The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports 1998/04/08 7:00 p,m, Wednesday, April 8, 1998 AGENDA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Chula Vista, California Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROV AL OF MINUTES - Meeting of March II, 1998 and March 25,1998 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda, Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes, 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2, PUBLIC HEARING: 3, PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-25; Amendments to chapters 19,04, Definitions, and 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone of the Chula Vista Municipal Code pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities- The Eastlake Company and the City ofChula Vista, PCM-98-03; An amendment to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan consisting ofthe incorporation of an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation plan i I1to the SPA plan for the Sunbow II Planned Community - Ayres Land Company, PCS-97-02(M); Modify Tentative Map coditions of approval to allow installatin of landscaping and irrigation in the parkways by individual homeowners - McMillin - D.A. Americal Otay Ranch LLC, Agenda - 2 - April 8, 1998 DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to the Workshop Meeting of April15, 1998 at 5:30 p.rn, in Conf. Rm 5. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5]01 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 585-5647, California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. H:\HOMEIPLANNING\DIANA IPCA(jENDA ,DV VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? P (J I, (~ flU illl Y ;Jigl1ificilnl. IITlpiWI PoLenlially Significanl lInlf'~S MitigiJld No Irnp(jcl Less than ~ignificant Impacl D D D 181 D D D 181 D D D 181 D D D 181 D D D 181 D D D 181 f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning efforts? Comments: The project site and surrounding developed area are located in a fully urbanized community, There are areas which have been revegetated with Coastal Sage Scrub in the vicinity of the site, These revegetation areas were identified as mitigation measures in the previous EIRs. The change in land use designation would not effect these revegetated areas since the original EIRs anticipated this site being developed, The project site has been fully graded. No animal or plant species listed as rare, threatened or endangered by local, State or Federal resource conservation and regulatory agencies are known to be present in this highly disturbed area. No adverse impacts to biological resources are noted, VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation D D D 181 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful D D D 181 and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource D D D 181 protection, will this project impact this protection? Page No.6 I'o!.rnlially Significant Impact PoLcn\.ially Significilnt lJnlc~~ Miligated L(~~~ Lhan Signifirant Impact No IrnpcH:l Comments: No impacts to non-renewable resources are noted. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of D D D 181 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency D D D 181 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or D D D 181 potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of D D D 181 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with D D D 181 flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: Project approval would not pose a health hazard to humans. No hazardous materials or substances will be permitted to be stored on site for any proposed use. Therefore, there cannot be a risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset condition. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? D D 181 D b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? D D 181 D Page No.7 j1ol.enlially Signiricanl Impacl Polcl1tiillly Significanl Unlcss Mitigaled I,ess t.han Significant Impact No Impact Comments: No significant noise impacts are expected to result from the proposed change in designation, The types of uses that could be developed with the CPF zone are substantially similar to the uses pennitted in the OS- 3 designation. The change in designation is being requested to accomodate a "for profit" day care facility, Such a use would be pennitted in the CPF zone as a non-profit ancillary use to another pennitted use in the CPF designation. The noise impactsthat could result from development uder the OS-3 designation would be similar or less than the CPF designation since the "for profit" day care facility is substantially the same as a day facility that is an an ancillary use to another use in the CPF zone as is currently pennitted. Day care facilities are considered sensitive receptors for noise. Uses in the immediate vicinity are all residential and will not create significant noise impacts to a day care facility or any of the other use listed as pennitted in the OS-3 zone. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181 c) Schools? 0 0 0 181 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 Comments: Based on Department comments and the City thresholds, the project would not have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. o o o 181 XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold Standards, a) Fire/EMS N/ A o o o 181 Page No, 8 Ilolrnlial!y Signified!}L Impacl Polentlally Significant Unlc:;s Miligid.f~d Less Lllan Significant Impacl No Impad The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista Fire Department indicates that this threshold standard will be met. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire Department indicates the nearest Fire Station (Station #4) currently is located approximately 4 miles ITom the project site. This station could provide service to the site within 5 to 5 Y, minutes, Within the next year the Fire Department will be relocating Station #4 approximately one to one and half miles from the site. This would decrease response time to approximately 3 to 4 minutes. The Fire Department can adequately deliver service to the site without an increase in equipment or personnel. The proposed use is similar to those previously analyzed in the EIRs, No additional significant impacts have been identified, Impacts and mitigation measures remain as identified in the previous FEIR. b) Police o o o 181 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The Police Department response time for both Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls within the vicinity of the proposed project are above the recommended Threshold Standard. Comments: The police Department however, indicates that adequate service can and is being provided to the project site and surrounding area. Any proposed construction plans should be forwarded to the crime prevention unit for evaluation. c) Traffic o o o 181 The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Page No.9 j1ol.tnLially ;;i I~ 1\ i fir a n l Impad Potenl.i;llly Significant Unlrss Mitigated Less Ulan Significant Impad N" Impad Comments: No adverse impacts to traffic/circulation are noted from project approval. The previous EIRs adequately addressed potential traffic impacts and the circulation improvements noted in those EIRs have been implemented, d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population. This Threshold Standard does not apply to the proposed project. Comments: No adverse impacts to parks or recreational opportunities are noted. As a part of the Rancho Del Rey SPA III parks are being provided that will serve this site. e) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project does comply with this Threshold Standard. o o o 181 Comments: The Engineering Department indicates that existing off-site drainage facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project subject to review and approval of any proposed grading and construction plans. 1) Sewer o o o 181 The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The proposed project is not expected to create a need for any new utilities or service systems. The Engineering Department indicates that existing sewer facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. No impacts to sewers are noted. g) Water o o o 181 Page No. 10 Iloltnt,iiJlly Si f~ II Hie ant. IllIp;j(;L IJolrllli,Jlly SigniriciJnl tJn](:ss MiligiJlrrl Less tlldn Significant Impact. No !mpact The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project does comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: No adverse impacts to water quality are noted from project approval. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? D D D 181 b) Communications systems? D D D 181 c) Local or regional water treatment or D D D 181 distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? D D D 181 e) Storm water drainage? D D D 181 f) Solid waste disposal? D D D 181 Comments: This project will not result in a need for new systems, nor result in alterations in any utilities. The necessary facilities have been constructed as part of the overall RDR SPA III development. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? D D D 181 Page No. 11 Potent.ially III) II ~ Il t i i:J II y Significilnt Less thdn Signifir:ilnt Ilnlcss Significant No Impar'l. Mitigated hnpilcl Impact b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 ~ scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 0 ~ effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 0 ~ could increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19,66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: The project site is presently vacant, In the future when the site is proposed for specific development, it would be subject to the requirements of the Design Review Committee process which along with other adopted standards for Rancho del Key would ensure the project be in harmony with existing development. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would tbe proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of 0 0 0 ~ or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical 0 0 0 ~ or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 0 ~ cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious 0 0 0 ~ or sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General 0 0 0 ~ Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Page No. 12 Potentially Significant Impact Potent.ially Significant Unless Miligiiled Less than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: The project site is fully developed and disturbed by human activity. No adverse impacts to cultural resources are noted. Impacts to cultural resources were fully mitigated during the mass grading operation for RDR SPA III. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: No paleontological resources have been identified on or near the project site, which is located in a fully developed urban setting. Paleontological impacts were fully mitigated during the mass grading operation for RDR SPA III. D D D 181 XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or D D D 181 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? D D D 181 c) Interfere with recreation parks & D D D 181 recreation plans or programs? Comments: No impacts to Parks or Recreational Plans are noted. Page No, 13 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: The project site is in a fully developed urban setting, The project site has been completely disturbed by human activity. No impacts to wildlife population, habitat or cultural/historical resources are noted. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The project does not have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, The project will be consistent with the Zoning and General Plan/Specific Plan designations for the site. XVIII. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ]1ol.E'nt.iiilly ~ignificant Imp,wt Potentially Signiricilnl Unless Mitigi1h~rl N" Impael Less than Significant Impact o o o 181 o 181 o o o 181 o o Page No, 14 IJo!.('nl.i"lIy Signirir.anL Impacl Potentially Significant tJnlf'~s Miligaled Less than Significanl Impact No Impact Comments: The project does not have any impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, Project approval will result in the orderly transition of land use as identified in the SPA plan for Rancho Del Rey. d) Does the project have environmental effect D D D ~ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: Comments: The proposed project is not associated with any significant or potentially significant environmental impacts with regard to any specific category, therefore no mitigation over and above standard City requirements will be required. Project Proponent Date Page No. 15 XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. o Land Use and o T ransportation/ Circulation o Public Services Planning o Population and o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Housing Systems o Geophysical o Energy and Mineral o Aesthetics Resources o Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance XXI. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o o o Page No. 16 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the 0 environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all 181 potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. ~~/f!V S'gnatur 3h/c;g Date / I Douvlas D, Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista Page No, 17 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item ....!...- Meeting Date 4/08/98 PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-25; Amendments to the chapters 19,04, Definitions, and 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone of the Chula Vista Municipal Code pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities - The Eastlake Company and the City of Chula Vista The application submitted by The Eastlake Company and co-sponsored by the City of Chula Vista proposes to amend Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapters 19.04, Definitions and 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone. The proposed amendments consist of expanding the definition of Community Purpose Facilities to allow open ball fields to the list of permitted uses identified in the Definitions Section; Consolidate CPF requirements and criteria, presently located in different Chapters, into a single Section of the above mentioned P-C, Planned Community Zone; Convert the list of permitted uses into Conditional use permit uses; and establish criteria to limit the percentage of the required CPF acreage that may be used for open recreational ball fields within a planned community. The Environmental review coordinator has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as Class 4(a) and 4(b) exemptions. ISSUES: * Desirability of expanding Community Purpose Facility uses * Addition of outsidel "non-building" use RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the Council adopt the draft ordinance approving amendments to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CYMe) Chapters 19,04 Definitions, and Chapter 19,48 P-C Planned Community Zone, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, in accordance with the findings contained therein, Page 2, Item 1 Meeting Date 4/08/98 DISCUSSION Backlrround In 1991, the City Council adopted an Ordinance which required that planned communities designate within their Sectional Planning Area(SP A) plans a minimum of 1.39 acres of land per thousand population for Community Purpose Facilities (CPF). The Ordinance requires that the amount of CPF land provided within the planned community equate to 1.39 acres per thousand population, and that several community purpose land uses as listed in CYMC Section 19,04.055 be permitted by right. The ordinance also included other provisions to regulate the development of CPF sites and specific land uses and monitor the market interest for the types of sites, Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments arose through the course of discussions between City staff and representatives of The Eastlake Company regarding the need for more recreational ball field facilities in the eastern areas of the City. There is a recognized shortage of such facilities in the new areas, and both City staff and representatives of Eastlake desired a method of addressing this shortage by providing more ac!ive areas for the sports leagues (e.g. Little Leagues, American Soccer Organization, etc,) that are seeking playing areas in the eastern territories. Following is a summary of the proposed amendments: A. ModifY Chapter 19.04, Definitions, to add recreational ball fields as a "typical use" for consideration in a CPF land use district and to reference the listed uses as "typical uses". B. ModifY Chapter 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone, to consolidate the regulations pertaining to community purpose facilities into one section, 19.48.025, and to specifY that siting criteria and operatIOnal parameters shall be incorporated in the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, C, ModifY Chapter 19.48 to require a conditional use permit for all CPF uses, and to require that a Community Purpose Facilities Master Plan be incorporated into the General Development Plan prior to approval of recreational ball fields, D, Expand Section 19.48.040, outlining the requirements of a CPF Master Plan as part of the Planned Community GDP(s) whenever recreational ball fields are included as conditional uses in the corresponding Sectional Planning Area plans. It should be noted that the proposed amendments have been forwarded to the major planned community developers for review and comment. Page 3, Item 1 Meeting Date 4/08/98 Analysis Addition of Recreation a] Ball Fields The addition of recreational ball fields as a use that may be considered within the Community Purpose Facility land use districts would fulfill an acknowledged community need in the eastern areas of the City. As proposed, they would not replace CPF uses with park uses, but rather would be a recreational use that is owned and operated by a non-profit entity, as is any other CPF use. At the same time, this additional use will provide planned community developers more flexibility in the marketing of, and uses for, their Community Purpose Facility property. Limiting the additional use to non-profit entities ensures that it will be in keeping with the original intent ofthe ordinance of providing land for community needs. However, a limitation on the percentage of CPF land within any planned community has been incorporated into Section 19.48,040 in order to ensure that this use will not preclude other community uses. Said section requires that a CPF Master Plan be provided within a General Development Plan and limits the allowed acreage for recreational ball fields within the Master Plan to 25% of the CPF area required. The proposed recreational ball fields differ significantly from other CPF uses in that this would be an outside use and would not involve construction of a building (other than possible accessory buildings such as restrooms), As such, they may present more impacts upon adjacent properties with respect to noise and visual issues. However, it is staffs opinion that items such as these can be addressed through the conditional use permit process. The use permit process will also provide those within the surrounding neighborhood notice of any such application as well as the opportunity to provide input prior to a determination being made. With respect to the consolidation of the regulations pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities into one section, staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendments will benefit both staff and the development community by making it easier to identify applicable regulations and requirements when conducting research or preparing plans related to planned communities. Community PUI:pose Facility Sites. City-wide Usag:e Analvsis With the adoption of the original CPF ordinance in ]991, it was intended that the City would review on an annual basis the activity associated with the CPF-designated sites. However, an in-depth review of the marketing history of these sites will require some significant research. Therefore, an analysis of the CPF requirement will be brought back for review at a future date. Conclusion For the reasons noted in this report, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments in accordance with the attached Planning Commission Resolution. Page 4, Item 1 Meeting Date 4/08/98 Attachments 1, Planning Commission Resolution 2, Draft City Council Resolution 3. Disclosure Statement PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO, PCM-98-25 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 19,04, DEFINITIONS, AND 19.48, P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE, OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITIES WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on January 12, 1998 as a co- sponsored application between The Eastlake Company and the City ofChula Vista ("Applicant"); and, WHEREAS, said application requests certain amendments to Chapter 19,04, Definitions, and 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone, in order to add the recreational ball fields land use to the Community Purpose Facilities (CPFs) definition listed in Section 19,04,055; and to create a new section titled "Community Purpose Facility - Minimum Acreage Required - Permitted Uses (Section 19.48,025) in Chapter 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone and to require a conditional use permit for uses in CPF land use districts; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 4(a) and 4(b) exemption; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the proposed SPA plan amendments and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p,m" March 25, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving certain amendments to Chapters 19,04 and 19.48 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code pertaining to Community Purpose Facilities in accordance with the findings contained therein, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 8th day of April, 1998, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Patty Davis, Chair ATTEST: Diana V argas, Secretary DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTERS 19.04, DEFINITIONS, AND 19.48, P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CODE RELATING TO COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY USES IN THE P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE 1. RECITALS A. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Chula Vista Murricipal Code was filed with the Planning Department of the City ofChula Vista on January 12, 1998 as a co-sponsored application between The Eastlake Company and the City of Chula Vista ("Applicant"); and, WHEREAS, said application requests certain amendments to Chapter 19.04, Definitions, and 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone, in order to add the recreational ball fields land use to the Community Purpose Facilities (CPFs) definition listed in Section 19.04.055; and to create a new section titled "Community Purpose Facility - Minimum Acreage Required - Permitted Uses (Section 19.48.025) in Chapter 19.48, P-C Planned Community Zone and to require a conditional use permit for uses in CPF land use districts; and, B. Environmental Determination WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is exempt fTom environmental review under CEQA as a Class 4(a) and 4(b) exemption; and, C. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said project on April 8, 1998, and voted to recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the Project, based upon the findings listed below. D. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on April 21, 1998, on the Discretionary Approval Application, received the recommendations of the Plaurring Commission, and heard public testimony with regard to same; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on April 8, 1998, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefTom, are hereby incorporated into the record ofthis proceeding. