson Parcel: Surrounded by Otay Ranch and Salt Creek in Planning Area 3 and consisting of
7.5 acres.
Turner Parcel: Located in Planning Area 3 as part of the Inverted "L" and consisting of 1 0 acres
Public/Quasi-Public (P/Q-P) Zone: In order to accommodate existing public uses which are
located on some of the out-parcels, particularly the existing landfill operation, the Public/Quasi-
Public Zone is being proposed. The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add this zone will be
heard by the Planning Commission concurrently with the SPA One public hearings. The P/Q-P
Zone would allow the landfill operation as a matter of right in order to allow the County-
operated landfill to continue its operations without any additional permitting from the City.
Closure of the landfill would be regulated by the appropriate State and Federal agencies.
Subsequent uses such as golf courses and parks will be allowed as permitted uses.
The following parcels will be pre-zoned P/Q-P:
Citv of San Diego Water Reservoir: The existing water storage facility is situated on 19.59 acres
and will eventually be surrounded by Village Eight, which will be reviewed in a future SPA.
Water reservoirs are proposed as a permitted use in the P/Q-P Zone in order to allow the
continued smooth operation of the reservoir.
Otav Water District Parcel: The existing water storage facility is situated on 61 acres south of
Telegraph Canyon Road, west of the proposed SR125. Water reservoirs are proposed as a
permitted use in the P/Q-P Zone in order to allow the continued smooth operation of the
reservoir.
Otav Landfill: The existing landfill is located on 250.59 acres and is surrounded on three sides by
the Otay Ranch Property (Villages Two and Three). Under the proposed P/Q-P Zone, the landfill
would be a permitted use, but subject to performance standards.
Agriculture (A-8) Zone: The final parcel requiring pre-zoning is the existing Nelson/Sloan
Rock Quarry located on 136.7 acres on the north side ofOtay Valley Road and on the east side of
Rock Mountain Road. The existing use permit would be grandfathered into the City.
Attachments
AREAS
OF
ANNEXATION
I~
-a
15
o
I'"
1;
I _ _ - - - 10
Chula VISta
I
I
,
r
,
p.........
-- .-Chuia VISta
. - - --.~-f""~"
N IS
I Boundary
----
OIay Ranch Area
Figure 3
~{f?-
:~:-
.......- .....
- ~
~ ""'-
Annexation Areas
0.93
o
0.93 Miles
I Non-Otay Ranch
Parcels
em' Of
CHULA VISTA
"
,-<n.t,.",.."Ulr '>tr.r'l~""'I\~D~ ~-y..n
'"
I::
o
.-
-
'"
I::
0/)
0;;:
..
~
..
=
o
N
I
..
...
=-
I::
o
;:
'"
...
~
I::
I::
~
"0
~
'"
o
Q.
o
...
~
'"
-
'"
~
~
=
..c
[ )
~
"
.51
.~
~
..
i:I
..
"
=
"
~
c..
"
.. '"
- -
.~ ~
c;>c;
.. .. ...
... -..
... " "
= ..c ..
uu'"'
",0;
- ...
" ..
:= = ;
=(5-
u c..
~
..
...
'"
-<
"
"
:~
...
'"
~
..
i:I
;:
~
..
c..
l~ ,,~ "0 ~ , ~
0 c 0
." u 6 .~ "" "" "" i
~ ~ 0 B ! ! !
<B <B <: ~ [
l~ .'"
g 0 ~ 6 OJ
"" ..= 8.!< c. c. c. c.
15. .E! .~ NJ ~ I ~ I 0
o1! I I
~ q r'J ]JJ
;:0 ;:0 " .O! B ~
~~ ]~ :E ~"o ~~ 5 g 5 g 5 g .5 ~
a:: -5~ J~ ~..c ~] ~iJ ~]
.g "S ..= "B ~ 5 " u "~
'i5 ~ ~ -u~ -u
'i5 ar 6-5 d .~ . C'- 5 5 .5 .5 .
