Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/05/01 (4) Item: I.A. Meeting Date: May 1. 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-09; General Development Plan (GDP) Amendments ISSUE: Should each village within the Otay Ranch be master planned as a unit? BACKGROUND: The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) requires that each village must be master-planned as a unit. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant has applied to amend the Otay Ranch GDP to delete this requirement rrom the plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the language proposed by the Applicant is too broad and should be scaled back to apply only to those areas where there exist some rationale for permitting planning separate ITom the remainder of a designated village or planning area. Staff has identified three areas of the GDP Land Use Plan map where it would be appropriate to amend the GDP to enable these areas to develop separate ITom the village in which they are located: the Inverted "L", the area west of Pas eo Ranchero and the Ranch House (Mary Patrick Estate). The project applicant has requested that the Freeway Commercial area of the Eastern Urban Center be included in the GDP Amendment. Each area is presented as its own issue. gdp_1.doc ISSUE I.A.I.: Should the Freeway Commercial area of Planning Area 12 be allowed to develop under its own SPA? BACKGROUND: The Freeway Commercial (FC) area on the GDP is part of Planning Area 12, the Eastern Urban Center. This area has ITontage on SR-125 and is surrounded by Orange Avenue, EastLake Parkway and Birch Road on the GDP. The other proposed exceptions to the master planned village requirements are based on physical separation and the existence of habitat on these areas ITom the village in which they are planned. The Freeway Commercial is part of the EUC which should have its own SPA. The GDP master planned village policy would require a SPA Plan for the entire EUC before the Freeway Commercial area could develop. Development of Freeway Commercial and the EUC should be linked with the timing of the SR-125 construction so precise locations of freeway interchanges are coordinated with the demand for commercial development and to avoid premature or leap ITog development. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes that the FC area of Planning Area 12, the Eastern Urban Center be allowed to develop under its own SPA similar to the other exceptions. OTHER POSmONS: San Diego County staff supports the GDP amendments for the Inverted "L", the area west of Paseo Ranchero and the Ranch House as reported to the Planning Commission and are opposed to any other amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Do not amend the GDP to allowed the FC area to develop under its own SPA separate ITom the EUC. ALTERNATIVES: Allow the FC area to be included in the Village II SPA. gdp_l.doc Page 2 Item: LB. Meeting Date: May 1. 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-09; General Development Plan (GDP) Amendments ISSUE: Should the GDP be amended to provide flexibility in transit alignments and modifY the timing of transit right-of-way dedication? BACKGROUND: The Otay Ranch GDP indicates the Village Cores are conceptually located on the GDP land use maps. The land use policies indicate the cores will be precisely located on the SPA land plan. In addition, the GDP plans for transit stations in the center of the Village Core. The cores are conceptually shown on the land use map and are allowed to shift based on more detailed studies at the SPA level. The same flexibility for transit alignment is not clear in the Land Use and Mobility chapters. In addition, the GDP requires the reservation of transit right-of-way at the SPA level and dedication on the Tentative Map. Dedication is premature in the development process on the Tentative Map. Normally, all dedications are required at the Pinal Map level where precise engineering is necessary. Dedication at the Tentative Map stage can only be accomplished by a grant of deed of easement for right-of-way. Dedication at this stage is premature since the Final Map and improvement plans need to be coordinated and consistent. Dedication of the transit right -of -way needs to be coordinated with street, water, sewer and drainage dedications. Also, alternative alignments for SPA One were analyzed as part of the SPA One EIR. This GDP amendment will allow transit alignment to be adjusted for habitat or other environmental reasons. Staff supports the proposed amendment to allow the transit alignment to shift based on the flexible village core policies for precise location of the core at the SPA level. Amendments for the technical problem with the reservation and dedication requirements at the SPA are also recommend. Right-of-way would be dedicated at final map stage under the proposed amendment. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The project applicant has applied to amend the Village One map in the GDP text to indicated a revised alignment for the trolley. SPA One realigns the light rail transit through Village One rrom the GDP alignment. The new alignment is proposed to run rrom Telegraph Canyon Road up to Palomar Street in the area west of Paseo Ranchero in order to serve the Village One Core. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Amend the GDP to allow flexibility in transit alignment at the SPA level and to require transit line dedication as a condition of tentative map approval. ATTACHMENT: See Attachment A. gdp_ 4.doc ATTACHMENT A OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PCM 95-09 MASTER PLAN VILLAGES Chapter 1 Land Use Plan Section E Implementation 1. Introduction Page 113 Each village must be master-plarmed as a unit, except for the Inverted "L". the areas of Village One and Two west of Pas eo Ranchero. Ranch House proDertv and the Freewav Commercial area of the Eastern Urban Center. Planning Area Twelve which may have their own SPA Plan approved prior to develoDment of the Darticular area" TRANSIT ALIGNMENT Section D Land Use Design, Character and Policies 1. Village Definition and Organization Page 102 f Transit Policies Each village is plarmed to facilitate alternative method of transportation. The land use and circulation patterns of urban villages are organized around transit service and facilities. A significant alternative means of transportation is the trolley system. Several components of the GDP/SRP Land Use Plan encourage the use of transit, such as: . Transit line rights-of-way shall be r-eseFVed approximately located at the SPA level and irrevoeably offered will be.s.onditiQ!!~-,;Lfor dedication at the Tentative Map level within Villages I, 5, 6, 9 and 12. . Trolley stops and/or stations shall be feserved...approximatelv located at the SPA level and irrevQCalbly...offer-ed..will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level in village core areas. GDPAMND.DOC April I?, 1996 Olay Ranch GDP Amendments PCM95-09 The following policies are intended to ensure that village cores and surrounding areas are readily accessible to facilitate a variety of modes of transportation: . A 25-foot transit right-of-way shall be resefVed..approximately located at the SPA level and irr-evooably.-efferoo.. will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level within Village Entry Streets designated as transit routes. . Since the GDP/SRP village core locations are conceptually located on the L~.mL!J.~.!LM!!IL!!D.d.J!r~_ to J!.!L.m?'pIQ,gmately locat~.d..itt the SP A...Jevel consistent with the GDP/SRP goals. obiectives and policies. the transit line alignment on the Land Use Map may also shift to serve the village core based on an analvsis required by the village core policies. Precise transit aligmmmL wiIL12~._.d_~.t~ffi1ined wit.!L.1b~_.11.r.~p..!l.r.~lLQLQL final maps and improvement plans. Village One (GDP Page 123) . Right-of-way for tralwit shall be reserved approximately located at the SPA level and irreyoeably offered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. . A tffiftsit trolley stop and/or station shall be reserved approximately located at the SPA level and iITI]yoeably offcred will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level in the village core. Village Five (GDP Page 144) . Right-of-way for transit shall be reser,ed approximately located at the SPA level and irre',oeably oWcred will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. . A tffiftsit trolley stop and/or station shall be reserved approximatelv located at the SPA level and irreyoeably offered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level in the village core. Village Six (GDP Page 147) . A tffiftsit trolley stop and/or station shall be reserved approximatelv located iH--the yillage eere at the SPA level and irre\'oeably offered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level in the village core. GDPAMND.DOC April 17, 1996 2 ATTACHMENT A Olay Ranch GDP Amendments PCM95-09 Village Six (GDP Page 148) . Right-of-way for transit shall be resefVed approximatelv located at the SPA level and irreveeably offered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Village Nine (GDP Page 160) . A tfaflsit trollev stop and/or station shall be reserved approximatelv located in--tfle 'iillage eore at the SPA level and irre'ioeably offered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level in the village core. . Right-of-way for trlHlsit shall be reserved approximatelv located at the SPA level and iffe\'oeably offcred will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Planning Area 12 (GDP Page 178) . Transit line rights-of-wav and tfaflsit trolley stop~station~ within the EUC and Freeway Commercial area shall be reser/ed approximatelv located at the SPA level and irrevoeably offered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Village Two (GDP Page 128) . Although the village is not located along the light rail transit route, a transit stop shall be reserved approximatelv located at the SPA level and irre'/oeably offered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Village Three (GDP Page 133) . Although the village is not located along the light rail transit route, Ai! transit stop shall be reser/ed approximately located at the SPA level and irreyocably offered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Village Four (GDP Page 139) . Although the village is not located along the light rail transit route, Ai! transit stop shall be reserved approximately located at the SPA level and irrevoeably effered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Village Seven (GDP Page 152) . Although the village is not located along the light rail transit route, a transit stop shall be reserved approximately located at the SPA level and irreyoeably offcred will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. GDPAMND.DOC Aprill7, 1996 3 ATIACHMENT A Olay Ranch GDP Amendments PCM95.09 Village Eight (GDP Page 155) . Although Village Eight is not eH-ft located along the light rail transit route, a transit stop shall be reserved approximately located at the SPA level and irre'/oeaIJly offered will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Village Ten (GDP Page 166) . Although the village is not located along the light rail transit route. a transit stop shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Village Eleven (GDP Page 171) . Although the village is not located along the light rail transit route. a transit stop shall be approximately located at the SPA level and will be conditioned for dedication at the Tentative Map level. Chapter 2 Mobility Section B Goals, Policies, and Objectives Trolley System Page 234 Regional transportation plans envision the expansion of the light rail system to connect the existing system to the international border and various urban areas, including Otay Ranch. Objective: The Otay Ranch land use and mobility plans shall incorporate regional plans for the expansion of the light rail system. Policy: Coordinate with MTDB, CVT and other transit agencies to provide for integration of the light rail line into Villages One, Five, Six and Nine, the Park and Ride and the Eastern Urban Center. The light !:.~L!ran~it alignment shown on the GDP/S~J.".!!.mLUs~ MM) i~ conceptual and will be more preciselv located at the SPA level of planning. GDPAMND.DQC April 17, 1996 4 ATIACHMENT A Otay Ranch GDP Amendments PCM95-09 FARMLAND IRRIGATION Chapter 10 Resource Protection, Construction, and Management Page 384 8. Resource Preserve - Interim Land Uses Policy: Existing agricultural uses, including cultivation and grazing, shall be permitted to continue as an interim activity only where they have occurred historically and continually. No increase in irrigation shall be allowed except for temporary irrigation that may be installed as part of restoration plans, unless approved by the Preserve Owner/Manager. Grazing of sheep...." SOLAR ENERGY Section E Energy Conservation page 393 Building Design and Use . Use of solar energy systems, as practical RESIDENTIAL AND HABITAT NOISE MITIGATION General Development Plan Performance Standards Page 121 L. NOISE . Residential development within the impact area shall not be allowed unless the site specific noise study shows that the exterior noise level can be mitigated to 60 CNEL 65 CNEL or below and that the interior noise level can be mitigated to 45 CNEL or below . Impacts to Least Bell's Vireo tmtl California GaateateHer habitat shall be mitigated to achieve a level of 60 dBA Leq or below. GDPAMND.DOC April 17, 1996 5 ATTACHMENT A Olay Ranch GDP Amendments PCM95-09 . Noise levels within gnatcatcher habitat shall. to the extent feasible. achieve 65 dBA. However. for the purpose of achieving the gnatcatcher preservation standard of 52 %. those gnatcatchers impacted by 65 dBA or greater shall not be counted as preserved. RESOURCE PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT Chapter 10 2. Preservation of Sensitive Resources Page 362 Include within the habitat preserve. occupied breeding and foraging habitat and sufficient potential habitat to maintain and enhance a viable metapopulation for the northern harrier. California horned lark. loggerhead shrike. and burrowing owl. GDPAMND.DOC April 17, 1996 6 AITACHMENT A RESOLUTION PCM 95-09 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE OT A Y RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, an application for amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on October 19, 1994 and September 7, 1995 by the Otay Ranch L.P. ("Applicant"), and; WHEREAS, the amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP involve six minor changes. These amendments affect master-planned villages, transit, irrigation of farmland, solar energy requirements, residential noise mitigation and habitat mitigation noise standards (Attachment A). Except for the amendment applying to villages being master-planned as a unit, the amendments will apply to the entire area affected by the Otay Ranch GDP ('Project'), and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said GDP amendments and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and mailing to property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries ofthe property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the hearings were held at the time and place as advertised on November 8, 1995 and November 15, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission. Said hearings were continued to March 27, 1996, April 10, 1996, April 24, 1996 and May I, 1996 by a motion of the Planning Commission at which time, said hearings were thereafter closed, and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Second-tier Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 95-01, a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and Addendum, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project, and; WHEREAS, this Second-tier EIR, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-01 and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993, and the Sphere of Influence Update EIR 2.4-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on_ March 21, 1995, and; WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but constitute a Planning Commission General Development Plan Amendments Page 2 binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby adopts Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report EIR 95-01 and Addendum. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving the proposed amendments in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. C:\PCM95_09.DOC Planning Commission General Development Plan Amendments Page 3 PASSED AND APPROVED BY TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this May I, 1996 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary Attachments: Attachment A Draft City Council Resolution C:IPCM95_09.DOC William C. Tuchscher II Chairman RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (pCM 95-09) WHEREAS, an application for amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on October 19, 1994 and September 7, 1995 by the Otay Ranch L.P. ("Applicant"), and; WHEREAS, the amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP involve six minor changes. These amendments affect master-planned villages, transit, irrigation of farmland, solar energy requirements, residential noise mitigation and habitat mitigation noise standards (Attachment A). Except for the amendment applying to villages being master-planned as a unit, the amendments will apply to the entire area affected by the Otay Ranch GDP ("Project"), and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said GDP amendments and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and mailing to property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries ofthe property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the hearings were held at the time and place as advertised on November 8, 1995 and November 15, 1995 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission. Said hearings were continued to March 27, 1996, April 10, 1996, April 24, 1996 and May 1, 1996 by a motion of the Planning Commission at which time, said hearings were thereafter closed, and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Second-tier Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) EIR 95-01, a Recirculated Second-tier Draft EIR and Addendum, and Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been issued to address environmental impacts associated with the implementation ofthe Project, and; WHEREAS, this Second-tier EIR, the Recirculated EIR and Addendum incorporates, by reference, two prior EIRs: the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) EIR 90-0 I and the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Program EIR 90-01 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council and San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993, and the Sphere of Influence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 21, 1995, and; WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the Resolution No. Page 2 Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED mAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearings on the Draft ErR, the Recirculated DEIR and Addendum held on November 8, 1995, November IS, 1995, March 27, 1996 and March 28, 1996, and their public hearings held on this Project on November 15, 1995, March 27, 1996, April 10, 1996, April 24, 1996 and May 1, 1996 and the minutes and resolutions resulting thereITom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims. II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA That the City Council does hereby find that FEIR 95-01 and Addendum, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista. III. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: A. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan was found consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan when it was approved on October 23, 1993. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments are minor in nature and do not impact the land use, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses set out in the GDP. These amendments will still advance the goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP. C:\PCM95_09.DOC Resolution No. Page 3 B. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The SPA One Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain proVISIOns and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The Public Facilities Financing Plan specifies the public facilities required by the Otay Ranch, and also the regional facilities needed to serve it. The proposed amendments to master- planned villages, transit, irrigation of farmland, solar energy requirements, residential noise mitigation, habitat mitigation noise standards and habitat performance standards will not have an impact on the sequential development of SPA One. C. THE PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The villages within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer adjacent to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay Ranch Planning Area One. Four neighborhood parks will be located within the SPA One area to serve the project residents, and the project will provide a wide range of housing types for all economic levels. A comprehensive street network serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report. The proposed GDP amendments will not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental quality. IV. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Adoption of Findings of Fact The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Attachment "A" of this Resolution known as document number ---' a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution known as C:\PCM95_09.DOC Resolution No. Page 4 document number ---' a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. C. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution known as document number ---' a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the mitigation measure regarding habitat noise mitigation described in the above referenced documents is infeasible. D. Infeasibility of Alternatives As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 95-0 I and Addendum and in the Findings ofF act, Section XI, for this project, which is Attachment "A" to this Resolution known as document number ---' a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified as potentially feasible in FEIR 95-01 and Addendum were found not to be feasible. E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, City Council hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in Attachment "B" of this Resolution known as document number ---' a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. The City Council hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the permittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties and the successors in interest implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Program. F. Statement of Overriding Consideration Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Attachment "C", known as document number C:\PCM95_09.DOC Resolution No. Page 5 --' a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, identitying the specific economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. V. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. This document along with any documents submitted to the decision makers shall comprise the record of proceedings for any CEQA claims. VI. Attachments All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full. C:\PCM95_09.DOC Resolution No. Page 6 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista, California, this May 21, 1996 by the following vote: YES: NOES: ABSENT: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a City Council meeting held on the 21th day of May, 1996. Executed this 21 th day of May, 1996. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk Attachments: Attachment A: GDP Amendments Attachment B: Findings of Fact Attachment C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment D: Statement of Overriding Considerations C:\PCM95_09.DOC Item: I.A.I Meeting Date: Mav l. 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01; SPA One ISSUE: Should the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEP A) establishing the City and County as the Preserve OwnerlManager (POM) be adopted? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) requires that portions of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan be jointly approved by San Diego County and the City of Chula Vista. Prior to approval of the first SPA, the GDP requires the identification of a POM. At its March 6, 1996 meeting, the County Board of Supervisors approved the County and the City of Chula Vista to act as the Preserve OwnerlManager for a period of five years. At that meeting, they also approved an accompanying Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA). At the end of the five-year period, the management of the POM will be re-evaluated APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is in support of the JEPA, which establishes that the City and County will act as the POM for a period of five years. OTHER POSITIONS: The Chula Vista Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) has expressed a desire that a third party, independent of the City and County, be identified within the next three years to act as the POM. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the JEPA which designates the City and County and their respective responsibilities to act as the POM for a period of five years. AL TERNA TIVES: Approve the JEP A and any independent party for some alternate period of time. RELATED ISSUES: See Item 1.A.2 (In lieu fee process), l.A.3 (Timing of conveyance), I.A.4 (Methodology) and l.A.5 (Maintenance). ATTACHMENT: Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement PC501 A1.DOC Pag~ 1 .3 ATTACHMENT A I I JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CRULA VISTA AND THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE PLANNING, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE OTAY RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERVE THISNtGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the ~+ J, day of fJlcH , 1996 between the city of Chula Vista and the county of San Diego, political subdivisions of the state of California, hereinafter referred to collectively as Public Agencies. WHEREAS, on October 28, 1993, the Chula vista city council and the San Diego county Board of supervisors jointly approved the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, (General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (nGDP/SRP"), which sets forth a plan for the development of housing, commercial, recreational and open space within the jurisdiction of the Public Agencies; and WHEREAS, the GDP/SRP delineates an approximately 11,375 acre area as the otay Ranch Open Space Preserve, shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the GDP/SRP provides that prior to the approval of the first city of Chula Vista Sectional Planning Area or county Specific Plan Area, ("SPA/specific Plan") a Preserve owner/Manager ("POM") for the otay Ranch open Space Preserve must be selected and retained; and WHEREAS, the POM will be responsible for management of resources, restoration of habitat and enforcement of open space restrictions for the otay Ranch open Space Preserve once the Preserve is formally established and title to the land conveyed; and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies, each of which are empowered by law to acquire land for park and open space purposes desire to enter into this Joint powers Agreement to plan, design and operate the otay Ranch Open Space Preserve in order to quali~ as a POM and to satisfy the conditions of the GDP/SRP. NOW, THEREFORE, the Public Agencies, in consideration of the mutual benefits, promises and agreements set forth herein, agree as follows: SECTION 1_ Pur'Oose_ This Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 000016 JM1Z4% 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the state of California commencing with Section 6500, relating to joint powers common to public agencies. The Public Agencies possess the powers referred to in the above recitals. The purpose of this Agreement is to exercise such powers jointly by coordinating the planning, design and operation of the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve. SECTION 2. Term. This Agreement shall become effective as of the date first written above and will continue in full force and effect for 30 years from the effective date or until terminated as indicated in SECTION 9. Aaencv Withdrawal or SECTION 10. Termination. The parties will review this Agreement every five (5) years. This Agreement may be extended for an additional 30 years by the written consent of the parties. SECTION 3. Description. The real property to be planned, designed and operated is located generally within the property depicted on Exhibit A. The property is currently in various ownerships. As tentative maps within each SPA/Specific Plan for the Otay Ranch development project are processed, land will be conveyed into the preserve according to the Conveyance Plan, attached as Exhibit B hereto. SECTION 4. Ownership. Title to the land which is conveyed into the Open Space Preserve will be held jointly by the Public Agencies. SECTION 5. PoliCY Committee. A Policy Committee shall be established, consisting of two (2) elected representatives, one each appointed by the governing bodies of the Public Agencies. An alternate may also be appointed by each of the Public Agencies. A quorum for the purpose of conducting business will consist of one member from each agency. In the absence of a quorum, a member may move to adjourn. The Policy committee shall at a minimum meet annually, but may meet more often if agreed to by the members. The duties of the Policy Committee shall be to establish policies for the PreserVe Management Team as set forth in SECTION 6 below, and to review all operations conducted under this Joint Powers Agreement. SECTION 6. Preserve Manaaement Team. The Preserve Management Team consists of the city Manager of the city of Chula Vista and the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer of the County of San Diego. The Preserve Management Team shall meet as often as necessary to monitor the implementation of the otay Ranch Open Space Preserve Resource Management Plan and 5: 000017 JAN24% to assign staff necessary to carry out the duties and responsibilities set forth in Exhibit C hereto, "Duties and Responsibilities of the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/Manager(s)". SECTION 7. Preserve Owner/Manaaer Staff Committee. The Preserve Owner/Manager Staff Committee will consist of appropriate staff members from each Public Agency to be assigned by each agency on an as needed basis. The Preserve Owner/Manager Staff Committee will be responsible for operations of the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve as directed by the Policy Committee, and its organization and functions shall be established to conform with Exhibit D, city of Chula Vista and San Diego County Preserve Owner Manager organization Chart, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 8. Administration. Day-to-day administration of this Agreement, including preparation of assessment districts, operational funding, preparation of budgets, agendas, maintenance of records, minutes and meetings and conformance to other legally required processes pertaining to records, purchases, and administrative matters shall be the responsibility of the County of San Diego. SECTION 9. Aaencv withdrawal. Either party may withdraw from participation in this Agreement upon sixty (60) days notification and consent, in writing, by the other party. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Lack of adequate funding for the Preserve maintenance and operation shall constitute reasonable grounds to withhold consent. Any contributions made by the withdrawing party toward the acquisition, development, management and preservation of the otay Ranch Open Space Preserve shall be retained by the remaining agency. The remaining public agency shall continue to be responsible for administering the duties and responsibilities of POM. SECTION 10. Termination. This Joint Powers Agreement may be terminated upon the mutual agreement of the Public Agencies if a new Preserve Manager, acceptable to both parties, has been retained to perform the duties and responsibil~ties required of the POM. SECTION 11. Governina Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. SECTION 12. Partial Invaliditv. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or h 000018 J~H 2 4 ~ (, unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 13. Execution. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original but all together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. SECTION 14. Notice. Any notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement may be personally delivered or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following address: CITY OF CHULA VISTA: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO: John Goss city Manager City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Phone: (619) 691-5031 SECTION 15. David Janssen Chief Administrative Officer County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Coast Highway San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 531-5267 Entire Aareement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement among the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by their duly authorized officers, as of the date first above written. CITY OF CHULA VISTA: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO: 1'~ J. V~~- Clerk of the Board of supervisors City Clerk Approved and/or authorlZeo ty the Bo~ro of Super~sors ot the County ot San DiEQI) Date ~ (. - q (, Minute Orcer No b THOMAS J PASTUSZKA .- Cler"t.e.f the BO~~rs By 7' . legality: Deputy Clerk ('I/J.lid,~ r 4A 3-t0~/7 County Counsel Approved as to form and City Attorney 7 000019 JANZ4% CI) t CI) en CI) d: c < ~~ ~ CI) ... ca ~ CIJ c: CI) o -e c ca ~ >- ca .... o = .. co ~ ~ : ".. It ~ Z ... ~ >- .< i ~ " ... .9- !i..~S-5 go ; .. E . c..u8"! .. .. !; '11 :I Ii: 0 >- -6 '11 n & .!! c 6 CC 1: ~ &. ~ .1 ... a.. 15 _ u · "C:~'ii== iO>!!~ ~D~~IH~ ~ ~. I ~ I ~~ ~ OO~oo?_!.. J~N 24% 0 --- . - .... J. ~ .:= U = 0 ~ ~ N .- = ~ ~ 0 J. ~ Ol) ~ = ~ ~ J. ~ = ~ 0 ~ 0 , ~ ~ '" ...... ~ .- J. ~ ~ .- ~ ~ P-1 = = 0 U 0 if .- ~ = ~ iJ'l -= = ~ ~ '" .- ;;;. ~ - = .:= U eo. 0 .P .- u ~ ... Ii i:: E ~ M, ~ ~ ::E ., " 'Ii J!;!eJ ~'I<~ ~ a B -= . Iii i: -;~. ~ 'f:o l o ~ ~~v.I ~ " " Ii ,g 'B " e " .. . " ... &\,.!! oS t: ~ - i!!~ " . E ::E ~ " E~,g~ A~~r ~~ j h~ ~ . ~ :e @ ia '" 0 I!'" o I! - " ~8" ~ c.:l ~~~ :I "iiI ~." ...."-.,, " .'" .,,'" " i>: t'- -< =.~ . ""' > .~.., ~-~ o~~ Cf ( (" fZ;Yn EXhibit .C" Duties and Responsibilities of the Otay Ranch Preserve OwnerManager(s) CITY OF CHULA VISTA RESPONSmILITIES Education and Research Development of educational and research facilities and interpretive programs. Implementation and/or coordination and accommodation of. research programs. Provision of controlled opportunities, consistent with resource protection needs. for the public to learn' about and appreciate the natural and cultural diversity of the area including: . its biological diversity and cultural heritage; . the inter-relationships between sensitive species and natural habitats; . the opportunity to observe biological and cultural resources in their natural setting; and . the importance of preservation of natural areas and understanding challenges to the survival of rem,,;n;ng natural ecosystems. Provide a unique and multi-faceted living laboratory for research related to: . habitat, paleontological and cultural resource protection and management; . experimental approaches to enhancing and restoring degraded habitats; and . understanding species and habitat needs and conditions that adversely affect sensitiv~ plant and "n;.".,1I1 species. Institutions such as the City of Chula V1Sta Nature Center and the Natural History Museum are non-profit agencies providing such services. Active and Passive Recreational Programs Development of plans and programs for the location and design of active recreational uses, overlooks -and a passive trail network within the Preserve. Coordination with the Otay Valley Regional Park JEPA, or subsequent park pl"nn;ng entity, regarding issues associated with Qtay Valley Regional Park. Law Enforcement Enforcement activities as necessary to control and protect the resources of the preserve within the incorporated area of the City of Chula Vista's portion of-the .Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve". Development of a law enforcement program that will protect the visitor from the environment, protect the environment from the visitor and protect the visitor from other visitors. Create a uniform code of regulations for all cooperating agencies and an annual review 'by law enforcement and resource agencies of their appropriate roles. JErA.f'QM~i Prvn_ UVICW5 10 000023 J~nt4 % ( c - - SAN DIEGO COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES Law Enforcement Enforcement activities as necessary to control and protect the resources of the preserve within the unincorporated portion of the County portion of the -Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve". Development of a law enforcement program that will protect the visitor from the environment, protect the environment from the visitor and protect the visitor from other visitors. Create. a uniform code of regulations for all cooperating' agencies and an annual review by law enforcement and resource agencies of their appropriate roles. Mainten ..n ce Operations Maintenance and enhancement of all resources through the prevention of further disturbance, including controlling access to the Preserve. prohibiting off-road traffic, enforcing -no trespassing>> roleS and curt-"liling activities that degrade resources, such as grazing, shooting and illegal dumping. Implementation of maintenance activities including removal of trash, litter and other debris, maintenance of trail systems, removal and control of exotic plant species (weeds) and control of cowbirds through trapping. efforts. Develop a plan for the controlled burning, erosion control and replanting to enhance the natural and scenic values of the preserve. Preparation of a grazing, crop production. integrated pest, insect and disease D"I..n..~ent control or other appropriate uses if they do not result in conditions that are adverse to eventual recreational or agricultural uses. Development of a restrictive area plan which prohibits public access to sensitive wetlands, vernal pools, restoration areas and sensitive wildlife habitat. . Resource Protection and ~{,.n"~ement . Providing large, coDIlected natural areas with varied habitats that offer refuge, food and shelter to multiple species of native plants and animals; protecting scenic, paleontological and cultural resources; and providing management tools to assure that Preserve resources are not adversely affected by urban developmeD"t located adjacent to the Preserve. Monitoring Ensuring no reduction in habitat values and no adverse impacts to biological resources are included within the Preserve by the following: . Monitoring the resources to identify changes in the quality and quantity of sensitive resources and habitats to assure compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. . Implementation and monitoring of restoration activities, as appropriate. . Establishing a comprehensive monitoring program for the biota of the Preserve in conjunction with the Phase n RMP. II JErA-I'OM2.CIOC1i II'wtMM: t(Vlcw:i ~. 9 000024 J~H 24% ( \ . Developing and implementing an annual monitoring program designed to identify changes in quality and quantity of on-site biological resources including sensitive wildlife species, sensitive plant species and sensitive habitat types. JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY . Maintain the management plan for preservation that facilitates effective, long- term management of the Preserve conSistent with the goals of the Phase I and II Resource Management Plan and the .Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve". Develop a Preserve Area Handbook which contains policies and procedures in managing and evaluating the activities of the Preserve. The handbook should include the purpose of the preserve, areas within the preserve including maps, trails etc., the preserve area organizational structure. park system hierarchy, land arlm;n;c:t:ration, financing, resource arlm;,,;,;tration. facilities, public relations. etc. Develop a fire prevention program to protect hnm"n life. prevent modification of park ecosystem by human-caused wildfire and prevent damage to cultural resources or physical facilities. Coordinate with the appropriate agencies involved with the Multiple Species Conservati~n Program (MSCP), or other adopted subregional habitat pl"",,;"g programs, to assure consistency with regional conservation efforts and plans. Regional preserve m"n"gement agreements may be used to ensure working relationships are established between other open space preserves. Coordination with local jurisdictions, resource agencies and adjacent ownerships. Implement the Phase I and n Resource !III'"n"gement Plans. Review proposed preserve boundary adjustments, infrastructure plans. Comment on plans for land uses adjacent to the Preserve and other activiti~studies. - Formulate performance standards for the City of Chula VlSta and the County of San Diego, in their respective areas of responsibilities, to ensure that the .Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve- achieves the goals and' objectives of the Preserve. JEPA.pOM1.t)OC1i ...........: 1CW'1CW5 \0 /J. Po,. 000025 JMI Z 4 9 b , ......- -... -. ATTACHMENT I t' Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Manacement Plan II. Preserve Manacemen!.' Convevance. Fundinc Preserve Land Conveyed - Forecasted by Villa!;!! A B C I D E A-IB+C) DOl.118 Area Tow I.DA Common Total -(LDA .. Conveyance Common) Village 1 904 0 29 b74 :.039 Village 2 775 0 48 727 864 Vil1.'~e3 318 0 5 314 3;3 Vill..ce4 607 0 1:1 594 iOS Villace 6 493 0 26 467 555 ViUace 6 365 0 231 3421 C07 Village 7 412 0 94 3181 377 Village 8 343 0 19 3241 385 Villa,e9 364 0 20 3441 409 Villace 10 33-1 0 68 2661 316 Villace 11 455 0 70 3851 458 PAIZEUC 459 0 49 391 464 Vi'J.tce 13 (Raaon) 783 0 14 770 914 Vli..ce 14 (Pl'OCtOr Valley) U9 0 21 808 960 Villace 16 (S.... Yaidro We.&) 800 0 13 787 934 Villace 16 (Jamul) 1.117 SiO 2 744 884 Villace 17 (S.... Yaidro Eu&) 1.611 '1115 2 815 968 PI..muc Are. 18& 21& 0 0 216 256 PIaDI..uC Are. 18b 70 0 0 701 83 Pl&DDiuC Are. 19 20 0 0 2U 24 SR 126 182 0 182 0 0 Public 20 0 20 0 U Arterial. 69 0 69 0 0 TOTALS 11.624 1.166 786 9."