Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/02/13 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, February 13, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 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 five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-91-10: Request to legalize an existing freestanding pole sign at 772 Third Avenue - Hikmat Zoura 2. Consideration of Final Environmental Impact Report EIR-90-10, Rohr Office Complex 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-91-09: Request to redevelop service station and add mini-market and car wash at 765 'E' Street - Mobil Oil Corporation (continued from 1-23-91) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-91-5/PCA-91-3: Consideration of the City's Growth Management Program and Implementation Ordinance 5. REPORT: Amendment #1 to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area: Preliminary Plan - City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of February 20, 1991 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page i 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-91-10: Request to legalize an existing freestanding pole sign at 772 Third Avenue - Hikmat Zoura Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue this item to the meeting of March 13, 1991 in order to allow the City and the applicant additional time to resolve this issue. The applicant concurs with this recommendation. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 1 2. Certif¥inq Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR-90-10), Rohr Office Complex A. BACKGROUND The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was reviewed at a public hearing by the Planning Commission on January 9, 1991. This public hearing closed the 45-day public review period on the DEIR for the proposed Rohr Office Complex. The Resource Conservation Commission reviewed the DEIR at their January 7, 1991 meeting. Staff briefed them at their January 21, 1991 RCC meeting on the outcome of the January 9, 1991 Planning Commission public hearing on the Draft. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that Final EIR (FEIR-90-10) for the Rohr Office Complex has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR. Consideration shall be given to Alternative 2 (Modified Design Alternative) as the proposed project. C. DISCUSSION The project, as proposed, consists of Alternative 2, the "Modified Design" Alternative, which includes the development of a 245,000 square foot office complex with two subsurface parking structures as described on Page 4-2 of the DEIR to provide partial mitigation of parking impacts. The Rohr Office Complex Project site is an 11.6 acre site located within the Mid-Bayfront area in the City of Chula Vista. The project site sits east of the "F" & "G" Street Marsh and the SDG&E right-of-way, north of Rohr Industries~ existing complex and south of "F" Street. The "F" & "G" Street Marsh is a component of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The NWR is considered a sensitive estuarine environment, providing habitat for many types of plant and animal species, including several species listed as endangered and/or threatened by State and Federal agencies. The project site is currently undeveloped, but has been used for agriculture in the past and is littered with agricultural and household debris. An abandoned irrigation system and several unimproved roads transect the site. The site elevation varies between 8 and 20 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) and slopes gently to the southwest. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, lggl Page 2 The proposed project includes the proposed construction of a 42 foot high office complex and associated parking area containing 730 spaces, a drainage system, and road improvements to "F" Street and Bay Boulevard. On-site landscaping and will be provided and a berm and detention basin will be created on the western portion of the property to physically separate the Marsh from the project and protect it from surface runoff. A 6-foot high chain link fence will be located near the toe of the western facing slope of the berm also to prevent disturbance to the adjacent sensitive wildlife refuge area. D. IMPACT ANALYSIS During the preparation of the Rohr Office Complex Draft EIR (EIR-90-10), the CEQA review process revealed issues of concern to the City including various environmental impacts of the proposed project. The most significant impacts are those related to biological resources, circulation/parking, air quality, drainage, groundwater, and grading. The mitigation required by the Draft EIR would adequately address these concerns and reduce them to a level of less than significant. The EIR identified the loss of raptor foraging habitat as a significant, unavoidable impact of the project which could not be reduced to a level of less than significant. Several alternative "projects" have been discussed within the DEIR in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Project alternatives include the "no project" alternative; a "modified design" alternative which adds two subterranean garages to the surface parking, increasing the number of parking spaces from 730 to 760; and a "reduced density" alternative which includes a 17,000 square foot reduction in the building size from 245,000 square feet to 228,000 square feet. This would avoid the parking deficiency on site and provide 760 parking spaces on site. None of the project alternatives would eliminate the impact to raptor foraging habitat, which is considered a significant incremental impact. Alternative 4 discusses alternative site locations, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines to determine whether feasible project alternatives are available which would minimize or avoid significant environmental impacts. The Port District-Chula Vista Marina site located at the foot of "J" Street, south of the existing Rohr facility, would eliminate potentially significant and unmitigable incremental biological impacts and may eliminate the need to excavate for subsurface parking, thereby reducing potential groundwater and/or footing problems. This alternative would also reduce adverse impacts to the National Wildlife Refuge Area and avian flight patterns. Traffic circulation impacts on the alternative site would be as significant as the proposed project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 3 SIGNIFICANT, MITIGABLE IMPACTS 1. Drainaee/Groundwater/Gradinq Incremental flooding impacts may be created with the proposed project by exceeding the capacity of existing storm drain facilities. Potentially significant impacts resulting from contaminated runoff from the paved parking lot into the "F" & "G" Street Marsh may occur if runoff is allowed to flow in the existing pattern. The proposed mitigation measures for controlling drainage direction, containment and filtering include a cleansing system at the point of discharge into the detention basin to capture grease, heavy metals and other contaminants. With implementation of these mitigation measures and others listed in the DEIR, drainage impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Significant impacts could occur to surface and ground water quality with changes in sediment transport. Changes could occur in erosion patterns, deposition, and levels of turbidity in the bay. The project will include silt fencing, sandbagging and erection of a protective berm with a capacity sufficient to hold site runoff. With implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the DEIR, impacts to surface and groundwater will be reduced to a level of less than significant. All recommendations regarding earthwork and foundations in the Woodward-Clyde Geotechnical report (September 7, 1990) must be followed. The City Engineering Department recommendations will also be a condition of project approval and will be included on the grading plan to mitigate impacts to groundwater. With implementation of these mitigation measures, drainage, groundwater and grading impacts will be less than significant. A construction monitor (who is "biologically aware") must be present for all phases of grading and installation of on-site drainage systems, as required by the grading plan. The monitor shall be employed through a three-party contract with the City. Monitoring shall continue on a reduced basis during actual construction. With the mitigation measures included in the DEIR, the grading impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. Grading on-site could also create potential impacts associated with surface runoff and sedimentation impacts to the "F" & "G" Street marsh. With implementation of the mitigation measures required by the Woodward-Clyde Geotechnical Report {September 7, 1990) and the City Engineering Department grading impacts would be less than significant. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 4 2. Bioloqical Resources On site drainage patterns would be modified with the proposed project by diverting surface runoff away from the wetland area to the west. Existing site runoff is currently the major surface watershed source for the wetlands, thereby creating a potential disturbance to the ecology of the Marsh. Significant biological impacts could result from the loss of seasonal freshwater input, resulting in a reduction in extent, vigor, and potential loss of the 0.14 acre willow riparian grove in the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). With the mitigation measures set forth in the DEIR and coordination with the NWR Manager to ensure proper maintenance, biological impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Potentially significant biological impacts resulting from contaminated runoff from surface parking areas, as well as trash and debris from adjacent roadways may result in impacts to some species dependent upon the Marsh. Trash and debris shall be removed from the drainage system through a program of regular maintenance. With implementation of these mitigation measures and other required by the DEIR, biological impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. Pesticides and fertilizers used on site landscaping may flow into the Marsh through surface runoff, resulting in significant impacts to some species. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used must be rapidly biodegradable and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They must also be applied by a state-certified professional. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to the Marsh should be reduced to a level of less than significant. A potentially significant impact concerning the collision of birds with the proposed building would occur if large amounts of reflective glass windows were used in the project design. Design plans submitted by the project applicant show that non-reflective glass will be used on the west side of the building, thereby mitigating this impact to a level of less than significant. Domestic animals and people shall be kept from creating potentially significant impacts to the adjacent wetlands through an effective predator management program as described in the DEIR. Additional mitigation will be provided by buffering the building patios and by limiting outside lighting adjacent to the Marsh. With implementation of these mitigation measures, biological impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 5 3. Aesthetics/Visual Quality The proposed building would be visible from a number of public viewing areas, including I-5, Bay Blvd., Bayside Park, F Street, the Chula Vista Nature Interpretive Center and a number of scattered residential uses. In some cases, the proposed building would partially block existing views to the bay. Overall, views in the direction of the proposed office complex are light industrial to industrial in nature. Visual impacts have been determined to be less than significant, however, project screening will be provided from the vegetated berm along "F" Street. In addition, trees and native shrubs would partially shield the building and provide some continuity with the adjacent Marsh vegetation. With implementation of the mitigation required, visual impacts are deemed to be less than significant. 4. Traffic/Circulation The development of the proposed project would result in the generation of 4,165 ADT of which 2,865 ADT were not included in SANDAG or Chula Vista Traffic forecasts. Traffic volumes in the study area are approaching or exceeding capacity on roads east of I-5, while roads west of I-5 flow more smoothly. The proposed project in conjunction with cumulative growth impacts would cause the Level of Service (LOS) on six intersections to drop below LOS C. With the exception of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street, however, these intersections would operate at this level of service even without project development. To mitigate cumulative impacts, an exclusive right turn lane from eastbound "E" Street to southbound Broadway will be required. The applicant will be responsible for contributing a proportional amount of funds {4.7%) to this improvement based on the Benefit Assessment District. Additionally, the project will require widening of westbound "E" Street at the northbound I-5 ramp and restriping of the northbound I-5 offramp at "E" Street to mitigate cumulative impacts. The applicant will be responsible for a 4.6% contribution of funds toward these improvements. The intersection of "F" Street and Bay Boulevard would operate at LOS "D" with the proposed project. To mitigate impacts at this intersection, signalization will be required. "F" Street will also be required to be restriped to the east and west of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street. A 5-foot wide bike lane will be required on the Rohr side of the street. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 6 Other project specific mitigation includes funding towards the project's contribution to other offsite improvements as indicated in the DEIR. With implementation of these traffic mitigation measures and others listed in the DEIR, traffic impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. 5. Parkinq The project requires approximately 79 to 115 additional parking spaces to meet the City's parking standards. Parking standards would be partially met through implementation of the proposed project (Alternative 2) which is the Modified Design Alternative. Parking impacts of the proposed project {Alternative 2} would be mitigated through the addition of two subterranean parking garages, thereby increasing the number of parking spaces from 730 to 760. In addition, in order to fully meet the City's parking standards which require a total of 817 spaces, the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with SDG&E to use an adjacent 3.35 acre parcel in the SDG&E right-of-way for off-site parking. With compliance to the Mitigation Measures set forth in the DEIR, parking impacts will be less than significant. 6. Air Oualit¥ Incremental contributions to cumulatively significant air quality impacts would result from project buildout traffic. Less than significant impacts would occur from vehicular emissions associated with project parking areas. Less than significant impacts would result from construction equipment exhaust released during the construction phase of the project. No air quality mitigation is required for the project, however, measures to facilitate traffic flow during construction should be considered. Incremental contributions to potentially significant regional air quality impacts may result during the clearing and grading stage of the project. Construction dust is an important contributor to regional violations of inhalable dust standards. If the entire 11.6 acre project site is under simultaneous development, total daily dust emissions would be approximately 1,200 pounds/day. Mitigation measures, such as regular watering of the site during grading operations and those listed on Page 3-72 of the DEIR will reduce air quality impacts to a level of less than significant. WPC 8go7P City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-91-og; Request tn redevelop service station and add mini-market and car wash at 765 "E" Street Mobil Oil Corporation (continued) A. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting permission to redevelop and upgrade an existing service station site into a 24-hour self-service gas facility with mini-market and car wash at 765 "E" Street in the C-V-P zone. The property is located approximately 100 feet east of the northeast corner of the I-§ and "E" Street interchange. This item was continued from the meeting of January 23, 1991, in order to respond to Commission concerns regarding on- and off-site circulation and potential noise impacts. The Commission also expressed concern that the conversion of full-service stations into self-serve facilities has represented an inconvenience to motorists, particularly with respect to the availability of emergency service adjacent to freeways. The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-91-03, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that although there is the potential for significant environmental impacts, there will not be a significant effect due to mitigation measures imposed upon the project. The ERC recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-03. The Design Review Committee approved the project design on January 14, 1991. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-03. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-91-09, subject to the following conditions: a. The proposal shall comply with the plan approved by the Design Review Committee (DRC-91-13). b. The hours of operation of the car wash facility shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. without the prior written permission of the Zoning Administrator. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 2 c. The applicant and successors in interest shall be responsible for repairing any water damage to public improvements resulting from the operation of the car wash. Failure to accept said responsibility shall be cause for this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. d. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to the permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive permittee of a substantial revenue source which the permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoninq and land use North - CVP Motel South - CVP Trolley Station East - CVP Drive-thru Restaurant West - CVP Trolley tracks and I-5 Freeway Existinq site characteristics The project site measures 178 ft. x 200 ft. (0.82 acres) and is located approximately 100 feet east of the northeast corner of the I-5 and "E" Street interchange. The property presently contains a 3,500 sq. ft. service building in the middle portion of the site and two pump islands under a single canopy oriented parallel to "E" Street. Proposed use The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with a 924 sq. ft. mini-market in conjunction with a 3-dispenser island and overhead canopy structure oriented perpendicular to the street. An automatic self-serve carwash is proposed to be located in the northeast corner of the property. Substantial landscaping will be provided adjacent to "£" Street and around the perimeter of the site. Access will be provided via two driveways along the "E" Street frontage. The proposal also includes a 70 sq. ft., six ft.-high monument sign to be located on the southeast corner of the lot and a freestanding price sign to be located on the southwest corner of the lot. Both signs will be constructed and placed perpendicular to the south property line and oriented in such a manner as to maximize their exposure to "£" Street. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 3 D. ANALYSIS Circulation When the property was rezoned to C-V-P in 1975 [PCZ-75-F{4)], the precise plan modifying district established a guideline which encouraged the use of joint driveways and coordination of on-site circulation with adjacent uses. Although existing development of adjacent properties does not provide for joint access, the future widening and the construction of a raised median on "E" Street will contribute to an increase in traffic safety and improved traffic flow. In this regard, the developer will be required to dedicate 16 feet along the entire frontage for future street widening and will be liable for the cost of the widening one-half of the cost for a 16-foot wide raised median along the centerline of "E" Street. At the previous meeting, the Commission asked staff to respond to the timing of the street improvements and raised median, and whether or not there will be provision for U-turns at "E" Street and Woodlawn Avenue. The Commission also expressed concern with the stacking of cars onto "E" Street resulting from the proposed car wash. The following has been provided by the City Traffic Engineer in an attempt to respond to these concerns: 1. At the present time "E" Street between Broadway and the I-5 Freeway is 64 ft.-wide curb-to-curb. The roadway is striped with four lanes -- two in each direction separated by a continuous left turn lane. There are no shoulders permitting emergency parking or a refuge area for motorists turning right into the numerous driveways along "E" Street. The existing width does not meet present design standards for a four-lane major street as called for in the City's General Plan. 2. Ultimately, as redevelopment occurs along "E" Street, the City will require as a condition of redevelopment a now or future commitment for the widening of the street as is now being done for the Mobil site. When sufficient right-of-way is acquired, the City would be able to program a widening project encompassing a sufficient length of "E" Street to provide measurable benefits to the public. At that time a raised center median will be recommended to be constructed at critical locations to prevent left turning vehicles from impeding through traffic. 3. The proposed additional street dedication and future improvements required of the Mobil project is intended to eventually satisfy the City's major street standards. A widening limited only to the Mobil frontage would not benefit traffic movement because the roadway to the west across the tracks, and to the east in front of the McDonalds, will remain narrow. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 4 The median cannot be installed at the ultimate location until such time as right-of-way is obtained from all properties on the north side of "E" Street from Broadway to the I-5 ramp. With this project, the City will have adequate right-of-way across approximately half the distances. In order to widen the roadway to provide an exclusive right turn onto the I-5 ramp, right-of-way, CalTrans and MTDB will have to approve the design. This lane is intended to alleviate some of the backup caused by traffic entering the freeway at the northbound ramp. This process is usually lengthy and has not begun to date. In addition, the project is not currently in the City Capital Improvement Program so the work will have to be considered for future programs {no funds have been budgeted}. Consequently, the timing of the improvements cannot be determined at this time. 4. The present constrained width of "E" Street does not allow sufficient room to permit U-turns. Thus it is not advisable to construct a raised median in front of the Mobil site and trolley station site at this time. The island would have an adverse impact on the operation of the trolley station, and may have a negative residual effect on traffic movement in general. 5. Careful examination of the Mobil site plan does not reveal any potential traffic problems arising from the proposed car wash. The car wash is located at the rear of the site and there is sufficient storage area on site to prevent stacking of cars on "E" Street. With respect to potential stacking problems, Mobil has submitted data and exhibits which show that the car wash at peak should generate on average no more than four stacked vehicles, and that these can easily be accommodated without interfering with on- or off-site circulation (please see attached). The data and a separate attached site plan further indicate the differences between the Mobil site and the Shell site on Bonita Road. The latter site has a much greater potential for stacking problems because of its smaller size, the proximity of the gas islands to the car wash entrance, and the distance of the car wash from the street(s). Noise Mobil has also provided site specific information on ambient noise levels affecting the site and adjoining motel to the north. This information, which has been incorporated into the environmental document, shows that the noise level from the car wash to the closest motel room is 58-63 dBA. This is less than the City's daytime noise standard of 65 dBA, and significantly less than the ambient noise levels of 70 dBA and 76 dBA generated by the freeway and trolley respectively. Since the ambient levels are daytime rather than nighttime measurements, and since noise levels from the car wash {58-63 dBA) could exceed the City's nighttime standard of 60 dBA, staff continues to recommend a condition which would City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 5 limit the hours of the car wash to between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. If later testing indicates the facility can operate within the City's standards, the Zoning Administrator could authorize an extension of the hours of operation. Service station conversion~ According to Mobil, the move away from full-service stations is primarily due to the increase in specialized service facilities and the greater complexity of today's automobiles. Quick-lubes, tire dealers, muffler shops and the like can provide their services more efficiently and economically than a service station, and the specialized equipment and technical expertise required to troubleshoot and correct major problems is often only available to automobile dealers and other large repair facilities. Emergency roadside service is now most often provided by AAA, other similar associations, and independent towing companies. These are the types of 24-hour operations that respond to the freeway call-boxes being installed along San Diego's freeways. They not only provide towing, but will often change a tire and provide assistance with other minor mechanical problems. Mobil has offered to maintain a clearly visible list of the names, telephone numbers and services offered by the major associations and any other local operations providing emergency roadside service. There is also the question of how far the City can or should go in attempting to dictate what particular products or services are offered by an otherwise acceptable use. The City could deny the permit to convert, and thereby encourage the continuation of the service operation. But this would not guarantee its continuation, and it could represent a significant economic hardship to an operator with an unprofitable service operation. We would recommend against attempting to substitute the City's judgment for that of the oil companies and local operators in such matters. The following comments have been submitted by the Engineering and Fire Departments: 1. Sewer, traffic signal fees will be assessed when the building permit is issued. 2. A construction permit for work performed in the street right of way. 3. Public improvements including, but not limited to: a. A.C. paving and base to provide 44 feet from centerline to face of curb. b. New curb, gutter, 8 foot sidewalk and new driveway approach. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 6 c. One-half of a 16 foot wide raised concrete median (to be deferred). d. Relocation of street light standard. 4. Sixteen foot street dedication will be required. 5. Walk-in cooler shall comply with Section 1712, U.B.C. 6. Proposed facility must comply with Article 79, Uniform Fire Code. 7. A permit is required from the Fire Department for any installation or removal of underground tanks or repiping of product lines, etc. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed self-serve gas, mini-market and car wash facility will serve the needs of the residents in the surrounding area as well as visitors and other freeway motorists by providing an easily accessible facility in close proximity to the I-5 northbound and southbound interchange. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal will upgrade the site and will reduce potential traffic conflicts on "E" Street. The proposal will comply with the City's noise standards. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed project shall be required to comply with all applicable codes, conditions and regulations prior to issuance of development permits. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The issuance of this permit as conditioned by staff assures consistency with the General Plan by permitting the redevelopment and upgrading of the existing facility in a fashion which will not adversely impact adjoining areas. WPC 8705P I I i I I I I I PROJECT AREA I , I I I - 'E' ST. II I I Ii- i 'I II i I I I ® , I I I 1 I I I I I -1'-- I I © , I ,~ f MOBIL OIL [,CORPORATION 200' (?/\1 ~ r ~,cc~ :9.~-o9 II II II II FREEWAY Mobil Oil Corporation SUITE 270 IRWNE, CALIFORNIA 92714 6220 January 29, 1991 City of Chula Vista Planning Commissioners 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Re: CUP PCC-91-09 Mobil Oil Corporation 765 "E" Street Dear Planning Commissioners, This letter addresses the concerns raised at the January 23 Planning Commission hearing for Mobil's proposed remodel. Enclosed please find exhibits which address on site circulation, car wash stacking, sound considerations and car wash usage. Circulation & Stacking: Exhibit "A" shows that our existing site of .82 acres, 178' wide X 200' deep or 35,600 square feet(before dedication), easily accommodates the proposed facility and provides for excellent on site circulation. There are 12 fueling positions which provide for six lanes of queuing as a customer enters the site from E Street. Stacking for the car wash facility easily provides for four cars without any interruption of on site circulation from the fueling positions. The proposed fueling capacity is increased to 150% of the existing facility and would service cars at a substantially faster rate by offering state of the art equipment. The existing facility, as identified on Exhibit "B", reflects a maximum of eight fueling positions and stacking for fuel positions which inhibits circulation due to fueling positions which have parallel orientation to E Street. By way of contrast to another car wash facility referenced at the Planning Commission hearing, a Shell car wash at the SWQ of I~805 & Bonita, our proposed facility dramatically differs as follows: Mobil(after 16' Ded.) Shell Variance Property size: 32,752 s.f. 20,430 s.f. 60% Property width: 178' 140' +/- 27% Property depth: 184' 145' +/- 27% Island Orient: Perpendicular Parallel Fueling Positions: 12 8 50% Queuing lanes 6 4 50% Dist. to CW from pump islands 69'+/- 35'+/- 97% City of Chul~--Vista Planning Coma ssioners January 29, 1991 Page 2 In addition, attached please find Exhibit "C", a Mobil Car Wash Operations Survey, dated October 13, 1989 performed by P & D Technologies, Inc.'s Director of Transportation. It concludes "that the number of vehicles that should be expected to queue for a car wash during the peak times of the week would average 2 vehicles ..... A generous design would allow for four (4) vehicles in the area waiting for a wash." Car Wash Noise: The ambient noise levels generated at the site due to the I-5 freeway and trolley tracks at various locations on and off site are addressed below: 90 degrees to 3rd floor CW Entrance at of Closest Property line Motel Room A-blent Noise levels of: (154') Freeway 68dba* 70dba Trolley 79dba 76dba Car Wash noise level approximated as per sound study for a 68.9dba 58-63 dba comparable facility** *please refer to the attached "Noise Pollution" chart which identifies various comparisons of dba levels **also note that a 6' wall is located at the property line which would further reduce the car wash noise level. Car Wash Use: The car wash is an appropriate use for this facility and would provide a valuable service to the motoring public and residents of Chula Vista. The visual aesthetics of our facility have been endorsed by the Design Review Committee and are designed to complement the E Street gateway to Chula Vista. Concerns regarding the visibility of the car wash is mitigated by locating the car wash at the rear of the facility, approximately 180' from the existing right of way and by the location of the Mobil Mart building which partially obstructs visibility from E Street. Also enclosed is an article regarding car washes recently published in the LA Times entitled Liquid Assets. It refers to the fact that car washes are being boosted by Metropolitan Water District officials in LA because they consume a small fraction of water per wash of what the average motorist would use with a hose and bucket in the driveway. City of Chul~-Vista Planning Com~ 4ssioners January 29, 1991 Page 3 You are respectfully requested to consider these points in reviewing our project at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at (619)592-0344 or write to me at 18634 Lancashire Way, San Diego 92128. Respectfully, Senior Real Estate Representative cc: Steve Griffin - Planning Department gkrcw.doc .