" ~ ] ~ ] ~ ] ~ ] ~
8~ u'-"! ~ [6
, - ~i ]~ ..=
. ..c . E! . 0- . 0- . 0- . 0-
~ * :-;: .0 ~!~ . . ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ <>:~ ~"o ~"o ~"o ~"o ~ ~
"B ~ " " " " " " "" "B "B
" " ." " ." " " 0 "" " ~
" 2 ~ 9 2 ~ j :!! 0 2~ ] " ~ 2 ~ 2 ~ 2 ~ j j 2
" "~
~ .u .u & .u ~ .u ~ 8.~ ~ ~ .u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c!:: c!:: ~ c!:: ~ c!::G c!:: ~ c!:: ~
" ~
~-
~"B~ u
8 ~iJ ~ !5 !j !j !5 !5
j ~=? <>:: <>::
! ~ ~ d .~ d d
..c ! ~ i ~ i i iJ 0 ..c -5
u iJ'" .- '" ~ ~
~ ~8~ =. ..= ~.= ~ ~ ~
~ .~ ~ .~ if) if) if) if) ~~ ,.!j
cQ~ ! ! ! !
.....$ ::5::5 ~~ ~ ~ ." ~ ~
6 J:~:E ~~ .s~ .s~ 6 .s 6 6
~ ~ ~ ~ 1l , g~ g~ ~ 1l
~ "8 "8 "8 "8 ;:0 !! " ~J ~J ~ ;:0 ~ ~
] " ] ]
.5i, 5i, .~ .~ ..= 0 '\' ~ ",. if) if) if)
-5 < <>: ] '1 '" 01 ..c -5 -5
I~ " !! !! !! " ..= ..= ..= ..= " I ~ ~ " i~ I~
> ~ ];. u~1 .g:'3 .g:'3 .g~ .g~ 12
.- ;:0 ~B J~ .- ~ .g.~
~o ~g ~ .,,0 .,,0 ,,~ ,,~ -0
6 s. "0 "0 ~~ ~ 6 6
.s~ .so .so ];)1;.s ~!;:; ~!;:; ~.s ~.s U
0 0- r- 8 '"
0 0- .,. 0- 0 0 0 -
0; "" ~ ~ .,. ~ &J '" 0- 00 '" 0 ~ 0 '"
r- 'D ~ '" 0 -0 '" '" OX! 0; - 0- 'D '" 8 N ~
~ ~ ~ ~ - - '" - ~
0" '" - ~ a;
j 11 " j
'" ..& ..c
6 ~ ..= "0 ~ ]
a iJ ... '" '"
eo 1 > > "
! Jjif) ~ J ..c ~ 8'
~ ~ ~
~"" Po ~ ~
t(I o ~ OJ~ 8' ~ :E J
~ '" .\1- :;:..c ~ 8' 8' s U
..... ~ " o .(J .8 0 .5 1 ~
0 i~ if'-"! "
'" ~ j ~
~ ~ is ~ ~ "5 ~ ~ ] ~
." U '"
6 u Iii 0 ] ~ .f< f< "8 U ..c
I if) " ~~ ~ g
E ~~ "0 ~ S "" ii1 ii1 "0 ~ ! 8- "i'
-d " - ~~ 6~ 1 r- " " s "" -tJ
p:: " " u" .g ! ! ." " ~ Iii B
~ .;; ~ .E; ~ 1] s ~~ ~ ~ i -5 ~
E 5.= ~
. "" .8] :1 s (;
Iii "" " t
u i i~ "9 ; ~~ I -a ~if) t ~ oS ~?
11 ~ ~- j: ..s .5 "0 J
~r .~ ] "'11 ~ .jj " ~ ~i
~ j:~ ~ ~ ~ -5..c 1 i
~ 1 j: 0:'1 Qj6 E .9 8! ~~ ~.s
..... [ "" ~ ~ ~ ] ]
0 s- 13 ] ]~ 0- ._ s~
~ ~ s.i>' ~ ~ o 0
"", ~ ~ .~ .=" .~ 0 o~ ~~ ~
if) ~~c!:: ~ '" 0;: ~8 ~8 ~ a
.....
~ .g <(
...
~ 0
] ",,0:; J ~ ~ "" J] ...
- if) i ." ~5 .. '" ~ ~ Jij ~ .., I z
'" 3 Ea....;~<>::~ ~ ] ] .. 0
!! I~ B i3 ! o _~...... 0::40 ~ Si ~
I~ U . ~ ffi -; . <>:: oJ ] ? " ...