-" 11.374 /3 000029 J~H 24% - . COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1996 MINUTE ORDER NO.6 SUBJECT: Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve-Owner Manager Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Between County of San Diego and City of Chuta Vista, Presen'e Financing Plan, Open Space Conveyance Plan, and Overall Otay R::mch Design Plan (Carryover Item from 2121/96, Agenda No.3) (Supv. Dist: 1,2) ISSUEIREFERENCE: On February 21, 1996 (3), the Board of Supervisors continued the matter to March 6, 1996; directed County Counsel to advise the Board prior to March 6, 1996, on the legal issues pertaining to this issue; directed the Chief Administrative Officer to rneet with all interested panies and property owners (in the same room, at the same time) to find an acceptable conveyance plan that works; and directed the Chief Administrative Officer to review the documents presented at the meeting, including the document questioning the consistency of the proposed Resource Management Plan, with the adopted General Development Plan and the original Resource Managernent Plan, and be prepared to report at the March 6, 1996, meeting. On lanuary 24, 1996 (4), your Board continued this item to February 21, 1996. Should the County enter into a loint Exercise of Powers Agreement (lEP A) with the City of Chub Vista for the ownership and management of the Otay Ranch Preserve, approve the Preserve Financing Plan, approve the Open Space Conveyance Plan, and approve the Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan? FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact as a result of executing the JEP A for ownership and management of the Otay Ranch Preserve. Preserve costs are the obligation of the current and future developers.and owners of Otay Ranch properties. Performance of operations, maintenance and monitoring tasks are the responsibility of the Preserve OwnerlManager (p0M). POM expenses will be funded by revenue from a Habitat Maintenance Assessment District to be fanned for the SPA 1 development and future developments and by a direct contribution by the SPA I developer. - Since actual conveyance of~and is not anticipated for at least three years, any current staff __ panicipation will be provided through existing budgeted resources. Additional staffing requirements will be determined as development and conveyance occurs in Otay Ranch and will be funded by revenue trom the District. /4- Costs associated with formation of the Habitat Maintenance Assessment District are unknown at this tirne. Costs associated with forming the District will be reimbursed from District revenue. In the event that formation of the District is not accomplished, the County will bear the cost associated with forming the District. Exact costs are unknown but are estimated at $10,000/$30,000. The source of funding will be the General Fund. If the District is not formed another source of funding for the County's management responsibility with the JEPA must be found. The Board does have the ability to withdraw ftom the JEPA if necessary. There will be no direct or indirect costs to the County for adoption of the Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan. RECOMMENDATION: CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: I. Find that there are no changes in the project or in the circumstances under which it is undertaken which involve significant new environmental impacts which were not considered in the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), dated December 1992, and that no new information of substantial importance has become available since said EIR was prepared; and review and reconsider the information contained therein. 2. Approve and authorize the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to execute the JEPA between the County of San Diego and the City ofChula Vista for the ownership and management of the Otay Ranch Preserve (Attachment A of the January 24, 1996 Report, attached as Exhibit I). 3. Select and appoint one member and an alternate ftom the Board of Supervisors to serve on the JEP A Policy Committee. 4. Authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation. to serve as Administrator to the JEPA. 5. Approve the Otay Ranch Preserve Financing Plan and direct the Chief Administrative Officer to take all required actions pursuant to Fish and Game Code Chapter 11, Section 2900 et seq., Habitat Maintenance Districts, to establish a Habitat Maintenance Assessment District pursuant to Government Code Sections 50060 - 50070 for the pUl1'ose of financing the maintenance of the . Otay Ranch Preserve. ~ 6. Approve the Conveyance Open Space Plan (as amended by Exhibit 2) for the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve. 7. Approve the March 14, 1995 Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan (Attachment D of the Jan~4. 1996 report attached as Exhibit 1). 8. Direct staff to continue to work with the City ofChula Vista and affected property owners to refine the Conveyance Plan and Preserve Financing Plan to reflect change in ownership and other factors. /5 ACTION: Commending and thanking the various parties for their involvement and participation in this proposal, ON MOTION of Supervisor Cox, seconded by Supervisor Roberts, the Board of Supervisors took action as recommended, appointing Supervisor Cox as member and Supervisor Jacob as alternate member to represent the Board on the JEP A Policy Committee, including the use of the developable acreage methodology for determining conveyance with the following additions: Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to work with the City of Chula Vista to investigate, and if feasible, develop an in-lieu fee program to be included in the RMP II as an exaction alternative to conveyance ofland. Amend the Conveyance Plan to require the actual conveyance of open space in title fTee and clear of all encumbrances to the Preserve Owner Manager (pOM) as a condition of the first and each subsequent final map. Said Final Map shall also be subject to a condition that the subdivider shall execute a maintenance agreement with POM to the satisfaction of the jurisdiction approving the subdivision map, stating that is the legal and financial responsibility for the subdivider to maintain the conveyance parcel in its current and natural state until an agreed upon point, at which time there will be sufficient revenue ITom the Habitat Maintenance Assessment District for the POM to maintain conveyance lands. The actual amount of conveyed land for each final map shall equal the amount necessary to mitigate the entitlement received in the final map, consistent with the conveyance methodology as recommended to the Conveyance Plan. Approve the Conveyance Plan solely for the processing and conveyance of preserve lands associated with SPA I; n(\ other village or SPA can be approved until the Conveyance Plan is amended by the County of San Diego and City ofChula Vista to provide criteria for assuring that the conveyed open space shall be in contiguous, biologically viable, and economically feasible (for rnanagement purposes) configurations; and directed the Chief Administrative Officer to comeback with amendments to the Conveyance Plan that address the issues raised by the Board members. AYES: Cox, Jacob, Slater, Roberts, Horn 1(P State of California) County of San Diego)ss I hereby cenifY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Original entered in the Minutes of the Board of Supervisors. ARLINE S. HUL TSCH Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors "- . ~ By ~~r~ Maritza C. teele, 12. puty .: ~.., . .-.... '.~ ~ '" , . 11 Item: 1.A.2 Meeting Date: Mav 10. 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01; SPA One ISSUE: Should an in lieu fee process be added to the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan? BACKGROUND: The Otay Ranch General Development Plan requires that the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) be jointly approved by San Diego County and the City of Chula Vista. Prior to approval of the first SPA, the County must specifically approve the Conveyance Plan, the Preserve Owner/Manager selection and the Preserve Financing Plan. DISCUSSION: The need for an in-lieu fee as an alternative to a land-based conveyance plan was discussed at the March 5, 1996 Board of Supervisors meeting. It was noted that the majority of property owners had adequate mitigation land to convey to the preserve, while others did not. The lack of conveyance land could place an undue burden upon any property owner and/or any future owners in a similar situation. While the actual amount of the in- lieu fee has not yet been detennined, the language providing for establishment of the fee has been added to the Phase 2 RMP as noted on the attached errata sheet. The County Board of Supervisors modified the Phase 2 RMP on March 5, 1996 by adding language which would establish an in-lieu fee as an alternative to a land-based conveyance program In addition to this concern, the Planning Commission, at their hearing of March 27, 1996, requested that language be added to the Phase 2 RMP which would require an agreement between the City and the applicant allowing the Preserve Owner/Manager to purchase mitigation land at an amount equal to the in-lieu fee established. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is in support of the concept of establishing an in-lieu fee process. OTHER POSITIONS: West Coast Land Fund is in support of the concept of establishing an in-lieu fee process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached errata sheets and direct the corrections be included in the final approved document. RELATED ISSUES: See Items l.A.! (JEPA), l.A.3 (Timing of conveyance), l.A.4 (Methodology) and l.A.5 (Maintenance) . lro pcSOla2.doc Page 1 Item: l.A.3 Meeting Date: Mav L 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01; SPA One ISSUE: Should land be conveyed to the Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) at the final map stage? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Otay Ranch General Development Plan requires that portions of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) be jointly approved by San Diego County and the City of Chula Vista. Prior to approval of the first SPA, the County must specifically approve the Conveyance Plan. At its March 6, 1996 meeting, the County Board of Supervisors specifically discussed the issue of the actual timing of the land to be conveyed. It was noted that the Phase I RMP proposed conveyance at the final map stage, while the proposed Phase 2 RMP recommended that "50% of a villages' obligation to convey land occurs when the village is 50% developed; the remaining 50% of the land is conveyed upon 90% completion of the village." Development, in this instance, has been defmed as recordation of the final map. There was also a concern as to the interpretation of this requirement and the ability to ensure that the land would be conveyed free and clear of all encumbrances. The Board of Supervisors modified the Phase 2 RMP to require conveyance of open space in fee title, free and clear of all encumbrances, to the POM at recordation of the first and each subsequent final map. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is not opposed to conveyance at final map. OTHER POSITIONS: Greg Smith has indicated that conveyance of open space should not be tied to village development but to order of development. The priority of conveyance is established in the Phase I RMP and GDP as Salt Creek, the Otay Mesa vernal pools and the Otay River Valley. Mr. Smith believes the conveyance of these areas should be required by the Phase 2 RMP as the Otay Ranch develops regardless of which village is developing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Amend the Phase 2 RMP to require conveyance ofland at the final map and require conveyance according to the priorities identified in the Phase I RMP. ALTERNATIVES: Do not amend the Phase 2 RMP. RELATED ISSUES: See Item l.A.! (JEP A), 1.A.2 (In-lieu fee process), 1.A.4 (Methodology) and l.A..5 (Maintenance) . PC51lA3.DOC '1 Item: 1.A.4 Meeting Date: Mav 1. 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01; SPA One ISSUE: Should the methodology for calculating the amount of land conveyed to the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve be based on developable acreage? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The methodology for determining the amount of land to be conveyed to the Preserve Owner/Manager was discussed at the March 6, 1996 Board of Supervisor's meeting. Staff has analyzed alternative conveyance methods based on dwelling units under the City's GDP and the County's SRP; equivalent dwelling units under both plans; and sensitive habitat. Each alternative has its own advantages and disadvantages and effects each village and property owner differently. Staff believes the most equitable method for requiring conveyance is based on developable acreage because this method distributes the conveyance requirement evenly throughout the Otay Ranch. At their March 6, 1996 meeting, the County Board of Supervisors selected developable acres as the conveyance method. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The project applicant proposes that preserve land be conveyed based on developable acres as indicated in the Phase 2 Resource management Plan. OTHER POSITIONS: Greg Smith has proposed the conveyance be based on dwelling units. West Coast Land Fund has indicated that, if they take ownership of their portion of the Otay Ranch, they do not have conveyance land. Staff has proposed an in-lieu fee program to address this issue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conveyances based on developable acres. AL TERNA TIVES: I. Conveyance based on dwelling units under City GDP 2. Conveyance based on dwelling units under County SRP 3. Conveyance based on equivalent dwelling units under City GDP 4. Conveyance based on equivalent dwelling units under County SRP 5. Conveyance based on sensitive habitat RELATED ISSUES: See Item I.A..2 (In-Lieu Fee Program). A TT ACHMENTS: Otay Ranch Preserve Conveyance Alternatives Report and Table PC511A4.DOC ).0 OTAYRANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPARISON OF CONVEYANCE PLAN AL TERNA TIVES ).1 Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan Comparison of Conveyance Plan Alternatives Conveyance by Dwelling Units Two alternatives have been prepared to analyze conveyance of the open space preserve acreage by dwelling unit. The major difference between the City General Development Plan (GDP) and the County Subregional Plan (SRP) is the land use plan for Village Three. The GDP designates Village Three as Industrial while the County plan indicates a residential village. City GDP This alternative assigns conveyance responsibility based on residential units. No responsibility is assigned to non-residential land uses. The villages with high number of dwelling units, such as Villages 1 and 5, have a greater conveyance responsibility as does the Eastern Urban Center due to the 2,500 units allowed in that planning area. The Resort Site also has a high conveyance requirement due to the 2438 units associated with that village. The industrial uses in Village 3 and Planning Areas 18-A and B are not assessed under this alternative nor is the university in Villages 9 and 10. The rural villages with fewer units do not have the conveyance requirement of the urban and transit villages under this alternative. Village 1 is required to convey 1,610 acres as opposed to Village 15 with 250 acres County SRP The only difference between these first two alternatives is the residential units in Village Three under the County's plan. Under the County's SRP, 741 additional units are added to the Plan, so the conveyance for each village is slightly less. The university and the industrial planning areas are not assessed under this alternative. Conveyance by Equivalent Dwelling Units These alternatives allocate conveyance of preserve acres by equivalent dwelling units in order to assign a conveyance responsibility to these non-residential uses. Conversion to equivalent dwelling units allows the non-residential uses to be assigned a conveyance responsibility under the dwelling unit alternatives. In the formation of open space maintenance districts, the City of Chula Vista assesses non-residential land on an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) per acre factor. All residential units equate to I EDU The Community Purpose Facilities factor is 4 EDUs per acre, commercial 30 EDUs per acre and 40 EDUs for industrial uses. CNVYPLN3.DOC ~). Otay Ranch Conveyance Plan Alternatives City GDP by Equivalent Dwelling Units Under this alternative, all the land uses in the City of Chula Vista's GDP have been assigned a conveyance responsibility. The industrial uses in Village 3 and Planning Areas 18-A and B have a conveyance responsibility as does the university in Villages 9 and 10. In addition to the residential units in the Resort Site and the Eastern Urban Center, the commercial uses have also been assigned EDUs for a conveyance requirement. The total number of ED Us is substantially higher than the residential alternatives so the conveyance responsibilities are less for the residential villages. County SRP by Equivalent Dwelling Units The County SRP produces fewer equivalent dwelling units due to the residential units in Village 3 as opposed to the industrial EDUs in the City GDP. The SRP produces 913 EDUs as opposed to 7,114 EDUs in the GDP. The developer of Village 3 would convey 180 acres under the County plan and 1,267 acres under the City Plan. Conveyance by Sensitive Lands The Sensitive Land alternative is based on the amount of sensitive habitat contained in each village. Under this alternative, villages with no sensitive habitat would not have a conveyance requirement. Villages with habitat are assigned a conveyance responsibility based on the amount of habitat in each village. In this case Villages 5, 6, 7 and 12 are not required to convey land to the preserve because there is no sensitive habitat located in these villages due to the agricultural operation. Villages 16 and 17 have the majority of the conveyance requirement due to significant areas of habitat in these rural villages. Village 14 in Proctor Valley has less of a conveyance requirement (774 acres) under this alternative than under the RMP developable acres alternative at 960 acres or the City GDP and County SRP alternatives at 830 and 804 acres, respectively. In Lieu Fee One of the property owners has suggested that, in cases where conveyance of land may not be feasible, an in lieu fee may be appropriate. These acreages of the alternatives have been applied to the per acre cost of $4,600. This is the cost per acre of comparable that was recently purchased for the wildlife preserve. The 11,375 acre preserve would cost $52,325,000 if purchased. Under the fee alternative, cost for RMP developable acres conveyance would range ITom $1.6 million for Village 18 to $4.7 million for Village 1. Under the City GDP alternative, conveyance cost range ITom $660,000 for Village 17 to $7.4 million for Village 1. Because there are no dwelling units assigned to the industrial, commercial and university uses, there are no costs as well. Village 3, 9, 10 and Planning Area 18-A and B would not have any conveyance cost or fees. Cost are similar for the County SRP alternative except for Village 3 residential uses, which would assume a $1.3 million fee. CNVYPLN3.DOC Page 2 February 19, 1996 ~3 Otay Ranch Conveyance Plan Alternatives Conveyance by equivalent dwelling unit spreads the cost more evenly through the villages with fees running ITom $243,000 in Village 17 to $8.4 million in Planning Area 12, the EUC. Because the EUC and the Resort Site have both residential units and commercial uses, their responsibility under the EDU alternatives is greater than the other villages at $8.5 million and $8.2 million, respectively. Major differences between the City GDP and County SRP EDU alternatives are in Village 3 with the City industrial cost at $5.8 million and the County residential village at $828,000. Preserve Conveyance Analysis by Village Village 3 Village 3 is required to convey 373 acres under the developable acres proposal in the Phase 2 RMP. Under the residential unit alternative, there would be no conveyance requirement under the City's GDP and a 348 acre requirement under the SRP. The City GDP industrial EDUs alternative requires 1,267 acres, over 10% of the preserve. The County plan by EDUs only requires 180 acres from Village 3. Because Village 3 does not have habitat or steep slopes, conveyance requirements are minor in comparison with 114 acres under sensitive lands alternative. Costs for conveyance by in lieu fee have a large difference in the alternatives for Village 3 due to the difference in land use between the City and County plan. Under the RMP developable acres alternative, Village 3 would have a $1. 