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is exempt fTom environmental review under CEQA as a Class 4(b) exemption. IV. FINDINGS The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendments to the Chula Vista Murricipal Code will address a need for additional area for non-profit sports leagues within the eastern territories of the City, and will further provide additional flexibility for developers in marketing their Community Purpose Facility sites and therefore will constitute good planning practice. V. APPROVAL Based on the above, the City Council hereby approves the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code, specifically to Chapter 19.04 and Chapter 19.48 as depicted in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth day fTom and after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Planning Director John Kaheny City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" Community Purpose Facilities - Proposed Amendment Text Chapter 19.04 DEFINITIONS 19.04.055 Community Purpose Facility "Community Purpose facility" means a structure or site for certain non-profit assembly or recreaJion purposes, as well as ancillary uses such as a parking lot, within a planned community iftelltaiHg Bitt fiet limited te these ';;hieh sc;r,c; the felle"ifig tYj'Jes 6fl'tlrj'Jeses. Typical uses include: Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other similar organizations, social and human services such as Alcoholics Anonymous, services for homeless, services for military personnel during the holidays, senior care and recreation, and worship, spiritual growth and development and teaching of traditional family values, and recreational ball fields. ft." HaJJ SC01:1ts, Girl Se6tlt3, ftfld other similar organizftti6fl3 B. S5-cial and oomflll3er.iee aeti....itie3, 31:1eft 8.S Akoftelie3 AflOlt)ffi6tl3, C. Ser/iccs fer RSR1ele33, D. Senic;c;s fm military l'erseJillel atlriflg the helida)'s; L. SeRial eare aHcl recrcati6ft; F. '.VOf3H.i!3, 3I'iritlull gre.vVth aHa aCfe1ef}R1ent, ana teaching sftraditi6nal family .~.alHc3; C. Day care facilitic3 that are ancillary to any sf the a60Yfe; II. Pri";ate sc;lieels that are afteillary te allY 6f the aBe,e; Sections: 19.48.010 19.48.020 19.48.030 19.48.040 19.48.050 19.48.060 19.48.070 19.48.080 19.48.090 Chapter 19.48 P-C - PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE Purpose. Regulations generally-Minimum acreage-Ownership restrictions. Application-Method-Documents required. Application-General development plan required-Contents required. Findings required for recommendation of establishment. P-C zone-Planning commission action. P-C zone-City council action-Compliance with general development plan required. General development plan-Modification requests and procedures. Sectional planning areas and sectional planning area plans-Requirements and 19.48.100 19.48.110 19.48.120 19.48.130 19.48.140 19.48.150 19.48.160 19.48.010 Purpose. contents. Sectional planning area plans-Finding required for recommendation of approval. Sectional planning area plans-Actions of planning commission and city council. Sectional planning area plans-Effect of plan approval. Sectional planning area plans-Modification requests and procedures. P-C Zone-Residential areas not subject to design review. Recycling collection centers. P-C zone-Exceptions. The purpose of the planned community zone are to: A. Provide for the orderly preplanning and long-term development of large tracts of land which may contain a variety of land uses, but are under unified ownership or development control, so that the entire tract will provide an environment of stable and desirable character; B. Give the developer reasonable assurance that sectional development plans prepared by him in accordance with an approved general development plan will be acceptable to the city. Sectional development plans may include subdivision plans and/or planned unit development plans as provided for in this title; C. Enable the city to adopt measures providing for the development of the surrounding area compatible with the planned community zone. (Ord 1854 ~5 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 ~1 (part), 1978; Ord 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord 1212 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.5201(A)). 19.48.020 Regulations generally-Minimum acreage-Ownership restrictions. A. P-C zones may be established on parcels of land which are suitable for, and of sufficient size to be planned and developed in a manner consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the objectives of this division. No P-C zone shall include less than fifty acres of contiguous lands; B. All land in each P-C zone, or approved section thereof, shall be held in one ownership or under unified control unless otherwise authorized by the planning commission, except as provided for in Section 19.48.160. For the purposes of this chapter, the written consent or agreement of all owners in a P-C zone to the proposed general development plan and general development schedule shall be deemed to indicate unified control. C. J.lllaiitl ill eac;h P C zefte, er all) seeti81l thereef, shall be stlbjeet te the retjairemellt that fttkqtlftte laBfl13e ae3igaatea fef "e8flillRulity f'Hf1363e faeilitics", 8.3 aefiacd in Seeti6n 19.04.055. A tetalef 1.39aeres of Ilet tlsa6!e llI1itl (iflc;ltlaillg sethaeksO j'Jer 1,000 j'Jej'Jtllatiell etJlI'Iffiftllity sllall be se aesigflateB f8r sHell facilities illllfl)' j'JlaJillecl eell'l1'l1\lflity, allcl sllall be se aesigllatea ifl the Seetieftfll Plaflftillg Area (SPA) Phlfl(s) fer eaeh I'lal'lllea eell'l1'l1\lllity. Tllis t6falat:fcagc; reqtlircmem may be reatleea 6n1y if tile City C6tlflc;il aetermiftes, ill eelljtlftc;ti61l ',vitll its a66l'tiell of a SPA Plall, that a !c;ssc;r 1111'15tlm 6f IlIfttl is IlccBea, Basea 6lla'/ailability of sharea I'arkiftg with ether facilities, 6r etllc;r c;elIllffilllit} j'JH!'pe3c faeilities that are gtlaralltec;a to be lI'IaBe ayailable t8 the eeflUfttlliit}. A~ sharca I'arkillg affllflgemems j'Jltrstlaftt t8 this seetiell shall be gtlaralltcea regarclless ef a~ futftre ehaflges ill eeetlflllflc;y 6f faeilitic;s. (Ord 2673, 1996; Ord 2452A ~2, 1991; Ord 1854 ~5 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 ~1 (part), 1978; Ord 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord 1212 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.520(B)). 19.48.025 Community Purpose Facilities - Minimum Acreage Required" Permitted Uses A. All land in each P-C zone, or allY section thereof, shall be subject to the requirement that adequate land be designated for "Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) ", as defined in Section 19.04.055. B. A total of 1.39 acres of net usable land (including setbacks) per 1,000 population shall be so designated for such facilities in any planned community, and shall be so designated in the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan(s) and Planned COn/n/unit}< District Ref[UlatioTlIi of each planned community. This total acreage requirement may be reduced only if the City Council determines, in conjunction with its adoption of a SPA Plan, that a lesser amount of land is needed, based on availability of shared parking with other facilities, or other community purpose facilities that are guaranteed to be made available to the community. Any shared parking arrangements pursuant to this section shall be guaranteed regardless of any future changes in occupancy of facilities. C. The required CfF acre(lg~ shall have a CPF. Community PuroQse Facilities. land use desiflJJation and mav i/lcQroorate the (Qllowin't land uses as conditional{v oermitted uses: 1. Boys Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other similar organizations 2. Social and human service activities, such as Alcoholics Anonymous; 3. Services for homeless; 4. Services for military personnel during the holidays; 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development, and teaching of traditional family values; 7. Day care facilities that are ancillary to any of the above; 8. Private schools that are ancillary to any of the above; 9. Interim uses, subject to theftndings outlined in 19.48.025 (E). 10, RecreatiO/zal facilities. such as ball fieldli. for non-prQfit or'laniz(ltions. sUQiect to the rl;l/1{irements outlined in 19.48.040 flJ)(Q)(e). lJ... Criteria outlinin.. the sitinll. or9perty dl{!!e1ol}ment standard:,. and oQerational oarameters such as 10C(ltiQn. huildinfl setback~. maintellan<Je and desifln. and hours Qf operation. .~hall be incorporated into the SPA 's Planned Community District Rev;ulation& Ii. Findinrfs. Ap,rr(Jv(l.1 Q,f illtf!rim Ufi!P, on CPF-desi'fnated sites shall require that the aWJroval authority make certain findin'f~, as outlined herein: Conditional Interim Uses Permitted After 5 Years. The city council, upon receiving the advice and recommendation of the planning commission may, after five (5) years of non-use as a community purpose facility afier the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy 011 a structure in SPA Plan areas, in accordance wit h the procedures for issuance of conditional use permits contained ill Chapter 19.14 of this Code, conditionally permit interim, non-permanent non-residential uses which are not community purpose facility uses that council finds (1) the interim use to be compatible with the surrounding land uses (2) that the community purpose facility use is not imminently likely; and (3) that denial of an interim use would constitute a further hardship to the landowner. If an interim use is permitted by the city council, it shall in 110 event be terminable within said 5 year period upon aile year's advance notice of intent to terminate said conditional use permit by the city council. City council shall give such one year notice upon being advised of a sale or lease by the owner to purchaser or tenant for use as a community -purpose facility. F. Review by City Council. For each approved sectional planning area plan on which is designated one or more community purpose facility uses, the City Council shall review said plan annually for the purpose of determining the actual market interest in the purchase or lease of said land so designated and the marketing activity associated therewith. 19.48.030 Application-Method-Documents required. A P-C zone may be initiated by one or more owners, by a developer representing said owners or by the city upon application made in the manner specified in this chapter. (Ord 2673, 1996; Ord 1854 ~5 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 ~1 (part), 1978; Ord 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord 1212 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.520(C)(part)). 19.48.040 Application-General development plan required-Contents required. A. The application shall include a general development plan which shall consist of a plan diagram and text. The application shall be accompanied by the Required Fee(s). The plan diagram shall show the following: 1. The topographic character of the land; 2. Any major grading intended; 3. The general location of all existing and proposed uses of the land; 4. The approximate location of all traffic ways; except those solely serving abutting uses; 5. Any public uses, such as schools, parks, playgrounds, open space and undisturbed natural land; and, 6. The approximate location of different residential densities of dwelling types. B. The application shall include a text which indicates: 1. Description of the project, including the boundaries and names of proposed sectional planning areas; 2. The anticipated sequential development of each section of the development for which specific uses are intended or for which sectional planning area plans will be submitted; 3. The approximate area of each sectional planning area of the development and the area of each separate land use; 4. For residential development or residential areas of any P-C zone development: a. The approximate number of dwelling units proposed by type of dwelling. This may be stated as a range with maximum and minimum number of units of each type, b. The approximate total population anticipated in the entire development and in each sectional plauning area. This may be stated as a range with a maximum and minimum number of persons, c. The general criteria relating to height, open space, and building coverage, d. The number of dwelling units per gross acre proposed for each sectional planning area of the development, e. The approximate land area and number of sites proposed for public use of each type, f. Where appropriate, the approximate retail sales area space in square feet and gross area in acres proposed for commercial development with standards of off-street parking and landscaping and circulation for vehicles and pedestrians; 5. For commercial or industrial areas of any proposed P-C zone: a. Types of uses proposed in the entire area and each sectional planning area thereof, b. Anticipated employment in the entire development and in each sectional planning area thereof. This may be stated as a range, c. Methods proposed to control or limit dangerous or objectionable elements, if any, which may be caused or emitted by proposed uses. Such dangerous or objectionable elements may include fire, explosion, noise or vibration, smoke, dust, odor, or other form of air pollution, heat, cold, dampness, electric or other disturbance, glare, liquid or solid refuse or waste or other substance, condition or element which might adversely affect the surrounding area, d. The approximate standards of height, open space, buffering, landscaping, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, off-street parking and loading proposed for the intended structures or uses; 6. For institutional, recreational or other nonresidential uses of any P-C zone: a. Approximate types of uses proposed in the entire area and each sectional planning area thereof, b. Significant applicable information with respect to enrollment, residence, employment, patients, attendance, and other pertinent social or economic characteristics of development, c. The approximate standards of height, open space, buffering, landscaping, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, off-street parking and loading, proposed for the intended structures or uses. d. Determination of the amount of acreage required to be designated for "community purpose facilities" pursuant to Section 19.48.lBW20(c). Where recreational ball fields are desired as a conditional use in CPF land use districts, a "CPF Master Plan," showing the specific boundaries of the plan and existing and proposed distribution of CPF uses within a SPA, GDP or overall Planned Community shall be considered and approved by the Director of Planning and incorporated as part of the Planned Community's General Development Plan(s), Ball fields shall not utilize more than 25% of the overall SPA, GDP or Planned Community CPF acreage requirement. The CPF Master Plan boundaries may be the SPA, GDP or Planned Community boundaries (more than one GDP) as deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning. (Ord 2506 ~1 (part), 1992; Ord 2452A ~3, 1991; Ord 1854 ~5 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 ~1 (part), 1978; Ord 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord 1212 *1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.520(C)(1)). 19.48.050 Findings required for recommendation of establishment. The plauning commission, after public hearing as provided in Sections 19.12.010 through 19.12.110 of this title, may recommend the establishment of a P-C zone; provided it finds that the facts submitted with the application and presented at the hearing establish by clear and convincing evidence that: A. The proposed development as described by the general development plan is in conformity with the provision of the Chula Vista general plan. B. A planned community development can be initiated by establishment of specific uses or sectional planning area plans within two years of the establishment of the planned community zone. C. In the case of proposed residential development, that such development will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability; and that it will be in harmony with or provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites proposed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds and parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated population and appear acceptable to the public authorities having jurisdiction thereof. D. In the case of proposed industrial and research uses, that such development will be appropriate in area, location, and over-all design to the purpose intended; that the design and development standards are such as to create a research or industrial environment of sustained desirability and stability; and, that such development will meet performance standards established by this title. E. In the case of institutional, recreational, and other similar nonresidential uses, that such development will be appropriate in area, location and over-all planning to the purpose proposed, and that surrounding areas are protected from any adverse effects from such development. F. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated traffic thereon. G. Any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location(s) proposed and will provide adequate commercial facilities of the types needed at such proposed location(s). H. The area surrounding said development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said development. (Ord 1854 ~5 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 ~1 (part), 1978; Ord 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord 1212 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.520(C)(2)). 19.48.060 P-C zone-Planning commission action. Following a public hearing, and upon making the required findings, the planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council for approval or modified approval of a proposed P-C zone, and shall also adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt the general development plan as submitted or as modified. Such recommendation and the recommended general development plan shall be forwarded to the city council for its consideration. If unable to make the required findings, the plauning commission shall deny said application. An appeal fTom the action of the planning commission may be filed in accordance with Section 19.12.110. (Ord 1854 ~5 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 ~ 1 (part), 1978; Ord 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.520(D)). 19.48.070 P-C zone-City council action-Compliance with general development plan required. Upon receipt of a recommendation by the planning commission for approval or modified approval of any P-C zone, the city council shall set a public hearing on the matter. A. Following its public hearing, the city council may adopt an amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing a P-C zone, or may deny the proposed amendment. The city council shall make no modification of the proposed amendment as recommended by the planning commission unless and until such modification has been referred to the planning commission for additional study, report and recommendation. Such additional study, report and recommendation shall be made by the planning commission within forty days of the date of the referral, unless and except as the city council may grant the planning commission additional time for its review of the matter. B. At the time of adoption of a P-C zone amendment, the city council shall adopt, by resolution, the general development plan as defined in Section 19.48.040, except as provided for in Section 19.48.160. C. Following the adoption of the P-C zone amendment and the general development plan, all development within the district shall thereafter be in substantial conformity with the adopted general development plan or such modifications thereto as may have been approved. (Ord 2673, 1996; Ord 1854 ~5 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 ~1 (part), 1978; Ord 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord 1212 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.520(E)). 19.48.080 General deve10pmeut plan-Modification requests and procedures. A. From time to time it may be necessary and desirable to modify the approved general development plan. Modification of such a plan may be initiated by the property owner, his authorized agent or developer. B. Requests for modifications shall be submitted to the planning commission on a prescribed form and shall be accompanied by such additional maps, statements, or other information as may be required to support the proposed modification and the Required Fee(s). C. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all proposed modifications. The planning commission may recommend approval, conditional approval, or denial of a proposed modification to the city council, which shall conduct a public hearing thereon. D. Modification to an approved general development plan shall be made only by resolution of the city council. Within thirty days after receipt of a recommendation from the planning commission, the city council shall approve or deny the proposed modification. (Ord 2506 ~1 (part), 1992; Ord 1961 ~1 (part), 1982; Ord 1854 ~5 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 ~1 (part), 1978). 19.48.090 Sectional planning areas and sectional planning area plans- Requirements and content. A. All P-C zones shall be divided into sectional planning areas, except as provided for in Section 19.48.160. These areas of subcommunities shall be depicted on the plan diagram of the general development plan of a P-C zone, and shall be addressed in the text thereof. B. Sectional planning areas shall be composed of identifiable planning units, within which common services and facilities, a strong internal unity, and an integrated pattern of land use, circulation, and townscape planning are readily achievable. Wehre practicable, sectional planning areas shall have discernible physical boundaries. C. Prior to any development within a sectional planning area, the developer shall submit a sectional planning area plan, accompanied by the Required Filing Fee(s), and a completed, official application, to the planning commission for public hearing, consideration, and recommendatory action, unless such sectional planning area plans are not required by the text of an adopted general development plan. The sectional planning area plan shall include the following site utilization plan and documents. 1. A site utilization plan of the sectional planning area at a scale of one inch equals two hundred feet minimum or as determined by the director of planning. The plan shall extend a minimum of three hundred feet beyond the boundaries of the sectional planning area and show the following: a. The boundaries of the sectional planning area; b. North arrow and scale; c. Preliminary grading (including slope ratios and spot elevations where appropriate) ; d. Existing and proposed streets (This shall include all public and private streets as well as their approximate grades and typical widths. The names of the existing streets shall be indicated); e. Existing easements (identify); f. Existing and proposed riding and hiking trails; g. Existing and proposed bicycle routes; h. Pedestrian walks; 1. Permanent physical features (i.e.. water towers, transmission towers, drainage channels, etc.); J. Land uses (include the acreage of each) for; (1) Parks, (2) Open space, (3) Schools (indicate type), (4) Public and quasi-public facilities (include type), (5) Residential: Dwelling type (i.e., single family, duplex, attached, etc.) Lot lines Lot size Number of units (indicate density for each dwelling type) Parking (covered or open parking and parking ratio) Typical floor plans and site plans at a minimum scale of one inch equals twenty feet. (The site plan shall include sufficient detail of adjacent development to determine the relationship of driveways, landscaping, walks, buildings, etc.) The building elevations of each type of structure (including exterior colors and materials) (6) Commercial: Location and proposed use of each structure; The building elevations and floor plans of each structure (include exterior colors and materials) Retail floor area (square footage) Landscaped areas Circulation (vehicular and pedestrian) Off-street parking (standards and ratio) (7) Industrial: Location and proposed use of each structure; The building elevations and floor plans of each structure (include exterior colors and materials) Retail floor area (square footage) Landscaped areas Circulation (vehicular and pedestrian) Off-street parking (standards and ratio) (8) Community Purpose Facilities: Location and acreage of sites, in conformance with Section 19.48.020C. A specific listing of types of uses to be included in this category, which are compatible with the permitted uses in the planned community. Property development standards, including minimum lot size, setbacks, and height limitations. As to lIfty IIIfttI lises aesigftatecl eft the sEetiellall'laftflillg area ,,'all fer lise; a3 e;ell'lffiftftity I'lirl'me faeilities: (a) C61laiti6ftal Illte;rim Uses Permittea After 5 Years. The eity eSRacil, HI'6R reeei"{iBg the atb'iee fiat! reesHlffieHtlati6ft af the planniR-g e6ft1ftli33i6H, Ifttl)', after n-/e (5) year3 af Reft use 8:3 a eennIlft11lit) ptllp63C faeilit) after t:h.e i331:1ftfleC af the fir:)! certificate af eeetlfHiOCY OR a 3truetun: in SPA Plan area3, iR aeeeraftflee 'y.,dEli the 13fSeeaHre3 fef i33Hftftee sf eefttiiti6Hftl H3e permit:) ceMaiaea iB Cfiapter 19.14 BiERi:] Caa.e, cSf1aiti6ftftll) 1"cnnit illterim, fl6H f'ermaneftt, Heft re3idefttial1i3c3 vikich are Ret CBB1illliflit) J?tlfp63e facility H3e3 tlia.t eenuleil n1ffh (1) the iftterim U3C 16 be eaffij'JatiBk ..