~J: 3 1ii~ 1;j-''''O ~ 0 ~
'" ~ ~~I~~~~8~ ] r~ ~
" '" ~.~ <>:: J 1 6
." ~ .\1 0- ." ..c ~
u
" 8' -g i:j oS " iiJ J'1 ~ "
~ '" 65 ~ " '" & ~ ~ ~ z
6: '" ~ <>:: c55 0 6: .s :;: Ufo- Pi: <(
~
U
0..
-5
'"
C.
Po
'"
.s
."
~
'"
Po
"
-
Po
01)
"
<3
.0
.~
E
"
E
."
"
"
E
-<
"
" .
~ ,~
.s ~
." .-
-0
001)
~.=
'2 a
ON
N "
-<..c
.e
""'::0::
~ .~
= ~
- '"
Po=
g-Q'
g~
0.0
N "
uo-
0-11
.:; '"
.- ~
~ 2
g g
'':: 0
uV>
<= -
" u
'C' -g
8 "
,,~
.- C)
0.. '"
o :;;
,,0.
'- -
0""
~p..u
>00
80c
Po~ .
0.0;::;
'" c Z
" = ~
..c .- '-'
..... .....N
VI 8-~
~-o~
._ ro?
g.-~
" = ~
1-0 s:: Cj
o':~
-g .~ ~
u ,,<:
2:'g~
U N:J
. c.J
MEMORANDUM
August 30, 1995
TO: Chairman Tuchscher and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otay Ranch Project Team
SUBJECT: SPA One Street Design
Action Request: Review and comment on Street Design for SPA One.
Background: The Otay Ranch GDP sets out street cross-sections for the development of
the streets within the Otay Ranch. Refinements to the street sections are proposed in SPA
One to meet the specific requirements of Villages One and Five. The proposed design is
consistent with and implements the GDP policies. The design reflects modifications
proposed by the Otay Ranch Technical Committee. The Committee is comprised of
members of the Project Team, Planning, Engineering, Parks and Fire Departments.
Representatives of the Metropolitan Transit Development Board were involved in the
transit alignment discussions which effects the street design. The traffic study indicates
that all streets will operate within GDP mobility policies. SPA One street sections are
found on pages 1-71 to 1-82 of the SPA One text. The GDP street sections are attached
for your convenience.
Concerns Raised:
1. The GDP shows transit right-of-way on side of Transit Village Entry Streets
2. Uplifting of curbs, gutters and sidewalks adjacent to parkway with trees
3. Residential street parkways with trees
4. Maintenance and appearance of all parkways
Resolution Of Concerns:
1. After extensive discussions on the transit alignment with MTDB, the Technical
Committee recommends that the transit run in the median of the Village Entry
Streets.
2. Parkways on all streets with trees have been planned for a minimum width of 8
feet with root barriers.
3 Due to the requirement for 8-foot wide parkways, The Baldwin Company has
limited the application of parkways on residential street to just one street
segment in Village 1. All other residential streets will have monolithic sidewalks.
4. Common maintenance of all parkways is needed to ensure acceptable appearance.
Since homeowners associations are not proposed by Baldwin, maintenance is
proposed to be provided by landscape maintenance districts.
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 2
Future Issues:
I. Project Team: Parkways with trees have been identified as a major element of a
pedestrian friendly street environment. The Project Team planners believes the
issues should be explored further to find an acceptable design solution to provide
5-foot parkways with trees on residential streets.
Attachments
PCSTRPT.DOC
Otay Ranch GDP/SRP 0 Part II
..~
,'-
=
_J'-. ~,
,';1\' . ';>' ,', "
!, ,I ','!/', /L. :-/, '"',
': Ii; , ," ,J I. ' i 'l\""'.'" "
\'" ';, '-'It '-,',i :jly/" ,I:/.l .. ~
\, "<\f;'\!/' ,"'" \\,:w\,,f",""""\'I~/// ;, :
".. "\ ,. " , \\' .',/ / .~.. I I; " <
',\ =:CS'. f'~' /""'j/;o
~t~~" --:~
~~~ .__J "',.....
I !..
-t,-;;(
20' MIN. IVARIESJ ,'; VARtCS
J(------- ---------r-."J'------"--/-.
UomSCAP(,D ?
"'f"A=A""A _~_________
PE!>f:IH"'A"""....