7 million responsibility, no cost at all under the City GDP by residential unit alternative and a $5.8 million under the City GDP EDU alternative. Village 5 Village 5 is representative of the transit villages and conveyance requirements have a large range due the number of dwelling units and lack of habitat. Under the RMP developable acres alternative, 555 acres are required of Village 5. The City and County residential dwelling unit alternatives are the greatest at 1,394 and 1,351 acres while the EDU alternatives are 552 and 612, respectively. Since Village 5 does not contain any sensitive habitat, there is no conveyance requirement under this alternative. In lieu fee costs are similar with the City GDP and County SRP residential unit alternatives having the greatest cost at $6.2 million. The RMP and City EDU alternatives are similar at $2.5 because there is only a 2-acre difference in the conveyance requirement. The County EDU alternative cost is $2.8 million because the SRP does not contain as much industrial land as the City GDP. Village 13 The Resort Site has the least conveyance requirement of all the alternatives under the proposed RMP developable acres at 914 acres. The other alternatives have a greater CNVYPLN3.DOC Page 3 Fobrnary 19, 1996 J/f Otay Ranch Conveyance Plan Alternatives requirement due to the residential density and commercial intensity of the Resort. The City GDP and County SRP residential alternatives require over 1,100 acres each due to the density of the residential units. The equivalent dwelling unit alternatives require even more due the commercial uses in the resort. The City GDP EDU alternative requires 1772 acres and the County SRP EDU alternative requires 1,962 acres to be conveyed. In lieu fee are again similar, with the smallest cost associated with RMP developable land alternative costing $4.2 million for the entire village and County SRP EDU the greatest costing $9 million. Village 14 The Proctor Valley Village has the greatest conveyance responsibility under the RMP developable lands alternative at 960 acres and the least under the City GDP EDU alternative at 326 acres. The Sensitive Lands alternative has a lesser conveyance requirement (774 acres) than the RMP alternative because of the lack of habitat in this village. Conveyance by dwelling unit will have a lesser requirement at approximately 800 acres for the two alternatives due to the relative low density of the village. The EDU alternatives have even less due to lack of commercial uses in this village. The in lieu fee cost are greatest with the RMP alternative at $4.4 million as opposed to the least under the City GDP EDU alternative at $1.5 million. It would seem that conveying by dwelling units would place less of a burden on this village and thereby encourage the development of the village sooner. Village 15 Village 15 conveys the least to the preserve under the dwelling unit alternatives and the greatest under the sensitive lands alternative. The City GDP equivalent dwelling unit alternatives produces the least demand with only III acres as opposed to the sensitive habitat alternative that requires 1,172 acres to be conveyed. This range is due the large lot, low density development allowed in Village 15 and the large amount of habitat in the village. There are only 516 dwelling units in Village 15 compared to '500 acres of sensitive habitat. The in lieu fee costs are highest under the RMP developable acres alternative at $4.3 million because of the large lot development allowed in this village. When the fee is based on dwelling units the costs are $1.1 million for the City and County GDP/SRP alternatives. When the fees are spread by EDUs, the costs drop to just over a half of a million dollars for each alternative. CNVYPLN3.DOC Page 4 February 19. 1996 ).5 Otay Ranch Preserve Conveyance Alternatives I I I RMP I City GDP County SRP City GDP County SRP Sensitive Developable by DUs by DUs by EDUs by EDUs Lands Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Village 1 1039 1610 1560 662 733 739 Village 2 864 940 911 451 500 273 Village 3 373 0 348 1267 180 114 Village 4 705 258 250 112 125 614 Village 5 555 1394 1351 553 612 0 Village 6 407 1081 1048 428 474 0 Village 7 377 727 705 310 344 0 Village 8 385 706 684 335 371 68 Village 9 409 0 0 362 401 114 Village 10 316 0 0 304 337 80 Village 11 458 846 820 371 411 68 Village 12 464 1211 1174 1847 2045 0 Village 13 914 1181 1145 1772 1962 1251 Village 14 960 830 804 326 361 774 Village 15 934 250 242 111 123 1172 Village 16 884 189 183 69 77 2571 Village 17 968 143 139 53 58 3208 Village 18 339 0 0 2037 2256 284 Village 19 24 10 9 4 4 46 Total 11375 11375 11375 11375 11375 11375 Industrial - 40EDUslAC Conmercial - 30 EDUslAC CPF - 4 EDU/AC Res - 1 DU Source: City of Chula Vista Ocen Scace Maintenance Districts C;\Otaymch\CNVYPLN3.xLS 4/24/96 J~ Item: I.A.5 Meeting Date: Mav 1. 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01; SPA One ISSUE: Should a maintenance program be established for the interim maintenance of the conveyed open space lands? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) requires that the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) identify a funding source for the open space habitat preserve prior to the adoption of the first SPA. In addition, the County of San Diego must approve the funding plan prior to the adoption of the first SPA. As indicated in the conveyance at final map issue paper, the Board of Supervisors detennined at their March 6, 1996 meeting that conveyance should be required at final map. County staff expressed concems on their ability to maintain the first 600 acres of conveyance iTom SPA One while the Habitat Maintenance District (HMD) was being funded. As indicated in the Habitat Maintenance District issue paper, this district is funded by a parcel assessment after final map recordation. In the interim period between the conveyance of open space at final map and assessment of sufficient funds to maintain the preserve, County staff proposed that the project applicant maintain the open space. Under the County's approval of the Phase 2 RMP, the project applicant will be required to enter into an agreement to maintain the preserve open space until sufficient funding has been collected by the County to maintain the habitat. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The project applicant is not opposed to the maintenance agreement or requirement. OTHER POSITIONS: Greg Smith believes the HMD will not fund the educational requirements of the Phase I RMP. The County and City staff have previously reported that, according to State law, the HMD can only fund habitat maintenance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Amend the Phase 2 RMP to require a maintenance agreement requiring the project applicant to maintain conveyed open space lands until sufficient funding is available to the County of San Diego. Identify additional funding sources for educational programs. AL TERNA TIVES: Do not amend the Phase 2 RMP and leave the maintenance responsibility with the Preserve Owner Manager at final map conveyance. RELATED ISSUES: See Item A.1.3 (Conveyance at final map) ATTACHMENTS: See Phase 2 Resource Management Plan errata sheets. PC511A5.DOC ;)7 PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ERRATA SHEET ;J.fb Otay Ranch... hase 2 Resource Managemei.. Plan PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING Exhibit 10 Difference Between SPA One Land Plan and GDP Identified Acreage (Acres) SPA Conveyance GDP Villalle Area Annlication! Park School Net Oblhration Forecast Difference Village One 585 21 12 552 656 1,039 Village Five 476 19 12 446 529 555 Total 1,061 39 24 998 1,186 1,594 West Of Paseo 264 0' O' 264 313 Ranchero Total 1,325 39 24 1,262 1,499 1,594 -95 3. Conveyance Timing The RMP provides that cumulative acreage conveyed should be greater than or equal to SPA acreage, It is self evident that actual conveyance cannot occur acre by acre, as development proceeds, but must occur through the conveyance of manageable and biologically meaningful blocks of land. Thus, the issue becomes what is a reasonable size block of land to be conveyed, and at what point in the development process should actual conveyance occur? Conveyance of larger blocks of land cannot reasonably occur upon initial SPA approval, at the start of land development, because there is no revenue base from which to fund management of the conveyed land. Conversely, land should not be conveyed at the end of the development of a SPA because the public interest and RMP policies require that actual conveyance roughly parallels the time of impact (development). 3 Based on the SPA One EIR Alternative B plan. . Parks and school sites will be located in the area west of Paseo Ranchero. When a SPA involving that area is processed, those acreages will be incorporated into the analysis and conveyance obligation adopted. Dray Ranch Page 63 February 5, 1996 ;)q Dray Ranch Page 64 February 5. 1996 Otay J.~anch Phase 2 Resource Mankgement Plan PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING This analysis recommends that actual conveyance occur as follows: . 5Q%. sf a .lillagee' 8SHga.tisB t8 8SFl'"ley laRa eee1:U'O ??aeB the ..Tillage is 50~'8 Ele".~elel3ea; the romai:ni:Bb 59% sf the laRa. is eswleyea UJjs:e QQ% ef ae'~elepmeBt sithe ~;il1age.L . aO%~ sf the SP...^.. ORe eh1igatiea is seRvey laRa 88e\lT8 ~"B.eB the SP!.. is 13gq'8 ae\Teleped, the remaiFuiel' ~'8wd Be eeB\'eyea 1!Jl8B ggq, sf aevelsl!me:et sf SP,,^. OBe. "Del.~elef)meRt" as it applies t8 the roeemm0BQatiea. aleBe, is aeemeel t9 Be \ifH3B the roeeraatien sf the :final maps. The applicant shall convev fee title to the paM upon the recordation of each final map for an amount of land eaual to the final map's oblie:ation to convev land to the Preserve. Each final map shall be subiect to a condition that the subdivider shall execute a maintenance ae:reement with the POM statine: that it is the responsibility of the applicant to maintain the conveyed parcel until the Habitat Maintenance District has e:enerated sufficient revenues to enable the paM to assume maintenance responsibilities. Based on these principals and consistent with the adopted Village Phasing Plan, conyeyance is forecasted to occur on a year.by-year basis as depicted in Exhibit 11. Exhibit 12 below, contrasts the amount of land conveyed to the Preserve over time with the 5 Te BRBWS that g~. RaReh is Bet Jlsrmitted te pW:i'Blie a pattePB sf umage aBueleplBsM '::rush ,,"ew.a reealt ill. a sePiee ef--magee de-:elsJleli 'VIritheut ~ iBEiWis1:Ial village triggering the lig~{ ae.lelsJlBt8Rt tBi-eehelei. aU sueeeeamg gR\e she\:ild he FeElYHed te eEl ~at the esw:eyaaee :p9lieiee sf Y:ie RJ.fP 8I'e 13eiBg im.pleBteatea iB geed faith. ~o Otay Ranch ....Jhase 2 Resource Managemeut Plan PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING anticipated acres of sensitive resources to be impacted by development. Because development is likely to occur on the Otay Valley Parcel during the initial stages of Otay Ranch development, where there are few sensitive resources, the preserve will receive substantial preserve land well in advance to any corresponding impacts. Olay Ranch Page 65 February 5, 1996 3{ Otay . - 'nch Phase 2 Resource Man 'ement Plan PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING Exhibit 11 Preserve Land Conveyed - Forecasted by Year Year Acres Conveyed Cumulative 1 139Q 139 Q 2 347 Q 485 Q 3 347 G-6W 8 2~ 4 347 Q 11 8~ 5 496Q 16 46W 6 577 ::;.e::;. 225 ~ 7 374~ 262f ~ 8 271~ 289f ~ 9 590 -l-;+i'4 348" ~ 10 865~ 435 ~ 11 903~ 525E ~ , 12 628~ 588' 4;88Q 13 536~ 641' ~ 14 613 G&7 703'2 ~ 15 568 +S4 760C 6;&W 16 492 -W2 809< ~ 17 492~ 8 58~ -;;-;0 . , 18 475~ 906C ~ 19 398 2Q4 9 45~ 8;4Q8 20 232Q 969C 8;4Q8 21 232~ 992 Q.;QU 22 210~ 1013 ~ 23 2109Gd 10 342 '^ ^'^ , 24 210Q 10 552 ~ 25 137 Q 10689 26 137 Q 10826 ~ 27 137 Q 10 963 , 28 137 G+4 11 100 ~ , 29 137 484 11 237 , 30 137 Q 11 374 , . The iHi~al C8R"..eyanee reAeets RalfefEPA 9fte's BBligatiea. The te18l BBligatiBR is ltlg, BElleS. ORe kalfi5 59] aeres. Otay Ranch Page 66 February 5, 1996 5J- Otay Ranclohase 2 Resource Managem .t Plan PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING Exhibit 12 Contrast - Conveyance With Sensitive Resources Impact Land Conveyed Cumulative Cumulative Sensitive Compared to Year Land Conveved Land Imnacted Resources Imnacted 1 139G 0 139G 2 485 G 0 485G 3 832 ew 0 832 ew 4 1178 ew 71 1 107 ~ 5 1674 ew 180 1 494 ~ 6 2.251~ 289 1962~ 7 2 625 -l,8U 398 2 227 ~ 8 2.896 ~ 488 2 408 ~ 9 3.487 ~ 639 2 848 ~ 10 4 351 ~ 954 3 397 3;498 11 5 25~ ~ 1,272 3,9~~ 12 5.8834;88G 1,497 4386 , 13 6.419 &;GG9 1,715 4 704 3;3M 14 7.032 ~ 1,939 5093 , 15 7600~ 2,111 M89 4;&98 16 8.092 ~ 2,284 !L808 ~ 17 8 584!7;M4 2,456 6...128 &;G88 18 9060~ 2,623 6 437 ~ 19 9.4583;4G8 2,784 6674 &;-G24 20 9 690 3;4G8 2,890 6 800 &;&W 21 9 921 ~ 2,995 6 926 G;OOa 22 10 li!1 ~ 3,091 7040~ 23 10 342 ~ 3,186 7 156 ~ 24 10 552 ~ 3,282 7 270 G;934 25 10 689 ~ 3,354 7 :N.5 G;SGa 26 10 826 ~ 3,426 7400~ 27 10 963 ~ 3,498 7465~ 28 11 100-W;89G 3,570 7 530 ~ 29 , 1 237 ~ 3,642 7595 , 30 1l374~ 3,714 7660 , Gtay Ranch Page 67 February 5. 1996 33 Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CON\ ANCE, FUNDING (I{) Fee-In-Lieu The Ci\y ofChula Vista shall establish. in consultation with the Preserve Owner Mana~er. a prollf!ll11 to coJ1ect fees in lieu of actual conv~yance of land to the Preserve Owner Mana~er. The fee-in-lieu projV"am shall be desiVled to \)enerate fee revenues sufficient to acquire identified preserve land in an amount equal to the acrea.l1e obli~ation of the proiect pa.yin~ the fees. Fees shall be pa.yable upon recordation of final m!\ps While fees ma.y be held in trust by the iurisdiction imposinj1 and collectinj1 the fees. they shall ultimately be conveved to the POM The POM shall use the fees solely for preserve prQI'erty acquisition. Fee revenues rnav not be utilized for anv P1l1:Pose other than preserve prop~rty ac~isitions. 4. Conveyance Location The RMP provides the following guidance regarding the location of conveyed land: . Priority is given to high quality resources. . Priority is given to most vulnerable areas. . Conveyance should begin with "keystone" parcels (vernal pool areas, Salt Creek, Otay Valley, Central Proctor Valley, Western San Ysidro). . Potential restoration areas should be conveyed early. A key additional consideration is the practical constraints imposed by areas of ownership. Otay Ranch is currently owned by several parties. In 8FaeF ta faewte.te eea"'le~-.:aBee, taB 8:vr:BeF8~ sf tke laed es&':eyed !Jhsl:l:ld, ts the enteBt, praetieal, 8SFreSfJ9Bel te tae 9~"Ber8mp sf the laBa de'reI8~ed. EJ[IHBit H ,egeata the e1H'reBt sWBe'Bhit! sf Ot~ RaBel!.. Dray Ranch Page 68 February 5. 1996 3~ Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Manageme..t Plan PRESERVE MAt.I..GEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING Exhibits l4A & l4B liD comprise the conveyance plan based upon current ownership of developable and preserve acreages. Other potential alternatives may be developed which can achieve the GDP/SRP goals, policies and objectives, and respect ownership patterns. This convevance plan shall be utilized to identify the lands to be conveved for the initial Otav Ranch SPA. No other SPA Plan mav be approved until the convevance seauence and location is reviewed and potentiallv modified bv the Countv of San Dieg:o and the City of Chula Vista to reflect consideration that conveved land be bioloEcicallv viable. contie'Uous and economicallv feasible for manag:ement purnoses. If the artier af eea'"leyaBee is lBa~ifieel iB the future, th.e eaaFlb0 in. the seErlByaDee seaeelwe shall he Q}3}3ra70a BY the City sf CRlila Vista aRB. ~aR Diegs CSliRty iR eoerEliRatisn ~.ith the Pr0eerY0 07~9BeF&f8.Bager. In making the decision, the impact of the conveyance on the Preserve Financing Plan shall be considered. In addition, the properties conveyed shall follow the criteria of the GDP/SRP for the conveyance of the "most vulnerable" areas that are most subject to potential and ongoing distrubance. a. Permitted Uses Uses peJ;mitted within conveyed land must comply with the provisions of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Seven broad categories of uses are permitted: . Open space, including preservation, recreation and education, study and research, and management of environmental resources; . passive recreation; . infrastructure consistent with approved GDP/SRP plans . interim agricultural uses consistent with the Range Management Plan; Otay Ranch Page 69 February 5. 1996 3!" Otay 'D'lnch Phase 2 Resource Manno:ement Plan PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVHANCE, FUNDING . active recreation (up to 400 acres consistent with the Otay River Valley Regional Park Plan); and . a university within the areas designated within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan Land Use Map, but excluding structures within the Salt Creek Canyon; and . an Interpretive Center. The GDP/SRP allows certain uses in the Preserve. The POM will allow any and all of these uses within conveyed lands subject to the criteria and conditions of the GDP/SRP. This Phase 2 RMP designated the City and the County to act as the POM for an unspecified duration. During this period, the POM will sell, lease or gift areas of conveyed land to a third party for the purposes of pursuing any of these permitted uses, upon direction by the City and County. The City and County may consider designating such a third party as the POM for such conveyed areas and for such uses. Otay Ranch Page 70 February 5. 19!16 3~ Otay P-flnch Phase 2 Resource Man~ement Plan PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONV~fANCE, FUNDING 5. Restoration Analysis The Otay Ranch RMP and Findings of Fact reqUire the restoration of 1,300 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) throughout the build-out of the Otay Ranch project. The Coastal Sage Restoration Master Plan (Appendix F8) identifies the candidate areas that are available for restoration. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the obligation to restore coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub (MSS) on a village-by-village basis. a. Coastal Sage Scrub As depicted in Exhibit 15 below, development of the Otay Ranch villages and planning areas would impact approximately 2,105 2.736 acres of coastal sage scrub. Another 4GQ... 529 acres of degraded coastal sage scrub (dCSS) would also be impacted as weY 8:S 79 aeres sf eoastal sage eeFti.e.'Bati...P8 gFB.8s1aBae (CSSf}IC) aDe 8.7 aeres ef CSS&fC. Thus, the total area of coastal sage scrub (of some variety or correlation) impacted through the development of Otay Ranch is approximately ~ 3.322 acres. This calculation assumes that all the area within a village shown within a GDP "development bubble" will be impacted. However, some of these areas may be preserved due to environmental or land use decisions made at the SPA level of planning. OR tlie etker kaRB., the aRalysis eaea Rat iBehule the eaastal sage serlZ6 FeeetHeee El:iGt~ed as a eeB.eeftu.eBee af' de-lelepment e\::tteiele af FeaEl. SF }3Hlie {aeility imprs:PlemeBts sf a -,;iRage. As discussed in the conveyance plan, the obligation to restore coastal sage scrub should relate to impacts to coastal sage scrub on a village-by-village basis. That Dtay Ranch Page 94 February 5, 1 996 37 Otay Ranch "hase 2 Resource Managem( < Plan PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CONVEYANCE, FUNDING is, for every acre of coastal sage scrub disturbed or destroyed within a village, the village applicant should be required to restore a compensating amount of coastal sage scrub elsewhere within Otay Ranch to ensure 1,300 acres of coastal sage scrub will be restored at buildout. [The 1.300 acre fi~re reflects the requirement that 85% of Otav Ranch coastal sae:e scrub will be protected. 70% throue:h preservation and 15% (1,300 acres) throue:h restoration. If the preservation amount is e:reater, the restoration requirement will decrease.l Under this approach, for every one acre of coastal sage habitat destroyed on a village-by-village basis, the applicant would be required to restore O.~ acres of coastal sage scrub elsewhere in Otay Ranch. Exhibit 15 below depicts the resulting restoration obligation for this alternative. Exhibit 15 ess Restoration Allocation By Village APea llitigatieB . YL ,-". m._ ImposteR AePes GSS ~ 6 Village 1 ('~.T est sf Pasee GSS 4* ~ n .; ., GSS ~ l3 GSS & a GSS -1& ~ GSS a& .w GSS & a GSS & a ViRage l:i GSS 88Q ~ Diet1iri3ea CSS M U Village 11 ~ -MIG !7i Dist'Y:l'BBa Ci~ ~ &S '~ge 15 GSS 4-1& !GO Diet\Hlheel Cg~ 4& !8 Plaa&iRg .'\f'ea 1 fi GSS ~ ~ DistUl'fiee. CSS :leG ~ Plaanmg .'\foea 17 . GSS &oW ~ DietUflhea egS 4G -l6 Otay' Ranch Poge 95 FebnJory 5, 1996 30 Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan PRESERVE MANAGEMENT, CON\ A.NCE, FUNDING GSS -l-9 G GSS .w 4 I)isttH'Bea CSS ~ g Ci:rewatisB Element ReBels GSS ~ aM VillalCe No. ~ ~ ~ TOTAL >> estorat on (Acres) {Acres' {Acres' {Acres' {Acres 1 57 - 11 1:8 7.2 2 29 . 2 31 2.4 3 5 - 1 6 2.4 4 71 - 10 Ai 2.4 5 - . - - - 6 . - . . . 7 . - - - - 8 22 - . 22 8.8 9 4 - 2 6 2.4 10 3 - 11 14 5.6 11 . . - . - 12 - - - - - 13 329 51 . 380 152 14 188 147 - 335 134 15 463 49 - 512 2 4.8 16 379 246 - 625 50 17 538 36 . 574 2 9.6 18a 10 - . 10 4 18b 6 . - 6 2.4 19 16 - . 16 6.4 Circulation 616 : 20 636 Z, M Element Roads TOTALS 2736 529 57 3322 1.32 .80 b. Maritime Succulent Scrub (MSS) Otay Ranch contains approximately 285 acres of Maritime Succulent Scrub (MSS). The Otay Ranch GDP contemplates that approximately 56 acres of MSS would be disturbed through the development of Otay Ranch. Identical to the rationale discussed above in relationship to ess, the obligation to restore MSS arises when the MSS habitat is disturbed or destroyed. The Otay'Ranch RMP and Findings of Fact require that 56 acres of MSS be restored through the build-out Otay Ranch Page 96 February 5, 1996 3'1 Olay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan PRESERVE MAN......EMENT. CONVEYANCE. FUNDING of Otay Ranch. In order to ensure that 56 acres of MSS are restored, each village would have to restore 1 acres of MSS for every 1 acre of MSS taken within the village. Application of this ratio results in a village- by-village restoration obligation as depicted in the following Exhibit 16. Exhibit 16 Maritime Succulent Scrub Allocation By Village MitigatiBB II Area Impacted Restoration (Estimate) Requirement VillagelPlanning Area Habitat Tvne (Acres) Villa!!e 1 MSS llH 1 H Villa!!e 2 MSS 2.. 2.. Villa"e 3 MSS 13 13 Villa"e 4 MSS 10-13 }( -13 Villa!!e 9 MSS 23 23 Villa!!e 10 MSS 11-13 1 -13 Circulation Element Roads MSS 20+4 2( +4 Olay Ranch Page 97 February 5, 1996 4-0 Item: 111- Meeting Date: Mav 1. 