-ith the slirr811iit1iHg IIIfttI lises (2) that the; eemIHtlflity I'lifj'J6se faeiliaty lise is ftat ill'lffiiftemly likel)'; aae (3) that aellial af ftft iftterim 1:13e "Nelila CSB3timte a furtfier hanhhip to the laMo.. Hef" If fiB iftterim t13C i3 perfnittecl BY the eity c6HHeil, it shall ill ft6 eve;m be terminable withill saia 5 year I'eriea lIfJell elle ) ear':3 ad. anee R6tiee 6f iItteRt 16 ternlifla1e 38.id e6ooiti6ftal H3C I'ermit by the; eity eatllteil. Cit)' e6uIleil shall give slIeh efte ) ear ft6tiee Hl"6fl beiflg fltLi:iea.6f fl :iRk 6f leR3e by the Onaer to f'lirehase;r ar teftllftt f8r li3e; as a e6lillffilflit) I'lIrj'Jese faeilit) . (b) Review by City CfJtllleil. Psr eaeh tlf'prfJvea JeetifJIlftl p!!tllftiHg an:R plRfl 6ft nhidi i3 ae3igflflted one Of more eommtU1.tt) pHFp63e faeility li3es, eity ealifteil shall re',jew saicl j'JllIflanntiall) f8r the pHrp63e af aetermining the aetHal market iHterc3t in the I3tlrchs3c 6r lease; af lancl 3e tksigfiatea afid the; marketillg aeti\ it) asseeiatecl tfiere n itfi. 2. Development standards (i.e., permitted land uses, lot coverage, height and bulk requirements, signs, etc.) for each land use area and designation. 3. Development to occur in phases shall be so indicated on the plan. A skeletal plan shall be prepared for those areas indicated for future development. The skeletal plan shall indicate circulation, building locations, preliminary grading. areas devoted to landscaping, density and parking. The submission of each subsequent phase will require a new application and the required fee(s) for a modification of a sectional planning area plan, together with the required detail plans. (Ord 2673, 1996; Ord 2506 ~1 (part), 1992; Ord 2452A ~4, 1991; Ord 1961 ~l (part), 1982; Ord 1854 ~5 (part), 1979; Ord 1826 ~1 (part), 1978). DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APR. -02' 98ITHU) 14: 22 EASTLAVr TEL:6l9 A'l 1830 P. 002 . APPENDIX B TIiE CITY OF C:tJuLA VISTA DISaDSURE STA1EMENT You Dre required 10 lile a Slatement of DlsQosure of cenain "","e\Ship or linancial inlerc;I5, paymenlS, or campaign (;()ntrlbulioM. on all mailer.; whieh will require discretionary aclion on Ibe pan of 1110. City Council. Planning Commission. and all oIlier offieial bodi.... Tbe following informalion musl be diselQ!;cd; J. Lisl the I18mes of all J>CI5Dns IIavillg a lin.neial inleresl in 1110. proper\)' which is Ibe subject of Ihe applicalion Dr the CDnl[aCl, e.g., QWIIer. applicanl. D:>Pll3etor, lubconlfllctor, malerial supplier, ..::, THE EAST'LA'l.E COMPAM'Y T.T.c a Limited Liabi1icy Company '" I' 2. Ir any person" idenlified pu!Suanl to (I) above is a mrponuion or panaenhip, list tbe Dames of all iadlviduals OWIIing more than 10% of Ihe ,hares in Ihe corporation or -..ing any pannership inlerest in Ihe pannership. nla 3. If any PC""'"" idealificd pUlSuanl 10 (1) abo~ is nOIl.prolil organiz.ation or a tllJ5t, list the aames Dr any pclSOP serving as direclor of Ihe lion-profit organiZAtioll or as IflISlee or beneficiary or truslor or the trUSL nla 4. Haw: you had more than S2S0 wonh of busineU tfllnsacted with any member of the City slafr, BoardS, Commissions, CommiUU$, alld Councilwilhin Ihe past twelve monlhs? Yes_ No...JCt If yes, please indicate pelSOn(s): 5. Plcasc idenlify each and every persoD. Ineluding any agents, cmp\0yec5. mRSullanls, or independent conlraeLon; who you have l155iglled 10 represenl you before Ibe City in Ibis mauer. -. Kruclj! Sloan. The EastLake CnlhlJanv 6. Haw: yoa audlor your offiCC/5 Dr agCIJIS, in Ibco agee!:'le, mnlrlbllled mole Ihan SUJDD 10 a Collndbnember in tbe CUITent or pn::a::din& eJectiDn period? YG_ Nog 1C yes. stale wbich Coullcilmember(s): · . . (N011!: ---C::;W1 ~ Siplaturc or CODtl'ldOrlapplicant Dale: Pril'l or type name .or Cl:tJrtlaCUlr/applicaal . ~,,--- -..c.y~~CD:'r-,,"""jainI~~....81dII""~"""."";-..c-r- ~.-.r.....ftCCiM:;r,p..:.._~ . ,....... '~-__'''~_,,'_.&A..L-J_.. --.....-----~____.,.....u.... PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item ---2- Meeting Date 4/8/98 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-98-03; An amendment to the Sunbow 11 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan consisting of the incorporation of an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation plan into the SPA plan for the Sunbow II Planned Commurrity- Ayres Land Company As required by condition No. 93 of the Sunbow II Tentative Subdivision Map (Chula Vista Tract 90-07) conditions of approval, the applicant has submitted a SPA Amendment application to incorporate Air Quality Improvement and Water Conservation Plans into the previously adopted Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is statutorial1y exempt fTom environmental review as a planning feasibility study. RECOMMENDATION ) /' Adopt arta:ched Planning Commission Resolution PCM-98-03 recommending that the City Council adop( and incorporate into the previously adopted Sunbow II SPA plan the attached Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan, in accordance with the fmdings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached draft City Council Resolution. ffiGHLIGHTS Air Quality * Most air quality impacts for subdivisions are a result of residential traffic * Mitigations have been grouped into three categories: 1) Construction impacts (dust, track-out, etc) 2) Vehicle trip reduction (e.g. ride share opportunities) 3) Energy conservation (energy efficient landscaping, lighting, etc.) Water Conservations * Provides water reduction measures such as water efficient/drought tolerant landscaping and water- efficient appliances * Set-up for reclaimed water Page 2, Item 2 Meeting Date: 4/8/98 DISCUSSION Backeround - Sunbow II The Sunbow II planned community consists of 601 acres including 340 acres of residential (1946 dwelling units), 11 acres of commercial and 46 acres of industrial land, an elementary school site, and approximately 200 acres of open space (see Exhibit "A" attached). In 1990 the City Council approved the Sunbow II General Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan. Later that year the Council also approved the Master Tentative Map for this planned community. In 1993, the City Council approved a one-year extension with additional conditions of approval to reflect changes in the Municipal Code, City policies, and requirements for planned communities prescribed in the (at that time) newly adopted Growth Management Program. One of the added conditions, condition No. 93, required the applicant to prepare and obtain City Council approval of a Water Conservation and Air Quality Improvement Plans for the planned commurrity prior to approval of the first final map. In 1994 the tentative map expiration date was further extended by State Senate action for an additional period of three years. During this period, the project remained inactive and land ownership changed. In 1997, prior to the new expiration date, the new land owner complied with the majority of the tentative map conditions of approval to obtain approval of the first final map (330 units). However, due to timing contraints related to obtaining final map approval prior to the expiration date, the applicant was not able to prepare and obtain approval of the Air Quality and Water Conservation plans as required by condition #93. With staff concurrence, the condition was incorporated in the final map's supplemental subdivision agreement which moved the obligation fTom prior to approval of the first [mal map to prior to approval of the first building permit. Proposal The request is for approval of an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation Plan s for Sunbow II. Analysis Air Quality Improvement Plan The Air Quality Improvement Plan is intended to address air quality issues associated with new development by quantifying the impacts of the proposed development and then providing measure s that can help mitigate the impacts of the development on air quality. The plans are to be provide d Page 3, Item 2 Meeting Date: 4/8/98 with a SPA plan or, if no SPA plan is required, with a tentative subdivision map for all major development projects (50 dwelling units or greater, or commercial and industrial projects with impacts equivalent to the 50 dwelling units). The Sunbow II AQIP (see Exhibit "B") notes that the proposed project will impact air quality primarily through construction phase activities and through the vehicular traffic generated by project residents via commuting, shopping, or other personal travel. Commercial and industrial uses are generally considered "indirect sources" - that is, they are traffic generating, but for the most part do not themselves generate pollution as do the residentially generated vehicle trips. To a much lesser degree, stationary source emissions (project-related energy consumption) can also impact air quality. As noted in the AQIP, the greatest impacts will be created by residential traffic. Construction impacts to air quality will also occur, primarily during excavation, grading. and site preparation; specific emissions are detailed in Table 3.1 Mitigation measures have been included in the AQIP to address the above-mentioned air,quality impact sources. These mitigation measures have been grouped into three categories: construction impact measures. vehicle trip reduction, and energy conservation measures. Typical construction measures deal with minimizing dust and dirt track-out fTom the project site. Specific mitigation measures have been provided for construction, such as watering as necessary to prevent dust clouds, watering of disturbed areas and/or establishing vegetation on same, and covering haul trucks to reduce blowoff during hauling, and washing measures to reduce tracking onto public streets. The measures provided are already being utilized, either as environmental mitigation measures or safety measures; therefore, it is not necessary to amend existing documents in order to implement them. Many of the vehicle trip reduction measures provided are a function of the proje ct design already in place, such as reserving area for future transit stops and providing bicycle paths. However, additional measures which will be incorporated into the Sunbow II Design Guidelines include: 1. Encourage the provision of shower and locker facilities for all business park uses with building sizes exceeding 12,500 square feet 2. Develop a business park transportation management agency once business park development reaches a sufficient scope of development to provide an adequate participant pool for optimizing non-SOV commuting options. 3. Designate a rideshare/environmental coordinator for Sunbow II to disseminate information on ridesharing/mass transit opportunities. recycling, and energy conservation for employees and residents within the development 4. Ensure the availability of more than two lines to each home for in-home offices and other telecommuting needs Page 4, Item 2 Meeting Date: 4/8/98 Lastly, energy consumption conservation measures have been included. These measures, which will also be incorporated into the Sunbow II Design Guidelines, include: 1. Incorporate enhanced energy conservation features in excess of the minimum requirements of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations 2. Install energy efficient landscaping in all development common areas 3. Utilize passive design concepts that make use of the naturally mild climate to increase energy efficiency 4. Utilize energy-efficient lighting 5. Provide a water and electtical counection that may be accesssed for solar -assisted water heating for domestic or pool/spa uses 6. Provide a gas connection to fueplaces to encourage use of log lighters or artificial frreplace logs 7. Provide an outside natural gas connection to encourage use of gas-fued barbecues. Since the tentative map for Sunbow II is already approved and the project design has already been detennined, air quality measures have been provided which can be implemented mid-way through project development. These measures do so effectively and are consistent with measures provided in AQIPs for other projects. Staff recommends that Sunbow II Design Plan be updated, where applicable, to reflect the mitigation measures and to ensure their implementation. Water Conservation Plan The purpose of the Water Conservation Plan is to require each developer to prepare a water use/conservation repon providing an analysis of water usage requirements of the proposed project as well as a detailed plan of proposed measures to reduce water demand. The Sunbow II Water Conservation Plan (see Exhibit "C") provided consists of a report for Sunbow n originally conducted in 1990, and an addendum to that report. It should be noted that the Subarea Water Master Plan referenced in the report has, since the writing of the addendum, been approved by the Otay Water Disttict. Together, the 1990 Water Conservation plan and the 1997 Addendum provide a number of options for water -conserving devices. These are primarily residentially-oriented devices which, according to the report, can result in a water savings of 121.4 gallons per household per day. For example, installation of specific low-flow and efficient plumbing devices as weJl as drought-tolerant and water-efficient landscaping devices will allow residents to cut water usage by approximately one- third compared to ttaditiona1 usage. A number of these measures are now standard Uniform Building Code requirements which are already being implemented through the building permit process. Those measures which are not Page 5, Item 2 Meeting Date: 4/8/98 will be incorporated into the SPA plan Design Guidelines. These include: 1. Use of energy efficient appliances such as dishwashers, and washers and dryers 2.Insta11ation of low water-use landscaping 3. Use of soil moisture sensors 4.Use ofreclaimed water, where approved by the appropriate agencies Staff finds the measures provided in the Water Conservation Plan to be in keeping with the measures provided by previous projects. As with the AQIP, it is staff's recommendation that the applicant be required to update the SPA plan Design Guidelines to incorporate new measures into that document and ensure that they will be implemented. Conclusion With the adoption of the Air Quality Improvement Plan and the Water Conservation Plan, the Sunbow II SPA plan would be in substantial compliance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the Growth Management Ordinance, and other adopted City policies. Thus, staff recommends approval of the proposed Air Quality and Water Conservation Plans, PCM-98-03, in accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution and subject to the conditions contained therein. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Reso1urion 2. Draft City Council Resolurion 3. Disclosure Statement (Mlhome\planning\patty\pcm9803.repl -~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION I 2 RESOLUTION NO. PCM-98-03 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THA T THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN CONSISTING OF AN AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND A WATER CONSERVATION PLAN WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on July 29, 1997 by Ayres Land Company ("Developer"); and, WHEREAS, said application requests adoption of an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation plan ("Project") to be incorporated into the SPA plan; and, WHEREAS, the Sunbow II planned commurrity is located south of Telegraph Canyon Road, east of Oleander A venue; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is a planning feasibility study and is exempt fTom environmental review as a statutory exemption; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the proposed SPA plan amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and it mailing to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., April 8, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving the amendment of the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan consisting of the incorporation of an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation Plan, 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. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 8th day of April, 1998, by the following vote, to-wit: 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Patty Davis, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary <( DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION S- ~ 1. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SECTIONAL PLANNING (SPA) AREA PLAN FOR SUNBOW II CONSISTING OF THE INCORPORATION OF AN AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND A WATER CONSERV A TION PLAN INTO THE SPA PLAN RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, identified as the Sunbow IT planned community, ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval , ! ... WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, consisting of the incorporation of an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation plan into the SPA plan, was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on July 29, 1997 by Ayres Land Company ("Developer"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of a General Development Plan, Sunbow IT previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15427 ("GDP") and the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan previously adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15524, both approved on February 20, 1990; and the Sunbow II Tentative Subdivision Map (CVT 90-07) previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15640 on May 22, 1990; and D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said project on April 8, 1998, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, based upon the findings listed below. 7 E. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on April 21, 1998, on the Discretionary Approval Application, received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and heard public testimony with regard to same; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on April 8, 1998, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefTom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is statutorially exempt fTom environmental review as a planning feasibility study. IV. SPA FINDINGS A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AS AMENDED IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SUNBOW II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The amendments incorporate an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation plan into the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan. These plans have no impact on the Sunbow II General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan, which reflects the same land uses, circulation system, and public facilities that were originally adopted. B. THE SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The Air Quality Improvement Plan and the Water Conservation Plan will not affect the sequence of development of the existing approved SPA Plan. ~ C. THE SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AS AMENDED WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION, OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The Air Quality Improvement Plan and the Water Conservation Plan will positively affect surrounding land uses, residential enjoyment, circulation, and environmental quality by providing measures utilized to reduce negative air quality impacts and to improve water conservation. v ADOPTION OF SPA In light of the findings above, the amended Sunbow n Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan consisting of the incorporation of an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation Plan into the SPA document is hereby approved and adopted in the form presented and attached as Exhibits "B" and "C", subject to the condition that the applicant shall update the Sunbow n Design Guidelines to incorporate new mitigation measures identified within the Air Quality Improvement Plan and the Water Conservation Plan and Addendum into those Guiidelines prior to the issuance of further final maps. VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term provision and conditions herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Planning Director John Kaheny City Attorney 9 leJ -, "\ EXHIBIT "A" --'- .~ --- ! ; / / I / // --\ ~' ~- / \ I .______, \ ~ '\/' . / '/~//I~. ' . f I I \ , __'-" I '-. ,,' ~ ~I ~ ( " , '- . ~ .....) 10\:\\>.\:\ I'J'{\:\\'< . TELEGRAPH C/\ PROJECT LOCATION \ / ( ...-- /'/ ;; "---;-K " -' / '/ 'i / , " ".> ','" '" .'. ,~/ ./ V v: .'/. '. ' ~/ V // //' .'> ..... / ..' ." I. / // // // /" '// /" '/, // .- I~:-/ / // /,' '/ ,;,.' ,'/ " .'/ // ,'/ " //~ /// /, ,/ // ' / ,,,' ,'./ // .', /11 ,'.) / ///'/ " // '/ " '" ;,,/ /, // / /''/ //' /;/ /', </, '/'.' '/ /. / // ,I' " / ,.. r'/ " ,'/ / '/ // /-. / / / /: /' /:,/ /,// // '// // ,,// .' " /,,/ /;/ /; '// . ~ ;:///./../// // .<;'/-;/ .//'/;/ // // . '"7/ / /j'./ ,';' "/~,,, // /' ,,' // ,/ // ,~/ ,./ .j//// /////;/// ,. / ////.;////, './ / // /" ./ '.' /,' /1 ./ '. "/ ,/ ,/" / ,/,.', . , /.~',- '/ // ' ,,/ // /' //' ,/ ~/ /:' "/ / / // "":'/ ,/ 'l"/,,//~/ /, / '/ / / ,.;// " . /'/ ? / >- / ,;,' ,/ .;"" , " '/ /, ,'/" / ,/ '/ ,/',' ",.' j/ ,,/ ., ,/ --- (/ /:-/,//'///~' /' ,'/ /;/ //// //./ "// , ,/ / / / " // / , \ 'v' \ I ~ i] -j~ \ I I '-- ~I I ~" .J I r- CHULA VIST A PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PRDJEcr PROJEcr DESCRIP110N: C) APPUCANT: AMENDMENTS, PRDJEcr Sunbow II ADDRESS: 'I SCALE: ALE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale h:\home\planninglJ::arJos~ocators\pm19627.cdr 2/11196 IC ~'" ( , , Environmental ConsultanlS EXHIBIT "'B" AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAW SlJNBOW II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PL..1,.N CITY OF CHUI..A VISTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared :fDr: Ayres Land Company Attn: William R. Hamlin 750 "Bn street, St. 2370 San DiegD, CA 92101 Date: Harc:h 5, 1998 c:c: BRA, IDc. Attn: Rod Bradley /paula 5:11.5 Ave. Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387 13 ]7744 Sky PDr!: CIrc/c, Sui'" ]]0. /rviue California 926]4 - Phone (7]4) 85]-8609 - Fax (7]4) 851-8612 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION l.l Purpose l_2 Local and Regional Air Quality Heasures l_ 3 Approach l.O 2_0 l>..IR 2.l 2.2 3.0 AIR 3.l 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 QUALITY SE'I"I'ING Meteorology/Climate A.ir Quality 2.2.l Ambient Air Quality standards 2.2.2 Baseline A.ir Quality 2_2_3 Sources of Pollution 2_2_4 Air Quality :Management Planning QUALITY IMPACTS Sources of Impact standards of Significance Construction Impacts Long-Term Vehicular Emissions Stationary Source Emissions Impacts IMPACT JITTIGATION 4_l Candidate Air Quality Improvement Plan Project Construction 4_2 Air Quality Improvement Plan - site Operations 4.3 City of Chula vista AQIP Guidelines 4_0 List of 'rabIes Table 2 _l - Ambient Air Quality standards Table 2.2 'rable 3.l Table 3.2 Chula vista .Area A.ir Quality :Monitoring summary Daily :Mass Grading Equipment Exhaust Emissions - Sunbow II Project-Related Vehicular Emissions 'rable 3 _ 3 - Phase l Mobile Source Emissions Table 4_l - Design Phase Air Pollution :M.itigation checklist -i- /<{ PaCfe No. l l l 3 5 5 6 6 7 II II l3 l3 l3 1.4 l8 20 22 23 24 25 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) for the Sunbow II General Development Plan is to fulfill requirements in the Growth Management Program (GMP) of the City of Chula Vista. As described below, the GMP results from a long term, comprehensive planning process. The City of Chula Vista has looked comprehensively at future development and its related impacts on public facilities and services. The approvals of the Threshold Ordinance and the General Plan update were the first steps in growth management planning. The policy process then led to the preparation and adoption of the Gro~~ Management Element and finally the Growth Management Program. The city's Growth Management Program is the last component in the Plan to form a comprehensive growth management system. This program implements the Growth Management Element of the General Plan and establishes an orderly process to carry out the development policies of the City. It directs and coordinates future growth patterns and rates to guarantee the timely provision of public facilities and services. The primary area of focus of the Growth Management Program is east of 1-805 where most of the remaining vacant land within the city and its sphere of influence is located, including the proposed project site. 1.2 Local and Reqional Air Oualitv Measures This AQIP draws from federal, state, regional and local planning requirements. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (FCAAA) and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) are the driving mechanisms for the current version of the San Diego Air Basin Air Quality Management Plan. The CCM and FCAAA require submittal and updates of air quality improvement plans for each basin not in attainment with state or federal standards. Pollutants within the. San Diego Air Basin that exceed state or federal clean air standards include ozone and sub-10-micron diameter respirable particulate matter (PM- 10) , The CCM and FCAAA also serve as a base for many regional growth guidelines such as SANDAG's Draft Quality of Life Standards and Objecti ves document, prepared by the Regional Growth Management Technical Committee. It covers eight topics: air quality, water quality, sewage disposal, sensitive lands protection, solid waste management, toxic and hazardous waste management, transportation system management and housing. These regional standards and 1 I~ objectives follow state and federal law. At a minimum, they must be implemented on a regional level by agencies such as the Air pollution Control District (APCD), Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Water Authority, etc. The methods that guide the Regional Growth Management strategy in San Diego County are, of necessi ty , long term in nature and will involve every city and special district in the county, including the City of Chula Vista. Federal and state air quality standards provide the framework for the air quality, transportation system management (TSM) and transportation demand management components of the SANDAG Quality of Life Standards and Objectives. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has classified the San Diego region as a serious non- attainment area for photochemical air pollution (ozone) and projects non-compliance with State standards beyond 1997. According to the San Diego APCD, the major sources of air pollutants in the region are motor vehicles and pollution transport from Los Angeles. Given this situation, local air quality improvement efforts are focused on transportation issues. To address transportation-related air quality problems, level of service standards for arterials, highways and transit systems have been developed along with goals for reducing single occupant auto trips. Actions necessary to achieve state and federal clean air standards, and TSM and TDM objectives include: o reducing solo auto trips by carpooling and using transit o promoting telecommuting and staggered work schedules o improving transit service building additional high occupancy vehicle lanes o coordinating traffic signals and implementing other circulation system improvements o reducing trip lengths through jobs/housing balance, mixed use development and focusing development near transit stations. At the local planning level, cities must contribute to the air improvement effort with a day-to-day decision making framework to ensure attainment of regional standards and objectives, Even though no current local air quality plan exists in Chula Vista, the City Council has implemented the Growth Management Program which requires Air Quality Improvement Plans (AQIP) for major development projects (50 residential units or commercial/industrial projects 2 (h generating more than 500 trips per day), Management Program, Chula vista is actively effective long-term strategies that implement quality standards and objectives, The legal requirement for an AQIP is stated in section 19.09.050B of the city of Chula vista Municipal Code. Each sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan submittal must contain an AQIP. The AQIP should identify those measures that: Through the Growth working to establish state and federal air reduce the number of auto trips as the most effective means of reducing local air quality impacts, minim~ze energy consumption to reduce fossil fuel combustion for energy generation both to reduce "standard" air pollutants as well as greenhouse gases such as CO2 involved in global warming, control fugitive dust and heavy equipment exhaust nuisance impacts during construction, The AQIP is typically designed as a stand-alone technical report in a setting/impact/mitigation format, This st:::-ucture allows the AQIP to be directly incorporated into project environmental clearance either as backup technical documentation for a mitigated negative declaration (MND) or to be summarized into the body of an EIR. 1.3 Approach In order to insure that the role of transportation-related air pollution emissions are minimized as much as possible, measures in the regional air quality plan deal explicitly with tripjVMT reduction. Mandatory trip reduction programs have been found to be of limited effectiveness, to be economically burdensome and to be poli tically unpopular. Such measures have therefore been made voluntary to be implemented at a sUb-regional level where they are most effective, The City of Chula vista AQIP requirements are designed to insure that all available emissions reduction measureS are incorporated into project planning regardless of whether air quali ty agencies have promulgated such measures on a basinwide scale. Air quality mitigation in this AQIP focuses on the strategies and measures available to general development projects, Trip reduction strategies generally differentiate between commercial, industrial and institutional useS which are major attractors versus residential development which is the primary source of trip 3 (7 geneyation, Successful strategies are those that most efficiently couple the attyactors and generators. If attractors and generators are located in close proximity, then walking, bicycling or para- transit systems may reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) dependence. If they are linked by efficient transi t opportunities, non-SOV commuting becomes a viable option. If attractors are sufficiently large, either individually or through a specialized transportation management agency consolidating closely grouped attractors, the available pool of participants for ride-share or para-transit programs is made large enough for these programs to be effecti ve, If commercial, employment and institutional development occurs in phase with residential growth, then trip lengths for goods, services, jobs, school, recreation, etc. can be minimized by providing needed amenities locally instead of far from the development. Most established transportation/air quality improvement measures in the state and regional plans address issues of impact mitigation for residential projects on a limited basis. Some enhanced mitigation measures are available, however, on a local project/ developer basis, These measures include best available control measures for dust (PM-IO) abatement, increased energy efficiency for reduction of fuel combustion, and incorporation of features into home design to accommodate new technologies that reduce trip- making or shift travel to less polluting modes. New development at the edge of existing communi ties typically begins with a residential component. As the development grows, then grocery stores, schools, and other support facilities follow. Business park or shopping center construction may lag behind several years until the development reached "critical mass" that makes a more fully integrated community viable. The AQIP assumes that the total project will be built as planned, but the absorption rate of new development is obviously market driven. Because of the synergy between closely linked residential and non-residential development in terms of pollution reduction efficiency, concurrent phased growth of all master-planned community components constitutes the optimum air quality improvement strategy. 4 I~ 2.0 AIR OUALITY SETTING 2,1 MeteoroloQV/Climate The climate of Chula Vista, as with all of Southern California, is largely controlled by the strength and position of the semi- permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean. The high pressure ridge over the West Coast creates a repetitive pattern of frequent early morning cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, clean daytime onshore breezes and little temperature change throughout the year. Limited rainfall occurs in winter when the oceanic high pressure center is weakest and farthest south as the fringes of mid-latitude storms occasionally move through the area. Summers are often completely dry with an average of 10.3 inches of rain falling each year from November to early April at Lower Otay Reservoir, the nearest climate station to the project site. Unfortunately, the saJIle atmospheric conditions that create a desirable living climate, combine to limit the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the large population attracted to the San Diego County climate. The onshore winds across the coastline diminish guickly when they reach the foothill communities east of San Diego, and the sinking air within the offshore high pressure system forms a massive temperature inversion that traps all air pollutants near the ground. The resulting horizontal and vertical stagnation, in conjunction with ample sunshine, causes a number of reactive pollutants to undergo photochemical reactions and form smog that degrades visibility and irritates tear ducts and nasal membranes, Because coastal areas are well ventilated by fresh breezes during the daytime, they generally do not experience the same frequency of air pollution problems found in some areas east of Chula Vista. Unhealthful air quality within the San Diego Air Basin's southern coastal communities does occur at times in summer during limited localized stagnation, but occurs mainly in conjunction with the occasional intrusion of polluted air from the Los Angeles Basin into the County. Localized elevated pollution levels may also occur in winter during calm stable conditions near freeways, shopping centers or other major traffic sources, but such clean air violations are highly localized in space and time and would not normally be found near the project site. Except for the occasional interbasin transport, air quality in the project vicinity is probably quite good. Local meteorological conditions in the project vicinity have not been routinely monitored, but they likely conform to the regional pattern of strong onshore winds by day, especially in summer, and 5 /7 weak offshore winds at night, especially in winter, These local wind patterns are driven by the temperature difference between the normally cool ocean and the warm interior and steered by any local topography. In summer, moderate breezes of 8-12 mph blow onshore and upvalley from the SW by day, and may continue all night as a light onshore breeze when the land remains warmer than the ocean. In winter, the onshore flow is weaker and reverses to blow from the NE in the evening as the land becomes cooler than the ocean. Both the onshore flow of marine air and the nocturnal drainage winds are accompanied by two characteristic temperature inversion conditions that further control the rate of air pollution dispersal throughout the air basin. The daytime cool onshore flow is capped by a deep layer of warm, sinking air. Along the coastline, the marine air layer beneath the inversion cap is deep enough to accommodate any locally generated emissions. However, as the layer moves inland, pollution sources (especially automobiles) add pollutants from below without any dilution from above through the inversion interface. When this progressively polluted layer approaches foothill communities east of coastal developments, it becomes shallower and exposes residents in those areas to the concentrated reacted byproducts of coastal area sources. A second inversion type occurs when slow drainage or stagnation of cool air at night creates localized cold "pools" while the air above the surface remains warm. Such radiation inversions occur throughout the San Diego area but are strongest wi thin low, channelized river valleys. They may trap vehicular exhaust pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO) near their source until these inversions are destroyed by surface warming the next morning. Any such CO "hot spots" are highly localized in space and time (if they occur at all), but occasionally stagnant dispersion conditions are certainly an important air quality concern in combination with continued intensive development of the Chula vista area. The intensity of development near the project site is extremely low such that non-local background pollution levels during nocturnal stagnation periods are also low. The local airshed, therefore, has considerable excess dispersive capacity that limits the potential for any localized air pollution "hot spots" from project implementation. 2.2 Air OUali tv 2.2.1 Ambient Air Quality standards (AAQS) In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the Sunbow II development, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable 6 20 ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people whose current health condition makes them most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other diseases or illness and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed, Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone at levels that just meet federal AAQS may nevertheless have an adverse respiratory health impact. Just meeting standards may not provide a sufficient health protection cushion for sensitive receptor populations. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended to 1987 for certain National AAQS, and that deadline passed with the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) still far from attainment. A California Clean Air Act (AB-2595) and a new Federal Clean Air Act have both since been promulgated that establish more realistic implementation timeframes for airsheds with moderately degraded air quality such as SDAB. Because California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and federal clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 2,1. 2.2.2 Baseline Air Quality The nearest air quality measurements to the project site are made in downtown Chula vista by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the agency responsible for air quality planning, monitoring and enfQrcement in the SDAB. Table 2.2 summarizes the last seven years of published monitoring data from the Chula vista (80 East J. st.) station. Progress toward cleaner air is seen in almost every pollution category in Table 2,2. The only federal clean air standard that was exceeded throughout the 7- year monitoring period was the hourly ozone standard which was exceeded an average of 2- 3 times per year (once per year is allowable). The more stringent State standards for ozone and for 10-micron diameter respirable particulate matter (PM-lO) were exceeded on a somewhat higher frequency; but, overall air quality in Chula vista, as representati ve of the Sunbow II area, is nevertheless very good in comparison to other areas of the SDAB. 7 t?( I 57 A IT STANDARD FEDERAL PRIMARY MOST RELEVANT EFFECTS STANDARD AIR CONCEIITRATIONi CONCENTI;A TJONI POWJTANT AVERAGING TIME A VERAGING TIME Ozon: 0.09 ppm. I-hr. av!;. > 0.12 ppm. ] -hr avg.> (a) ShorHcnn c:xposures: (1) Pulmonary function decrements and localizc:d lung edema in humans and animals. (2) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary! morphology and host defense: in animals: (b) Lon~-u:nn exposures: Risk 10 public hca.l1h implied by ahcn:rl ['('tf1nc:ct~..c tissue: nu::tabolism and altered pulmonary morpholo:;y in animals aftcr long.lcrm exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (c) VegetatIOn dama~c; (d) Prop~ damal!':c Carbon 9.0 ppm. 8-hr avg. > 9 ppm. &.hr avg.> (;I) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other Monoxidi: 20 ppm, l-hr avg. > 35 ppm, I-hr avg.> aspects of coronary heart discasc:; (b) Dccrc:asc:d excrcise loll:ranc:c in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease:; (c) impairment of central nervous system functions; (d) Possible increased ris.k to fetuses Nltrog::r. I 0.25 pprr.. J -hr avg. > 0.053 ppm, ann. avg.> (a) r>Olcntial to aggravatc: chronic respiratory Dioxid:: disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive: ~roups; (b) Risk to public health implied by I pulmonary .a.:,d exua.pulmonary biochemicaJ I and cc:llular changes and pulmonary structural changr:s; (c) ConuibutlOn to aunosphcric discoloration Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm. 24.hr avg.> I O.OJ ppm. ann. av~.> (a) Brom:hoconstriction accompamed by 0.25 pprr., I-hr. avg. > 0.14 ppm. 24-hr avg.> symptoms which may include: wheezing. shonness of brcalh and chcst tighlness. during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma SuspcndaJ 30 Il~~. nnn. geomeull: m=an > 50 Iltlm3. annual I (a) Excess deaths from short-term exposures PanicuWc 50 j.1g!:r.J . 14-hr average> arilhmctic mean > and cxaecrb..lion of symptonlS. in sensitive Maner (PM.o) ! 50/lglm3. 24-hr avg.> patients wilh respiratory disease; (b) Ex~ss seasonaJ declines in pulmonary function. especially in childrcn SulfaJ.cs 25 lJ.~m3. 24-hr avg. >= (a) Deerease in vcntilatory funcLion; (b) Aggravalion of asthmatic symptoms; (c) AggravaUon of cardio-pulmonary disease:; (d) Vegel.a1ion damage; (c) Dc:padalion of visibility; (0 Property damage Lead 1.5 ~gI",3. 30-day avg. >= 15 pgJm3. calendar qu3J\cr> (a) Inat:aScd body burden; (b) Impainncnt of blood formation and nerve conduction Visibiliry- In sufficicot amount to reduce the Visibility impairment on days when relative Rc:du~ visual range to less than J 0 miles at humidity is les.s than 70 pcrccn[ Panicles rtlativc humidity less !ban 70 percent. 8.hour average {} O<JJT) - 6pm) 7..A Ambient Air Quality Standards TABLE 2.1 TABLE 2.2 CHOU VISTA AREA AIR QUALm KOHITORIJiG SUKllARY I Days StaDdards Were Exceeded and I!3riJa For Periods IMicated) Pollubn:/S'".mJdard 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Ozone: I-RoIL> 0.09 ppm 21 13 14 12 4 7 1 l-Roue > 0.12 ppm 3 4 1 0 1 0 l-Roue ~ 0.20 p;m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. l-EmIT Con:. (ppD) 0.15 0.15 0.15 D.D 0.10 0.14 0.10 Carbor ~:moyide: l'Rou: > 20. P~ [ 0 0 0 0 0 E-Hou: , 9. ppm [ 0 0 0 0 0 Max. l-J::':Jr Conc. (pPEj 7 , 7 5 6 Max. E-Bour Con:. [ppDl 4.B ' Q 3.B :;.5 3.8 U 3.2 J.. Nitrocer. Dioxide: I-HolL > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. l'Hour Cone. (pOD) D.13 0.12 C.15 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.08 Particul"" Sulfate: 2,-Rorc ~ 25. ~g/[3 O/Sl 0/21 0/29 O/3~ 0/34 0/30 X/'fJ, Max. 2'-3our Cone. [~g/E3i 1U 11.2 9.9 19.0 15.4 22.0 XX.X lnhalable Particulates IP~lO): 24-Hou: ) 50 1'9/~3 7/62 7/60 2/60 2/60 2/60 5/59 X/'fJ, 24-Hou: > 150 ~gjll3 0/62 0/60 0/60 0/60 0/60 0/59 Xf'IJ, Max. 2HIour Conc. l~g/~3) 67 73 54 56 61 103 62 Note: s>..andanis for sulfur dioxide and particulate lead have been met .ith a .ide margin of safety rn1990-96, and are, therefore, not shown. Source: California Air Resources Board, sWliary of Air Quality Data, 1990-96. Chula Vista APCD Monitoring station (except for some particulate data which are fror, Sar, Diego APCD DO'ITIto'ITI station). xx = final 1996 data are not yet available. 23 There are no clear-cut trends in the Chula Vista baseline air gual.::. ~y data in Table 2. Improvement of the few standards routinely exceeded is relatively slow. Some very encouraging trends are seen in Table 2, particularly for the most recent data. In the last four years, Chula Vista recorded the following air pollution records in its monitoring history: fewest violations of the California hourly ozone standard (1996 ) fewest viola~ions of federal ozone standard 1994 + 1996) lowest annual I-hour ozone maximum (1994 - 1996) lowest annual I-hour CO maximum (1993, 1995) lowest annual 8-hour CO maximum (1996) lowest annual I-hour NO" maximum (1996) fewest violations of PM-10 standard (1993-94) Extrapolation of the pollution trendline suggests that limited violations of standards could occur into the future but with decreasing frequency. Since observed San Diego County ozone air quality sometimes derives from the southward drift of pollution from the South Coast Air Basin (which is forecast to continue to exceed ozone standards to the year 2010), some ozone standard violations will likely occur in the County beyond the 1999 attainment target date despite Countywide pollution control efforts. A further improvement in ambient air guali ty from County- generated emissions reductions will thus occur within the next decade, but complete attainment of all standards may not happen until after the turn of the century. As noted above, federal attainment criteria allow for one violation of standards per year averaged over three years. Inspection of Table 2 shows that the federal ozone standard of 0.12 ppm for one hour was only exceeded only twice from 1993 through 1996. The Chula vista area technically is an attainment sub-area within the larger San Diego Air Basin non-attainment area. Except in foothill communities most affected by air stagnation at the base of the summer inversion, attainment of the federal ozone standard is close at hand throughout the air basin. Some air quality concern has been raised about pollutant transport from Mexico with its considerably less stringent pollution control laws. An air quality station was established on otay Mesa in part to monitor this phenomenon. Slight differences in ozone distribution on otay Mesa are seen compared to Chula Vista. These differences are not so dramatic, however, as to indicate any substantial cross-border pollution transport. 10 'LY 2.2.3 Sources of Pollution Nitrogen oxides (NO.) and reactive organic gases (ROG) are the two precursors to photochemical smog formation. In San Diego County, 68% of the 310 tons per day of ROG emitted come from mobile (cars, ships, planes, heavy equipment, etc.) sources. For NO., 88% of the 240 tons emitted daily are from mobile sources. Computer modeling of smog formation has shown that a reduction of around 25% each of NO. and ROG would allow the San Diego Air Basin to meet the federal ozone standard on days when there is no substantial transport of pollution from the South Coast Air Basin or other airshed. 2.2.4 Air Quality Management Planning The continued violations of national AAQS in the SDAB, particularly those for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in a regional air quality management plan developed jointly by the APCD and SANDAG. Several plans had been adopted in the late 1970s and early 1980s under the title Regional Air Quality strategies (RAQS). Until recently, the 1982 RAQS was the last federally-approved (EPA) air quality plan for attainment of the federal ozone standard. More recent planning efforts have been modifications, improvements and updates of the earlier RAQS efforts. The California Clean Air Act (AB-2595) required that a state clean air plan be developed to address meeting state standards as well as the often less stringent federal criteria, A basin plan was therefore developed and adopted in 1991 that predicted attainment of all national standards by the end of 1997 from pollution sources within the air basin, but little could be done about the problem of interbasin transport. Since the South Coast Air Basin is predicted to exceed the national ozone standard beyond the year 2000, the San Diego Air Basin, will also not experience completely healthful air for the next several decades. A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state plan. This local plan was combined with those from all other California non- attainment areas with serious ozone problems to create the California state Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9- 10, 1994, and forwarded to the U. S. EPA for their approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA finally approved the SIP in mid- 1996, 11 zs- During the planning process and smog formation modeling, it was discovered that the SDAB can meet the federal ozone standard by the yea:::- 1999 without the creation of any new control programs not already in progress. Airsheds demonstrating an ability to meet standards by 1999 (in the absence of transport from one basin to another) are classified as having a "serious" ozone problem instead of being classified as "severe". The SDAPCD requested that EPA reclassify the air basin from severe to serious. This request was subsequently approved. All progress towards attainment, including offsetting the effects of growth, is expected to derive from existing local, state and federal rules and regulations, controversial rules previously evaluated that were judged by some people as overly intrusive into personal lifestyles (mandatory trip reduction programs or minimum average vehicle occupancy goals) are not needed to predict attainment. Any violations of ozone standards in the year 2000 or beyond are forecast to occur only on days when transport from the Los Angeles Basin creates substantially elevated baseline levels upon which any local basin impacts would be superimposed. In general, mixed use developments such as Sunbow II are not of themselves emitters of air pollutants. Individual industrial uses may emit air contaminants from manufacturing or assembly operations. Such stationary sources are strongly controlled by SDAPCD rules and regulations. Industries unable to comply with stringent emission limits have moved out of county, out of state, or out of the country. Remaining industrial activities are mainly IIclean" uses.. New developments generate air pollution almost exclusively through commuting, shopping or other personal travel. Traffic-generating sources are called "indirect sources". Indirect source consistency with any regional air quality planning is determined in terms of whether overall growth has been correctly anticipated in a given sub-region. If a given project represents an increment of growth predicted by SANDAG in its growth forecasts, and if any applicable emissions control measures applicable on a project-specific basis are implemented, then the regional air quality impact of project implementation is less than significant. 