,
8' 12" 12'
--)'-- -----J'-----
,~
""--1__"'---~.----"'---~.-"'-,,,....S,,~:C;:MW 'VARES>
\ '\, ~~.;"..":,,c..
_____..______104. MiH,____
.~
-'1------ -/'
fo;nmFNC>
.. ..............,_rWA~
........>0-.
PEUI'~"""H '''AO
MAJOR STREET
:r "'*" W/O Tr1EES (WI UEA/IDERNO SD€WALKI
ff'UN WIO f"REFS
6' AlII/. WI TREES (WI ROOT RESTRlCT/CWSJ
U' ~ WI TREES IWIO ROOT RE'ST1IICJ1CWSJ
Exhib~ 79 Major Street
.,~
: i '<Ii
.....u~ I I
: 5': 6', 'lARES __B,',,_ ." U'
-';~w.I.(-~-'I ..
/ 20' MW. IVA~/~~I _~ :::oc~ ,,!,AI.
~~
_>'PI.......
!
,
,
12' ---,1'-- _I?'.
.1 u_-",,-J--,~L
I
.R_J.___!2'
,
i~I~-fJ
r- ..~'. _....V~R.E.":S/-~)'_20. MIN_ IVA.RIE~!--,I
\ ,I !AlC>SCJJ'W
). i!IlIn1'I..-A
-\--- -;-' ~~"'AA
\ nEJKiCNC~
'u.u.o'MEwA.
_~8.'-'"!!'i...
--------- -- - -
PRIME ARTERIAL
:r ~ w/o TREES (WI UFANt:IE'RM:; $DEWALKJ
5''''''' WIO TREFS
tr M'\( WI fREtS (WI ROOf flESTRlCT1CW$J
U''''''' WI 111€ES tWIO ROOT RESTRlCTIONSI
Exhibit 80 Prime Arterial
October 28, 1993
Page 225
vtay Ranch GDP / SRP a Part II
'" 5':
I
,
/----~-
,=
/
Exhibit 81 Village Entry Street
/
N'
"
,=
TRANSI'
ww
\onE~_"'NO
"C~SS"~"EA8tE
Exhibit 82 Transit Village Entry Street
_ 29'
'....,".~m
'"_5'''''''''
E~~P"__
I
I
/
I
!
U'
_.,.~-_._--_.._--~~-)<
,.,.
5'
.
.
---~,-'-'~--
,osC~S'*"..-rART_E
,
'-. ~""~^<1SF~ACI(
_~~_____ 29'
-'" ,-".,.-
,.._s...'"
~TI'''''''_
, -
/
"
""
6'
VILLAGE ENTRY STREET
:r MIW W/O TREES (WI MEAMJERIYO SDEWALlO
tJ'MIN W/O TREES
8'!oI1N WI TREES (WI ROOT RESTfl1CTICWSJ
14' MIN WI TREES IW/O ROOT RESTRICTION$)
/
?9'
-.J<-- 16'
--
! 211'
--.,------ ---
""'.......I!!.
UIE$""""
~I"--
*
*
,WO "...on
,>MES"""
CMfNQEM:.I'A__
,
U'
..___u__'____
/-
,
,
TRANSIT VILLAGE ENTRY STREET
:r.ww W/O TREES (WI ~AhDE_ SIO€WAlKI
Ii" A4W WID TREES
"rUIN WI TRtESfW/ROOTRESTRlCTJON$J
'4' MIN WI THE"ES (WIO ROOT REsrRfCTlONS1
U,SCH'EDCS,*"NI'C,,"T/llKE
"-....,YNOSC""or
/
October 28, 1993
Page 226
Otay Ranch GDP/SRP 0 Pan II
/-----../
WSC :
!
20'
/"
ONE TRAVEL LANE EACH
WA Y WITH PARKING
20'
I
._---/--~-/-
I LDSC
!
.:;(- 5"
5'
*1
,k-
40'
,"-
----------
TYPICAL VILLAGE CORE STREET
'* 3' MIA/. W/O TREES rw/ MEANDERING SIDEWALKI
6' MIA/. W/O mEES
B'MIA/. W/ TREES rw/ ROOT RESTRICTIONS)
14' MIA/. W/ TREES IW/O ROOT RESTR)CTIONS)
Exh,b,I83 1 ypical Village Core Street
~~
c: \
c, _
I \
-c,
,.