1996 PUBLIC HEARING: OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, PCM 95-01 ISSUE: Is there a funding shortfall for the construction of SPA One Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program facilities? BACKGROUND: The Otay Ranch SPA One Transportation Study identified twenty major onsite and offsite roadway improvements, with a total cost of $62.5 million, that need to be constructed during buildout of SPA One. Fourteen of those improvements, with a total cost $48.4 millions, are eligible for funding through the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program. The developer is responsible for funding non- TDIF facilities. The Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) indicates the necessary street improvernents that need to be in place to serve each phase of the development in compliance with the Growth Management Program and the Quality of Life Standards. This analysis is based on the premise that the Otay Ranch SPA One is to be constructed before other developments in the area (i.e., Sunbow, Eastlake, etc) and thus will be required to install the totality of the required improvements. The same premise is used in the preparation of the PFFP for any other development in the City. In this way the City can ensure that, independently of which project goes first, the necessary street improvements to serve a project are constructed in a timely rnarmer. The City may modifY the sequence of construction contained in the PFFP in accordance with the "Annual Monitoring Program", which will analyze compliance with the threshold standards, project the volume and location of future developments and identifY the facilities to be provided to meet the standards. The construction of the required street improvements is a requisite of final map approval. In accordance with the Municipal Code, prior to approval of a fmal map, a subdivider must have either installed the necessary improvement to serve the project, or, as an alternative, shall enter into an agreernent with the City, secured by an approved improvement security to insure the performance of the work within a period of three years fTom final map approval. This agreement also stipulates that no certificate of clearance for utility connections to buildings shall be issued until the City Engineer has certified in writing the completion of the improvement work. Additionally, the City Council may withhold building permits if the required facilities as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program" have not been completed. As mentioned above, the PFFP identifies a total of $48.4 millions worth of improvements which are eligible for funding through the TDIF Program. The "funding source" for these improvements is the TDIF fee (if funds are available) or developer financing for which credit will be given towards future TDIF fees. These fees are either collected or credit used at issuance of building permit at a current rate of $3,998 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). In the past, developers have used different fmancing mechanisms for the procurement of construction funds. The TDIF improvements for SPA One might be constructed using one or more of the following financing alternatives: 4-/ Item: 1.lh- Meeting Date: May I. 1996 I. Otav Ranch SPA ONE TDIF fees. The TDIFfees generated by SPA ONE are estimated in $20.6 rnillions. 2. Available TDIF funds. These are fees already paid by other developers which the City Council may approve to be used for financing the construction of the required facilities. 3. Assessment District Financim!. The City Council may approve the formation of an assessrnent district over an area larger than SPA One that may include other Otay Ranch parcels (for example, portions of future Villages 2 and 6, and the western parcel of Village 1 (not included in SPA One). 4. Construction of Imurovements by SPA One Developer. The developer may elect to use private financing to construct the facilities. In this case, the cost of the improvements may be eligible for credits against future TDIF fees. 5. Construction ofImprovements bv other Develooers. For instance, if Sunbow is developed before the Otay Ranch SPA One, they will be required to construct several of the improvements also required by Otay Ranch SPA One. The Sunbow Tentative Map conditions of approval require the installation of improvements at East Orange Avenue ($6.3 millions), East Palomar Street ($6.8 millions) and Telegraph Canyon Road ($3.5 millions). In the past, developers have used these financing mechanisms for the construction of TDIF improvements. For instance, Eastlake Development Company used Assessment District financing to fund the construction of Telegraph Canyon Road Phase 1 (Eastlake Parkway to Rutgers Road), Phase 2 (Apache Drive to Paseo Ladera), and Phase 4 (Hunte Parkway to Eastlake Parkway). Phase 3 of the same project (Rutgers Road to Apache Drive) was constructed by the City using available TDIF funds. Exhibit 1 presents a hypothetical financing scenario for the construction of SPA One TDIF improvements. It has to be emphasized that the purpose of this example is only to show how the different financing alternatives could be combined to provide the required funding. CONCLUSIONS: I. The Developer is directly responsible for constructing the improvements required to serve the subdivision. Prior to final map approval the developer shall guarantee the construction of the necessary improvements. In addition, the City Council may withhold building permits if the required facilities as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program" have not been completed. ~J Item: ~ Meeting Date: Mav ]. ] 996 2. SPA One does not face a "funding shortfall" for the construction of the SPA One TDlF improvements. There is no funding shortfall because all the required improvements are or will be included in the TDlF Program and are eligible for TDlF funding. Due to the requirement to install the TDIF improvements as required by the PFFP, the developer of SPA One will have to develop a financing strategy which allows him to construct the TDIF improvements as required to meet the needs of the development. This report identifies several financing mechanisms that are available to the developer to construct the SPA One TDlF improvements. 3. The City Council has complete control over the use of available funds for the construction ofTDIF facilities. Similarly, the use of assessment district financing shall be approved by the City Council. StatTRecommendation: Revise the Public Facilities Financing Plan to (I) delete the reference to a "funding shortfall" for the construction of TDlF facilities (2) indicate the amount as potential TDlF credits and (3) revise the writeup to indicate more clearly other methods that the facilities could be installed such as through the Capital Improvement Program using TDIF funds and construction by other developers. M:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV\OR 1.LDT 4-.' Item.J. B ~1eeting Date: Mav 1 1996 EXHIBIT 1 The facilities listed in the Traffic Section of the Public Facilities Financing Plan (pFFP) are necessary to accommodate increased in the South Bay circulation network at 2010 resulting from future development in the region, including buildout of SPA One. The amount shown in the PFFP is the cost to construct all the facilities in that document. The cost also includes facilities for both SPA One Alternative "A" and Alternative "B" (see page 2 for description). Thus. the actual cost to construct the facilities necessary to accommodate increased traffic in the area at 2010 is more accurately represented by considering each of the proposed traffic alternatives in the SPA One separately. Consequently, a more- accurate total cost of traffic improvements is as follows: AL TERNA TIVE "A" AL TERNA TIVE "B" PALOMAR STREET ORANGE AVENUE No. DIF' FACILITY COST No. DIF' FACILITY COST I T olograph Canyon Road $3,472,000 I T olograph Canyon Road $3,472,000 2 T olograph Cyn Road Intersection $1,814,000 2 T olograph Cyn Road Intersection $1,814,000 3,4 Pasco Ranchero $2,790,000 3,4 Pasco Ranchero $2,790,000 5,6 La Media $4,170,000 5,6 La Media $4,170,000 7 East Orango Ave. 4-lane $7,500,000 7 East Orange Ave. 6-lano $11,256,000 10 East Palomar 51. $ I 0,500,000 9 East Orange I-80S Imp $4,064,000 13 Otay Lakes RoadlEast H $221,000 10- East Palomar 51. $10,500.000 15 Paloll2 Diamond @ I-80S $2,700,000 13 East HIOtay Lakes Road $221,000 2 I ,22,23 East Orange Avenue $7,400,000 21,22,23 East Orango Avenue $7,400,000 SUBTOTAL COST OF TDIF $40,567,000 SUBTOTAL COST OF TDIF 45,687,000 PROJECTS (A) PROJECTS (A) Program Less Proposed 96/97 $1,971,000 Less Proposed %/97 $1,971,000 Funds Budgeted IDIF Projects Budgeted IDIF Projects Less Traffic Signal Fees $758,000 Less Traffic Signal Fees $758,000 SUBTOTAL TDIF SUBTOTAL TDIF PROJECTS EUGmLE FOR $37,838,000 PROJECTS EUGmU FOR TDIF $42,958,000 TDIF CREDIT CREDIT Ci 11,12 East Palomar 51 $12,570,000 11,12 East Palomar 51 $12,570,000 14 Intersection TCR/OLR $440,000 14 Intersection TCR/OLR $440,000 15A,B,C Pedestrian Brid8es $1,100,000 lSA,B,C Pedestrian Bridges SI,I00,OOO TOTAL DEVELOPER COST (B) SI4,110.000 TOTAL DEVELOPER COST (B) $14,\ 10,000 TOTAL COST FOR $54,677,000 TOTAL COST FOR $59,797,000 ALTERNATIVE "A" A+B ALTERNATIVE "8" A+B ~4' Item~ A:eeting Date: May 1 1996 The cost indicated above (A+B) is the cost if SPA One alone is required to build all of the facilities. If this were to happen, the developer would accrue the following Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) credits for installing those facilities. (Alternative "B" Orange Avenue used as example) Total cost of TDIF facilities if only SPA One is required to construct Orange Avenue Alternative $42,958,000 C Total fees required to be paid by SPA One $20,600,000 Credit to SPA One for improvements constructed (1) ($22,358,000) It is anticipated that the Sunbow area will develop within the 15 year buildout of SPA One. This project will also be required to construct facilities which are included in the SPA One list effectively reducing the cost offacilities required by SPA One. If Sunbow develops, the credits that SPA One will receive will be reduced by the cost of facilities required by Sunbow. (2) $16,600,000 Residual Credits to SPA One if Sunbow develops (1)-(2)=(3) ($5,758,000) Future development of the remaining Village 1 west of Paseo Ranchero and Villages 2 and 6 which will pay TDIF fees estimated in the amount of (4) $17,800,000 Since (4) is larger than (3), $13,071,000 will go towards other TDIF. improvements. (3)-(4) $12,042,000 Description of SPA One Traffic Alternatives Alternative "A" (With Palomar Ramps) analyses the impacts associated with the extension of Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue to the East as 4-lane major arterials. This alternative includes a half- diamond interchange at I-805/Palomar Street. Alternative "B" (Whitout Palomar Ramps) analyses impacts associated with the extension of Palomar Street to the east as 4-lane major and Orange Avenue to the east as a 6-lane prime arterial until Paseo Ranchero, where it would become a 4-lane major arterial. This alternative does not include the half- diamond interchange at I-805/Palomar Street. M:'HOME'a/GINEEIl\PERM!TS\SPAIDIF.SBB (wp61) 45 Item: I.C Meeting Date:. Mav 1. 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01; SPA One ISSUE: Should the SPA One Plan be modified? BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: Since the submittal of the SPA One Plan, it has undergone substantial review by staff and several iterations have been developed and reproduced in the process. This last series of modifications, which are DOted on the attached errata sheets, are essentially minor in nature and serve to correct typographical and grammatical errors in the document. These changes will be incorporated into the final approved version of the SPA One Plan. The most substantive changes occur in the section under Administration which clarifies the two architectural and site plan review processes that will be utilized to evaluate future proposals. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant has proposed the errata sheets as provided and wishes to amend the SPA accordingly prior to review and approval by the City Council. After review and approval by tlJe City Council, the SPA One Plan will then be reproduced to incorporate all the changes which have been made. OTHER POSITIONS: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached errata sheets and direct the corrections be included in the final approved document. RELATED ISSUES: None. ATTACHMENTS: SPA One Plan Errata Sheets. PC50 1 C.IX>C Pag' 1 # Sectional Planning Area One Plan Errata (October 27,1995 Version) Page I Revision Part One SPA One Plan ,<, ..".'.., .,.... > . .... i Universal F:dit The O~' F.Msa, .b.P. Villa~e Development 11975 EI Camino Real, Suite;1QQ liM (619) 259-2900~ 1-4 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - ...SPA One Sectional Planning Areaflan,... 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - These regulations establish standards for development aw:I address ... 1-5 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence - ...streetscape and landscape design, signage programs, aw:I architectural... 1-6 1st paragraph, 4th sentence - ...Brush Management Plan; aRe! 'A'ile!life CamElsr iss1:I.es. 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence - ...the Overall Design Plan, the SPA One Land Plan, and satisfies the GDP requirements ... 1-7 4th paragraph, ...ranch-wide affordable housing plan to address the reliHieashij! eet:'l.'eeB tHe provision of affordable... 5th paragraph - The Otay Ranch GDP requires that ~ SPA One Plan 1-13 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - The SPA One project area contains approximately 1,~lli acres of gently rolling terrain. 7th paragraph, 1st sentence - The Local Al!enc;y Formation Commission (J-AFCm took action on February 5 1996 to include mMuch of Otay Ranch, including the SPA One project area, is tHe sli9jeet ef tHe Ci~' ef Ck\tla \'is:la E,kere eflmlaeRee U,date Smely. The Sauly feesRUBeBaea 1Mt 1fte 018)' '.'alle)' Parsel, iBehuling the SP..\ ORe I'fBjeet Bfea, Be iIIehuleEl in the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence An ~plication to ;oIIfI9 e~;eBmally annexeS the SPA One proiect area.. a~ wen a..c; other O~v Ranch pmperties into the City ofChula Vista has been submitted to LAFCO.. 1-29 1st paragraph - A Sectional P1anning Area Plan must be consistent with the Otav Ranch General Development Plan ... 1-38 1st paragraph, 4th sentence - The QDP included 9.,7 acres ift gf neighborhood park1and ... ~ - 1 st paragraph, last sentence - ...reduced based on more preCise grading information 8ti!Te!l.~J" availaele. 5th paragraph, 1st sentence - Village One is located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between tHe v;estem j!f8j!eH5. eElge Paseo Ranchero and ... 1-45 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. Transition and separation between Villages One and Five is accomplished through a 75 foot average buffer ~ 1 47 Page Revision arterials freRl ~e Rlajer FeBS (1.a Mesia ReEls) siYisiflg the villages. 1-46 Paragraph continued from previous page, last sentence - Eiflgle fam.ily IIBS Rlalti family resideMialareas RI~' he gates, if j!aelia j!esestrian aeaass is ~re"/iaea tbfeagjle\lt ~e gated eemmanity. 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - There are ~ Uli single family... 1-47 1st paragraph - ...defined architectural style; landscape theme;~ and design ... 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - The Otay Ranch Sectional PI~ Area (SP A) ~ Plan ... I-53 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - ...planned interchange ofSR-125 and TelegRl!!a CEIR).efl Read Otav Lakes Road. I-54 1st paragraph, 4th sentence - The GDP included 6.6 acres ffi af neighborhood.park ... I-55 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - Village Five is bounded on. the north by Telegfapa CIIfi)'efl ReadtOtay Lakes Road... 1st paragraph, 5th sentence. Limited scenic values extend along TelegRl!!R ConyeR P.ead 0tJIY T .akes Road ... . 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - The northern buffer is Telegraph Canyon and TelegfBj!R CllflyeR Reaa Ota:; Lakes Road. I-56 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - The Otay Water District property, a portion of EastLake Greens and ... 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. Transition and separation between Villages One and Five is accomplished through the use of a mHHRlImI 1 Q9 15.Joot avera.l1e se~l!aek hI.IffcI: from the prime arterial, La Mesia Reas, sivisiRg the "lilIages. 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - The Village Five core identity is based on a traditional plEa town SQJ1are design.. me ';AII 'se implemented ... 3rd paragraph, last sentence . SiBgle f--ily llfisRlalti fElffiilj' resisemial are8:5 may 98 gated, if peHe Jtedesei8B assess is f)revidea threagR8Yt the' gated ee~.. I-57 2nd paragraph - ...transit/pedestrian orientation, Ii diverse ... 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - ... a 10.0 acre elementary school site, Ii town square, two neighborhood parks... 1-68 Tasks Performed by Later SPAs- Otay River Valley Riparian Hahitat Restoration Plan Condition of Later Approvals 1-69 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...being allowed as an interim use including speeifieuieBS for buffering techniques... 4th paragraph, 1st sentence. Land utilized for agricultural activity~ ... 1-70 .lst paragraph - (Appendices F9. A., B; C and D). . 1-73 1st paragraph - areas within 1hc SPA One project area ... 1-77 6th paragraph, 2nd sentence. Otay Ranch SPA applications are required to pIaB I\PJ)roximately locate light rail transit alignments iWL, ideRtify 2 4-f; Page Revision transit statio~ leeM!eB5 Iift6 reserve Future tentative ma.ps will be conditioned for dedication of right-of-way for the light rail transit system. 1-78 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - ...and La Media will be signalized ~ future as traffic requires. 1-81 1st paragraph, 4th sentence - The EP.^. plan is rellweE! ts iE!eati~' we ligAt F&il1f8n5it aligt'IIRem, sta1l8B lesaaen, ana feSef\'e the figHt sf ~lJay fer tae tH:n5it line. 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - The SPA One Land Use Plan and Circulation Plan provide for E!esigaatiea the approximate location of the right-of-way at $e gp A. 1ift6.Ihc tentative map ~ will be conditioned for dedication nfthe ril'ht-of-~ for the Jiiht rail transit system. 8ftEi FeSel'VlltieR ef4M Rilrht-of-WI\.v wi]] be reserved at the final map km for the trolley station and light rail transit ... 1-82 2nd paragraph, list of roads Telegraph Canyon Road/Ota.)' Lakes Road 1-86 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence - ...the village core to the arteriaVmajor road~ WiYHn 1:IeH\ '.TilIages Oae eE! Five, Village EIHI). Elfee6 an!! contain the right-of-way 1-90 1st paragraph, 4th sentence - It is imeaE!eE! wat eCarts, bicycles and automobiles IDa): travel within ... 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - Village Plaza Streets are used in villages with plaza or town square themes (Vil1age Five). Parking is prohibited on Village Plaza Streets immediately adjacent to the Village Iijaza SqJlare. It is iflteruieE! Ifiet eCarts, bicycles and automobiles mu travel within ... 1-91 1 st paragraph, 3rd sentence - SeJ)arate pedestrian, bike and cart ... 1-95 2nd bullet .. Plaa sheahl s&:i":e .8 re1ain 188 ekaraeter sf the enistiRg leE!feffR5 te Yie el~eftt fell!1i1:l1e 1:I:r fB,elatisg!: development to topography and natural features and strive to retain the chamcter of the land forms to the extent fea.~ible. 1-97 5th paragraph, 1st sentence - Plese~J' pfreliminary soils and geotechnical reports have been prepared ... 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence - More refined studies will be provided at the teBIa1i\'e JIIat! ed final engineering stages of this project 1-105 Add new 4th paragraph - The Otay Ranch GDP reQ.J1ires tbat applicants p~p~ an 1Jrhan Run-offPlan fnrthe fim SPA within the dr:ajn~ie aJ"ea nfth.. nr"v I), ~ nr"v I;1PA n"_ "^_. "^t ,,_;" ;"t^ th. Reservoir d~inaie ha~in thu.c: there i~ no reqni~m~nt for additional Otav Reservoir uman rnnnff plann;nv a...c: a condition of this ~p A. 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...integrated solid waste management, arts and cultural, lBilE! lare, health and medical ... 5th paragraph. 1st sentence - Fre~elHly, t,Ithis chapter ... 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence - SpeeiiieaUy, lEinancing and phasing... 3 4-CJ Page Revision 1-111 Footnote 11 - ...Sphere of Influence EIR and related ... Footnote 13 -This document has not been approved, but approval is expected ... 1-112 7th paragraph, 3rd sentence - The inteftt eftIhe Otay Water District intends is to provide ... 1-113 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - ...San Diego County Water Authority (CW A), facilities planned by ~ CW A and ... 1-114 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...primarily residential development, the eHlpRlISis ef1l1e discussion ~ emphasi7~es urban water control devices. 1-116 1st paragraph, add to end - The Reclaimed Water Uses and Restrictions Plan is addressed in the SAMP. the Otay Water District Reclaimed Water Master Plan and the Otlly Water District Reclaimed Water Rules and ReiUlations. 1-117 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence -lbefttUallj', Otay Ranch may evenrual!v be required to oversize ... 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...constructed within the streets 8enstruetea during Village One and Five development. 4th paragraph, add to last sentence - ...up to the 980 Zone to serve SfA ~. 1-126 6th paragraph, 1st sentence - ...will reduce post-development conditions. 6I2evelopment of this basin... 