12 -Zt. 3. 0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 3.1 Sources of Impact The proposed project will impact air quality primarily through the vehicular traffic generated by project residents, Mobile source impacts occur basically on two scales of motion. Regionally, site- related travel will add to regional trip generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the local airshed. Locally, project traffic, will be added to the Chula vista roadway system near the project site. If such traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation, is comprised of a large nuJIi::)er of vehicles "cold-started" and operating at pollution inefficien~ speeds, and is driving on roadways already crowded with non-project traffic, there is a potential for the formation of microscale air pollution "hot spots" in the area immediately around points of congested traffic. With continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, air pollution "hot spot" potential is steadily decreasing. standards for carbon monoxide (CO), the most typical indicator of any "hot spot" potential, have not been exceeded at any air basin monitoring station since 1990. Secondary project-related atmospheric impacts derive from a number of other small, growth-connected emissions sources such as temporary emissions of dusts and fumes during project construction, increased fossil-fuel combustion in power plants from project electricity requirements, evaporative emissions at gas stations or from paints, thinners or solvents used in construction and maintenance, increased air travel from area visitors, dust from tire wear and re-suspended roadway dust, etc, All these emission points are either temporary, or they are so small in comparison to project-related automotive sources such that their impact is less important. They do point out, however, that growth engenders increased air pollution emissions from a wide variety of sources, and thus further inhibits the near-term attainment of all clean air standards in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). 3.2 Standards of sionificance CEQA guidelines define a potentially significant air quality impact as one that: a, creates violations of clean air standards, b. contributes measurably to an existing violation, or, c. exposes people to contaminants for which there are no presumed safe exposures. 13 2.. 7 For projects that crea~e mainly automobile traffic whose emissions require complex photochemical reactions to reach their most harmful stage, there is no way to measure the impact to establish a "measurable contribution". various air pollution control/ management agencies have developed guidelines using total project emissions as a surrogate for determining regional impact potential. The City of Chula Vista has no such threshold levels, but relies on guidance from other agencies, Candidate significance threshold levels include the following: Significant Emissions (lb/day) Aqencv ~ ROC NOx SOX :m 10 SDAPCD Rule 20.2 (a) 550 100 100 100 100 SDAPCD Rule 20.3 (b) 550 250 250 250 250 City of San Diego (c) 550. 100" South Coast AQMD (d) 550 55 55 150 150 a = b = c = d = requires best available control requires ambient air quality analysis Significance Determination Guidelines (1991) SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) = In areas of congested traffic = in areas of free-flow traffic For purposes of analysis, the SDAPCD Rule 20.2 (BACT-trigger) is a reasonable compromise between the most stringent and most lenient of the four possible significance thresholds noted above. 3.3 Construction Impacts The most significant source of air pollution from project construction will be the dust generated during excavation, grading and site preparation. Typical total dust lofting rates from construction activities are usually assumed to average 1,2 tons of dust per month per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control procedures. These emissions are for total suspended particulates (TSP) which comprise smaller, respirable particulate matter of lO-micron diameter or less (called PM-lO), as well as 14 Z? larger particles that are trapped wi thin the upper respiratory tract of people and other mammals. The PM-IO fraction of TSP is assumed to be around 50 percent. The PM-IO emission factor for project-related soil disturbance is around 55 pounds per day per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) area source emissions inventory guidelines estimate that the net disturbance area for single-family housing is 0.25 acre per dwelling unit. MUlti-family units have a presumed smaller disturbance footprint of 0.05 acre per unit. The residential development disturbance footprint for calculating dust generation for Sunbow II is approximately 300 acres. An additional 75 acres will be heavily graded for the bus~ness park, commercial, school and other community facilities. The net Sunbow II disturbance area will be approximately 375 acres, not all of which will be under simultaneous construction. For purposes of analysis, approximately one-tenth, or perhaps 40 acres, was assumed to be disturbed on any given day. In the absence of any dust control, simultaneous disturbance of the 40 acres would generate daily total PM-IO emissions of 2200 pounds if no mitigation measures are implemented. Implementation of vigorous dust control measures would reduce PM-IO associated with grading by 50-75 percent or in the range of 550-1100 pounds per day. This range of emissions would still exceed the daily PM-IO significance threshold of 100 pounds per day. This generation of construction dust PM-IO emissions can be reduced to sub-threshold levels by reducing the area of disturbance and by using a very aggressive dust control program, Highly effective dust control can achieve a 90 percent control efficiency. If such a control program were implemented, and the simultaneous disturbance were restricted to slightly less than 20 acres per day, then daily PM-IO emissions could be maintained at less than the identified significance thresholds. Assuming that such an aggressive dust control program is implemented during construction, then with the temporary timeframe of such emissions and the generally good daytime ventilation conditions in the project vicinity, the impact from construction dust generation would be considered as individually less than significant. components of a dust control program that use best available control methods (BACMs) is detailed in the mitigation discussion. In addition to small dust particles that remain suspended in the air semi-indefinitely, construction also generates many large particles that are easily filtered by human breathing passages, but settle out rapidly on parked cars and other nearby horizontal surfaces. Large particle emissions thus comprises more of a soiling nuisance rather than any potentially unhealthful air quality impact. with prevailing daytime west to east winds, dust 15 '^-<] soiling potential is likely greatest directly east of the project site, Good control of fine particulates also results in substantial ::::-eduction in nuisance potential from larger particulate matter. While dust deposition can be minimized, it often can not be completely eliminated. While temporary soiling nuisance is considered adverse, it does not constitute a significant air quali ty impact. It should be noted that current regulatory philosophy relative to airborne particulates is that PM-10 is not an adequate predictor of potential health impacts, It has been clearly demonstrated that the health ::::-isk lies in much smaller particulate matter with diameters of 2,5 microns or less, called "PM-2. 5". New federal standards for PM-2.5 were promulgated in 1997. Research has shown that mechanical abrasion processes such as clearing or grading of soil contribute little to the area PM-2.5 burden. Since grading is not a major PM-2.5 contributor, and since inert silicates comprising soil dust are further not particularly unhealthful, both the predicted significance of project grading and the stringency of recommended mitigation should be revisited if and when PM-2. 5 standards are adopted. Equipment eY~aust as well will be released during project cons~ruction activities from mobile sources during site preparation, On-site, diesel-powered construction equipment will create gaseous and particulate tailpipe emissions that are not regulated by smog control rules such as for on-road sources. Recent new rules for off-road equipment have been adopted, but they apply to future new equipment purchases and not to the historical off-road equipment fleet likely to be used during site grading. Typical site grading was assumed to entail five (5) scrapers operating at an average power load of 60 percent of full throttle, assisted by a dozer and grader operating at a 40 percent power level each. Daily equipment exhaust emissions are shown in Table 3,1. None of the emissions from on-site equipment operations exceed the daily emissions acti vi ty significance threshold. However, there is a possibility that daily NO. emissions could approach the 100 pound per day significance threshold if any additional equipment were to operate on site during the grading activity. Mitigation in the form of periodic low-NO. tune-ups for such equipment would be required to maintain NO. emissions at sub-threshold levels. Although the daily NO. emissions are substantial, the mobile nature of the construction equipment will prevent any localized violation of the NO. standard. Emissions will also be spread out over a wide area and over an extended buildout schedule. There may be localized instances when the characteristic diesel exhaust odor 16 :;10 TABLE 3 _:1 DAILY MASS GRADING EQUIPMENT EXHAUST EMISSIONS Emissions Factors ( pounds/hour @ 100% load) Ecruipment: CO ROC Nox S02 PM-1 0 Tracked Dozer 0,20 0,12 1. 26 0.14 0.11 Motor Grader 0.15 0.04 0,71 0,09 0.06 Scraper 1. 25 0.27 3,84 0,46 0.41 Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Tracked Dozer 0,6 0.4 4.0 0.4 0.4 Motor Grader 0.5 0.1 2,3 0.3 0.2 Scraper :;0,0 6,5 92,2 11.0 9.8 TOTAL 31.1 7.0 98.5 11. 7 10.4 SDAPCD Rule 20.2 Threshold 550. 100. 100. 100. 100. Source: USEPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42 ( 1995 rev,). " might be noticeable from passing trucks or nearby heavy equipment, but such transitory exposure is a brief nuisance and will not threaten air guality standards. Construction activities are most noticeable in the immediate vicini ty of the construction si te. There is, however, some potential for "spill-over" into the surrounding community. Spillage may be physical such as dirt tracked onto public streets or dropped Irom trucks. spill-over may also be through congestion efIects where detours, lane closures, or construction vehicle competition with non-project peak hour traffic slows traffic beyond the immediate construction site to less pOllution-efficient travel speeds. Such off-site effects are controllable through good housekeeping and proper construction management/scheduling. Management techniques are suggested in the mitigation discussion to reduce potential spill-over impacts. 3.4 Lono-Term Vehicular Emissions ImDacts The greatest air quality concern from land use intensification usually derives from the mobile source emissions that result from project-related transportation, The Sunbow II project traffic studv estimates that site-related traffic will total 28,708 "new" daily vehicle trips. The average travel distance for combined commuting, shopping and other purposes is almost 9 miles per individual trip. Project implementation will generate an additional 250,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the air basin. The corresponding air pollution emissions associated with site-related travel was calculated using the California ARB URBEMIS5 emissions model. This model calculates average daily emissions by combining the VMT data with average vehicular emission factors from the EMFAC7F(1.1) California vehicular emissions computer model. The daily mobile-source emissions for the Sunbow II project are shown in Table 3,2, With a likely buildout by 2010, all smog-forming emissions would be above the 100 pound per day significance threshold. Regional air quality impacts from project implementation related to potential smog formation are therefore potentially signiIicant. CO emissions will also be above the significance threshold. Steadily declining regional background CO levels, however, allow for a considerable local contribution before a "hot spot" is created. City of San Diego CEQA guidelines suggest that a detailed microscale air quality study is recommended if project-related CO levels exceed 550 pounds per day and congested intersections are forecast to occur in the project vicinity. Maintaining adequate roadway / intersection levels of service is a condition for project approval. Traffic mitigation will preclude any possible localized congestion- related "hot spot" concerns. 18 )'2.... TABLE 3 _ 2: SUNBOW II PROJECT-RELATED VEHICULAR EMISSIONS (Ibs/day) Land Use ROC' CO NOx PM-I 0 SOx Single Family 66.5 516.1 79.9 14.0 9.4 Multi-Family 44,7 332.7 51.5 9.0 6.0 Elem. School 2,7 24.4 4.1 0.7 0.5 COmIn. Park 6,2 56.0 9,8 1.7 1.2 COmIn, Recreation 1.4 12.8 2.2 0.4 0.3 Neighborhood Comm. 19.1 172,1 30.1 5.3 3.6 Light Industry 21. 7 201,7 32.9 6,0 4,0 Il'C)'J. L~_ J 62 ~ 3 1315,8 210.5 37.1 25,0 Signif. Threshold 100, 550, 100. 100, 100. Exceeds (?) Yes Yes Yes No No assuming 95% of total organics are reactive (ROC) Source: URBEMIS5 Vehicular Emissions Computer Model, Year = 2010 33 While the total scope of Sunbow II is sufficient to cause emissions-based significance thresholds to be exceeded, individual phases will likely generate less than significant mobile source air pollution increments, Table 3.3 shows the mobile source emissions increment associated with Phase lA completion assumed conservatively to occur in the year 2000. Emission levels for all calculated pollutants are below the established significance threshold. 3.5 Stationary Source Emissions Project-related energy consumption will cause limited amounts of combustion-related (mainly NO.) to be generated. Energy consumption emissions for Sunbow II from electrical power plants and from natural gas combustion in furnaces, water heaters and other devices represent a small fraction of the total project pollution burden. Inclusion of stationary source emissions will increase total NO. emissions by approximately 20 percent, but will add only 1-2 percent to all other pollutants. Addition of the stationary source component does not change any conclusions regarding impact significance. Because the mobile source contribution to the total burden is so dominant, mitigation measures that reduce trip generation and miles traveled are far more effective than those measures aimed at energy conservation. Secondary emissions from general development will result during construction (aggregate and building materials manufacture, paints and sol vents, power consumption, etc.) and operations (utili ty equipment, household products, cooking, etc.). These emissions are generally too small to be quantifiable on an individual household or an individual project basis. However, as SDAPCD emissions control programs encompass ever smaller source categories, even sources such as paint, mowers or insecticide sprays could ultimately be controlled. 20 ~ TABLE 3_3 PHASE 1 MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS (lbs/day) Single Multi- Significance Pollutant Familv Familv Total Threshold ROC 46,7 18.8 65,5 100. NO> 37.2 14.6 51.8 100. CO 322,0 126.0 448,0 550. PM-I0 4.5 1.8 6,3 100. SO> 2.9 1.2 4,1 100. Source: URBEMIS5 Vehicular Emissions computer Model, Year = 2000, 3S- 4.0 IMPACT MITIGATION Poss~ble impact significance was identified for construction dust (PM-10) and for operational vehicular and stationary source emissions. The City of Chula vista AQIP program does not distinguish between severity of significance, Any emissions will incrementally impede attainment of standards, and should therefore be mitigated to the eh~ent feasible within a constraint of a reasonable cost benefit. Sunbow II is primarily a residential project with 60 percent of trip-making from proposed single- and mul ti-family uses. Residential project developers have little real opportunity to reduce the mobile source emissions from future site occupants. Developers can facilitate the option to select alternatives to the single occupant vehicle, but they.can do little to affect future buyers' decision to use or not use the opportunity provided. Discretionary action by a builder relates mainly to the construction itself. The three areas where a residential builder/ developer can implement some potential emissions reduction are: 1. How the project is constructed, i.e., what emissions reduction techniques are used during construction, 2. What site design features would encourage non-single occupant vehicle transportation, and, ], What is put into the home that would contribute positively to reduced alr pollution emissions. The first area relates mainly to dust control procedures used by the contractor, Land use/site planning is an important aspect of the second area. The third area mainly entails energy saving features. Sunbow II does include several non-residential components that have a somewhat greater potential for generating meaningful trip reduction. Employment centers such as the light industryjR&D park offer an opportunity to reduce commuting distances and to establish effective rideshare or other trip-diversion programs. Sunbow II includes commercial, recreation and school facilities that reduce travel distance or offer an opportunity to walk, bicycle or otherwise avoid using single occupant vehicles (SOV) for school, shopping, etc, Access to the proposed trolley line along Telegraph Canyon Road also offers a possibility to replace longer distance commuting with a "clean" alternative. 22 3? Those measuyes that are considered reasonably cost effective while achieving a potentially meaningful reduction in project-related emissions are shown in the attached suggested menu for air quality improvement plans for construction and for site operations. These measures would fulfill the requirements for the City of Chula Vista to ndo its fair share" relative to air quality improvement as stated on page 3-91 of the city/s Growth Management Program. 4.1 Candidate Air Quality Improvement Plan - Project Construction Clea:-inq/Gradinq a. Maintain soil moisture at a minimum of 12 percent for any cut- and-fill areas within 100 feet of any adjacent property line to the depth of the cut. b. Water as necessary to prevent a visible dust cloud from exceeding 100 feet in length from any disturbance area. Disturbed Areas a, Apply chemical stabilizer or establish vegetation on any disturbed area to be left unattended for more than 60 days to prevent a visible cloud from forming during high wind conditions. b. Water any non-stabilized disturbed areas twice per day until vegetation is established, Track-out Control a. Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site prior to public road entry, or, b. Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads. c, Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence. d. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred. e, Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads. 23 37 Dirt Haulinq a. Cover haul trucks Dr maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard ~o reduce blowoff during hauling. Hiqh Wind Operations a. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph. Off-Road Equipment a, Provide a low-NO. tune-up (engine retard) to all off-road equipment to be operating on the site, and repeat if equipment remains on-site for more than 90 days. 4.2 Air Quality Improvement Plan - site Operations Enercrv Consumption Incorporate enhanced energy conservation features in excess of the minimum requirements of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Install energy efficient landscaping in all development common areas, L'::ili:;c; passive design concepts that make use of the naturally mild climate to increase energy efficiency, utilize energy-efficient lighting wherever cost-effective to do so. Provide a water and electrical connection that may be accessed for optional solar-assisted water heating for domestic or pooll spa uses, Provide a gas connection to fireplaces to encourage use of log lighters Dr of artificial fireplace logs. Provide an outside natural gas connection to encourage use of gas-fired barbecues, 24 3,f" Provide outside electrical outlets to encourage use of electrically powered yard maintenance equipment. Provide 220-vol t electrical service to the garage for an electrically powered vehicle charging station, TripfVMT Reduction Provide safe bicycle paths along East Palomar for access to school, boysjgirls club, park, etc. ?rDvide cut-thrDugh walkways Dr bike paths tD the schDDl site fDr tracts sDuth Df East PalDmar tD minimize having tD exit the tracts to use East Palomar to travel to school. Reserve space along PalDmar Street Dr Medical Center Drive fDr pDssible future transit StDpS. Include adequate right-Df-way for street plans tD accommodate bike paths on all major street and Class I, II and III cDllectDr streets within Sunbow II where bike paths share commDn road surface with powered vehicles. EncDurage the provision Df shower and IDcker facilities fDr all business park uses with building sizes exceeding 12,500 square feet (- 50 employees). Develop a business park transpDrtation management agency once business park develDpment reaches a sufficient scope Df development to provide an adequate participant pDDl fDr optimizing non-SOV commuting options, Designate a ridesharejenvirDnmental cODrdinatDr fDr SunbDw II tD disseminate infDrmatiDn Dn ridesharingjmass transi t DppDrtunities, recycling and energy conservatiDn fDr emplDyees and residents within the develDpment. Insure the availability Df more than two phone lines to each home for in-home offices and other telecommuting needs. 4.3 city of Chula vista AQIP Guidelines The City of Chula Vista has developed guidelines for development of an AQIP that incorporates site design features that best Dptimize the potential to achieve meaningful trip reductiDn. Table 4.1 summarizes the design phase measures that are important at the master plan and development plan level. Table 4.1 identifies those planned project features that specifically address the City's AQIP Dbjectives. 25 3 7 ~ TABLE 4 _ :1 DESIGN PHASE AIR POLLUTION MITIGATION CHECKLIST Applicable to Incorporated Measure: This Pro;ect Into Sunbow II Notes street Circulation/Connectivity Yes Yes 1 Housing Near Transit Yes Yes 2 Land Use Mix/Proximity Yes Yes 3 Pedestrian & Bicycle orientation Yes Yes 4 Transit-Oriented Design Yes Maybe 5 Reduce CO!DII\ercial Parking Maybe No 6 Bicycle/Transit Integration Maybe Yes 7 Energy Efficient Landscaping Yes Yes 8 Other Trip Reduction Measures Yes Yes 9 Notes: 1. Sunbow II has a trail system that connects its residents to Poggi Canyon, Telegraph Canyon, Greg Rogers Park, parkview School and SUnbow II commercial uses. Walkway/bike connections are recommended between cuI- de-sacs and between tracts to encourage access to parks, schools, etc. via the shortest possible route and without having to travel on heavily traveled roadways. 