KJ'
5' ,
/
/
?5'
17' 17'
/
~"'A>fl"'1oE
".""........"'.
......~.P,,""-
,
""_5
, ,
;~ ~~':~~ "!:~~~s j /
THAN$T
W.
,"~C,,'EO<SlRMl<VC"Rr__E
lOse
."""~SIJ8A(:X
3"
A TYPICAL VILLAGE CORE STREET
3'MfN 1+'/0 TR€ES IW/ MEANDFf?/N(; SI{)tWA/I(}
6' AJiN W/O mE~S
8'UlN W/ TREES fW/ ROOT flf-STH/Cf/ONSi
'4'"",", W/ fREES IW/O ROOT RFSTlI1G'TIONS'
Exhibit 84 Atypical Village Core Slreet
October 28, 1993
Page 227
utay Ranch GDP / SRP 0 Part II
MUL TI-FAMIL Y _
RESIDENTIAL
-~
I 15'
Ll
Lose
*
LDse
6'
PARKINO
10' 10'
ONE 111.14 YEl LANE
EACH WA Y
AUTO/CART/BIKE
32'
8' *
PARKING I LD$C
I
I
I
6'
PED/
mAL
*
Lose
~ VAHYIVG SETBACK
I
I
VARYING SETBACK
./
PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE
PROMENADE CORE STREET
Exhibit 85 Promenade Core Street
* 3' MIN. W/O TREES IW/ MEANDERING SIDEWALK)
6' MIN. W/O TREES
8' MIN. W/ TREES IW/ ROOT RESTRICTIONS)
14' MIN. W/ TREES IW/O ROOT RESTRICTIONS)
* L-~,J,,;;-,(
LOSC PED/ l.OSC
TRAL
SINGLE-FAMIL Y
RESIDENTIAL
1* --1 5'
lDse
*
16' 18'
Lose
ONE' TRAw:I tAlE
EACH WA Y
Avro/CART/IJI(E
6'""""",", ./
YARYIrQ SETBACK
32'
TWQ-WA Y TRA ioH
i
---i'
PEDES TRfAN PROMENADE
18'
PROMENADE STREET A T
SINGLE-FA MIL Y RESIDENTIAL
"* 3' MlN W/O TREES fW/ MEANDERING SIDEWALK)
6' MIN W/O TREES
Exhibit 86 Promenade SHeet at Single-Family Residential 9' MIN W/ TREES IW/ ROOT RESTRICTIONS)
U'MlN W/ TREES fW/O ROOT RESTRICTlONSI
Octobec 28, 1993 Page 228
Otay Ranch GDP/SRP 0 ParI II
;r~J'
;0
::,
'"
.---'
o
"
>
MUtT/FAMILY
RESCJENTlAL
5'. 6' I
,/ /-,. ,
Pfl} ,ose "A_NO
10' ,. ~.
~TR"l'fllA_
OC/ofwAy
/_6'/./~:",
"A_NO ,DSC Ifl'
/
32'
,
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET
. 3' AA'\( W/O meES (WI I.€AhVCRNG SIDEWAlKI
6' ""'" WIO TREES
8'~ WI TflEES (WIIlOOr RESTRICTIONSI
'''' MW W/ TREES IW/O floor RESTRICTIONS)
Exhibit 87 Residential Collector Street
S~NGLE-FAMIL y
RESIDENTIAL
I 5' * I
i I, 6' I 20'
/--- ---,Y--- -/---~-
Lose j PARKNG VEHICLE 4
I CART TRAVEl
26'
/----
$INGlE-FAMll y
RESIJJENTIAL
I
/ 5'.;-
Lose
--)<
SINGLE LOADED RESIDENTIAL STREET
NOTE, SINGLE LOADED RESIDENTIAL STREETS REOUIRE
FIRE MARSHAL APPROVED TURN AROUND
UNLESS CONSTRUCTED AS THROUGH ROADS
Exhibit 88 Single Loaded Residential Street
>: 3' MIN W/O TREES IW/ MEANDERING SIDEWALKJ
6' MIN W/O TREES
B'MIN W/ TREES IW/ ROOT RESTRICTIONSJ '
14' MJN W/ TREES IW/O ROOT RESTRICTIONSJ
October 28, 1993
Page 229
Otay Ranch GDP /SRP 0 Part II
SINGLE-FAMIL Y
RES/DENT/AL
L! 5' * i i 1 I
'6,1 10' 10' 16,
--/-- , )------ -~-F---)'
Lose PARKING PARKIN. Lose
I 32'
/-_._---_._-~--- ,(
*
5'
RES/DENT/AL STREET
C}, 3' MIN W/O TREES rw/ MEANOERING SIDEWALK)
6' MIN W/O TREES
8' MIN W/ TREES rw/ ROOT RESTRICTIONS)
14' MIN W/ TREES rW/o ROOT RESTRICTIONS)
Exhibit 89 Residential Street
Exhibit 90 Alley
SINGLE-FAMIL Y
RES/DENT/AL
October 28, 1993
Page 230
SET-
BACK
BACK
}
J
32' M/N
ALLEY
Otay Ranch GDP/SRP 0 Part II
ss. q[
j>
5' 5' 4'
CART PED,
TFlA VEl. WA Y
14'
BRIDGE
CROSSING
Exhibit 91 Bridge Crossing
~
/ 8' ,
, ,
PARKING
12'
12'
hJ>: ..... ....