1-141 6th paragraph, 2nd sentence - ...increase generated by SPA One will require an additional ~ 21 officers ... 1-142 Paragraph continued from previous page -Approximately 5,112.5 sq. ft. of police facilities would be required to house the additional ~ 21 officers. 1-145 Add to end of 2nd paragraph - Otay Ranch SPA One wil! be served bv existini rvrn fire facilities. 1-146 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - Since the vasel majority ... 1-147 iii. Municipal Fire Insurance (peaaing) The City ha.t; det~1ned that municipal fire in~urance i~ not feasible at thi~ time Add to end of 1st paragraph - Otay Ranch !':P A One will be served by existine fire.and emernenc:y service facilities. 1-150 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - R",.ed on the methodoloV)' in the GDP +1he SPA One project area ... 1-155 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence - Prior to completing the applicaatiml, the - - applicant must attend ... 1-168 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - ...Regional Purpose Facility land use desiv:nation. 1-177 11 th bullet - Shopping centers oriented to promote use &y gf mass ttansit ... 1-181 1st bullet - The SPA One project consists of two transit oriented villages 4 50 Page Revision with a transit faeilhy station sife included within tfte.W ~ core areas, 1-188 Footnote 28, 2nd sentence - ...shall be consistent with the policies and programs contained in the. revised housing element. 1-194 Add a new bullet - Consider the provision of affordable housin~ opportunities. Part Two Index of SPA Requirements .>... .' ". ..... . . . ... '.. lI-S Community Gardens - Perfonnance Village Desiga Plans Earks. Recreation aDen Space and Trails Plan, Appendix g D lI-IO Transportation Phasing Plans - Performance TFaftie fdlIHj'sis Transportation Phasin~ Plan Part Three Planned Community District Regulations . ... . lIP Last paragraph, 1st sentence - ...Otay Ranch SPA One Zoning District Map (see Exhibit ~ IIH) III-I 6 Table IlI-2 - Agriculture crops, remove footnote from P (SF3) and P (SF4). IlI-17 Table IlI-2 - Other temporary uses as prescribed in Section :v.J YJ. III-19 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - The residential property development standar~ have been developed ... Footnote 8 - Second story ~ projectieft allewaele wt4Ir2' into the reQ).Iired setback. III-20 Change maximum square footage in table - ~~ ~UDQ ~ 2.100 1st paragraph - ...in accordance with the Chula Vista Design Manual and the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMCl. III-21 1st paragraph - Refer to Temporary Use Section ~ YJ., 1th paragraph, I st sentence - ...predominately of trees, plant mateFials shrubs, ground cover and ... IlI-22 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence - ...as follows in Table ~ ~... III-33 Table, Lines 2-6 - in table under CPF column, change G-to ~. I11-47 V.2 Unclassified Uses B. Campgrounds: See CVMC Section 19.58.Q&G ~ I11-48 F. Churches: See CVMC Section 19.58.O&G l1O. H. ...See CVMC Section 19.58.G8G-l1O. IlI-69 Table ill-8, 10th line - Churches... Minimum Off-Street Parking Require.cl - column - ...1 spacel45 square feet of gross floor area within the main auditorium where ~ ~ are no ... IlI-72 2. All landscaped parking lot islands shall have a minimum inside dimension of wee (J) five (5) feet... s Sf Page Revision IIl-78 A. Purpose The purpose of~ Site Plan and Architectural Review and Design Review approval is to review proposed projects to detennine compliance with the provisions of these regulations and the Villaie f)e~i e!1 Plan and to promote orderly and hannonious development with good design character. Design review may be concurrent with site plan review aHfte apf1lismt' 5 ASic. 2nd paragraph B. .A..fJJ3lieatisa Site Plan and Architectural Review Procedures ~ fftis site plan and architectural review approval process ts &f!!!lieaale t9 fJrBjesHi y':.LiA IU.fl, Rl,Q, &Ba C aisHiets. IB aflaitieB, all attaskea resideRt..ial Sf aB)" eeRlIBereial prejeets shall re'{\:lire ElesigB reo:ie'.v BJ:lPF8val. for sinv"e famHy dp-tached units on lots of or exceedini an averaie ~ize on 000 square feet includin~ al! proposal~ i!1 the SF3 a!1d SF4 ZO!1e de~iV'ation~ ~ich have tentative ~ubdivi~ion map approval ~hal! be a ~fflevel review a.~~ociated with the buildinQ nem1it proce~s AI! proposal~ ~hal! be cO!1~iste!1t with the Planned Community District Re~latinn~ ViIlaie De~iV1 Plan and the Chula Vi~ta f)esiin Manual All ;;if deci~ions mav be appealed to the Zonini Admini~trator and all Zonini Admini~tnr dech::ions m~v be ~pealed to the Desiun Review Cr~mmittee. ~fJeeial s8BSiaeRKieB is gi\"eB t8 Maas \vitlUn \he village 3 !!Bf6gf6j!ft eeres. These areas shall re~ a 'leeise 19lan; refer te geetisB III.5 C. Design Review Procedure The f)e~ien Review Approval Process procedures shall ae as sf!eeifieEl described in Section 19.14.G05.82 through Section 19.14.~~ (inclusive) of the CVMC is IIpnlicable to all propo~als within RMI RM2 and C 7.nne des; crnations. D Precise Plan ~ecial con~ideration is eiven to area..~ within the viHaie cores Approval ~f a precise plan will be reqJ1ired as described in Section 19.14 570 ;h~~;h Section 19 14580 (inclusive) of the CVMC Section III 5 of SPA One also di~cn~~e~ tni~ ~q,]irement. VlD.4. Scenic Corridor Criteria Add - - - 4. Walls 45,. Signs ,i2. Utilities 111-79 last paragraph, 2nd sentence - In the event eft cl' conflicting standards ... 6 5; Sectional Planning Area One Plan Errata (October 27, 1995 Version) Page I Revision tf#t;J'JIJ:'~"jC;f.~~:~m#i:w'rjim~Q:~liit:ii:i!15.;;H;:;;;;;';,,'.:;:,,{,;:;;,;:,;.,::,,;:, 1II-18 Table 1II-3 17th line . Distance Between detached Units, underRMl SPl , Detached aIlev nroduct shall maintain an 8 foot minimum and 12 foot j&Ve1'3.ie side vard setb~ck fOT 7~O lot Hne nToducts. m-20 Table, 3rd line . RMll The floor area ratio for "l1ev product to be j;Jetermined durina Site Plan Review. III - 23 2nd paragraph . In the RM Districts, including the conversion of apartments to condominiums where permitted, the follov.ing IICrfeImaflse standards shall be met: Add new text - yii. ne~;vn stand~Td s shall he reqpirt"n which specifv Hmitations on p~tio <fnlC':tuTes room additinns and otnerrnodi~cat;ongto the proiect. ffiOtay\SP A J \Errata2.doc 4124/96 53 Item: I.D Meeting Date: Mav 1. 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 95-01; SPA One ISSUE: Should trigger points for parks, schools and public infrastructure improvements be established? BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The attached chart was presented at the Planning Commission hearing on March 27, 1996 and was discussed at the April 10, 1996 meeting. The Planning Commission was in support of the trigger points as established as they related to the applicant's phasing plan. The concern was raised, however, about the adequacy of the trigger points if the phasing plan were to be modified. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The project applicant is still proposing to phase the project as presented in the SPA One Plan and believes the trigger points established are adequate. OTHER POSITIONS: West Coast Land Fund is advocating a phasing plan which would initial development to Village One and allow building to occur ftom the west to the east. If this phasing plan is approved, then the trigger points do not need to be modified. AL TERNA TIVES: Staff has reviewed three different phasing alternatives and has indicated below the appropriate trigger points in relation to the phasing alternatives: I. Focusing all development in Village One, Trigger points as established are adequate. 2. Starting development in both villages, with access ftom La Media: Trigger points as established are adequate. 3. Allowing Village Five to develop with initial access ftom Otay Lakes Road and La Media; Trigger points for schools would have to be adjusted, since the first elementary school is proposed to be constructed in Village One. All other trigger points are adequate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the attached trigger points are adequate and reconunends that they be maintained as stated in the conditions of approval. RELATED ISSUES: See Phasing Alternatives I.F A TT ACHMENTS: Trigger Points PC50lD.DOC Page I 54 OTAYRANCH SPA ONE TRIGGER POINTS ~> TRIGGER POINTS EXHIBIT A REQUIREMENT DEADLINE 500 units 1,150 units 2 650 units 3 000 units 3,900 units Deliver graded first elementary school site with access road & utilities to the 500 units site in Villasze One 150 students First Elementary School opened (Village One) 1,150 units 336 students Deliver graded second elementary school site with access road & utilities to the 2,500 units site, in Vill=e Five 750 students Second Elementary School opened (Village Five) 3,450 units I 000 students Deliver graded third elementary school site with access road & utilities to the 4,500 units site, west of Paseo Ranchero I 350 students Third Elementary School opened (West of Pas eo Ranchero) 5,300 units 1,668 students Deliver graded high school site with access road & utilities to the site 2,650 units 504 students High School opened 5,300 units I 007 students SCHOOLS TRAmc RELATED IMPROVEMENTS Construct or guarantee the construction of offsite Telegraph 300 units Canvon Road I-805rrele h Can on Road interchan e 500 units Either: offsite 4 lane East Palomar St. and 1/2 diamond; Or: Oran e Ave as a 6 lane rime arterial to Paseo Ranchero 1414 uivalent dweUin units Either: offsite E. Palomar St. & Orange Ave. to 4 lane majors with 1/2 diamond at 1-805/Palomar; Or: Palomar St. to a 4 lane major & Orange Ave. to a 6 lane 4,009 equivalent dwelling units rime arterial to Paseo Ranchero SEWER IMPROVEMENTS determined b flow meterin U es & some off sites with first unit DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Po . C . detentionldesiltin basin wI of anv area in canvon h C . detention basin wI construction of La Media 5ft, Item IE. Meeting Date: May 1.1996 PUBLIC HEARING: OT A Y RANCH SPA ONE, PCM 95-01 ISSUE: How could financing of an overpass to Eastlake Parkway from Village Five across SR-125 be accomplished. BACKGROUND: This issue was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of April I 0, 1996 where the Commission tentatively agreed with the project applicant to delete the vehicular connection to Eastlake Parkway. The Commission required dedication adequate to provide vehicular access within SPA One for this roadway while using the area for pedestrian, bike and cart use. The Commission requested that California Transportation Ventures (CTV) be contacted to determine what would be funded by CTV if either a roadway or pedestrian, bike or cart path were planned or on the ground at the time that SR-125 were constructed. In addition, the Commission questioned how the vehicular connection might be funded if found to be needed by the City in the future. CALTRANS(CTV) GUIDELINES: Mr. Muggs Stoll ofCaltrans, who is working on the SR-125 project with CTV, was contacted concerning the Commissions issues. He indicated that Caltrans does not have a written set of policies but gave rne information based upon past practice. The comments that follow pertain to either a vehicular or pedestrian/path crossing of SR-125. Following is a sununary of discussions with Mr. Stoll: FACILITY IN PLACE He indicated that any facility that was in place at the time that SR-125 was constructed is usually provided with access across SR-125 at the expense of those constructing the facility. He also indicated that the need for the overpass would be evaluated to determine what the impact to the local circulation system rnight be if the street were terminated in a cul-de-sac. The determination of whether an overpass will be provided would ultirnately occur when the freeway agreement is negotiated between the City, CTV and Caltrans. PLANNED FACILITY If the facility is planned, the overpass would not be constructed with SR-125 unless the facility is anticipated within a reasonable length of time. Mr. Stoll indicated that 5 years could be considered reasonable. He also indicated that Caltrans does not have a firm policy on this situation and there was no guarantee that five years would be used to determine if an overpass would be constructed and fmanced with the project. In addition, he indicated that the same needs assessment indicated above for an in place facility would be done to determine the benefit that such an overpass would provide. 5'7 Item: IE. .eeting Date: Mav I. 1996 ALTERNATE FUNDING Mr. Stoll stated that future funding of either a vehicular or pedestrian/path could be obtained frorn SANDAG after going through the regional prioritization process. However, it is staff's opinion that this facility would be low on the priority list because of the limited regional benefit. Absent regional funding, the City would have to use funds such as gas tax to complete the overpass. Transportation Development Irnpact Funds (TDIF) could not be used because the overpass is not included in the TDIF program. The portion of the roadway within SPA One could not be added to the TDIF program because it is not a Circulation Element road and does not rneet the criteria as a four lane major street or higher classification. If the street were gated and private, the street could not be funded by public funds. FUTURE ACTIONS: CTV and the City will enter into a freeway agreement prior to construction of SR-125. At that time the City could negotiate with CTV for improvernents to be installed by CTV. The information given above is what is usually done by Caltrans in the circumstances indicated. The freeway agreernent does not have to follow those guidelines and CTV could agree to provide an overpass even ifCaltrans normally would not. POLICY COMMIITEE RECOMMENDATION: Provide four access points from Village Five to circulation systern streets. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONCERNS: The Public Works Department has no objections to having a fourth access point, however, if only three vehicular access points are required the connection at St. Claire Drive/Otay Lakes Road is strongly recommended over the Eastlake Parkway Connection. The traffic studies for SPA One indicated that the connection to Eastlake Parkway would increase the amount of traffic that would enter the Otay Lakes Road! Eastlake Parkway intersection. Since this intersection is projected to be the most used intersection in the City at buildout of the Southbay, reducing the trips through that intersection is absolutely essential. Having both the Eastlake Parkway and Otay Lakes Road connections would be better than having just the Eastlake Parkway connection. No traffic runs included both access points so the impact of that scenario has not been analyzed. Only one traffic run had the connection to Eastlake Parkway. When comparing the traffic analysis for the proposed project (third access point to Eastlake parkway) and Alternative I (third access point to Otay Lakes Road) in the EIR, the traffic runs indicated that the connection to Eastlake Parkway (4000 Average Daily Trips frorn Village Five) would send 3000 additional trips through the intersection of Otay Lakes RoadlEastlake Parkway. The connection to Otay Lakes RoadlSt. Claire Drive would allow many of the trips from Village Five to get to SR-125, the commercial developrnent west of Eastlake Parkway and Kaiser Hospital before reaching that intersection. Having both access points would probably reduce the use of the Eastlake Parkway connection to 2000 trips or less. RECOMMENDATION: Require the installation of the street and the dedication of right-of-way for the future connection to Eastlake Parkway. 5'fb Item: I. F Meeting Date: Mav I. 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01; SPA One ISSUE: What are other alternatives to the phasing of SPA One? BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: At the April 10, 1996 public hearing, the Planning Commission expressed concern over the applicant's proposed project phasing and voted 6 to I not to recommend approval of the proposed phasing. Several Commissioners proposed different scenarios for the development of SPA One. Concerns were also expressed on the need for La Media to be the primary focus as the project's entry. The Commission requested that the project applicant, West Coast Land Fund and staff meet to resolve the issue. A meeting was held on Thursday, April 18 to discuss the issue. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The project applicant is still proposing the phasing presented in the SPA One Plan and Public Faclities Finanace Plan which allows development to start in both villages. This phasing plan will allow the applicant to generate Transporatation Development Impact Fee (TransDIF) fees from approximately 1,200 dwelling units before the major road improvements of La Media are needed. They believe the TransDIF fees will enable La Media to be constructed when it is needed by the development in SPA One. As a proposed condition, at 1,400 units, either Palomar Street or East Orange Avenue will be extended to I-80S. OTHER POSITIONS: West Coast Land Fund has indicated they believe development should be limited to Village One and development should occur from a west to east direction with primary access from Paseo Ranchero. West Coast believes this phasing will establish a village core sooner, provide significant inftastructuTe and allow the project applicant to sell the super block areas. They also believe this phasing would also allow the City adequate time to review West Coast's concerns with the Village Five land uses. West Coast also points out that 593 acres of open space could be conveyed under this phasing (the entire conveyance requirement for Village One). AL TERNA TIVES: Staff has reviewed three different alternatives, I. Focusing all development in Village One. This alternative would allow initial access from Telegraph Canyon Road and then require Palomar Street, Paseo Ranchero and La Media to be constructed. 2. Starting development in both villages off La Media. Partial street improvements to La Media would be allowed in order to open development in both villages. 3. Allowing Village Five to develop with initial access from Otay Lakes Road and La Media. This scenario would concentrate development in Village Five and provide La Media sooner in the development sequence. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON: Staff supports the applicant's proposed phasing currently indicated in the SPA One Plan and PFFP. This issue was previously discussed at a City Depamnent Head meeting. The facts are not different from that time and staff sees no reason to modify its position. RELATED ISSUES: Trigger points for the first elementary school, neighborhood park and arterial streets may change if a different phasing is required. The PFFP will be updated to reflect the approved project phasing. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Michael S. Woodward, attorney for West Coast Land Fund. PCSIF.DOC 51 ,:.w Ol"'rIC !,"C. ;'IF "O""'\'I:~ "'Et: C 11......~ .......L.. .. .....~TI...Q' "C'C)"''''''''''':f ~""'Q'';'"'' '.....H~L~ ,.. WA......." PArI.. H.-\sTI\C;S. .I.\NOI'SI\ Y lie K\ I.KER ........I"'~-y-T...,I~D ""I ..:;:.::..... .4'!"I,.......... Cr'..It'~~ 'Iv,...t; ':;:.'-'0 ,..-,~ ..!':.,~..,-.~~ 5T~:..c: 1 :>. I" "~'''''...'''' U\;;OllU'. :in'.:;.._.:.:.:., . -"a;......"Nr, j"C-I ..-~ ;,..~'. ... ...........~,..':..,.. .' 'I:"~ .....,,,,:.,.. ''', . ,.,,_,....., ".." ,:,I:......,'"'r.: I:~"t;,.'r I')""IC:C """'''5 '.-:.,TH F\;;Owr-i"< '",-forE:- .a..... .0....,. c:.:.....c.. .a~"...c Ct;I.,,-.\ "" I: :1,04. c_. ~,r('"l""'" 'A "l'''';:C.' .~~'" "1:\;;I:.I'r10"," I".; ttll:i.liI'1640t: 1,.0$ ...."-IGC..L:~. CAL.IFO"".... ., n:H'')':'I-~!3?! ..,......"',.,.,.... '1'""1......... .....",.,-, ,,"'; ~,...-.I~[i !?II"IC:;'" TC:"L :,.,ON~ 1..'1;'.' ~t=.. ,,~,'" ,'.. '. .......;.... "'C "';'" III;;; _ '" ~ 'c., ....> ';:1,.....,-.,,1":- ,:o...,..tc- C.J- '='.'01'"1, .:::. I..~LI'''~'~C ':'."':" ",.,. ,........; '",'-#w Occ....,. ........,."'.. -....... ..'0..32'......0: ~ "'~.ioI ....:-.... '-#.."'._ .....",,'A ....'='''''<':06. t:...""..O'f...,.... :;'O.c...,O'1"I .,.r:I.r:....~ONC 1:1'." JI')-JJl:'n .:i"'~ ........ i)..r'.....r .....r.-:,tNlII..E 1.3131 06;!"1..'::: 'C'I-> '1::-,./ v,::........ ...c..... ~Q..R ..;."J....- ......)' .':.('Itt1CN!:' ~ I. J ~"~;';"t;_-, IO"'~"J Or-",~IC. ....... "".....' "'...'......,........ JV'" ~1.U''''''' ...~ .C1~ 1";'7'7 12-3.1:. .....io..... ,.r;::..o",t. ""'N"'Tt:'."V, TO"'TO '07 ..CI.c:.~'ONr tf):n 10DO.4'7I' AprlI 23, 1996 '~"". . "~""" -... .......":L Ie:..'. O'-"'N';"'~"'''''''''' .........'(1.. " N ......'....,...c..O.. :':1.-:: ::0,..,,-,0...."'.01;\. -, ...1::....0,.." '4''''~' ~,r:",.~..t:',: WII'rr::R"j Ol~ccr Ol"!.. '.u...t;lr.~ (213) 683-6103 QUN ~'.r: N<;:' 21784.61555 VIA FACSIMTLE Gerald J. Jamriska Dray Ranch Project Office City of Chula VISta Planning Dept. 315 founh Avenue, Suire A ChuJa Vista, California 91910 Re: Otav Ranch SPA One Ph<ls[n,g Dear Jeny: In our meeting on April 1 S, 1996, representatives from Tht'. Baldwin CompanYNillage Developmem/Otay Ranch L.P./Tiger Development Two (the "Applicant") and West Coasr Land Fund disctlssed with City sIaff several different phasing alternatives for SPA One, in accordance with the diIection given uy Lhe Planning COmmission. The discussion at that meejng was qualified at the outset by West Coast reiterarin;~ its request that the City suspend processing of the SPA One Plan and seek rhr appropnMe relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy proceedings involving Tiger Developme:m Two. The discussion also proceeded on the assumption that West Coast would e\.entuaI1;y complete its foreclos~ action on a significallt portiun of the SPA One acreage, currently owned by Tiger, and would bt. in a position to either develop that portion or sell it to a merchant builder for development. You asked for _ West Coast to submit its requesTS regarding the propost~d phasing in writing. Once again, ~iteorating West Coast's reqUt!st that the City seck an appropriate order for relief from the automatic stay in Tiger's bankruptcy case, and assuming that the City will nevertheless continue t,) process the SPA One plan and that West Coast will wmplt"te its f,)rec!osure of Tiger's property, we have set tonh below several items that should he included in the phasing plan for SPA One: · The Phasing Plan should limit development of SPA One to one village at a time. Vi1lage 1 should be the first village to be' (p( u't-~":-::'v .I. .. ' v' ~''''''''. : !".Jrl~ ::.