['o_%__ ..... /U=== 'E" STREET NOISE POLLUTION Short exposure can cause 150 hearing loss 440 Jet plane takeoff 430 Artillery fire Machine gun Riveting siren at 100 ft. Deafening 120 Jet plane (passenger Threshold of pain ramp; Thunder-Sonic'boom woodworking shop ~10 Acce£erating motor- Threshold of discomfort cycle Hard rock band 100 Subway (steel wheels) Lound street noise Power lawnmower Outboard motor Very loud 90 ~ru~k u~u~led Train wnlst£e Kitchen blender Pneumatic jackhammer 80 Printing press Intolerable for phone use Subway (rubber wheels Noisy office Average factory Loud ?0 Average street noise Quiet typewriter Average radio 60 Noisy home Average office Normal conversation General office Moderate 50 Quiet radio Average home Quiet street Private or,ice 40 Quiet home Faint 30 Quiet conversation Broadcast studio Empty auditorium Whisper Very faint 40 Rustling leaves Sound proof room Human breathing OdB Threshold of Audibility P&D Te~lmolo~es Planning 401 W. "/~' Street Engineering Suite 2500 Transportation San Diego. CA 92101 Environmental 619.232.4466 Economics Landscape An Ashland Technology Architecture Company October 13, 1~8~ ~3300.00 Mr. 3. W. Kirk Project Engineer Mobil Oil Corporation 31q2 Vista Way~ Suite q00 Oceanside, CA 920§6-3608 Re: Mobil Car Wash Operations Survey Dear Mr. Kirk: In response to your need to provide information to the City of Imperial Beach for the redevelopment of the Mobil Oil Corporation site at Palm Avenue and Seventh Street~ we have assembled the information detailed in this letter report. The issue you requested involves the number of vehicles 'stacked'~ or queued~ at the car wash operation. This information~ together with a dimensional drawing of the proposed fgeility~ can clarLfy whether sufficient distance is available to accomodate the demand with the proposed layout. PROBLEM The planners for the City of Imperial Beach are concerned about whether enough storage distance exists in the proposed site plan for vehicles awaiting the car wash operation. Speclfically~ would the length of the queue of vehicles interfere with other necessary vehicular movement on the site? NEED FOR DATA In respose to this concern, a survey of similar San Diego-area operations was devised. This survey would focus on observing the number of entering vehicles as well as the number of vehicles queued up for a car wash during the peak two hour time of the week for such operations. The attachments to this contain copies of the surveys. The following three Mobil Oil Corporation sites were selected (see attachments f0r maps): Site Location I Fortieth and El Cajon Boulevarc~ 2 Interstate 15 and Lliramar Road 3 La 3olla Village Drive and La 3olla Scenic Afl of these sites are within the City of San Diego, and they share the iact that each has a sell-service car wash as part of the operation. Mr. 3.W. Kirk October 13, 1989 Page 2 TI~4tE OF SURVEY Based upon conversations with Mobil Oil Corporation representatives and with the station operators themselves, the peak two hours of operation within each week were identified. This peak time varied with each station; but it was typically on~ or just before, the weekend. The times and dates surveyed are: Site Time Date I 3:00 - 5:00 pm Friday, October 6. 2 1:30 - #:30 pm Saturday, October 7:1989 3 11:55 am - 1:55 pm Saturday,. October 7, 1989 RESULTS As described in the Need For Data description above, severaJ types information were recorded during the period of the survey. Each of the surveyors w~s equipped with a form for recording the data and was instructed to obtain the following information which is also displayed in the appendix. Periodic~lly~ the time is noted in the first column. - Number of vehicles queued each time any vehicle is in a line is recorded. - Number of entering vehicles throughout the survey period. Table i displays the information summarized from the survey forms: CONCLUSION Based on the surveyed information it is our recomendation that the number of vel~des that should be expected to queue for a car wash during the Peak times of the week would average 1.82, say 2 vehicles. Within the entire peak times the maximum number of vehicles that can be expected to queue would be vehicles~ and this would not typically occur more than twice during the peak two hours. A generous design would allow for four (4) vehicles in the area waiting for a wash. Sincerely, P&D TE~C~O~ ~OGIES, INC. //'~A.r~n~id Torma, P.E. Director of Transportation AT:bi Attachments: SiteSurveys ~aps cc: Tait Engineering TABLE ONE MOBIL OIL CAR WASH SURVEY October 6 and 7, INFORMATION ITEM LOCATION OF SURVEY El Cajon Miramar La Jolla Blvd. Road Village Dr. Averase Total Entering Vehides 17 2~ 35 23 Vehicles ~er hour (2 hfs) tLS 12.0 17-5 12 Vehicles per hour (max. hr.) i0 13 lg i# Average Length of Queue* (2 hrs.) 1.33 1.67 2.20 1.7~ Averase Length o! Queue* (max. hr.) 1.40 1.3B 2.~2 1.82 Maximum Queue (at any time) 3 t~ 6 t; Number of Times Max. Queue Occurred I 2 I - negativ declaration- PROJECT NAME: Mobil Oil Corporation PROJECT LOCATION: 765 "E" Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Mobil Oil Corporatio~ c/o Tait & Associates 3675 Ruffin Rd. San Diego, CA 92123 CASE NO: IS-9]-03 DATE: December 28, 1990 A. Project Settinq The project'site is presently developed as an existing 3,500 sq. ft. Mobil Oil gas station with two pump islands on a 35,600 square foot lot. The service station building occupies the central portion of the site. Access to the site is from two existing curb cuts along the "E" Street frontage. The site is already graded and developed with'the existing gas station use and does not contain any sensitive or endangered species of flora or fauna. Surrounding land uses include McDonald's Restaurant to the east, Interstate 5 and the MTDB Trolley Right-of-Way to the west, Motel 6 to the north, and "E" Street and the MTDB Trolley Station to the south. The site is at an approximate elevation of 40 feet Above Mean Seal Level (AMSL) and is underlain by fill and alluvial soils. There are no known faults transecting the site and the nearest major active fault is the Coronado Banks Fault which is approximately 10 miles to the southwest. B. Project Description The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing Mobil Oil Gas Station and the construction of 12 new fueling stations with canopies, a "mini-mart", and an automated car wash facility. The remainder of the site will be surfaced with asphalt and site landscaping. The required discretionary actions include a conditional use permit and design review application. The proposed facility would consist of a 924 square foot mini-mart, a 648 square foot car wash, and an approximately 4,556 square foot gas station facility. A 70 sq. ft. monument sign approximately six feet high would be located at the southeast corner of the lot, as well as a freestanding price sign located on the southwest corner of the lot. city of chula vista planning department CITY OF environmental review section [HLJL~ VIS-FA -2- C. Compatibility with Zoninq and Plans The proposed project requires a conditional use permit to ensure compatibility with the CVP-Commercial Visitor (Precise Plan) zoning designation. The proposed project will be compatible with the "Thoroughfare Commercial" general plan designation, which allows automobile-related commercial uses. With compliance to the conditions of project approval, the proposed use will be consistent with the land use designations on site. In addition to City of Chula Vista approvals, the applicant must comply with the County of San Diego's Hazardous Materials Management Division and the Regional Water Quality Board requirements concerning the remediation of four leaking underground storage tanks which were removed on October of 1987. The on-site hazardous waste problem has been acknowledged by the State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) "Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List" November 1990. This list is compiled by the State Water Resources Control Board for all underground storage tanks for which an unauthorized release report is filed pursuant to Section 25295 of the Health & Safety Code. Further discussion of on-site hazardous waste impacts can be found in Section F of this document. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy 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 estimat~ed response time is 5 minutes, and the nearest fire station is approximately 7/8 of a mile away. The proposed project is in compliance with this threshold standard, and the Fire Department has indicated that there is adequate fire flow to service the site. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62% 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 has been contacted and they have indicated that the proposed project is in conformance with this threshold standard. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires 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 1-805 -3- are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the .primary access roads are adequate to serve the project. Mitigation of traffic impacts will be discussed in Section H of this document and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population. This threshold standard applies only to residential projects, therefore, the proposed commercial project is exempt from the threshold standard for Parks and Recreation. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. The proposed project is located on an existing, developed site with adequate drainage infrastructure, according to the Engineering Department. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. 6. Sewer Review of the specific development proposals by the City will ensure that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City engineering standards. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has indicated that the existing 8" sewer line in "E" Street connecting to a 10" sewer pipe in Woodlawn Avenue is adequate to serve the proposed projecb. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. 7. Water The Threshold/Standards Policy requires 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 Sweetwater Authority has been contacted and has indicated that water service is available, therefore, the project meets this threshold standard. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project may result in significant, adverse environmental effects. Mitigation measures have been required to reduce potentially significant environmental effects to a level of less than significant. Specific project mitigation has been required for visual, noise, risk of upset and traffic/circulation impacts. Air quality impacts are deemed to be less than significant, therefore no mitigation is deemed necessary. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been issued in accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA. -4- F. Impacts Deemed Potentially Siqnificant 1. Visual Impacts The proposed project is located in a highly visible portion of the City, which can be considered a gateway to Chula Vista. Gateways are generally areas that constitute a major approach to the City that extend for some distance and may require some type of special treatment. "E" Street from I-5 to the urban core of Chula Vista is designated as an "Urban Core Gateway". Views to the project site occur from "E" Street, Interstate 5, and Marina Parkway. Marina Parkway is a designated scenic roadway on the City's General Plan. Due to the high visibility of the proposed project and its location in an "urban core gateway" of the City, visual impacts are deemed to be potentially significant. Mitigation measures will be required for the project to ensure visual quality and to reduce visual impacts to a level of less than significant. Mitigation measures are discussed in Section H of this document and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program {Addendum "A"). 