tR=n CUR",
!,
8'
,
VEHICLE
TRA VEL
, ,
PARKING
RURAL COLLECTOR STREET
Exhibit 92 Rural Collector Street
October 28, 1993
Page 231
Otay Ranch GDP / SRP CJ Part II
"'-'-,'-..:'<>::<<-:.>-:-:L,...
Exhibit 93 Rural Street
!, B'
7
PARKING
."..-.--...".......--.....--......-....
...."..........................................
.. ."'.---.....- ..............-..........
.............-.........................
....-... .......................-.
... ..............................
......,.....................
.......................
........................
................
12'
!,
12'
. .. _...-.-,..J.
.............irii...... Ai.
e8~CED c'""
VEHICLE
TRA VEL
I. B'
--;
PARKING
RURAL STREET
October 28, 1993
Page 232
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
August 30, 1995
TO: Chairman Tuchscher and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otay Ranch Project Team
SUBJECT: Traffic and Phasing Analysis SPA One EIR
Action Requested: Review and discuss the subject documents,
Background: The traffic studies were accomplished after receIving direction from the
transportation technical subcommittee on the assumptions, methodology and scope of the
analysis, The technical subcommittee consisted of representatives from the Otay Ranch Project
Team, SANDAG, CalTrans, California Transit Ventures (CTV) MTDB, the County of San
Diego, Urban Systems, Baldwin, Cotton/Beland (EIR Consultant), and BRW (traffic consultants
for Cotton/Beland), The traffic and phasing analysis has been reviewed by staff and subcommittee
members, Comments and revisions as a result of that review are being incorporated into the
documents but are not included in the documents in your packet.
Methodologies: The traffic studies were based upon the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) Series 8 traffic model. This process assumes trip generation rates of 7,6 trips per
single-family dwelling unit (SFD) and 6.4 trips per multi-family dwelling unit (MFD), These rates
are lower than previous studies which used 10 trips/SFD and 8 trips/MFD_ The lower trip rates
for residential land uses reflect the most recent model enhancement completed by SANDAG, The
entire transportation modeling process was enhanced during the transition from Series 7 (Year
2000) to Series 8 (year 2015), One of the primary improvements to the previous modeling
process was the ability of the new Series 8 model to incorporate the adopted General Plan level
information for each jurisdiction within the County of San Diego, This enhanced computing
capability resulted in Series 8 projections using 4,545 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) compared to
773 T AZs used in Series 7 forecasts,
Scope of Analysis: The analysis was based on a fixed level trip generation ITom proposed Otay
Ranch SPA One Project and a set of assumed trip activity ITom cumulative development projects
in eastern Chula Vista, This cumulative development traffic activity level was utilized to develop
a series of traffic projections evaluating four separate network alternatives, The four alternatives
are:
. No Project (Alternative 0)
. The Proposed Project
. Alternative 1 (Otay Lakes Road Connection)
. Alternative 2 (Interim SR-125)
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 2
The study analyzed the four alternatives for impacts to the following:
. On-Site Circulation System
. Study Area Freeway Segments
. Study Area Arterial Segments
. Study Area Intersection Capacity (49 analyzed)
. Study Area Freeway Interchange/Capacity
. Transit Operations
. Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
. Trip ReductionlLand Use Design Assessment
. Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Conformance
The analysis were performed for three assessment time frames:
. Existing Conditions (1995)
. Interim Conditions (SPA One Buildout Year 2010)
. Full Southbay Buildout, including SPA One
In addition to analyzing the four network alternatives, a phasing analysis was performed for the
years 2000, 2005 and 2010, This analysis was performed to highlight the impacts of SPA One
and to determine what mitigation will be necessary to maintain acceptable peak hour traffic
conditions with the development. This cumulative analysis included only those developments
within the City of Chula Vista with approved Tentative Maps and background growth in the