2. Sunbow II is adjacent to mass transit and is in close proximity to Chula vista Hospital and Eastlake Industrial Park. Trolley access is potentially available on the proposed line along Telegraph Canyon Road. continued on Next Page..................... W Table 4.1 (Cont'd.) 3. Sunbow II has planned its commercial and park uses to be centrally located. The development standards around the Village Center in the Sunbow II General Development Plan state as follows: Mixed Use Standard - Purpose and Intent: This area allows a mix of neighborhood commercial, professional/medical offices, residential and recreational uses in areas generally suitable for high intensity development.. 4, Both Poggi and Telegraph Canyon Trails are separate from the parallel street, Other trails within Sunbow II are completely separate from the street system. Reservation of adequate roadway width in all Sunbow II major and collector streets to accommodate sidewalks and bike paths is a recommended design measure. 5, A trolley line is proposed along Telegraph Canyon Road. Access to the system at Paseo Landera or Medical Center Drive is recommended to allow Sunbow I and II residents to commute via the light rail system. Although Sunbow itself does not meet transit-oriented design standards of high intensity development near transit nodes, it does provide for numerous transit access opportunities. 6. Reduction of commercial parking may discourage carpooling and may create congestion effects due to lack of space availability during peak demand periods. Site design features for the Village Center should discourage large expanses of asphalt, but any reduction in supply relative to Code minimums should be carefully evaluated, 7. Bike paths along internal collector streets will provide substantial opportunity to deliver potential transit riders to buses equipped with bicycle racks. Maintaining tract interconnection to not force riders onto major streets before it is necessary is an important component of meeting this objective. 8, Sunbow II has a comprehensive landscape design. Water conservation is a specific requirement for all irrigation plans. 9. Measures to promote in-house office uses and to facilitate use of alternative fuel vehicles (electric) are included in the recommended menu of mitigation measures. '(7-- EXHIBIT "'C" WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ADDENDUM (Wilson Report Dated November 1990) SUNBOW Prepared for: Ayres Land Company 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Prepared by: bHA, Inc. land planning, civil engineering, surveying 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387 (619) 931-8700 March 31, 1997 W.O,482.0262-6oo "-t3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose Water Use at Sunbow IT Water Rates Water Conservation Measures Water Conservation Costs Typical Water Conservation Plan Reco=ended Water Conservation Plan Implementation and Monitoring of Water Conservation Plan References Page No. 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 Appendix: Table 1 - Projected Water Use for Sunbow IT Table 2 - Sunbow IT Water Conservation Measures Table 3 - Potential Water Conservation Plan for Sunbow IT I../tf PURPOSE: The purpose of this addendum is to update the Water Conservation Plan For The Sunbow II planned Develooment Proiect prepared by Wilson Engineering dated November 1990 (Ref. A). During the six years since that plan was prepared, changes in the cost of potable and reclaimed water, Otay Water District policies and methods have changed slightly, which necessitates this addendum. WATER USE AT SUNBOW II Water use at Sunbow II has been estimated in the Subarea Water Master Plan for Sunbow II by John Powell and Associates, Inc. dated January 1997 (Ref. B) and is at this writing unapproved. Since the writing of the Wilson plan, Otay Water District has changed its rate of industrial usage from 4,000 gallons per day per acre to 1.0 acre.feet per acre-year (Jess than 900 gallons per day per acre), Perhaps this is because of two factors. First, implementation of water conservation measures by industrial nsers recently has brought down the measured rate of their water consumption. Second, businesses that occupy industrial land within the district have changed in nature to businesses that consume less water. Another difference between Ref, A and B is the water usage in irrigated open-space. The Wilson Plan estimates that usage at 210,000 gallons per day and the Powell SAMP shows no water consumption for open-space. Wilson's usage is 2,500 gallons per day per acre for maintained open space is 12% higher than the 2.5 acre.feet per acre-year that Otay Water District now uses. Because this usage is for reclaimed water, which is in itself a water conservation measure, this plan will not concern itself with usage of within maintained open- space. Finally, Otay Water District has assigned a single usage rate to all multi-family dwellings of 2.5 acre-feet per acre-year while Wilson used 313 gallons per day per EDU for "attached low- density" and 275 gallons per day per EDU for "attached high-density". Because the number of units is known for Sunbow II, the 2,5 acre-feet per acre.year rate works out to be 2,47.5 gallons per day per EDU, considerably less than the two rates used by Wilson. WATER RATES The water rates used by Wilson in Ref. A is $1.07 per 100 cubic feet (748 gallons) for residential use has increased to $1.44 per 100 cubic feet, nsing the same assumptions. As well, the reclaimed water rates have increased from $1.17 to $1.50 per 100 cubic feet Using these rates and the revised usages, Table 2 shows the water conservation benefit/cost ratios updated from Table 4 of the Wilson Plan. It should be noted that Table 3 from the Wilson Plan showing the costs for water conservation devices was not updated. '-Is- 1 WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES BHA felt that this section of the report was up-to-date. WATER CONSERVATION COSTS BHA felt that this section of the report was up- to-date. TYPICAL WATER CONSERVATION PLAN BHA felt that this section of the report was up-to-date, except that Table 5 in the Wilson Plan was revised in this plan's Table 3 to reflect those changes already noted in the first three sections of this plan, RECOMMENDED WATER CONSERVATION PLAN BHA felt that this section of the report was up-to-date. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Implementation of the Water Conservation Plan shall be primarily the responsibility of the Master Developer. The Master Developer will establish requirements and guidelines for merchant builders and provide educational materials and guidance to new homeowners. The Master Developer will require the inclnsion of drought tolerant plant materials and efficient irrigation systems in the majority of builder-installed landscaping. The Master Developer will install Reclaimed Water Mains, Services at the time of Street Improvements, all necessary irrigation piping and appurtenances for reclaimed water irrigation of park and open space areas. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities District formed for new school facilities, will be responsible for installation of reclaimed water irrigation and other water conservation measures within the school site. Related mitigation measures are specified in EIR 90-7. A significant responsibility will also rest with the City of Chula Vista to enforce the provisions of this plan, specifically the Planning, Building, Engineering and Park & Recreation Departments. The Planning and Building Departments will review plan submittals to ensure that water conservation measures are properly included in landscape and house/building plans, The Engineering Department will review Improvement Plans to ensure that Reclaimed Water Infrastructure is included. The Parks and Recreation Department will approve planting and irrigation plans for public parks and open space. As shown in the Public Facilities Financinl!: Plan, Reclaimed Water Mains and Services will be installed with the major road and infrastructure improvements. The provision of reclaimed water and plan review of Reclaimed Water Mains and Services will be the responsibility of the 2 ~c. Otay Water District. The decision to use rec1aimed water for irrigation purposes rests with the City Parks and Recreation Department for parks and open space areas, and the Chula Vista Elementary School District for the elementary school site. In order to ensure that all provisions of this plan are met, the standard review of landscape and construction documents performed by the City will include an evaluation of compliance with the provisions of this Water Conservation Plan, This approach will allow for a formal determination by the City that each of the required measures are implemented. Future discretionary of administrative actions with regard to development within the Sunbow II Project (e.g" tentative map, building or grading permit) way be utilized to address or ensure compliance with the presCTIlJed water conservation measures. 47 3 REFERENCES A) Water Conservation Plan for Sunbow II Planned Development Proiect. Wilson Engineering, November 1990. B) Subarea Water Master Plan for Sunbow II. John Powell and Associates, January 1997. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONI1DRING OF WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ^if 4 TABLE 1 Projected Water Use for Sunbow II TYpe of Development Amount Rate Use Use (Ac-ftIAc-yr) (Ae- ftIvr) (MGD) Sinqle Family 266,2 Acres 2.0 532.4 0.48 Multi-Family 63.5 Acres 2.5 158,75 I 0.14 Commercial, Business 11.0 Acres 2.0 22 0.02 ~ School 11.0 Acres 1.4 15.4 0,01 Park & Recreation 10.0 Acres 1,0 10 0,01 Industrial 46.0 Acres 1.0 46 0.04 Maintained Open Soace 84.6 Acres 2,8 236.92 0.21 IL-__ -----.--- L. TO~'{\,ater Use 1021.47 0.91 L Potable Water Use 774.55 0.69 I Reclaimed Water Use 246.92 0,22 Jf, \ \ ~ \\ \ \ C CfjEN' O? C OOE ~o? OJ~- COO a>-:;::;o CD~i:O en Q) ,;; CD\-(.) ~ ....-to SO)':;20 q""' >:.> l.---WlO t- cO :9So8S.-!~ ~";':: 01 0) D ro \- en OJ ~ ? rfJ ro a>~ ~(/) 5~ :;:.-1 ro.-! ;::0 a>O rfJ CI'- ocr> ocr> ...... ~ .sZ (1)- 3~ ==(J) 30 00 .D.-! S.-! -'4 (J) ~ ~ L rfJ o>OJ~ cu~ ,_ C ~ >Q)~ ro-o'>- (/) ,- <..... -~=:> co ",,0 :;) u.. \J.1 c:~- c:Q)~ 4 o.~ OJ - .-~ .-!en Q)~ ,-,co ,- Q) c:?::.. Q) (J) co - ~ ~_::J Eeno Q)8!!1. ~ 1ft OJ ~ c: O>~ lO~~ 1-..- a:;, ....<<! \D ..- a-.>"C1"t-U') wU)('jt- 0000 '" '" "'N -' '" ~o '" > O)~ tJ> OJ-' ~g'~~0 ro'- Q) -0 \J.1 ..- ,:;; fu D- 'm :a po (J) OJ O! a:. 9 <ocn~ "'''' (").-~ 0:>0"'- cor-:t--:~ <O;:::~ ..- dO :'l C'! ~ '"=t. ~. ....~ 0 to en ""............1"-01 t<?:::.q- en ......oor:t:JcnctJ ~c>>O)~cn c:nou)ou) ~~~t-~~~ c: o ~ C ::> U- C o -:;::; ro c:ro Q)~ tJ>$ C(1) OQ) o~ ~ a> ro 3 tDNONNO'l N\.t).........-::c:"')~ (,p"'-..o:;t\,,(')"C1"LO ~~~o:>~cO ~ ~"O-o -o~82 U>.J-,a) ~ L- .... rt 2,&'&3 5~~1t ou:.G:f/} <p UI U'I CD () Q:) fl) ~ c. 0 0 .- 0: :::> :::> "0 '1-"'0-0(1) 0:"''''(:( 3. a: a: ;[ ~ ~ :::> 'Ou... > 'Q; .s= 3 :22 u...<f) '" '" '" '" "' "' :::> ~ "0 '" ~a: ~ '" '" .z L:: ~ '" t/) ~ > O~IJ)OI ro~~-% ~;g~~ _go-g 't3o-[t :=> <= '" co C <D '- U-<Du~ -0 E t1) ;EWID uJ il. ~ ~ '" E 30 '0 r--L:: 3<f) .g:;.Q~ u;u-u... ,S~~ g~ 5::: \ ='\ Ln.-lOcO..... aJLOI-:O:>O:> r-trir-.ntn ...-LON-"- ~~~lOL() o\~ ~ ~ " "<1" l,O<pN u)Q)ai~c:O ('\J.t-('I")NN "'0> b .E. t: c:. ~a. ~ 1O~_1'O)O >~~.sS=uJ ::>' "'0 - 10- '- C Q; $. ..... ,E C01Q roC "t>-'>>"C c~::>::>c:D ('JC""2.""Oro tEEE> o ., g:::; '" ",O\t.,~ ..... 10... U'> (tI Q>Q)Q)o<P ~ ~ I- Q) 10- 000 l> -,-,:::;:0::<= ., 0- 0> "' '" "t> Q) ~ '2-' en '" - <II ~=' U ~ E '" > ~ -' ., J2 ~::J U'J-st9 " ,!; c: ~Cf)g '" ~ '" <f) '" i:. '" E '" T:J) ..... \- fJ) c: ::J 0 c p.-tn=='o ceO roO ~~E05 __ 0- ~.~ ~,~' g (\) I 0:: 12 - I (J) CJ) 00 CJ) "<t r-- l.C) (\) CD l.C) 0 cry ....J U 0 CD CD cry r-- CJ) ..-- :;:, r-- N d d d d I~ cry cry <;:: ..-- a> > c: a> CD '" P '" () I 1: 355 ~ co ~ 0 It) N ~ ~ co 0 OJ ~ OJ "! "< ~o co ": ": co i ",w "- co ~ ~ OJ to to N i >- OJ .". to "- ~ ~ It) ~ It) I o~ C') ~ ~ C') .". ~ '" 0> c? > ~ -;:: ro ~ '" ~c ",:J I 0>0 Sw co .". It) > - co ~ co co co co co "- C') ~~ ~ OJ OJ ~ OJ .,.; It) OJ 0 It) 0 It) "- ,..: co ~~ ~ ~ N => C - C '" - ~ ~~ ?;: 00 ~ 0 .f11 II: .D 0 -;:: c: ;:J 0 ~ ro (f) r-- '" '" C.c ~ CJ) "in:J .2 CJ) ..-- ;30 c: ",Ii:! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .f11 ,~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ to .g<~ N OJ ~ It) co 0... to N 0 N 2 c '" It) ~ ~ ~ C') It) 0 0 .... c: (J) '" () ~ ~ ~ cry E c 0 0 '" '" a> :;::; U ~." .D (\) ()- (\) 2: <! .= ~ I- a> ~ II: 00 c: ~5 0 u "'0 ~ c.w 2 ",- ~~ C!J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ $: ~ ~ ~ L() ~ 8 -.i ~ It) ~ It) ~ N ~ o;j ~ o;j It) OJ N ,91 ~ c N ~ N C') ~ c ~~ ro.- 2 5: ~ 0 II: 0... '" 0> ~ '" c => ~ '" ~ '" > c. '" '" ro .!Q .c ~ co ro ~ '" ~ '" '" > () 0 ::2: 0 0 ~ ro .c '" '" f- .c ..9 3: '" OJ ." C C en ro c c '" ~ ro ~ ..9 ~ ~ '" c; ro en ro ..9 '" ~ .c => ...J CD ro .Q <I: '" 1: u... :Q 0 ." CD ~ "6 u... '" '" => '" ~ '" II: :J ;;; f- '" 0 ~ () () C "6 c ...J 0 => c '" CD ~ 0 ...J ro ~ '" ::2: ro c; :0 co () 2 ~ u... '" s= '" ~ c; '" 3: 0 .!Q :J s= W '" 001 I :J w ~ ~ ~ Q. 0 ...J 57 "1 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THESUNBOWI1PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT , ~ ~ - ~ ... ~ 1 ... 1 .i; Prepared for; Sunbow 2445 Fiffh Avenue, Fourth Floor San Diego, CA 92101-1692 I I I ) I I I I I Prepared bJ': Wilson Engineering 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Carlsbad,CA92009 (619) 438-4422 November 1990 -Sz I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF COJ'l.'TENTS PAGE NO. In:roduction ..,............,...................,.............. 1 PL}Jose . . . . . . . . . - . . ~ . . - -. -. . . - -. - . -. - . . . - -. . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . ~ . . W2.teT U.se 2.t Sunbow II . . . .. .. . . ., . _ ... . _ _ . .. _ . , . , , _ . .. . . _ _ . . ,. 3 Vi'ater Rates . . . . '. - - . . . ... - -. - . . . . . . . . - - . ". - . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . Vi' Her Conse=,'ation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INDOOR MEASURES ,.............,...,... - - . . . . . . . . . , . ulua-Low :Flow Toilet. .. , . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . , , . . . . . , . .. - . UltTa-Low .t'low Sbowerhead ,...,. _ _ _ _ . " . - . - , . . . , .. . . Faucet Aerators,.. . . . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . , . . , . _ . . _ . . , . . .. . . Water Efficient Clothes WasheT . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .. . . , , . . . Water Efficient Dishw2.sneT _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . , . . . , _ . .. . . ., . - . Vi'ater PressuTe Reduction _' _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ , . . _ . . _ . . , OUTDOOR MEASURES .. _ , . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ . , . . . , . , . _ . . . . . . Water Conservation Guide .....' _ , . . _ . . _ . . . _ , . . . . . - . Low Water Use Landscaping .... _ . , . _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . , . . . - Xeriscaping . _ _ . . ., _ . , . ,... . , . _ . . , , . . . . . , . . , , , . . . Soil Moistme Sensor.> .... .,. . . _ _ . . . _ . . . , _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ Automatic Timer Shutoffs for Manual Hose Systems ,., _ _ . 1 C;-J ., -- 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE NO. T[' R. . ,,'at~T ~Cl=atlOn _. .... . . _ _ . . , . . _ .. . , _ . . , _ . . , . . . 11 W2.:~T CO!'.5:::-va:ion C05:5 . . . _ . _ . . . . . . _. . _ . . _. . '. . . . 4 .. _ . . -. _ -. . . . . - A .1.~ Typical Wal~I COJl5~Tv<Ltion Plan. . , , .. . . . . , ... _ ... _ _ _ _ . . .. . . _ _ ... 18 R~co=~ndation Wat::T Conservation Plan . - -. ~ -. -. . . . . - . '. -. - . . . .. - . . 20 R~~oID..:Il~ndation5 ...... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . .. 20 Impl::m~n:a:ion of Wat~T Conservation Plan ..... _ . . .. . . _ . .. . . ... . . 21 R::feTenc~s . . . ~ . - '. - . . - . - - .. . . - '. . .. . - . '. - - - . . '. .. - . - . _. . . . - . '. '0 . .. 7~ _.:J 11 ~y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 1 TABLE ::; TABLE 3 TABLE 4 TABLE 5 LIST OF TABLES PAGE NO. Sunbow II Housing and Population .. _ . . . . ___ _ ._ 4 .Proj~ct~d Water lJs~ faT Sunbow II . . . .. . _ . _ . __ _ 5 COSH for Wat~r COll5~Tvation Devices (All Costs in March 1990 DoHaTS) . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ .. .. 15 Sunbow II Water Conservation M~asUTes (luJ Costs in MaTch 1990 Dollars) , . , , . _ . . .. . . . .. . 16 Potential WateT Conservation Plan faT Sunbow II (All Costs in March 1990 Dollars) ._". _ _ _ . _ _ 19 ill ')--s- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L1ST OF FIGURES .PAGE NO. EXEJBJT A ..,__...,._..___......,.,.__.....__13 IV S-?:, . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Introduction In n:c::nl y::a,5, du:: 10 the prolong::d dro11ght in California, the s11b]e::: of wat::r conservation has been given increased attention. Tbe growing awareness orthe need and value orwater conservation bas be::n sparked by local and regional water purveyors concerned ahom ITlteting the wat::, demands of their cu.stomeTS during a pe:;-iod where firm water supplies have diminished. WIDle the public sector has done much to educate consmneTS about the serious implications or a long-term drD11ght, and the need ro:;- water conservation, theTe is a practical limit to the percentage H,ductiOll of wat::T use ill established communities, Tbis limit is a comeqnence of the types of plumbing fixtuTes instal1ed in existing nomes ~ wen as tne difficulty in alteTillg consumeTs' establisned panerns of wateT nse. In the arena of water conservation, the private development sectOr has become more attuned to the concerns of water availability, and has recognized the value of addressing wateT conservation iss11es throughout planned development pTojeC15- By incorponrtmg low wateT use plumbing fixtun:s and pTomoting drought toleT<!.TIt 1 5'7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I landsC2.ping, as well as pToviding educational materials 10 homeov;IJers wi:tin the devdopment pTOjeCl, private devdopments can do much 10 cllhjvate an inten:st in wateT conse:rvation and -eS1:abfuh Ilew patterns of water lise_ These efforts can have far- n:ac1J.ing impacts with regard to redllc:Jng the need for securing .and impo:rrmg larger quantities of water fOT lise in San Diego County. Purpose This Teport presents a review of the pTesentJy available technologies and pTactices which result in water conse:rvation in pTimariJy Tesidemial developments. The purpose of ihis TepOTt is 10 dele:mine whicb of these technologies and techniques are most c:osl-e~~ective to implement within the Sunbow 11 project. Based on an anal}'sis of cost veTSUS benefit, this Teport will present reco=endationsforwater conse:rvation measures which shonld De incorpoTated into the planning and design of the Sunbow II project. This wateT conse7Vation plan wi1J identify the incremental costs associated with installing waler-savingtechnologies and present the 10Ilg-terrn benefits wit1J. regard to overall water llse reduction for ihe Sunbow 11 project. P.roposed development wi1hjn the Sunbow II project boundary includes single family housing, multi-family housing, industrial, commeTcial, parK and recreation, school, and open space areas. Becallse the majority of this project comprises residential development, the emphasis of this report will be on llrhan. water control devices. 2 S-;- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RDllgn}y .balf of ,be water used by residences in Califo;:nia is med OUedOD:-S. For :1:::s reason, seve:-al options are p:resemed :.bat serve 1:0 :reDuce oUlCioOI w2.1er use. T.he latest W2.ter conservation :me251ITeS wiD be presented mc11Hling :an .evaluation of their fe2.Sibilitv.. In addition 10 evaluatinu residential w.aler conservation - ~ devices t.be benefits associated with :using reclaimed water for iT:"iga:ion of parl::5 and open space wiD be diSCllssed. _LUtbough not covered in det2.il, 1here 2.Ie several secondary benefits 10 conservmg W1l1er !hat S110Uld be kept in :mind wben reviewing :maIe:rial in this Teport. These benefits include reduced .sewage vol=e, Teduced natuT1l1 gas use, :and reduced electrichyuse. Using less water in the shower, for example, reduces the :amOllnt of waler inpu: into the sewer system and decreases the amollnt of energy required to hea, we water. Water use at Sunbown ViTateJ usage is .affected by, among other things, climate and the TYPe of development. In California, recent trends towards the consI..!1ction of more multi-unit housing, 1he general reduction in residential lot .size, and a number of local 2.gency waler conservation programs in effect:are :a.lltending to reduce per ,capita w:ater consumption. Total water lIse within 1he boundaries of the San Diego County Water Authority is 1100u1232 gallons per person per day and total use within 1he Otay Water District is about 187 gallons per peTSon per day.l These values take into account commercial, agricultmal .and indusrriallIses :as weD as resideIltialuse_ The City of San Diego 3 ':)-'1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V\'at~r Utilities Department calculated that an aver2.ge singl~ family hOllstI1Dld llsed approximately 371 ga11oll5 per day ~n 1989. Ju;s=ing three p~rsons per house.hold, this ~quates to an averag~ n~sidenti21 water nse of 124 gallons per persoD per Q2.Y_ Tabl~ 1 shows the proportion of single f2.milyand multi-family .housing :aloDg witb an estimatioD of population deDsiry for the Sllnbow II development ar~a. Table:2 shows lhe project~d waler us~ b:;-ol:~n dOWIl .according 10 land me and residential density. Notice that "the total estimated w.ater me is 1_07 mgd whic.h is divided between potable water :and rechilmed water uses, The goal or water conservatioD measures is to reduce the amount or potable ~~at~T ~sed~ Table 1 SnnDOW II Housing and l'opnlation j);"'ei6i>ri,frit:/ [)rilts IEDu~HkiN~i\l~~i~~...: ...~;;&A~1~#; Singk Pami!y I 1,118 1,128 3.0 3,384 Attached Low D.cnsiry 740 518 2.5 1,195 Att.ac::hed Rign Density 78 55 2..2 121 I I I I I 4 &0 I I Table 2 I I Projected WlIter Use for .5unbow II '&~'~t$~~#i;;;~!;ii;~ :r:~:j;~]:i~::f;:;~:t~j'~~S!fff'"~M[!!ll~!ti~! IIi!e~l]i!~~~~ I I I Singl~ .Family I Ana=iJ.::d Low D::nsiry I Atta:n::d High Der.siry I Comm:rcial,:B nsin::ss I Sc:hoo1 [ :Part & :R::crr:ation Ilnd11SlriaJ I Maintain::d Op::n I Spa:: 1,128 ED1J s :55 EDUs 375 gpdjEDU 0.42 313 gpdjEDU 0,16 275 gpdjEDU 0.02 2,000 gpdjacrr: 0,02 2,500 gpdjacrr: 0,03 2,500 gpdjacrr: 0,03 - 4,000 gpdjacn 0.18 2,500 gpdjacr~ 0.21 :518 EDUs 10.0 <leTr:s 10.8 :aeT~S I I 10.0 aCT~S 46.0 acres 84.6 .acres I I I I I I I I I I Non-lrrigau::d Open Space 94 aens o gpdjacrr: 0,0 Proposed -to be irrigated with TCdaimed water. W:at~r Rates The waler rate used to eSlimate tbe potable water savings iu this s:t11dy is $1-07 per 100 cubic feet. This rate was computed from Section 25 ofthe Otay Water District's Code of Ordinances, Under this ordinance, the monthly charge is $0.91 per 100 cubic fee! for 5 (PI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the 5.::-~ 500 cubicfeet of use and .$1,16 per 100 rubic feet for water use ::-OI:. 500 cubic feet to 2,500 cubic feet. An ave,age use of 1,500 ::ubic feet per month was used to establish the average cost of potable w.ater. Rates differ forco=ercial, bnsmess, .and indUSL-ial.areas, but since Sunbow II is primarily residential, Sl_07 per 100 rubic feet was considered .appropriate, Eased on the Code of Ordinances, ibe cost of rec1aimed water ITom Otay Water Dis!:"ic: is Sl.17 Der 100 cubic feet. Water Conservation Measures Implementing water conservation measmes belore consL-uction of a new development project provides an opportunity 10 include meaSUTes that might not be feasible or cost-effective to retrofit withiL a developed area, There are several measures described below that would be expensive to retrofit, but may be cost effective if included in ibe initial construction, Statistics on several indoor and outdoor water conservation measures were obtained from the Depa, dllent Dr Water Resources2 and are listed with a brief descriprion below, The statistics represent results from surveys of manurac!1lrers or the various water conservation devices, Indoor and outdoor water .conservation measures will be discnssed sep<rrately_ INDOOR MEASURES .. Ultra-Low Flow Toilet - The ultra-low flow toilet is specially designed to reduce water used for toiJet 6 ~'- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I fl!l5ning 10 about 1.6 gallons per flush, This compares :0 a standard low flmn toilet which is rated at 3,5 gillons per flusn. Section 179213 or 1he California Eealih =d Safety Code requITes that all toilets in Dnildings constructed after] anuary 1, 1983, use a .:maximum of 3.5 gallons per !lusn. This standard will be llsed ~ a Dasis for evaluating ihe benefits of lI!.sIalling ultra-low flow toilets. ~ Ultr:J-Low Flow Showerhe:JiI illtTa-low !low snowerbeads reduce the !low rate for sbowers to 15 gallons per minute, wnereas standard low flow snowerneads me 2,75 gallons per minute. California regulations require that all showerbeads sold in tbe scate nave a maximum flow rate of 2,75 gallons per minute. Tnis standard will be used as a basis for evaluating the benefits of installing TIltra-low flow showerneads, .. Faucet Aerators - Aerators can save water by reducing borb. the flow rate and splash, thereDY increasing wetting effectiveness, Sundard faucets nave average rated flow rates of 3.25 gpm and faucets with aerator.