~ &~I ~:; T', ffff '" ,'. ~ . . . ,: .. ~ ~~l~)~~~.._jw~_~ 'v::. . ... ..-- Gerald J. Jamriska April 23. 1996 Page 2 developed, and should be developed from west to east (Le., old Phase 28 would become the new Phase I; old Phase 1 B would become the n@w Phase 2 and eXTPtln to r.a Mp.dia, north of Palomar). This sequence would further the objective of establishing a functioning village community, as contemplated in the GDP, allow significant infrastnlCture to be d~veloped early in the process, allow the Applicant to sell off significant developable super block areasY and allow West Coast's concerns with the land uses proposed in Village 5 to be reviewed. · Although super blocks can be created and ,;old off, a condition of the Applicant's sale of any such block or area should be the conveyance of the 593 acres of promised open space preserve, owned by the Applicant. The ErR requires this conveyance early in the development process (Le., in the fl1"St 3 years of the "development program"), Since the Applicant proposes to sell off all developable acreage following approval of a "master tentative map," good planning and zoning practice dictates that the conveyance requircm~nt be fulfill('Od while II unity of owncr.;hip still exists. · Paseo Ranchero should be developl"d prior to La Media. A~ noted above, the first phase of Village 1 development should be the old Phase 28 area and the second phase should be the old Pha~.. IB area and extend to La Media, nonh of Palomar, This sequencing would facilitate some momentum in the development process which, the Applicant indicated, should generale rev~nu~s thai th~ Applicant can use to solidify its holdings and that rhe City can use for major infrastrUcture costs such as I.a Media. Consequently, as buildirig permits are issued for development in Village I, DIP fees should be earmarked (or the costs of improving La Media, We feel that the phasing issues outlined above would go (ar in addressing the Col1Ut'\ission's concerns that the major inJTastructure and village _ character be established sooner rather than later, U1 order to assure the feasibility of SPA-One, yet allow the Applicant to obtain some realization on the investment it has made in the planning process. As the enclosed newspaper "Irtirlf' indicatf's, 1./ AI our meeting last week, the Applicant's representarive stat~d that it would not be building any or the homes in SPA One and planned to Sf] off sUp"r blocks to various merchant builders. (p h H ,~~~h rt~w :nJ&~ ~~ Gerald J. Jamriska April 23, 1996 Page 3 1 L' H~.l G 0 it ': ff . : . :: -: _ ~ : ':i '~ . ~ _ "t ~.." a community's expectations re~arding amenitip.~;. pHrks and other issues can be frustrated jf development phasing is not carefully planned. Thank you for your cooperation in this mancr. '." , Very u:wy yo.!rs, , , I [ t. L k lA. (. <.{C 5. (( 'tJ I..' {.l.CL.-1 {t \ ( \ Michael S. Woodward for PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER Enclosure cc: Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Direcror Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney Ed Dailey, Colony Advisors (p " Item: l.G Meeting Date: Mav 1. 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01; SPA One ISSUE: Should a condition of approval be added which addresses potential City actions if ownership of SPA One changes? DISCUSSIONIBACKGROUND: This item was raised at the April 10, 1996 Planning Corrunission meeting, and staff has responded to the Corrunission' s concern by drafting two conditions which address the potential for multiple ownership within SPA One. The primary condition regarding multiple ownership is noted as (1.d) which states, "The applicant acknowledges that the purpose of planned community zoning is to provide for the orderly development ofland under unified ownership or control. Applicant represents to the City, that as of the date of this approval, SPA One is held under unified control by the Applicant. Applicant agrees that if any portion of land within SPA One changes ownership in a manner that the City determines in its sole discretion to represent a risk that the SPA One Plan will not be implemented as approved the City Council may take action such as, including but not limited to, requiring an amendment to Village Five of the SPA One Plan and any of the accompanying documents, denying subsequent development approvals and stopping the issuance of building permits within Village Five of SPA One. Applicant acknowledges its understanding that irrespective of the approval of SPA One, the applicant is required to be in compliance at all times with the City's ordinances, policies and regulations." The other condition regarding multiple ownership is noted as (IX.e) which states: "If the applicant is unable to deliver any of the school sites required by conditions a through d at the locations identified in the SPA One Plan, applicant shall, at the time such site is required to be delivered, take such actions necessary to deliver an alternative site that is satisfactory to the school district or fund acquisition by the school district of an alternative site." APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is concerned with the wording of Condition (1.d) and would prefer that the word "core" be placed after any reference to the Village Five of SPA One. OTHER POSITIONS: Since the last Planning Corrunission meeting, the City Council met in closed session on April 16, 1996 (per Government Code Section 54956.9) to discuss anticipated litigation in the Tiger Development Two bankruptcy. At that meeting the Council authorized the City Attorney to institute a motion for relief from Stay in order to process SPA approvals unless Baldwin secures, on their own initiative, said relief. West Coast Land Fund also has concerns in this regard and requested at the April 10, 1996 Planning Commission hearing that the City suspend processing of the SPA One Plan and seek the appropriate relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy proceedings involving Tiger Development Two. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that Conditions (1.d) and (IX.e) as written afford the City with adequate protection should the ownership within SPA One change and should be approved as written. PC50 I G.DOC Page 1 &-3 Item: I.H. Meeting Date: Mav 1. 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 95-01; SPA One ISSUE: Are the SPA One conditions of approval adequate? BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The SPA One conditions ofapproval were briefly presented at the March 27, 1996 Planning Commission hearing. The attached conditions of approval reflect those items which were discussed at the April 10, 1996 meeting, such as timing of park credit (VII.c), the deletion of the two additional roadways north from Palomar (IV.e) and the road between the two Otay Water District parcels to EastLake Parkway (Nj) and the deletion of the gated communities condition (III.b). Other than these items they are essentially identical to the conditions which were in the Commission's packet for the April 24, 1996 meeting, except for the addition of the two multiple ownership conditions (l.d) and (IX.e) and minor editorial comments. Any additional changes made at the April 24, 1996 hearing will be presented as an oral update to the Commission at the May I meeting. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant agrees with the conditions of approval except for those which relate to issues which have been presented to and discussed by the Commission in the past three public hearings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached conditions of approval. RELATED ISSUES: Ownership Conditions of Approval, Item I.H. ATTACHMENTS: Conditions of Approval PC50IH.lXJC Page J (04 CONDmONS OF APPROVAL FOR OTAY RANCH SPA ONE L GENERAL PROVISIONS a) All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean "Applicant". b) If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modifY all approvals herein granted including issuance of building pennits, 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. c) Applicant shall indemnifY, protect, defend and hold the City harmless ITom and against any and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising ITom challenges to the Environmental Impact Report for the Project and/or any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the project. d) The Applicant acknowledges that the purpose of planned community zoning is to provide for the orderly development ofland under unified ownership or control. Applicant represents to the City, that as of the date of this approval, SPA One is held under unified control by the Applicant. Applicant agrees that if any portion of land within SPA One changes ownership in a manner that the City detennines in its sole discretion to represent a risk that the SPA One Plan will not be implemented as approved, the City Council rnay take action such as, including but not limited to, requiring an amendment to Village Five of the SPA One Plan and any of the accompanying docurnents, denying subsequent development approvals and stopping the issuance of building permits within Village Five of SPA One. Applicant acknowledges its understanding that irrespective of the approval of SPA One, the applicant is required to be in compliance at all times with the City's ordinances, policies and regulations. IT. ENVIRONMENTAL a) The applicant shall implement all mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01, the Candidate CEQA Findings for this project (Exhibit ---.J and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit ---.J. b) The applicant shall comply with all requirernents of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by City Council on c) The applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the California Department ofFish and Game, the U.S. Department ofFish and Wlldlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1 b5 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 m. DESIGN a) The applicant shall provide a residential alley product, as such product is defined in the Village Design Plan, within Phase Two of Village Five as shown on the SPA One phasing plan and a future phase of Village One. b) The City Coaneil may appre\'e the ooRstmetieR ef gated eel1llBlll1ity projeets ...vithiA Villages ORe aRd FPIe if ilie city Ceooeil Mds all ef the follawing: a.) The eelltumity ef pllblie tRlili;, as inweated aR the Tmils PIar~ "NiII be maiAtained, and b) Publie pedeGtris.r~ bieyele IIfId eleetFie eart aeeess "..<iII be maintained within the gated prejeet, and e) The gated prejeat "1.;Y Ret hw.'e an adverse effcat IIpaR pllblie inffast."1Ietur-e, and d) The gated prejeat shall be reviewed ill aeeereanee wiili any additional eriteria adapted by the City CellReil. The deeisieR to Ilf!preve er deRy the eeRstruetieA ef a gated eemmumty is wS6fetiaAary to the City Cmrneil. 1'.II)' prepesal fer a gated eaHlHlllnity prejeet shall be Slibmitted fer City CellAeil eeAsideratioH at the telltaflve ffi!IfJ stage fer that prejeet IV. STREET, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENTS a) Prior to the approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to fund the cost of the transit stops. Said stops shall be designed in a manner consistent with the transit stop details as described in the Village Design Plan, as approved by the City's Transit Coordinator and Planning Director. b) Residential street parkways shall be no less than six feet in width. The Applicant shall plant trees within said parkways which have been selected from the list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan and approved by the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. The Applicant shall provide root baniers and deep watering irrigation systerns for the trees. An inigation system shall be provided from each individual lot to the adjacent parkway. As a condition of approval of the first. tentative map, the Applicant shall be required to submit Improvement Plans for the residential street parkways for review and approval by the City Engineer, Directors of Parks and Recreation and Planning. c) The segment of the north/south vehicular road from Telegraph Canyon Road to the first residential street intersection within Village One (located between Buena Vista Way and Apache Drive) ("Ternporary Roadway") shall be open for public use only until such time as a road ftorn Village One to Orange Avenue is approved by the City Engineer to carry vehicular traffic. The Temporary Roadway shall be designed and constructed to City standards and the Otay Ranch SPA One standards. The Applicant shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for the removal and restoration of the Temporary Roadway at the request of the City Engineer. Subsequent to removal of the roadway, said roadway shall be regraded and reconstructed to be consistent with the streetscape of Telegraph Canyon Road, as directed by the City Engineer. The applicant shall install signs, as directed by the City Engineer, indicating that the Temporary Roadway shall be closed once the permanent road is opened 2 (P( 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 for public use. Notice shall be provided in any residential sales disclosure documents that the Temporary Roadway will be closed to vehicular traffic when access to East Orange Avenue is provided. d) Street cross sections shall conform to those standards contained in the SPA One Plan. All other design criteria shall conform to the design standards contained in the document entitled Street Design Standards and the Subdivision Manual both as amended by the City from time to time, ("City Design Standards"). Any proposed variation from the City Design Standards which are not addressed in the SPA Plan shall be approved by the City and indicated on the appropriate tentative subdivision map. The following table indicates the relationship between the Otay Ranch SPA One roadway designations (i.e., cross sections) and the approved City designations in the Circulation Element of the General Plan for purposes of determining the appropriate design standards for all streets within SPA One. COMPARISON OF OT A Y RANCH STREET CLASSIFICATIONS TO CITY STREET CLASSIFICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS TO BE UTILIZED IN TENTATIVE MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN PREPARATION FOR OT A Y RANCH USE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CITY CLASSIFICATION OF STREET CLASSIFICATION OF SCENIC CORRIDOR PRIME ARTERIAL PRIME ARTERIAL PRIME ARTERIAL PRIMARY VilLAGE ENTRY CLASS I COlLECTOR SECONDARY VilLAGE ENTRY CLASS II COLLECTOR VilLAGE CORE CLASS I COLLECTOR RESIDENTIAL PROMENADE CLASS ill COLLECTOR CORE PROMENADE RESIDENTIAL 3 IP7 4/24/96 PC conditions 4124/96 VILLAGE MAIN RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE PLAZA RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL A and B RESIDENTIAL ALLEY ALLEY STANDARDS ~ ~Il~~lieant shall fJf(J'lide twe nEJrtWsEJ\!tR reGideRtial j!remenade ~~~, ~ed :: ;t..::~ ~Z ~:~~f= One. The westem mast street sh~ be I~~ ~~~'~ ~~.:..~: t~ =:: lEI en tfie lane! \lse ffi!!\J lIJ!j!reved with SPA One and ~ ~~~ ~ ~ :~~r;~=:~i:~ T~ :stem.mest street shall aIi~ 'lAtH the temj!eFarj rEJ,a8\VIIY ...iIieh_ e~"~~: ~ _ 'en e . SlIId streets shall be desIgned and 6enstfllete~ ~ ~o~~~CI4~ tile . D;~i; &:m'd';ds and the Otay Ranel~ SF A One standards fer residential j!re~enade str<1ets. e.) The apDlicant shall provide a 60 foot wide pedestrian Daseo between Nei~borhoods R-8 and R-9. As a condition of approval on the approDriate tentative maD. said paseo shall be required to be dedicated to the Ci at the final ma sta e. Street im rovements will not be r uired to be instaIIe but mav be required at some future date should it become apDarent that vehicular access is needed. f) As directed by the Director of Planning and the City Engineer, the applicant shall construct a pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to Village Five at the vicinity of Palomar Street crossing over La Media Road. The timing of the construction of said bridge shall be determined by the City at the time of approval of the first tentative map. The applicant shall be solely responsible for the construction of said bridge g) In addition to the pedestrian bridge described above, the Spa One Plan provides for the construction of a pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to Village Two and a pedestrian bridge connecting Village Five to Village Six. The applicant shall agree to fund half of the cost of constructing the two pedestrian bridges and to identifY the mechanism to be used to fund said cost at the time of approval of the first final map. Said items shall be included as conditions of approval of the first tentative map. h) The applicant shall provide a conceptual design of the traffic circles delineated on the SPA One Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to approval of the first tentative map. i) In the event the Federal Government adopts AD A standards for street rights of way which are in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise provided for in the future ADA 4 h~ 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 regulations, City standards approved herein may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after construction has commenced. i.) Vehicular access shall not be required to EastLake Parkwav between the two Otay Water District parcels. Pedestrian. cart and bicycle access. however. shall be provided. A siJqy foot easement for roadwav and other public purooses to accommodate said access shall be dedicated with the approval of the appropriate final map. Design of said pedestrian. cart and bicycle access shall be implemented in such a way so as not to preclude the option of future provision of vehicular access should it becorne necessary. V. GRADING AND DRAINAGE a) The applicant shall cornply with all provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Clean Water Program. b) The quantity of runoff nom the development shall be reduced to an amount equal to or less than present lOO-year nequency storm. Retention/detention facilities will be required as approved by the Director of Public Works to reduce the quantity of runoff to an amount equal to or less than predevelopment flows. Said retention/detention facilities shall be provided by the applicant. c) The applicant shall provide drainage improvements in both Telegraph Canyon and Poggi Canyon in accordance with the Master Drainage Plan for Otay Ranch SPA One, Villages One and Five by the Director of Public Works. Said Master Plan shall be consistent with the approved SPA Plan. VI. PUBLIC UTILITIES (SEWER, WATER, RECLAIMED WATER, WATER CONSERV AnON) a) The Applicant shall provide water and reclaimed water improvements in accordance with the report entitled Sub Area Master Plan for Otay Ranch Villages One and Five Sectional Planning Area One (" SAMP") prepared by Montgomery-Watson dated June 1995 or as amended by the applicant and approved by Otay Water District. The SAMP shall be consistent with the SPA Plan. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the approval of any amendment to the SPA One. SAMP in order for the SPA One SAMP to be consistent with the approved SPA Plan prior to the approval of the first final map. b) The applicant shall pay fees in accordance with the City of Chula Vista ordinance or provide trunk sewer improvements to both the Telegraph Canyon and Poggi Canyon trunk sewers as indicated in the report entitled "Overview of Sewer Service for SPA One at the Otay Ranch Project" (SPA One Sewer Report) prepared by Wilson Engineering dated June 15, 1995 or as amended by the applicant and approved by the Director of Public Works. The SPA One Sewer Report shall be consistent with the approved SPA Plan. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the approval of any amendment to the SPA One Sewer Report in order for the SPA One Sewer Report to be consistent with the approved SPA Plan prior to the approval of the first final map 5 (PI 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 vn. PARKS/OPEN SPACEIWILDLIFE PRESERVATION A) Genera! 1. The SPA One project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide three (3) acres oflocal parks and related irnprovements per 1,000 residents. Local parks are comprised of community parks, neighborhood parks and pedestrian parks (to the extent that pedestrian parks receive partial park credit as defined below). A minimum of two thirds (2 acres 11,000 residents) of the loca! park requirernent shall be satisfied through the provision of turn-key neighborhood and pedestrian parks within SPA One. The rernaining requirement (1 acre/l,OOO residents) shall be satisfied through the payment offees. 2. All local parks shall be phased consistent with the SPA One PFFP and shall be installed by the applicant. A construction schedule, requiring all parks to be completed in a timely rnanner, shall be approved by the City. 3. An local parks shall be designed and constructed consistent with the provisions of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and related Parks and Recreation Department specifications and policies. 