Southbay region,
The on-site transportation system was also analyzed to determine if additional access points were
necessary in order to meet City threshold standards. The analysis indicated that the on-site system
will work without a third access point, However, safety issues were raised by the Engineering
and Fire Departments and the Policy Committee has required a third access be provided for each
village,
Significant Issues: Section 6,5 of the traffic analysis shows a comparative evaluation of
impacted streets within the City and County, As indicated in the section, many streets operate
below the level of service (LOS) considered acceptable by the City or the County with buildout
conditions for SPA One in the year 2010 The study also revealed that the majority of these
impacts occur with or without the project. This is significant because it raises the question as to
what improvements SPA One should provide to mitigate impacts of the project, The phasing
analysis was conducted to attempt to segregate SPA One impacts ITom other anticipated
development impacts and to identity the timing for implementing key circulation improvement
projects,
Planning Commission
August 30, 1995
Page 3
A number of the road segments indicated to be below acceptable LOS have a small percentage of
segment traffic contributed by SPA One, Staff would like to point out that the City had meetings
in 1989 with the County staff where an apparent agreement was reached as to which roadways in
the Bonita area would be City responsibility and which would be County responsibility, As a
result of those meetings, the City's Transportation Development Impact Fee program (TDIF) was
amended to include roads within the County, One of those projects has been constructed (Central
Avenue widening to 3 lanes at a cost of $190,000), The City has contributed $50,000 toward
design of another County street improvement project. The County has subsequently put on hold
key projects in the Bonita area or dropped them as a result of public pressure. Total estimated
cost of County roads included in our current TDIF is approximately 3 million dollars with an
additional 8,7 million dollars included in the SR-125 DIF to upgrade Proctor Valley Road,
Sweetwater Road and partial funding of San Miguel Road to provide an interim facility,
Mitigation Required of SPA One: Section 9 of the traffic analysis for SPA One indicates which
roadway segments and/or signalized intersections are to be mitigated, Staff has indicated to BRW
that the analysis must limit the mitigation requirements to a point where the mitigation can be
justified by the impact of the project (nexus), Requiring full mitigation when the project
contributes 2 percent of the total traffic can not be justified,
SANDAG requires compliance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for large
projects to evaluate impacts to the regional transportation system, Guidelines for the (CMP) use
50 or more peak hour trips in one direction on an arterial as the criteria to determine when a street
segment will be examined in the Transportation Impact Report (TIR) , This program is used to
determine impacts to the Regionally Significant Arterial (RSA) system,
Staff proposes to use the CMP criteria to determine at which point mitigation will be considered
as a requirement for SPA One development, Peak hour trips are 10 percent of the Average Daily
Trips (ADT) and peak one-way trips are 60 percent of the peak hour trips, This means that a
street will be considered insignificantly impacted, requiring no mitigation, if the project
contribution to the segment ADT is less than (50/ O,6)xl0 or approximately 800 ADT, Impacts
to DIF streets will be mitigated through construction of DIF improvements or payment of DIF
fees, Impact trom SPA One to Bonita area road segments is considered by staff to be mitigated
by participation in the DIF programs, Staff feels that impacts to Bonita streets (by City projects)
have been addressed by including County streets in both the TDIF and the SR-125 DIF as
indicated above.
Traffic signals are also proposed to be installed as mitigation for development of SPA One,
Installation of those facilities will be provided as required by the EIR with credit given toward
Traffic Signal Fees in accordance with City policy,
WORD\WAU\PLANCOMT,DQC