2. Noise Impacts The project site lies immediately east of the MTDB trolley line, as well as Interstate 5. Ambient noise levels were measured to determine existing noise volumes from these transportation corridors which border the project site. Ambient noise levels were measured at a location 24 feet directly north of the proposed car wash location (the project property line). Noise levels from the freeway (I-5) noise were measured at 68 dBA and from the trolley at 79 dBA. The Chula Vista Noise Ordinance states in Section 19.68.030, "If the measured ambient level exceeds that permissible in Table III, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be the ambient noise level" (p. 959). In this case, the ambient noise levels measured would exceed the City's Noise Ordinance Standards {Table III), which are as follows: 65 dBA 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. weekends; and 60 dBA 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. weekdays and 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. weekends. The proposed project is not considered to have significant noise impacts to the motel use to the north since the projected range of 58-63 dBA from the car wash operations at the motel are substantially lower than the City's daytime noise ordinance standards of 65 dBA. Some noise mitigation will be provided by the existing 6 ft. high wall at the northern property line and by limiting the hours of operation. Noise mitigation is discussed more fully in Section H and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Addendum "A"). -5- 3. Risk of Upset The proposed renovation of the existing Mobil Oil station will require the addition of two underground petroleum tanks on site. The existing use is listed on the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List (November 1990) as containing an existing leaking underground storage tank on site. The project is associated with potential hazardous waste impacts associated with a past problem with four leaking underground storage tanks, which caused a release of fuel hydrocarbons and other hazardous substances on site. This creates the potential for risk of upset impacts which are particularly significant during a period of upset conditions. Thus, the proposed project is associated with potentially significant "risk of upset" impacts. So far, studies of the contamination on site have revealed relatively low concentrations of xylenes (500 ppb), toluene (500 ppb); and ethyl benzene (100 ppb). No chlorinated hydrocarbons, benzene or organic lead traces have been found in quantities which would indicate a significant contamination problem, according to Don Lipera of the County Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD). On October 6, 1987, the applicant removed three fuel tanks and one waste oil tank. Soil was excavated and new soil was brought on site to further mitigate hazardous waste impacts. The contaminated soil from the site was taken to a Class III Landfill. The County required the applicant to perform a series of borings to verify, after the tank removal, whether contamination had spread elsewhere on the site. As of the date of preparation of this document, the County indicated they did not believe there was a problem remaining on site, but was leaving the final determination up to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Due to the potential for risk of upset impacts, therefore, associated with the past release of hazardous substances on site, the applicant will be required to comply with the County HMMD and Regional Water Quality Board standards for remediating any remaining hazardous waste problems on site. These standards have been included as project mitigation in Section "H" of this document and in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (Addendum "A"). 4. Traffic/Circulation The project site abuts "E" Street, which is designated as a "Major Street" on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. As a result of a preliminary assessment by the Chula Vista Engineering Department, it has been determined that the proposed project would not adversely impact the Level of Service (LOS) on adjacent roadways. -6- The Engineering Department has indicated that the current LOS on "E" Street is 29,040 Average Daily Trips (ADT). With the proposed project, the LOS on "E" Street is estimated at 30,740 ADT. The proposed project will generate approximately 1,650 ADT, with approximately 900 ADT generated by the car wash and 750 ADT from the gas station/mini-mart. Street widening will be required by the City Engineering Department to a width of 12 feet along the "E" Street frontage in order to comply with major street improvement requirements of 52 feet from centerline on "E" Street, and this requirement will be made a condition of project approval. G. Impacts Deemed to be Less than Siqnificant 1. Air Ouality The project is located immediately east of Interstate 5 and the MTDB Right-of-Way for the trolley. Interstate 5 represents a significant source of carbon monoxide emissions in the project vicinity. However, the proposed commercial land use is not considered to be a sensitive receptor to air emissions. The proposed project will generate approximately 1,650 ADT which will not significantly impact the Level of Service along "E" Street. The project will not create a significant air quality impact, since the level of service on adjacent roadways will not be adversely impacted and the project will not generate a substantial increase in traffic volumes and, therefore, air emissions. No air quality mitigation will be required for the proposed project since air quality impacts are deemed to be less than significant. H. Mitiqation Necessary to Avoid Siqnificant Effects Specific project mitigation has been required to reduce potentially significant visual, noise, traffic/circulation, and risk of upset impacts to a level of less than significant. Project related impacts that are deemed to be less than significant include air quality impacts. These impacts will not require mitigation measures since they are already deemed to be below a level of significance. 1. Visual Mitiqation The proposed project is associated with potentially significant visual impacts due to its highly visible location adjacent to Interstate 5 and in a major gateway to the City. To reduce visual impacts to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures will be required: a. Project design shall conform to the specific requirements set forth by the Design Review Committee: -7- 2. Noise Mitiqation The proposed project is associated with potentially significant noise impacts due to the proximity of the proposed car wash to the motel to the north. To reduce noise impacts to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be required: a. The hours of operation shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. 3. Traffic/Circulation Mitiqation The proposed project is associated with potentially significant traffic/circulation impacts. To reduce traffic/circulation impacts to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures will be required: a. Street widening along the "E" Street frontage will be required to accommodate a four lane major street section. This will entail widening "E" Street by 12 feet for a width of 52 feet from center line to property line. 4. Risk of Upset Mitiqation The proposed project is associated with potentially significant risk of upset impacts. To reduce risk of upset impacts to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be required: a. The recommended mitigation measures set forth by the County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Management Division and Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be complied with, prior to the issuance of building permits. I. Findinqs of Less than Siqnificant Impact A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to Section 15070 of the State CEQA guidelines and the following findings have been made. Based on the following findings, it is determined that although the project described above could have a significant environmental impact, no environmental impact report will be required because specific visual, noise, risk of upset, and traffic/circulation mitigation has been included in the project design. Through the provision of mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to a level of less than significant. 1. The project has the potential to substantially 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 of California history or prehistory. -8- Although, the proposed project would have a significant adverse effect upon the quality of the natural environment, it will not have a significant effect because specific mitigation measures have been required to reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. The project conditions will ensure that any potentially adverse impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. Mitigation of potentially significant impacts are set forth in Section H of this document and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation. The project will not achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals because these long-term goals would be achieved through compliance with City threshold standards, site preparation standards and specific mitigation measures set forth in Section H of this document and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, 'cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual 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. Although the proposed project would create cumulative impacts, such as temporary noise and traffic impacts during construction, these impacts are short-term and temporary and are not considered to be signif+cant. Impacts to the surrounding community will be incremental and the improvements will not cause significant growth in the surrounding community. There are no significant growth inducement nor cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. The project will comply with City standards and is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The initial study identified the potential for hazardous waste impacts on the property. The proposed project previously had four leaking underground storage tanks on site, however, they have been removed. The applicant will be required to comply with the County Hazardous Materials Management Division and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards regarding hazardous waste/risk of upset impacts. There will be temporary noise impacts associated with the construction phase of the project, but these will be short-term only. With compliance with the required Mitigation Measures and conditions of project approval, the project will not cause any substantial adverse impacts to human beings. -9- H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orqanizations City of Chula Vista: Maryann M~ller, Environmental Review Coordinator Phil Landowski, Chula Vista Fire Department M. J. Donnelly, Engineering Department Eugenia A. Franco, Engineering Department Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department Ed Batchelder, Planning Department Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Sweetwater High School District: Thomas Silva Applicant's Agent: Mark Hayden Tait & Associates 3675 Ruffin Rd. San Diego, CA 92123 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Municipal Code Geotechnical Investigation, Mobil Service Station, Owen Consultants, September 22, 1988 This environmental determination concludes that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts, based upon the attached Initial Study, a field check o~ the site, and any public comments received. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 8785P ADDENDUM "A" Mitiqation Monitorinq Proqram Mobil Oil Station Expansion IS-91-03 This Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the Mobil Oil Station expansion project, in order to comply with AB 3180. This legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored on mitigated negative declarations, such as IS-91-03. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The mitigation monitoring program for the Mobil Oil Station Expansion ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potentially significant impacts: Visual Noise Traffic Impacts Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) for the City of Chula Vista. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and met to the satisfaction of the ERC. Visual Mitiqation The following project specific visual mitigation will be required for the proposed project, in order reduce potentially significant aesthetic impacts to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures will be made conditions of project approval: 1. Project design shall conform to the specific requirements set forth by the Design Review Committee: Noise Mitiqation The following project specific noise mitigation will be required for the proposed project, in order to reduce potentially significant noise impacts to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures will be made conditions of project approval: 1. The hours of operation shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. Traffic Mitiqation The fo]lowing specific traffic mitigation will be required for the proposed project, in order to reduce potentially significant traffic impacts to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures will be made conditions of project approval: 1. Street widening along the "E" Street frontage will be required to accommodate a four lane major street section. This will entail widening "E" Street by 12 feet for a width of 52 feet from center line to property line. Risk of Upset/Hazardous Waste Mitiqation 1. The recommended mitigation measures set forth by the County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Management Division and Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be complied with, prior to the issuance of building permits. WPC 8793P FOR OFFICE Case No. .~_c INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by~ Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE MOBZL OIT. COtLPORA?TON 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) NEC 765 "E" ST~'l' & 1-5, CHULA VISTA~ CA Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 565-310-16 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION REBUTLD EXISTING ~ & 3 BAY SERVICE FACIL/TY TO GASt MINI-MART AND CARWASH FAC/LITY. 4. Name of Applicant MOBIL OIL CORPORATION Address 3142 VISTA WAY, STE. 400 Phone (619) 439-5061 City OCEANSIDE State CA Zip 92056 5. Name of Preparer/Agent TAIT & ASSOCIATES Address 3675 ROFFIN RD. Phone (619) 278-1161 City SAN DIEGO State CALIFORNIA Zip 92123 Relation to Applicant AGENT 6. IndicDte all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision XDesign Review Committee Public Project -- Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board -- Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency x Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map Arch. Elevations __ Eng. Geology Report -- Grading Plan Landscape Plans __ Hydrological Study x Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study --Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey -- Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map -- Noise Assessment Specific Plan -- Improvement Plans --Traffic Impact Report -- Other Agency Permit or __ Soils Report __ Other --Approvals Required - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage 35,600 or acreage 0.82 If land area to be dedicatedl state acreage and purpose. TO BE Db'I'h~VlINt~THROUGH I~'qGI~e:.:~k[NGREVLk,W. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units d. Gross density (DU/total acres) e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square footage of floor area(s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use GAS FACILITY MINI-MART-924 b. Floor area CARWASH-648 Height of structure(s) 1 STORY C. Type of construction used in the structure sl'~ d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets ACCESS TO STRUCU3RES IS FROM WIi"HIN THE SITE & ACCESS TO SI'I~ IS 5Y~OM 2 DRIVES e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 5 c~ "E" STRE~-i'. f. Estimated number of employees per shift 2-3 , Number of shifts 3 Total 8 g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate 680 - 40 /HR. @ 10 HRS. ESTIMA'Y~;D _ 20 /HR. @ 14 HRS. ESTIMATI~D REMAINDER - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate G~ERAL BUSINESS VICINITYANDFREEWAY TRANSFP/~S. i. Type/extent of operatio6s not in enclosed buildings ~A~ ~k'l~VT~l~ - t T~T.ANFXS / 4 DISP)~tlSERS j. Hours of operation 24 HRS. k. Type of exterior lighting HIGH LEVEL AREA, 400 WA~i'LOWLEVELAREA 5IG}~ CANOPY - DOWN LIGHTING 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air poilu%ants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated NO (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) SMAT~. ~ AIR CC~qDITZONER; ELEC'I~RIC MICROWAVE, COOL~,'SO~fDRiNK DISPENSER; ~NERGY E~'iCIENT CARWASH EQUIPM~T. 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) NONE 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. W/-LLMAi~/-N~ NIJMBER OF~MPLOY~POSITIONS. 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? YES - GASOLINE 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 780 - SANDAGESTIMATE 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: nekl streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. UTILITIES EXIST, TWO NEW 35'-0" APPROACHES. D. DESCRIPTI0~ OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. ~eology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? NO (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? NO (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? NO b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? NO - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? NO - e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. 1-CATCHBASINS AT EACHDRIVELOCATION IF R~QU~BY 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? NO 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. NONE 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the 9roject site? NO b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? YES - CURRE~YTHEREARE Ul~ERGROUND STORA(~ T~ FOR MC~iY)R ~ AND ONE WASTE OILT~IK. 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. EXISTING 3 ~JkY SEIRVICE FACILI~ @ lr902 S.F. 2 ISLAND/4 DISPENSER GAS SERVICE. -6- b. DesCribe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North 3 b-~IIDRY HOl'~.'~. South "E" S~ East McDONALD ' S RESTAURAIV£ West RA--T~d)S/~l~O~.T.~ ~RA(]KS 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) NO b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) if~]E~-~IC & SAr,l~_~ )~lZPT~O¥~:~:q - 5 Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- CITY DATA F.' PLANNING DEPART~T 1. Current Zoning on site: 0~; South , ....... East .... " ,, West ,, ,, ,, ,, Do~ ~y_~_s t e pro{ect conform ~p the ~ Y!x-~.current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: <~~ ~~_~ North West Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? __~ Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? Is the prodect located adjacent to any scenic routes? /t2m (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? / What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? 7. ~ ~ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve~the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) ~/~ - ,~,)~D/- ~ ~-~) ~y~ AYcZ~ /x~ / Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) -9- 3. School s If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? {If so, please describe.) ~...~.~-~ ~-~..~.~ ]-~.~ ~ 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) ~,~m~/~.~//~-~ Natural Gas {per year) .D Water (per day) -~m.~mm /~<~d./~ny~> · 6. Remarks: - Di l' P!anning or Representative Date Case No. I S-ql- G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENI 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?¥3o c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? S~t=~c~_ o~&. ¥c~ e. Are they adequate to serve the projefit? f. What is the location and description of'existing offZsite drainage facilities? )¢q¢cP v~C~ ~"S~. gt~u5 g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? b.~at is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? ~0 c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. ~ OqO ~0 '~0 L.O.S. ~ d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedicati.on, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? _ ~_~ ' If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions..~2_-~oT slake. - ll - 3. Geology F a. Is the project ~ite subject to: ~ Known or suspected fault hazards? _ ~/ Liquefaction? ~ - ~/~f' Landslide or slippage?~ ' k, t, b.] Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the a. Are there any. anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? ~ w-~ouJ hJ ' b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. l~nat is the maximum natural slope' of the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? ~ 12 - Case NO. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: ...... Total V~hicle Trips Emission Grams of (per day) Factor Pollution C0 X 118.3 : Hydrocarbons f ~_~0 X 18.3 : NOx (NO2) ' X 20.0 : ~-~, Particulates X 1.5 Sulfur X .78 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Nhat is the location and size'of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? ~ ~ ~wa I~ ~'~' %~T Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Publi~Faci]ities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. (Include any potential to attain and/om exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures Cil~y ~gineer or R~re~enta~ti~e Da~e - 13 - Case No. ~/.Y-~/~m,..~ H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction timer ?/~ ~ o_~ ~ ' ~ . 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? ~ -13(a)- Case No. H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community parks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative Sweetwater Union High School District July 18. 1990 City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 92010 ATTENTION: DOUGLAS D. REID PILE NO: IS-91-03 PROJECT APLICANT: NOBIL OIL CORPORATION PROJECT LOCATION: 765 "E" STREET PROJECT DESCRIPTION: MOBIL OIL STATION REMODEL AND ADDITION OF MINI-MART AND CARWASH FACILITY The above project will have an Impact on the Sweetmater Union High School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code No. 65995 (Developer Fees), prior to Issuance of buildtnH permit. Cord~lly, T~omas Sllvu Director of Planning TS/mi 84 EAST J S~ 619 425-9600 BOARD OF E~TION J~EPHD. CUMMINGS.