4. The applicant shall coordinate consultant selection with the City. The consultant selected for all park design shall be acceptable to the City. 5. Parks located within gated communities shall not receive park credit. 6. The applicant shall receive surplus park credit to the extent the combined park credit for neighborhood parks, pedestrian parks, the town square park and the community park exceeds the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard. This surplus park credit rnay be utilized by the applicant to satisfy local park requirements in future SPAs. 7. The applicant and the City shall mutually agree on a PAD fee reimbursernent schedule in coordination with the adopted construction schedule. Milestones will be established for partial reimbursernent during the construction process. The City rnay withhold up to 20% of the park construction funds until the park has been completed and accepted. Reirnbursement of PAD fees shall include accrued interest. 8. The applicaRt shall reeeive J3ar~( ereElit fer ceRstFlietieR ef Reighberfieed par~m apsa aceeptllRee \Jy t.fie City sf COOla Vista. B.) Pedestrian Parks Pedestrian parks less than five acres, as identified in the SPA One plan, shall be rnaintained by a funding entity other than the City's General Fund Pedestrian parks shall receive a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50% park credit, as determined by the Director of Parks and 6 7 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 Recreation pursuant to City wide small park credit criteria which shall be approved by the City Council. C.) Nei~hborhood Parks The applicant shall pay P AD fees based on a formula of 2 acres per 1,000 residents for the first 500 dwelling units. The applicant shall commence construction of the first neighborhood park in SPA One, in a location determined by the Parks and Recreation Director, no later than issuance ofthe building permit for the SOOth dwelling unit. The level of amenities required in the first phase of construction of the first neighborhood park shall be determined by the City in conjunction with the park master planning effort required by the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. Said level of amenities shall be equivalent to five acres of neighborhood park improvements as described in the PLDO ordinance and the Park Master Plan as approved by the Parks and Recreation Director. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the 1 1 50th dwelling unit, the Director of Parks and Recreation shall determine the level of amenities required for the second phase of construction of this park consistent with the PLDO and the Park Master Plan, or in lieu of the second phase, require the construction of another neighborhood park at a different location. The location of the other neighborhood park, if any, shall be determined in conjunction with the phasing study noted below. At no time after issuance of building permits for the SOOth dwelling unit shall there be a deficit in "constructed neighborhood park" based upon 2 acresll,OOO residents. Applicant agrees that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits should said deficit occur. For purposes of this condition, the term "constructed neighborhood park" shall mean that construction of the park has been completed and accepted by the Director of Parks and Recreation as being in compliance with the Park Master Plan. For purposes of this condition, the applicant shall receive park credit for construction of neighborhood parks upon cornpletion of the park and approval by the Director of Parks and Recreation as being in compliance with the Park Master Plan, but prior to the rnandatory 9-12 rnonth maintenance period. The applicant shall provide a maintenance period in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. The 1.7 acre Town Square in Village Five shall receive 100% neighborhood park credit if constructed consistent with the criteria contained in the General Development Plan and if improvements constructed within the Town Square receive the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation. 7 7 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 The 7.3 acre neighborhood park (P-2) currently indicated in Village One south of Palomar Street onthe SPA plan shall be relocated easterly within Neighborhood R-12. The applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the Parks Master Plan. D.) Communitv Parks The applicant shall pay PAD fees for the Community Park based upon a formula of 1 acre per 1,000 residents, until such time as a turn-key facility has been accepted by the City. Said turn- key facility is subject to the reirnbursement mechanism set forth below. The first Otay Ranch Community Park, to satisfY SPA One demand, shall be located in ViJlage 2 as identified in the GDP. The applicant shall identifY the relocation, if any, of the ViJlage 2 Otay Ranch Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 1, 1 50th dwelling unit. Said relocation may require an arnendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Notwithstanding that the community park requirement (1 acre/l,OOO residents) shall be satisfied through the payment of PAD fees, the applicant shall commence construction ofthe first phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,6SOth dwelling unit. The first phase of construction shall include, but not be limited to, improvements such as a graded site with utilities provided to the property line and an all weather access road acceptable to the Fire Department. The applicant shall commence construction of the second phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,000th dwelling unit. Second phase improvements shall include recreational amenities as identified in the Park Master Plan. The Community Park shall be ready for acceptance by the City for maintenance prior to issuance ofthe building permit issuance for the 3,900th dwelling unit. If the City determines that it is not feasible for the applicant to commence construction of the first phase improvements of the community park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,6S0th unit, then the City shall have the option to utilize the PAD fees for said improvements, or to construct another park or facility, east of the I-80S Freeway within an acceptable service radius of SPA One, as set forth in the GDP. The applicant shall provide a maintenance period in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. 8 7, 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 The applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees, excluding the cost of construction of the all weather access road, for the community park should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the Parks Master Plan E.) Trails The first final map shall not be approved until the SPA One Open Space Master Plan is approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation. The Open Space Master Plan shall be based upon the Concept and Analysis Plan, the requirements of which are outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and include, but are not limited to elernents such as final recreational trail alignments and phasing. The Concept and Analysis Plan shall be developed during the tentative map review process. All trails shall connect to adjoining existing trails in neighboring development projects to the extent feasible, as feasible is determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation. F.) Community Gardens Community gardens shall be consistent with the guidelines in the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, including creation of the Community Garden Committee and their responsibilities. Water lines shall be stubbed ITom the nearest water main to the site(s) in order to facilitate development ofthe Community Gardens. Maintenance of Community Gardens shall be funded by an Open Space Maintenance District, Home Owner's Association or other funding mechanism approved by the City. Community Gardens shall not receive park credit 3.) Open Space The applicant shall prepare a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a master open space district under the 1972 Lighting and Landscape Act for the Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch. Said feasibility study shall be approved by the Directors of Parks and Recreation and Public Works prior to approval the first tentative rnap. If applicable, an Open Space District shall be formed prior to approval of the first final map. vm. AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL a) The applicant shall install Chula Vista Transit facilities, which may include but not be limited to benches and bus shelters, in accordance with the improvement plans approved by the City. Since transit service availability may not coincide with project development, the applicant shall install said improvements when directed by the City. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to 9 1: 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 fund these facilities. The requirement for said agreement will be rnade a condition of the first final rnap. b) The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, prior to approval of the first final map regarding the provision of affordable housing. Such agreement sha1I be in accordance with the Chula Vista Housing Element, the Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan and the SPA One Affordable Housing Plan. c) No final maps may be recorded within SPA One until such time that an annexable Mello Roos District, or some other financing mechanism approved by the school district, to provide for the construction of needed elementary, middle and high schools is established. d) The applicant shall participate financially in proportion to other developers in a collaborative study analyzing local park needs for the area east of the 1-805 Freeway prior to approval of the first final map. e) The applicant shall prepare a design study to determine the feasibility of providing grade separated intersections for East Orange Avenue at Paseo Ranchero and Telegraph Canyon Road at Otay Lakes Road Said study shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of any tentative map for SPA One. f) The applicant sha1I enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista to participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) prior to approval of the first final map within SPA One. g) The applicant shall be required to equitably participate in any future regional impact fee program for correctional facilities should the region enact such a fee program to assist in the construction of such facilities. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City which states that the applicant will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance correctional facilities. h.) In order to satisfY their fair-share contribution for financing the light rail transit system, the applicant shall complete the following: 1.) dedicate to the City the Light Rail Transit (LRT) right-of- way on the final map containing said right-of-way, as indicated on the approved tentative map; 2.) rough grade said LR T alignment; and 3.) enter into an agreement with the City which states that the applicant will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance the LRT. i) A reselVe fund program shall be established in accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan which requires that a reserve funding program be established concurrent with the approval of the first SPAThe Applicant understands that the City and County are in the process of negotiating a Master Property Tax Agreement regarding portions of the Otay Ranch which may have an impact on the reselVe funding program. Applicant understands and agrees that further details of the 10 7 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 reserve funding program shall therefore be established by the City in conjunction with final approval of the Property Tax Agreement. In accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan requirernents, the applicant shall fund the annual fiscal reviews, conducted by the City or under the City's supervision, to evaluate the fiscal impact of the project. A$ part of the annual review, the assumptions and inputs used in the Fiscal Impact for New Developrnent (FIND) Model shall be evaluated, including land use types, density and timing, factors affecting cost and revenue estimates, allocation of local, regional, state and federal funds, and any other factors deemed relevant by the City Manager. The annual fiscal review will detennine the need for transfers from the applicant reserve fund to the City in order to assure that the GDP policies are fulfilled, particularly that all City services provided to the incorporated portion of Otay Ranch, including direct and indirect costs, and including capital and operating costs, shall be covered by project revenues and project exactions. Prior to the approval of the first tentative map the applicant shall fund the Reserve Fund in an amount detennined by the City, or at the election of the City, agree to fund the Reserve Fund, to offset any annual operating deficit incurred by the City that is not covered by the Property Tax Agreement in order to assure that the GDP/SRP policies, as described above, are fuJfi11ed. IX. SCHOOLS a) The applicant shall deliver to the School District a graded high school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District prior to issuance of the 2,65Oth building pennit (504 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. b) The applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located within Village One, prior to issuance of the sOOth residential building pennit (ISO students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to rnodification by the School District as based on District facility needs. c) The applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located within Village Five, prior to issuance of the 2,50Oth residential building permit (750 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. d) The applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located west of 11 7: 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24196 Paseo Ranchero, prior to issuance of the 4,50Oth residential building permit (1350 students). The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to rnodification by the School District as based on District facility needs. e.) If the Applicant is unable to deliver any of the school sites required by conditions (a) through (d) at the locations identified in the SPA One Plan, applicant shall, at the time such site is required to be delivered, take such actions necessary to deliver an alternative site that is satisfactory to the school district or fund the acquisition of an alternative site. X. MISCElLANEOUS a) The applicant may file a master final map which provides for the sale of super block lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof: If said super block lots do not show individual lots depicted on the approved tentative map, a subsequent final map shall be filed for any lot which will be further subdivided. All super block lots created shall have access to a dedicated public street. The applicant shall post bonds to secure the installation of improvements in the amounts determined by the City Engineer prior to approval of a master final map. Said master final rnap shall not be considered the first final map as indicated in other conditions of approval unless said map contains single or condominium multiple family lots shown on a tentative rnap. b) The applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager. c) Approval of the Otay Ranch SPA One does not constitute approval of the final lot configuration, grading and street design shown within the SPA Plan. d) The applicant shall secure approval of a Master Precise Plan for the Village One and Village Five Core Areas, prior to submitting any deve10prnent proposals for commercial, rnulti-family and Community Purpose Facility areas within the SPA One Village Cores. e) The applicant shall fund the revision of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (pFDIF) Program, which shall be prepared by the City, as directed by the City Manager or his designee and approved by the City Council prior to approval of the first final map within SPA One. Said requirement shall be rnade a condition of approval of the first tentative map. The applicant shall receive 100% credit towards future PFDIF for funding this update. 12 , 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 f) Pursuant to the provisions ofthe Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the applicant shall fund the preparation of an annual report rnonitoring the development of the community ofOtay Ranch. The annual monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence following the first fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP. g) The applicant shall include maintenance of Te1egraph Canyon channel east of Pas eo Ladera in any open space district formed for SPA One on a fair share basis. This includes but is not limited to costs of maintenance and all costs to comply with the Department ofFish and Game and the Corps of Engineers permit requirernents. XI. PHASING a) Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch GDP, the applicant shall prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and identifYing financing options for necessary facilities. b) The applicant acknowledges that the Otay Ranch General Development Plan is based on a village concept that provides for the construction of rnu1ti-family homes and commercial uses along with single family residential homes within SPA One. The City has allowed the early phases of the project to consist almost exclusively of single family detached neighborhoods due to current market conditions. However the applicant understands that it is the City's intent to require the applicant to focus development on only one of the SPA One village cores in order to increase the viability of the core and to fulfill the objectives of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. In order to facilitate this objective, the applicant shall prepare a project phasing update to determine which of the two villages the applicant will concentrate development in. The phasing study shall provide for the following: 1) access to the high school site, community park site and neighborhood park which is economically and physically feasible; 2) establishment of a residential phasing program to complement the east-west access selection (East Palomar Street or East Orange Avenue); 3) identifY the village that will be the focus of accelerated development; 4.) consideration of market conditions, product absorption and location of appropriate product to rneet demand, 5) limitation of public services in the village which is not the focus of accelerated development and, 6) provision for affordable housing opportunities as identified in the approved Affordable Housing Plan. The study shall be undertaken prior to issuance of the 11 50th building permit and shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Director and City Engineer prior to the issuance of the 1,401 st building permit. As a condition of approval of the first tentative map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City in which the applicant agrees to implement the results of said study as determined by the City Council. If the applicant fails to implement the results of the study as directed by City Council, the City 13 77 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 Council may take such actions as it deems necessary, including but not limited to withholding building permits c) Phasing approved within the SPA Plan rnay be amended subject to approval by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. d) The Public Facilities Finance Plan shall be adhered to with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to rneet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan adopted by the City. The City Engineer may rnodify the sequence of improvernent construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. XIL CODE REQUIREMENTS a) The applicant shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City ofChula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. b) The applicant shall comply with all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. c) The applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implernentation (19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09.100). d) The applicant shall pay reimbursement associated with undergrounding of utilities in accordance with the City ofChula Vista Resolution 17516 dated June 7, 1994. e) The applicant spall comply with City Council Policy 570-03 adopted by Resolution 17491 if pump stations for sewer pUIlJOses are proposed. f) The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of a final map for any phase or unit, whereby: 1) The applicant agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any units in the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occurs: a. Regional development threshold limits set by the adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan in effect at the time offinal map approval have been reached. b. Traffic volumes, level of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. 14 ]C 4/24/96 PC conditions 4/24/96 2) The applicant agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (pFFP) for Otay Ranch SPA One if the required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program have not been completed. 15 7()