> nave -a flow rate of aD out 2.75 gpm, This translates into 11 daily savings of aDout 0-5 gallons per person. .. Water Efficient Clothes Wasner - Efficient clothes washer.> are designed to reduce the amount of water TIsed per load, Efficient clothes washers may TIse aDout 7 4>3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 45 gallons per load, wnereas standard wasne:-s TIse aDout 55 EalJor:.s per load. - . ... Water Efficiellt Disnwasner - Efficient disl1wasneT.S, Fl"e c10thes washen, an: designed 10 reduce 1ne &.mount of water used per load.. Efficient disl1washers use about 11 gallons per load "Vt:T5US standard disbwasne::-s that use about 14 gal10ns per load. ... W:ater Pressure Redl1ctioll - Prt:ssllIe reducing valves ZIe TIsed 10 lower water consumption 111rougl1 system leakage bJ reducing 1he pressun: head 10 between 50 =d 60 psi, Lower water pressure also redu ces tne flow ::-2.1e from faucets in wash basins resulting in more efficient use of tne wateT- This device is mainly llseful in areas wnere water pressure is greater than 60 psi. ODTDOOR MEASURES .. Water Conservation Guide.. It is often a good idea to produce.a landscape watering guide and distribute it to the homeowners of a new development project. The pilde is designed to educate the homevWIler on the efficient irrigation of1andscaping, Studies have shown that increased public awareness and information is "Very impoTtant in an effective wateT conservation p1an3. Besides efiicient irrigation, a nome water conservation guide can include information On general conservation techni ql1es, such.as listing commonly av.ailable drought 8 r.,y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :-~sistan1 plams, and explaiumg :how to in.stall efficient i:-:-igation sysTems sucb as drip irrigaTion. A Teceut a.-tic1e in The San DieEo Union4 listed some water con.seTVation tips t:hat lire typical of iufonn2.tion that .should be included in.a water conseTVation guide. .tu! outline of some of the tips are listed below. Select drought resistant plants and list 1ypes .available, "W.ater early in the morning. Use drip irriga1ion as opposed 10 spriuklers to reduce evaporation losses. Build basins around trees .and plants to avoid water run ofL Use mulcD aTOund plants to absorb and retain water better. Sweep sidewalks and patios :-ather than hosing them off. Do not leave water runumg . while washing car. Several other tips were mentioned all with the intention of increasing the know1edge and awareness of t.be homeowner. 9 4> S~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. Low Water Use LandscatJint' - The purpose of :his :::r.easure is to ;eplace the familiar o;namental plants imported i70m the east coast with plants that an more adapted to tlJe no! 4:lDd Dry condil1ollS of California, T.nese plants requin less w.ater and, if irrigated pToperly, will result in water savings_ This meaSUTe is -especially anractive .in new developments "because low w,ne; use plants are no more costly to plant than the iamiliar omamental plants. Under this meaSUTe !UTi an:a is not reduced~ ihe substitution is made .in the DorDer .areas surrounding the turf. Water savings from low water llse plants is estimateD to be 7.5 percent of olltdoor water use. .. XeriscatJin~ - Xeriscaping involves several principles mat :all seTVe to reduce water use. These principles include reduction of turi area, use of low water use plants, efficient irrigation, use oi mukhes to reduce evaporation from the soil, anD appropriate IDaimemmce. The limiting of turf size provides the most significant savings of water. Xeriscaping, while still1!.ttractive, can cut outdoor water use "by 50% if maintained properly. .. son Moisture Sensors - Soil moisture sensors for alltomatic electronlc systems permit irrlgatlon only when the turf needs water. Soil moisture sensors can proDuce impressive water savings while permitting aCCllIate :and unattended irrigation, It is estimated that 1M Device can reDuce ontdoor water me by 25%. 10 &,t. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. AlItomatic Timer Shlltoffs for Manual Hose S~'stems - ~~ ,be event tbat a bome is manualJy wate,ec., aIl10matic timer sb11tolls aTe 2vailablI' ior boses so that it becoIDes convenient to irrig2te IDOTe :acC1lr.ately. Tbe hose i5 .5bUl oll automatically :after the Desired :amount of time Tather Ihan when tbe Domeowner returns to sLut it Oll. The effectiveness of tms me2SUTe is fur1ber increased if tbe bomeowner bas a knowledge of :bow .long to irrigate. Tbis device is eA]Jected 10 Teduce outdoor w2ter 11se by 15% for 11011ses 11sing Doses LO L-ngate, Tnere are otber types of irrigation sJ'stems available :0, use, but statistics on ,beir effectiveness in saving ..'ner were not Te2dily aV2ilable. An automatic timer ::ontrolled sprinkler system :is av:ailable and serves to eliminate tbe possibility of forgetting 10 turn oll tbe .5prinklers, Drip irrigation sY.5tems are 2lso 2vailable. Tnese systems reduce evaporation losses and losses due to wind blown spray. In tnI' past few years tnere bave been :amendments to tbe Zoning Ordinance wbicn establisbes regulations and guidelines LO conserve "Water .on OutdOOT landscaping in projects reqillring County approvlll. This trend is expected 10 contin11e to control the amount of water will be used outdoors :in resi dential proj eets. .. Water Reclamation - Important benefits can be gained by reclaiming and reusing water tbat would otnerwise be disposed of. Reusing water is a eonserv.ation 11 cP7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m~asuTe and h can def~r or ~liminat~ th~ n~d 10 d~velop n~w fr~sh wat~r suppli~s. R~claim~d wato:r can b~ uso:d for various applications such aslandscap~ watering, industria] co olmg, and gro=dwaterTf:cnarg~_ A r~claim~d water system will be constructed within Sunbow II m accordance with Ih~ master phn do:v~loped by the Otay Wat~r District. This systo:m will bo: drawn from a 16-inch water lin~ to be constTUcto:d in Telegrap1J. Canyon Road. Reclaimed water lines will De constructed iTom Telegrapn Canyon Road down Medical Center Drive and Paseo Ladera Drive, Reclaimed wat~r lines will also be consnucted in East Palomar Drivo: and East Orange Avenue. In addition w:ho: major supply lines shown in Exhibit A, reclaimed waT~r lines will bo: provided within the local ro:sido:ntial steets and surrounding ar~as in confo=ance with the requirements of the Otay Water District, I I I I I .A...s pro:s~nted in Table 2 of this report, it is anticipated mat 240,000 gallons per day (average) of reclaimed water will be l1sed within Sunbow II for irrigation of pa:rks and maintained open space. This me of reclaimed water directly offsets lise of potable water ior irrigation, and thereioredec:reases :potable water use by the Sunbow II project by 22 percent, or an estimated 268 acre-feet per year. 12 ~p r:~111Y.l1' A. i , , , , , , , , , , , , 13 ~9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Water Consenation Costs Costs for tbe vario1lS water savinu measu:res aTe listed ill Table 3. '" The benefit over the .seTVice flfe of a measme is divided by its inc:remental cost to determine ibe benefit/ cost ratio, as shown in Table -'L The .higberlhebenefit of a measure is relative to its cost, the more feasible it is to implement. A benefit/cost ratio of 1 implj~s :ha11b~ D~nefi!s T~c~jve.d from a me.asure are equal to tbe cost of implementillg that measure. Tberefore, all water conse::-vation measllres in Table 4 with a benefit/ cost Tatio greater than:' will pllY for themselves if implemented, Also, remember that :additional benefits are received by reduced sewage volume :and ene::-gy savings. JJl cost data was revised to MarcD 1990, dollars "C.sing an ENR-CCI-LA of 57955. 14 70 I I Table 3 I I S.howerbead Costs for Water Conserv.ation Devices (All ,Costs in Marc111990 DoHar.s) ;if!~;~~I1{!~ Ilr!!!i!E~!~ftfl i,j;:j~~~!~~' .'. ....~~,~,enfu{ l!iI11ii~ll;ill il~lri~~~!~i{t!III!I;~~~r-i!flj;~Ji;~~Jcjri;Tr I I I INSIDE I Ciothes V.'"sher I I I I I I 96 3 127 1.8 :56 J.O J..7 12 3 3.4 10 612 1 112 496 1 -~ ::>- 159 1 159 T oil=t rllllc:.t AeratoT I Di5.hwasn:'T 500 464 Pressure Reducing Valve I I Lo....Water Use Plants 900 900 X::Tiscape J.,500 5,000 3,500 Soil Moistun Sensors 105 1 105 AutomaLic Tuner .20 2 40 Shntoffs ior Manual Hose Systems W.ater Conservarion 2 1 .2 Guide Water :Reclamauon 1,436,000 1.,436,000 - 0 I I I I I Total estimatcc 'COSt for the: cDtm .sunbow II projert. I I 15 7( I I I I I I I I .." '" ~ I = '" U> ~ "'''' ~~ ~~ 0 I ==:> 0 -0 ~~ roo> >- .". ~ I "'.= '" v>U ='- ..0 0'" '" t..:>~ l- I ~::: "'- ~ ",,,, :x~ '" I - 0 -u 3:~ I - '" I I I I I I -" ........ ">>~li ~/ ;.:.'.;;;;:: n ".-. ..."-, m = .~ :-:-:;-.;~":>~ .;,.:..- rx~-'Z~.;_~ ., '~'>--.w .:-~;'i~:~t=:;; ..Ion _~ --__ ::::,.:.<;,: :'-<=--.- .. .. ~!I ... ..... ..... .. . ;'.- .,....,. ..,., .-' ..::.........:.::::;:;:~~:::;.: :~.j~W;~=.'m.:~i~.-~;.:..;~~j '.;.:,:, . ....._...........~_.~. --- .. ..._-:'......_....._...::_::;::::E:_~':':':;::: ,.-, m~lli'.!.I!~;;~jtlll!1 .........;.:.,... .:.:.::~:~;.::~... ::it}i;~~:;@:f.~gi){::; ..., .. ..'::.:.:.':::::en-:,p:::::;:::.:: .-.;,.c.... >::.,.;~:~t=_~~;;: .:~...;>:::>-:=-=-~: .. ... ,;,;",:':':'''_:-W': ........:::::~ ?\::~:~~-;=~; ;:':':':::::~::=;::::':;;.".;':':' ;J~;;I~Ejjf';;h;; .., '" '" ~ ~ ~ co N - ~ ~ ~ '" ~ V> '" V> co '" ., ., ., ., - ~ co M '" ~ m > -0 ., ., ~ '" ~ '" ., ~ ., ., ., M o ., N '" ~ '" N ., '" ~ ~ '" V> '" ~ V> N ~ '" ., M '" V> ~ - - ., ~ '" ~ .., - ., '" ~ ~ ~ - '" ~ = .~ ~ ~ ~ '" N - ., ~ ., ~ ~ o N ~ M ~ N V> N N o N ., N o N '" ~ V> '" V> N o N N M '" V> ., ., ., V> V> o ., ~ N M '" V> ~ ~ V> ., 0> ~ V> '" N N N co co V> N '" .., '- ~ -0 .= '" - -0 " ~ ~ :< 0 ~ ~ " -0 m E " ~ 0 D ~ " " ""'- E- c " u - ~ ~ m U~ -0 "D ~ ~ '- E- ~ u ~ " m m = '" '" - .., "''' e ~c c '- e 0 - 0. - CO m - " '" " ~ " m '" '" "'''' '- '" "'~ '" -' em U ~- e_ c__ u E u ..,~ u_ u_ '-=< '- ~ ~ - '- ~ '- u "" :> ~ ~c " ~ :> '" ~ ~"D '" m u m '- m- -0_ -0 0. 00. '" "D 0. "D 0. '" '- :< " '-~ "'~ u__ '" 0. m_ 00.'- ~- "'- D 0 0 .. 0 .. '- .. c: ..- "'> "'... "",LO "'... "'... -' - ~-' '" =< ... =< -:.~ ~ '" '- '- 0. 0 0 m m '" - ~ ~ '- - " ~ ... m .0 ::> '" " 0. 0 '- m '- " ~ - ~ :< m ~=< :::~ ~ '" .~ u :> ~ 0 0. < " m Co -.= m -' -' ~~ m~ ~... m 0 ~ ~= > ~ '- _ m _c c U U '" '- ~ '- .. m m m '" u.::: u '" =< ~ .., 0. E '- '- '" m '-- '- ~ u -~ -.::: -0 0 0 '" '" 0"D -- ~ 0. :> - 0. - ~ :< " '- " - E ~ ,,- 0. 5~ m -- -- 0 .. m 0. '" ,,- c 0.." ::>- '-'- ~U ~o -'-' >< ~~ <- :'ULO 7"L. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Explanation .and Sample Calculations for Table 4 Col= 1 = SAvings per .capita x 2.82 .capitajEDU .aver.age. Column 2 = Estimated cost per dwelling ullit, See Table 3. Column 3 = Estimated service life. Col= 4 = Coll1ID1l1 x (.$1.,07/100 d) x (1 cfj7.48 ,ga.110ll) x (365 day lyeaT) Column 5 = Column 3 x Column 4 Column 6 = Benefitl cost Tatio = Column 51 Column 2 NOTe: cf = cubic feet 17 73 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T,,,jr:~!! W2ter C0l1serv2tion P1211 Tabl~ 5 .shows some of tb~ water conservation devir:~s and their combined .savings 1f1hey are implemented, Notice 1112.1 not.alJ of the c0!!5erva1ion me2.S1lTes in Table 4 .are futei! in Table 5. This is beca1l5e some of the measures, especialJy oUldoor measures, .are overlapping in pUI]Jose. Eecause an item is not listed in Taole 5, howe"e::-, does nOl imDlv that it is not feasible. T.be pm-po.se of Table 5 is 10 provide a typical wzter conservation pIall for a single family dwelling unit and to demonstrate tbe poten:lal wat~r savings associated with such a plan, Note 1hat implementing these devices results in a wateT savings of 121.4 galloDs per household per day while maintaining a benefit/cost . ... ")-. rano D: -'-,;). 18 7'1 . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .".C. _._ .......___..._... . ...uuu.__ . ',',"""Wa:te;o'''''''''' ,--".- .. ::',-. ,'.'.......,---_. .. ............ .'. ,.. .... .......-.....--..... .... ..'P--.... .",..., ";c;;:nsu.v.itiiin.. . . _.. _'n_, .-:...:.:.:.:.--....-...;.;:----...'.-'.....:.,., ".Mwur';> DILTZ Low ?low Toil"t UltTa low Flow Show",. Fallt:~t ~4..eTator Effici"nI Cloth:s W2.5h",. E.ffici~! D ishw2.Sh::r Pr"ssur: R"ducing Valv" Low Wal"r US" Landscaping Soil Moisrun S"nsors Table 5 J'otential Water .conservation Plan for Sunbow 11 (All Costs in MarcD 29.90 Dollars) ~~~;&.iitBIrJii ....,",.,',.,.,."/\Iii($)jIrr;;IiS/;1iiu[:Y.R)i:lr". ......., ~ _.D 56 ll,80 295.00 14.1 12 7.36 llOAO 1.4 10 0.73 5.11 8.5 112 4.44 53.28 1.":; -~ .:>- 0.73 8.76 8.5 159 4.44 88.80 25.4 o 13.26 26520 39.5 105 20;62 309.30 ~~~II[f~1[J!fff~~Jf~;i[~!:~t~i ~~f~;j~'fi~lii~r[~il~II~!EI~~jlf~l~lll 19 7C;- 5.3 9.1. 0.51 0.48 0.27 0.56 (V"fJ High) 2.9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Recommended Water Conservation Plan It is :::1::2.T that implementing water conservation can be COS1- dfecrive ror tDe Smibow II pTojecL Aside from pre5sme Tedncing Y1ilves which are required oy the Otay W1iter District, it is np 10 1he developer and Domeowner to implement measures "that will re5ult in wa!er savings. The developer is limited in DOW much De can make :be homeov;,-ner do, but he should set a good example and make :be homeowner more aware or the need to conserve water. Recommend2tions: It is :reco=ended that in the development of the project, the following should be included: Ultra low 110w toilets. Ultra low flow sllOwerheads. Faucet ze:rators. Pressme reducing valve, Water conservation guide, Use of reclaimed water where possiole. DrougDt Ieslstant plants in paih and puolic landscaping. Effective irrigatjon system such as soD moisture sensors or drip irrigation, The water conservation guide should urge ihe homeowner to use low water use landscaping, install automatic timers on lJOses, znd choose an efiectjve irrigation system, 20 I !<> . I I I I I I I I I I I I I IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Tne reco=endations made .hen:in <lre <lchievable goals for water conservation within flIe 'Sunbow II Planned Co==ity. A:D. imp 1 ementati on plan is necess ary i or tn e su ccessiul 4. cbi evem en! of water conservatiOIL The following paragraphs presen!11:Je SunDow II pla11!lei! community's procedur.t:s fOT informing tne Otay Water Dis:,ic: Df ,ne project's cDmpliance witb tne recDmmendatiDns Df the Water Conservation Plan. Confirmation ofComuJiance Installa:ion of ultTa low flush tDilets, ultra low flow showerheads, faucet aeraton, pressure reducing valves, .and Dtner such built-in devices will be cDnfirmed by the builder'.> prDject architect. Plantings, .<;oil moisture .sensors, drip inigation .>ystem.s, and other landscape related facilities will be confirmed by the builder'.> landscalJe arc:bitect. In both Cl!.ses, written notification will be sent to tne O:ay Water District verifying compliance with this Water Conservation Plan, I I I I I Ten copies of tbe Water Conservation Guide wbic:b will De produced 2.1ld distributed 10 prospective DOmeDW11erS within the SunDOW II Community win De Su Dmitted to !beOtay Water Distri ct. Incluoed in the sUDmittal will be the proposed mecbanism for distribming 1bese guidelines 10 future bomeowners. Submittal of 11:Jis Guide and distribution method will be required prior to issllance of any water meters in the Sunbow II project. 21 -, 1 . I I I I I I I I I I I I I Non compliance or failure to notify the Otay Water District of complia!lce could ::-esult m SllSpeTISlOD or further water meter allocation 10 the builder. The O:ay Water District can eIlsure lbe use of reclaimed wlI.ter in the Srmbow II project be reviewing requests for and issuing reclaimed wll.ter meters for .as many lIses as allowed by applicable "'~"UI~'l'O"'S ......= c.~ _. Overall compliance witD the SunDow II Wllter Conservation Plan will be a condition of purchase .agreements between Rancho Del SliT (M2.5ler Developer for Sunbow II) and any and all Mercnant Builders withiD Sanbow II. I I I I I 22 I~ I' . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rt'ft'rt''I\~t'S ~ San Di~go County Water Authorjty, 1988 Annu:aJ Report. .., State of California, Department of Water Resollrces, Water Plan, Water Conse~vation Assumptions, October 1989. ;:J. Amerkan W2.ter Works Association Journal, Volume 79, No.3, Marcb 1987. "' The San Diego Union Newspaper, Section F, 11l1y 22, 1990. ~ ~- Engineering News Record Journal, April 1990. 23 7'1 DISCLOsURE STA TEMENI ~D ~ I-ffi CITY OF a-ruLA. VISTA D!SQ.OSlT ITA'T'EMENJ' You are required :" ffie .. Slalemer.! of D.o;dcsurc 0; ccnaln ownen;hip or financial inlCrcsts, payments, or tampo.ipl cnntn....u".... on...U matlors wb'ctJ wiU requIre tljscrellOl1&ry actIOn On rbc pan 0: (he City Ccundl, Planning CDmmiWon, alld aU oIlier official bo:!ico. The foJJowin~ mCofU'.ation mUSI be disc!()>(:d: 1, Lis! thc nam<>: of all persons IIzving a firuo./'-.'"W IDter.,;: In tbc propcrry ...hich is the snbject of the app}j::auon or Ute contract, f:.~ owner, appli::an1. ==01, 5ubcDntlar:mr, materia] suppher. ACI Sunbow, LLC Loma Corporation Ayres Land Company, Inc. GLV Caoital Partners 2. If any p<:rson. ~lified pUI>Uanll[} (J) abo"" is a corporalion or partnC!$hip, list the name; of an indmoaals owning mor<= Ulan 1{)% DC tbe share> m th: corpor,llion or o""mng any pannerobip interest in IDe p::rtnersbip. Ayres Land Company -- Keith J. Horne Loma Corporation -- William R.HamL GLV Capital Partners Amanda Gruss Irust -- Joshua Gruss Irust 3. Jf any De"""'. idcnlifi<:<.i pursuant Ie (1) at>ovc is non-profit organnation or a trust, list the nam.. 01 any person serving as dUector of tJu: ~I>-profit organiultioD or 25 trustee Dr beneficiary or trwaor of the trust. GLV Capital Partners Aman~= Gruss Irust f4rnan:::J=- brU5S - oe.[\e\J.C.lClry Joshua Gruss Trust Joshua Gruss -- beneficiary -4. Have you bill! more than S25D wortb of business lr.msacted with any membtr of the City .talI, Boards, CotnmissiollS, Ccmmitt=. and QJundl within the pas' IWet"" months? Yes_ No~ If y~. please indiauc pelSOlI(S):_ 5. PI!:aSe identify caell imd every per>cm, induding >>ny agellts, emplo"","". consultant>:. or indcpet\denl contra:to~ wbo you have =ipod to represent you before the City in 1M maUer. Keith J. Horne Ron Holloway Charles R. Gill, Esq. Samuel M. Holty William R. Hamlin Rod Bradley 6. Have :!'Ou and/or your offi= CIr ag<:n~, in Ik 1Iggreg.nc. t:Onlribnted more than Sl,ooJ 10 11 Councilmember ill the curren! or pretec!int election period? Yes_ No~ If yes. Slate wlticb CoI1Deilmembcr(s): . . . (NOTE: Atacb additional ""~ as ~'}d-- Signall1~ of COIIlraclor....pplicam Keith J. Horne Prillt or type Dame of CODlractorlapplicanl Pale; June 24, 1997 . ""'-'i:-tIi:fincrIllr .An)'~finn, <o-J"'fI1Imiajp,joinJ""""I<.~,,,,,,",,clwh.{mdmwJ~~,_....,,_.~ tIW ~-~ "",,- _ ciIY""""clpalay, IIirtria, "'OWT~...u;........, OI"""J'Qlh=[?O<If "'~"""It"~--' JI PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item -L Meeting Date 4/08/98 PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-97-02(M); Modify Tentative Map conditions of approval to allow installation of landscaping and irrigation in the parkways by individual homeowners - McMillin - D.A. America Otay Ranch LLC The applicant, McMillin Companies, is requesting modification of a condition of approval of the McMillin Otay Ranch SPA One Tentative Map (pCS-97-02). The City Council required maintenance of parkway landscaping to be conducted by the City and paid for by the residents through landscape maintenance district assessment fees. This request is to modify the applicable Tentative Map condition to allow the installation and maintenance of landscaping and irrigation by the individual homeowners, with enforcement by the Master Homeowners Association (HOA) through Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project IS exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 4(b) exemption. ISSUES: - Should the parkway irrigation and planting be installed by the individual homeowners or the developer. - Will individual homeowners properly install and maintain irrigation and landscaping within the parkways. - Provision of adequate and binding enforcement mechanisms by HOA that will ensure proper maintenance ofpark:way if homeowner fails to maintain. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the Council adopt the draft resolution approving the modification to condition #86 and condition #21 of the McMillin Otay Ranch SPA OneTentative Subdivision Map PCS-97-02, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Background In 1996 and 1997, the City Council approved Tentative Maps for the Otay Ranch Company and the McMillin portions, respectively, of Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One for the Otay Ranch project. Page 2, Item 3 Meeting Date 4/08/98 McMillin's holdings in SPA One are located within portions of Village I and Village 5 as depicted in Exhibit nAn. The McMillin Tentative Map, which includes approximately 543 single family lots, was approved with public streets. During discussions at the City Council hearing, the Council expressed concerns regarding the appearance of the parkways. McMillin was opposed to a homeowners association at that time; therefore the Council required that the parkways be placed in a landscape maintenance or similar district to ensure proper upkeep. In contrast, the Otay Ranch Company property was approved with private streets and maintenance of parkways by the homeowners association (see parkway detail attachment). Proposal The applicant proposes to modify Tentative Map PCS-97-02 condition #86 to require that the CC&Rs shall provide for individual homeowners to install and maintain landscaping and irrigation systems within the parkway landscaping. McMillin is now proposing a homeowners association, with the HOA to enforce any violation of the CC&Rs and compel the individual homeowner in violation to comply with the CC&Rs. Draft wording for the applicable sections of the CC&Rs has been provided by the applicant (see attachment #4). Homeowner landscape guidelines for parkway landscape maintenance would also be established (see attachment #5). Analysis The applicant has provided their rationale supporting individual homeowner parkway maintenance versus maintenance through a landscape maintenance district (see attachment #6). These reasons include: _ the desirable likelihood that turf will .be installed as compared to a drought tolerant, low maintenance type of groundcover; _ the positive appearance of other privately installed and maintained parkways; _ the fact that a homeowner's association will be formed which will have the authority to compel proper maintenance; _ the estimation that individual maintenance would provide an approximately ten percent savings of the total HOA fee to each owner. This proposal was discussed at the Executive Committee meeting of March 6,1998. At that time staff noted concerns focused on the proper installation and continued maintenance of the parkway landscaping and irrigation. It was determined that while maintenance of the parkways by a homeowner's association would be preferable, individual homeowner maintenance of the parkways could be acceptable with strongly worded Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs) to ensure compliance. Installation The applicant has requested that individual homeowners install the initial landscaping and irrigation. However, staff sees a number of potentially undesirable consequences resulting from individual Page 3, Item 3 Meeting Date 4/08/98 installation. Not all homes on a given street will be sold and/or occupied at the same time; further, the timing within which various homeowners will install their rront yard improvements could vary. Both of these conditions could contribute to a street scene in which some parkways are landscaped, some are unimproved, and others are in varying states of improvement. Additionally, homeowners wishing to install the landscaping and irrigation themselves may possess variable skills in design and ability to successfully install said design. Therefore, the finished parkways installed by individual homeowners may be either unprofessional and/or inconsistent in appearance. In contrast, installation by the developer would ensure professional, unifonn, and timely completion of the required irrigation and planting. It is fairly standard practice in current subdivision construction for the developer to install rront yard irrigation and landscaping prior to owner occupancy of the residence, and staff believes that the aesthetics of a parkway installed by the developer or master builder at the time of construction would be superior to individually established parkway landscaping. Maintenance With respect to the ongoing maintenance of the parkways, the applicant has requested that the individual homeowners bear the responsibility for maintaining the parkways, with the Homeowners Association (HOA) having the authority to compel maintenance if it is not being kept up in a satisfactory manner. In proposing this alternative, it is the applicant's intent to minimize Homeowner Association fees which would otherwise be increased to cover the costs associated with maintaining the parkways. Further, the applicant contends that since the HOA will have the ability through the CC&Rs to compel maintenance, neglect and/or disrepair should not become an issue. As proposed by the applicant, if the HOA Board of Directors detennines that any property which is the responsibility of the owner to maintain falls into any condition that is detennined by the Board to be unsafe, unsightly, or unattractive, the Board shall have the right to demand that the condition be remedied. Should the condition not be remedied within fifteen days, the Board may correct the condition and may enter upon the portion ofthe property which has fallen in such condition for the purpose of doing so. The owner will then be required to reimburse the HOA for the cost of such corrective acti on. While staff has some minor concerns about the quality of maintenance that will be provided by individual homeowners as compared to professionally through an HOA, with initial professional installation these concerns would be lessened. The elimination of the landscape maintenance district is acceptable to staff. Although maintenance by the homeowners association would be preferred, staff believes that strongly worded CC&Rs would be effective in providing alternative options should an individual homeowner fail to maintain his/her parkway as required. The applicant has provided preliminary draft CC&R provisions to depict the wording that can be Page 4, Item 3 Meeting Date 4/08/98 included to guarantee compliance. As proposed in the preliminary draft CC&Rs provided, the HOA would have the ability, but not the obligation, to correct the condition; staff believes that the wording should be more binding. Specifically, the Master Association should have not only the right, but also the obligation, to correct unsightly or unattractive parkway conditions. This obligation will assure the City that the parkways will be maintained through HOA enforcement if necessary. Further, City-approved Homeowner Landscape Guidelines for Parkway Landscape Maintenance should be included as an attachment to the CC&Rs, thereby providing specific maintenance guidelines as an integral part of the CC&R documents. A draft copy of proposed guidelines are attached; however, these have not been thoroughly reviewed by staff. A final copy should be provided for staff review and approval prior to or in conjunction with staff review of CC&Rs for the project. Lastly, the City should be made a party to the CC&Rs, with the ability, but not the obligation, to enforce the provisions of them. This provision would provide the City with the authority, at its discretion, to mandate compliance and ensure maintenance at a level acceptable to the City. In conjunction with any approval for homeowner-maintained parkway landscaping, it would also be necessary to re-instate a portion of a condition which was deleted by the City Council in a previous action. Condition #21 should be modified to re-insert a sentence requiring the applicant to install an irrigation line rrom each individual home to the adjacent parkway (see wording in draft Council resolution). Conclusion As noted earlier in the report, staffs preference would be for parkway maintenance by a homeowner's association. However, staff -finds that the incorporation of previously discussed measures should provide adequate assurance that the park.ways will be maintained in a satisfactory manner. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed Tentative Map modification of conditions, in accordance with the attached Planning Commission Resolution. Attachments }. Planning Commission ResoJution 2. Draft City Council Resolution 3. Locator 4. Proposed CC&R section 5. Proposed landscape guidelines 6. Applicant supporting rationale 7. Typical parkway detail 8. Disclosure Statement PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION I --, RESOLUTION NO. PCS-97-02(M) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH TENTATIVE MAP PCS-97-02 RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER MAINTENANCE OF P ARKW A YS WHEREAS, a duly verified application for modification of a Tentative Map condition of approval was filed with the Planning Department of the City ofChula Vista on February 27,1998 by McMillin D.A. America Otay Ranch, LLC; and, WHEREAS, said application requests a modification to Condition #86 of Tentative Map PCS-97 -02, McMillin Otay Ranch SPA One, in order to allow individual homeowner maintenance ofpark:ways; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 4(b) exemption; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the proposed Tentative Map modification of condition and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., April 8, 1998 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOL VED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the-attached draft City Council Resolution approving the modification of a Tentative Map conditions of approval, 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. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 8th day of April, 1998, by the following vote, to-wit: , , AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Patty Davis, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary (. DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION S / '!' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION #86 OF TENTATIVE MAP PCS-97-02, MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, AND ADDING FURTHER CONDITIONS THERETO RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER MAINTENANCE OF PARKWAYS 1. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the properties which the subject matter ofthis resolution are diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, identified as a portion of Villages I and 5 of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Area, ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, a duly verified application for modification of a Tentative Map condition of approval was filed with the Planning Department of the City ofChula Vista on February 27, 1998 by McMillin D.A. America Otay Ranch, LLC ("Project"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of I) a General Development Plan, Otay Ranch, previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 17298 on October 28, 1993 and as amended on May 14, 1996 by Resolution No. 18285 ("GDP"); 2) Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan, previously approved by City Council Resolution No.18286 (SPA) on June 4,1996; and a Tentative Subdivision Map, McMillin Otay Ranch, previously adopted by City Council Resolution No. 18686 (CVT 97-02) on June 3, 1997; and, D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said project on April 8, 1998, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, based upon the findings listed below. E. City Council Record of Applications . l WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City ofChula Vista on April 28, 1998, on the Discretionary Approval Applications, received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and heard public testimony with regard to same; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, deteTI11ine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on April 8, 1998, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. CEQA DETERMINATION The Environmental Review Coordinator that this Project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 4(b) exemption. IV. TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS OF APPROVAL The City Council does hereby find that the amended and added conditions of approval are consistent with the original findings of approval for the McMillin Otay Ranch Tentative Map, CVT-97-02. v . APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS The City Council does hereby approve the proposed modification of condition #86 of Resolution 18686 approving Tentative Map PCS-97-02 to read as follows: 86. Ensure that all buyers oflot> fronting residential streets constructed in accordance with Condition A sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that (1) they area aware that €ity individual homeowner will be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping improvements located between the curb and the sidewalk (illdtlclillg excluding City approved trees), and (2) they shall not replace or remove any trees planted between the curb and the sidewalk without approval of the City. These provisions shall be incorporated in the CC&Rs for each lot. The City Council also hereby approves a modification to condition #21, to read as follows: ,\ c Prior to the approval of the final "B" Map containing parkways, the Developer shall agree to plant trees within all street park-ways, and street tree easements which have been selected from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan which shall be approved by the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works. The applicant shall provide root control methods per the requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director, install an irrigation line from each individual home to the adjacent parkway, 21. and provide tmtI a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. The improvement plans, including final selection of street trees, for the street parkways shall be approved by the Directors of Planning, Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer. VI. INCORPORATION OF ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council further hereby approves the addition of conditions #126 through #129 to be added as follows: 126. Owners of all single family lots rronting public streets shall be responsible for maintenance of the landscaping improvements located between the curb and the sidewalk ("parkway"), excluding City-approved street trees. 127. The developer shall install irrigation and landscaping for each parkway prior to owner occupancy of the residence, in accordance with landscape and irrigation plans submitted to, and reviewed and approved, by the Planning Department. 128. Prior to approval of the first "B" Map, the developer shall submit evidence acceptable to the Planning Director of the formation of a Master Homeowners Association (MHOA) which includes all properties within the approved tentative map. In conjunction with providing said evidence, the following shall occur: a. Developer shall submit at that time all related documents for said MHOA including CC&Rs. b. CC&Rs for the project shall include provisions which clearly indicate the responsibility of the individual homeowners to water and maintain irrigation and planting within the parkways in accordance with the guidelines described-below. The CC&Rs shall also indicate that the Master Homeowner's Association shall have both the authority and the obligation to enforce said maintenance. c. Homeowner Landscape Guidelines for Parkway Landscape Maintenance shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, and shall be included as an attachment to the CC&Rs, thereby providing specific maintenance guidelines as an integral part of the CC&R documents. 129. The City ofChula Vista shall be named as party to the MHOA CC&Rs, with the authority, but not the obligation, to enforce the terms and conditions of the CC&Rs in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision. VII. ORlGINAL CONDITIONS OF TENT A TIVE MAP APPROVAL All original conditions of Resolution 18686 approving Tentative Map PCS-97-02 shall remain in effect, except as herein modified. /' '( VIII. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modifY all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution. IX. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term provision and conditions herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning John Kaheny City Attorney EXHIBIT" A" - ;---. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 1------.-- . . . . I I , ~... .... .... .... ~.. .... -- ..- .. ~ C HULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR ~~~ McMillin D.A. America PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) . OIay Ranch AMENDMENTS PROJECT No. 01 OI~plC Pkwy., East of La MedIa Request Ame~ 10 GDP, SPA, VIUage DesIgn GLidellnes. for ADDRESS: &. SQ, 01 sl Palomar Dr. VIllage Ave. I SCALE: ALE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale PCM-98-16 h:\home\planning\carlos~ocators\pcm98 16.cdr 3/1 0198 L---r--' ~ VILLAGE FIVE .....---- " " " " , , <::,<<-0.,' ",~.$'" ~'i',' ~~':.' _,~\V " r;:f5#' " , \ t--------- . . . I I . . ," " " " " " " -,' ~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT McMillin D.A. America PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPUCANl": Otay Ranch AMENDMENTS PROJECT No. of OI~PIC Pkwy., East oC La Media Request: Amendments to GDP, SPA, VlUage DesIgn GuldeDnes, for ADDRESS: &. So. 01 sl Palomar Dr. VIllage Five. r (' ) SCALE; FILE NUMBER: .. NORTH No Scale PCM.98-16 h:\homelplanning\carlos~ocatorslpcm9816.cdr 3/1 0198 j j " ) PROPOSED CC&RS '-... Preliminary Draft Section Maintenance Bv Owners and Subassociations. (a) Obligation To Maintain. No Lot or improvement anywhere within the Properties shall be permitted to fall into disrepair or an unsightly condition, and each Owner shall keep his or her Lot free from weeds and all debris and shall keep all improvements located on his or her Lot in good condition and repair. The Master />uchitectural Committee shall have the right to determine whether a Lot or its improvements have fallen in disrepair or an unsightly condition for purposes of this Section and the MAC's decision shall be final and binding on the respective Owner. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, each Owner shall comply with the [e.g., "McMillin-Dray Landscaping Manual"}, which sets forth detailed requirements for the installation and maintenance oflandscaping and irrigation improvements in the public right-of-way between the public sidewalk on the Owner's Lot and the curb of the adjacent public street, unless such obligation has been expressly assumed in writing by the Master Association or a Subassociation. In the event any Subassociation is fonned, such Subassociation shall require all improvements under its jurisdic- tion or ownership to be kept in good condition and repair. (b) Indemnification of Master Association. Each Owner, personally and for its family members, contract purchasers, tenants, guests and invitees, agrees to indemnify each and every other Owner and the Master Association, and to hold harmless such Owners and the Master Association from, and to defend him against, any claim of personal injury or property damage occurring within the residence or Lot of that Owner arising out of the failure of the Owner to maintain the Lot as set forth herein, except where another Owner's or the Master Association's negligence or willful misconduct is the sole and exclusive cause of any claim, demand or cause of action. (c) Master Association's Right To Maintain Owners' Lots. In the event that any Owner or Subassociation shall in the Board's opinion permit any property which is the respon- sibility of such Owner or Subassociation to maintain, to fall into a dangerous, unsafe, unsightly or unattractive condition as detennined by the Board or fail to comply with the "McMillin-Dray Landscaping Manual", then the Board shall have the right to demand that such condition be remedied. Should the condition not be remedied within fifteen days, the Board shall have the right, but not the obligation, to correct the condition, and to enter upon the portion of the Properties which has fallen in such condition for the purpose of doing so. The Owner or Subassociation, as the case may be, shall promptly reimburse the Master Association for the cost of such corrective action, including, but not limited to the Master Association's court costs and reasonable attorney's fees should the Board detennine it is in its best interests to obtain a court order allowing such entrance by the Board's representatives. \ 3/12198 T:\AJH\MCMILUNlOTA Y\Misclpoukwoy.= LOCATOR PROPOSED LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES Homeowner Landscape Guidelines Parkway Landscape Maintenance for Otay Ranch Prepared for: McMillin Communities 2727 Hoover Ave. National City, California 91950 Prepared by: Gillespie Design Group 8910 University Center Lane, Suite 580 San Diego, California 92122 ,I DR4Fr ~ QR4Fr P ARKW A Y I STREET TREES Parkway / street tree maintenance (to include annual trimming and fertilization) shall be done by the City of Chula Vista Street Tree Maintenance Division. Replacement of dead and / or dying uees shall be completed by the City of Chula Vista Street Tree Maintenance Division. The homeowner shall be responsible for providing regular watering and periodic fertilization as recommended below for turf areas. The homeowner shaH contact the City of Chula Vista Street Tree Maintenance Division jf additional maintenance is required. LAWNS Mowing and Trimming Mowing should be done on a weekly basis, weather permitting. Cool season lawns should be mowed to a maximum height of two (2) inches in warm weather and one and I one-half (1-112) inches du.-ing the rainy season. The use of herbicides and/or removal of grass around trees and irrigation heads is not recommended. The turf should never be cut more than one-third (113) off the top growth or approximately three quarters (3/4) inch at anyone mowing. Watering The purpose of the sprinkler system is to provide only sufficient water to maintain plant life during dry weather conditions or summer seasons. Time clocks shall be readjusted continuously through the season to provide water only when the soil is dry at a depth of four (4) inches the first inirial growinpeaSon and six (6) inches the following years. Lawns should be watered at such frequency as weather conditions require. Normally, a total of 1 inch is needed weekly in hot weather, but not all at one time. Avoid water run- off across pavements and into gutters as much as possible. Irrigation conuoHers should be programmed to water between midnight and 6 a.m. Tmn off irrigation systems during periods of rainfall and times when suspension of irrigation is desirable to conserve water. Generally apply water only as fast as the soil absorbs it to avoid run-off and waste. We ~ are recommending cycles of short durations and repeats that occur often enough to meet ET rates and penetrate the root zone. Sandy soil areas may take water at a rate exceeding one (1) inch per hour, while the intake rate of clays, or of any type of soil on slopes, may be less than one quarter (1/4) inch per hour. . I Dl?4Fr FertHiealion It is recommended to apply fertilizer on a monthly basis. Best's Turf Supreme 16-6-8 (or approved equal) should be used at the rate of lIb. of actual nitrogen per 1,000 square feet May through September. A readily soluble fertilizer, such as 22-3-9 at 5 Ibs. Per 1,000 square feet may be used during the remainder of the year to deliver the same amount of nitrogen. Fertilizer shall be watered in within 24 hours of each application. Weed Control Hand weeding is recommended for control of Broadleaf weeds (in turf areas only). If necessary, apply an Herbicide as a spot treatment control. Water and Fertilizer Management Moderate use of fertilizer and neither excessive nor insufficient irrigation make for the most efficient use of water (and fertilizer). Landscaped areas managed under m;nimum irrigation still need to be fertilized but should not be over fettilized. Apply enough water (and fertilizer) to maintam normal growth and color and to encourage deep rooting. IRRlGATION SYSTEM Irrigation System Repair Tnigation system components requiring replacement should be original equipment types where known. Irrigation System Maintenance ThII homeowner should clean and adjust sprinkler heads as needed for proper coverage. The homeowner should periodically observe the irrigation system for broken and clogged heads, ma1funcrioning or leaking valves, damaged piping, or an other condition which hampers the correct operation of the system. Observe each irrigation system for excess soil moisture or run-off across sidewalks, paving or streets. " (' APPLICANT SUPPORTING RATIONALE ,) , ..... I ~ REASONS FOR INDIVIDUAL HOME OWNER PARKWAY MATh"TENANCE 1. With private maintenance of the parkways, turf will be installed, which is consistent with the appearance the City Council appears to want. With public (BOA or LMD) maintenance of the parkways, a drought tolerant low maintenance type of landscape will be installed to reduce costs as much as possible, which will have a different appearence than turf. 2. The CC&Rs will require the individual homeowner to install and maintain specific parkway landscaping and an irrigation system.. Privately installed and maintained parkways, as shown on the attached photograph, are equal in appearance to a publicly maintained system. (The City in either condition will be maintaining the street trees). 3. The Home Owner's Association that will be formed will have the enforcement responsibility and authority to compel individual home owner to maintain the parkway in a manner consistant with the CC&Rs. 4. Approximately ten percent of the total BOA fee is attributed to parkway maintenance. ~ ) ) . " H:\DAT AIRDRICFUKUY AMIOT AYRCII\P AR1.'W A YS.DOC ) -!) TYPICAL P ARKW A Y TYrlCAL PARKWAYS \ \ - -- . -"::~~~:: ~~~~~:-~;:~-~ Street - / U.." . . ~ . ~, f ,)) n ,-",r. l:: J::; I.IO,.JI I"'-~';;; ,...111 I~JM-M~hilLi~ ~UhYANlt~ l-b4b P.04/04 f-802 ,., trTY OF CHUl.A VI$T'A DISC1..OSUJi. il"'TEME/'IT y"u .'" fajuired 10 me . Slalemunl or Dlscl05ure IIf amain ownership or finam;iul inlCrcou, paymcn~ Of c:ampall1l conlri~",iClI!S, on .U mailers wh_ich will require <lis.crclionary actioll Oil the pan IIr .he City Cuuncll, Planning Commis5loa, aoG .u Dlhar Dffi~ial bodicL The fDlluwin~ inrClrm&lion must be <lisclused: 1. Us: L!Ic namoo DC all"""",,,. having a linancial in,er""l in 'he property which is Ihe subjec, DC the applicauon Dr lbe c>nUlct, c.g., _. applioanl. cunlraclur. subcontrac'Df. material supplier, M=Millin-D.A. America Otay Ranch LtC 2. Ir any persan" iden!i/iCl.! pursuant 10 (I) above is a corporal ion or partnership, Ii" the II&IIICS Df all iPdivlduals DWIIJIIg mare Ihan 10% of Ibe sharcs in the corporalioll or owning any pannersl1ip inlefCSl in lhe partnership. }- Ir any p..."nOn" idclllirlCd pursuanl IU (I) above is non-profit organwllion or a 111151. list Ihe IIaJIIC5 Df lIlY pclSDlI ocMl\g ,.. dil'CClor of the non.p",fit orpniUlion or &5 trw.t~ Of beneficiary or IrU~lor of Ibe IfIIIl. 4. HiI1IC you ilia mDn: Ihan $250 "'Onh DC busin""" lransaeu,d wilh any member DC .ho Clly itarc. Baard&, Callualaslou. CDmmiltc:es, and Council wilhin Ihe pa.sl tlllClve montb5? Ycs_ ND.L.. If yes, plcue indlale p8IIDD(i): 5. Please idCtllify cadi aDd every person. inclUOing any 'Ben II. emplcyccs. coll5ultanu. Dr independenl OWI_n WbD you llave Uiigaed Ie n:present you befDn: Ihe City in Ibis mauef. C!-aill T. Fukuvama Gary Cinti Bob ~'P.t,.."p,.. i:mt BaumlZartner 6.. Have you al!d/Of yolll OCliCl:IS Of aplS, in Ihe agreplC. connlbuled !Dore .ban SI,(ICIIID a CoII"MIT-;P- In die cwrcnl or pre=llnB el=iun period? Vs_ No~ If ym. stale wltlCII Collndlmcmbcr(i): - ,,,., . Dale: 2jz7,/7& . . . (NOTE: AIIadI.............. II of CDIIlraAOI'lIppI"-DI -P. A _ merica Otay Ranch LLC b T uku ama Vice President. t Of Iypc: DUlle of COftU'...orMppIkaaI McMillin Otay Ranch, Inc. . ~it~cr 1I"""~JJn""lo.-~joW~aaKJ&aiDra.l<<illJrw.;...J_.- .-";~-'-~~"'---.1 ~~ ~ JU .... .., lIIiwr CIaMI)I. eM, __ ~I d" ItfWtici".", ~ ",.11JIiwr f'OliIictl/~..... Of' .~.." ".." .. ~_..l_ ..... .... . -- ) . ,V> .. . ~...."'" .....