~.D. July 20, 1990 SHARON GILES PATRICK A. JUDD JUDY~HULENBERG Ms. Maryann Miller SUPERI~EN~NT Environmental Review Coordinator ~HN~VUGRIN. Ph.D. City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Location: 765 E Street Applicant: Mobil Oil Corporation Case No: IS-91-03 Project: Mobile Oil Station renmdel/addition of mini-mart and carwash facility Dear Ms. Miller: This is to advise you that the Mobile Oil Station project is located within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. The Board of Education has established attendance area boundaries and transportation services. Feaster Elementary is the closest existing facility to the above referenced project. However, schools in the Chula Vista City School District are overcrowded and the District has added 25 relocatable classrooms over the past three years to assist in accommodating growth. Students are also being bused outside their attendance area boundaries to help alleviate this situation, and to help achieve ethnic balance. Please be advised that a developer fee will be imposed on the additional space being constructed at the current rate of $ .12 per square foot of commercial/industrial development to assist in providing elementary facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Tait & Associates/Mobile Oil Corp, C;~' CF CHULA VISTA ~'~ ~ PARTY DISCLOSURE STATE,..,£'~') 0 -atement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign ~ontributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application, bid, contract, or proposal. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION If real property is involved, list the names of all persons having any OWnership interest. ~MOBILOIL CORPORATION 2. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation- or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. MOBIL OIL CORI~I~TION 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you or any person named in {1) above had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months~ Yes person{s) · No__x If yes, please indicate 5. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No X If yes, state which Councilmember(s): _. Person is defined as: Any Individual, firm, C a soc-~ial cl " o rtn m ub, fraternal ornani-:+~ .... P ershlp, Joint venture ao~- this and any other ..... f %~,un, corporation, estate, trust ...NJ. · . uuunW, Clty and county ~, .... , -:u~=ver, syndicat~ po)itical aUUOlV1SlO~, or a ...... -"-~' c~cy, ~U~lClpa/ity {NO~: Attach additional ,,y ucner group or combination acting as a'uni~~,mcc or Other pages as necessary. · ' ~ ) ,. / ,/'/ ~gna~re o~ contra~tor/aP~lican~ A-] O ~mn~ or ~e n~e o~ con~c~o~~ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-91-5/PCA-91-3; Consideration of the city's Growth Management Program and Implementation Ordinance A. BACKGROUND On July 11, 1989, the city Council adopted the Chula Vista General Plan Update. The General Plan Update called for the inclusion of a Growth Management Element. Subsequently, the Growth Management Element was adopted by the Council on April 17, 1990. The Growth Management Element is Part 1 of an overall Growth Management Program designed to implement a comprehensive public facilities phasing and financing system that is tied to the Threshold Standards and Facility Master Plans including the Transportation Phasing Plan recently completed by the Engineering Department. Part II of this overall program is the Growth Management Program and Implementation Ordinance which is the subject of this public hearing. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-91-20, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-20. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-20. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Growth Management Program and Implementation Ordinance. C. DISCUSSION The Growth Management Element defines the growth management issues, goals, objectives and policies. It also sets forth action programs to manage, oversee, and monitor the Growth Management Program. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 2 The action programs detailed in the Element focus on the following areas: 1. Continuation of Regional Growth Management efforts with SANDAG and adjacent cities to respond to planning issues that transcend city boundaries. 2. Implement Phase II of the Growth Management Program to more fully respond to public facility phasing and financing from a comprehensive planning perspective rather than on a project- by-project review. 3. Develop ways to monitor the policies of the Growth Management Element that address affordable housing, open space resources, regional growth management, and phasing of development. 4. Prepare a Resource Protection Policy that will protect sensitive lands as defined by the Chula Vista General Plan. 5. Prepare a plan to ensure the adequate provision of water facilities within the Chula Vista Planning Area for both terminal storage and regional supply. The City has focused on preparing a comprehensive program to implement Part II of the overall program called for by the adopted Growth Management Element. During this program, we have attempted to pull together all of the public facility master plans together with the City's Threshold Standards and development phasing and finance policies to establish a coordinated system that sets forth the City's growth management program. The program is generally organized as follows: 1. Facility Thresholds - Existing threshold policies for 11 facilities and subject areas are included, and facility standards for the Civic Center and City Corporation Yard are proposed to be added. 2. Facility Master Plans - Existing or proposed master plans are identified for each facility category. These master plans are intended to identify facility needs, locations, and costs at full build-out of the planning area, and to identify how such facilities should be phased as development occurs. 3. Project Processinq Requirements - For each facility category, a set of "project processing requirements" is proposed. These requirements are set forth for each level of the development review process, including General Development Plan, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Tentative Map, Final Map, and Building permits. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 3 In addition, the Program contains proposed specifications and requirements for Public Facilities Finance Plans, which are required in conjunction with SPA Plan review. The Public Facilities Finance Plan, as proposed, will become the primary tool for assuring that project phasing is consistent with Facility Master Plans, and that facility threshold standards are met. 4. Development Phasin~ Policies - The Growth Management Program sets forth proposed development phasing policies, which are intended to ensure that the location and timing of future development is directed to meet the City's public facilities needs, and monitored to ensure compliance with threshold standards. These policies would include adoption of a 5- to 7-year "development phasing forecast," which would be periodically updated and monitored. In addition, an interim phasing policy is proposed, which would restrict the approval of additional tentative maps, with limited exceptions, until a financing plan for interim improvements along the SR-125 corridor is adopted. 5. Compliance Monitorin~ and Implementation - The role of the Growth Management Oversight Committee is proposed to be expanded to include review and approval of the proposed "development phasing forecast." In addition, various other implementation issues are addressed in the report. In addition to the attached Growth Management Program, staff is proposing the adoption of a Growth Management Implementation Ordinance to carry out the requirements of the Growth Management Program that pertain to private development. This ordinance has been reviewed by outside legal counsel in conjunction with the City Attorney's office. In addition, the Program and Implementing Ordinance has been distributed to developers, environmental groups, as well as public agencies, the Resource Conservation Commission and the Growth Management Oversight Committee. All of the comments and recommendations received to date are attached to this report. (PCGMPGM) negativ declaration PROJECT NANE: Growth Management Program & Ordinance PROJECT LOCAT]'ON: Chula Vista Planning Area PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS-91-20 DATE: 11-21-90 A. Project Settinq The project setting, while within the planning area of the City, is not site specific, but does primarily focus on the area east of 1-805, where most of the remaining vacant land is located. B. Project D~scription The City of Chula Vista has looked comprehensively at issues dealing with development and the additional impacts it places on public facilities and services. The approval of the Threshold Ordinance and the General Plan update were the first steps in the overall process of addressing growth related issues. The second step in this process was the development and adoption of a specific Growth Management Element which was the immediate predecessor of the proposed Growth Management Program. The Growth Management Program is the final component in the City's effort to create a comprehensive system to manage its' future growth. This program implements the Growth Management Element of the General Plan, and establishes a foundation for carrying out the development policies of the City by directing and coordinating future growth in order to guarantee the timely provision of public facilities and services. The overall structure of the Growth Management Program and development process establishes a system which will facilitate the early exchange of information between the City, special districts and developers. This information will provide both the City and special districts with additional time to plan for the provision of and to construct new or upgraded facilities. The implementation of the Growth Management Program will guarantee that facilities and services are available to meet the demands of new development. Development approvals will not be made unless these facilities can be guaranteed. The Growth Management Program and Growth Management Ordinance adoption will complete the City's overall structure to manage future growth. These documents carry out the goals and objectives of the General Plan and link the various operational systems within the City (planning, engineering, finance, etc) necessary to effectively and progressively manage the City as it grows. city of chula vista pl.anning department £1W OF environmental review section (~HLIL~ -2- An outline of the Growth Management Ordinance is as follows: Purpose Manage growth the ensure adequate public facilities and improvements are provided in a phased and logical fashion. Definition The "Growth Management Program" includes Threshold Standards, Facility Master Plan, new project processing requirements for public facility financing plans, intermediate development forecasts (5 to 7 years) and Growth Management Oversight Committee review. Prohibitions - New projects east of 1-805 require approved public facilities financing plan before tentative subdivision map submitted. Threshold New projects shall meet adopted Threshold standards as set Standards forth in the project's public facilities financing plan. Growth Incorporate Threshold Standards, Facility Master Plans, Management defines project review requirements with public facility Program financing plan, establishes a development phasing policy based upon transportation facilities, creates a development forecast and expands the role of the Growth Management Oversight Committee. Public Establishes requirements for approved public facility Facilities financing plan prior to filing a tentative subdivision map. Finance Each PFFD shall show how and when the necessary facilities and Plan-(PFFD) improvements to accommodate new development within the area will be installed or financed. Said PFFD shall contain a public facilities plan, phasing schedule, and financing plan. Compliance No development project shall be approved unless it is consistent with an approved public facilities finance plan. Development project includes SPA Plans, tentative maps and building permits. Implementation- Development projects may be halted when a public facility inadequacy occurs. Review Growth Management Oversight Committee shall annually review the Growth Management Program. Exclusions Governmental facilities or structures are exempt from this ordinance. C. Compatibility with Zoninq and Plans Since the proposal is not site specific, zoning and general plan designations cannot be listed, therefore, precluding any assessment of site specific compatibility. However, the Growth Management Program will implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. -3- D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less than 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The purpose of the Growth Management Program is to create and implement a system to meet the General Plan goals and objectives as well as the Growth Management Element goals and objectives. The Chula Vista Growth Management Program will implement the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance by ensuring that development occurs only when necessary public facilities and services exist or are provided concurrent with the demands of new development. Threshold standards are used to identify when new or upgraded public facilities are needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. Development approvals will not be made unless compliance with the standard can be met. No development approvals shall be allowed in areas outside of a seven minute response time from existing fire stations. Unless a guarantee mechanism to fund and construct a needed fire station is adopted by the City Council, the development project shall be conditioned to provide for the new facility concurrent with the first phase of development. The Olympic Training Center will provide an on-site Chula Vista Fire Department approved fire brigade concurrent with the development of the project. If the Growth Management Oversight Committee determines that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, the City Council will scheduYe and hold a public hearing within 60 days of the GMOC~s report. A moratorium may be adopted on new tentative map applications based on all of the following criteria: a. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a causal relationship to the problem has been established; and, b. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to 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 Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes -4- or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The police threshold is reviewed by staff, along with monitoring reports prepared on a quarterly basis. An annual report is presented to the Growth Management Oversight Committee for review and determination of compliance with the threshold standard. Development activity reports are provided from the Planning Department to the Police Department to keep them abreast of the future timing and location of projects. If the GMOC determines that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, the City Council will schedule and hold a public hearing within 60 days of the GMOC~s report. A moratorium may be adopted on new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: a. That a moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires 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 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. Should the GMOC determination that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC~s report, schedule and hold a public hearing on the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: a. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a causal relationship to the problem has been established; and, b. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. -5- 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,O00 population. This- threshold standard applies only to residential projects. Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the park and recreation system into conformance. Construction or other actual solution shall be scheduled to commence within three years. If construction of needed new park and recreation facilities is not started within three years of the deficiency reported by the GMOC, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC's report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: 1. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a casual relationship to the problem has been established; and, 2. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. Any such moratorium shall be in effect until construction of the needed new park and recreation facilities has commenced. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineer Standards [PI. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the storm drain system into conformance. Construction or other actual solution shall be scheduled to commence within three years. 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards [PI. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. -6- Should the GMOC determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect to sewers, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on the GMOC~s report, to be directed to the responsible public agency(s) with a follow-up to assure appropriate response by that agency. 7. Water The Threshold/Standards Policy requires 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. Water is provided to the City of Chula Vista through the San Diego County Water Authority, Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Municipal Water District. The City of Chula Vista is working with each of these special districts to ensure that new growth will not reduce the availability of adequate water supplies or jeopardize the water supply standards within the City. Each of these districts is responsible for providing capital facilities necessary to accommodate future growth as well as providing services to existing development within the City of Chula Vista. Should the GMOC determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect to water, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City Counci~ to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on the GMOC's report, to be directed to the responsible public agency(s) with follow-up to assure appropriate response by that agency. E. Identification of Environmental Effects There is no substantial evidence, as a result of an Initial Study, that any significant environmental effects will be created as a result of the proposed project. F. Mitiqation necessary to avoid siqnificant effects Since no significant, environmental effects will be created as a result of this project, no mitigation is deemed to be necessary. G. Findinqs of Insiqnificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. -7- ]. The project has the potential to substantially 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 anima] cowunity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. This project is viewed as possessing the potential to substantially improve, rather than degrade, the quality of the environment as a result of Growth Management Program implementations. As such then, this project does not have the potential to significantly degrade any biological or cultural resources. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Long-term environmental goals are an integral component of the Growth Management Program, inherent in its intent, scope, and literal content. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, 'cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual 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. This project will act to limit any incremental effects that would be cumulatively considerable as a result of future development within the planning area of the City. The project establishes a foundation for carrying out the development policies of the City by coordinating future growth in order to guarantee the timely provision of public facilities and services. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. It is not believed that, as a result of the Growth Management Program, any direct or indirect substantial adverse effects will be created. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orqanizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Bud Gray & Associates -8- 2. Documents Draft Growth Management Program Policy: Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Committee General Plan - City of Chula Vista Addendum: The Growth Management Program is a non-site specific, comprehensive system of growth management which implements the Growth Management Element of the General Plan, and establishes a foundation for implementing the development policies of the City by coordinating future growth in order to guarantee the timely provision of public facilities and services. The Growth Management Program could result in a potentially significant change in density or growth rate of an area. This potential change could occur in the form of a limitation on future sprawling and uncoordinated growth associated with rapid development of an area. However, this potential effect is viewed as having desirable attributes in terms of future development within the planning area of the City. One corresponding implication, however, could be a potential effect on existing housing, manifested as an increase in demand, should future residential developments be restricted in terms of number of units built, or rate of development, relative to rapid increases in population growth within the City. 4. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study as well as any comments on the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. OR This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ~NVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 8634P FOR OFFICE Case No. INITIAL STUDY Rec~ipt~No.., Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE G~owthManagement ProcFramandOrdinanc9 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Chula Vista Planning Area Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~e Attached 4. Name of Applicant, City of Chula V±sta Address 276 Fo~-~_h Avenue Phone 691-5101 City (Z~a ¥±sta State CA Zip, 92010 B. Name of Preparer/Agent ~ (~ay & Assr±ares Address 7777 Alvarado Rd., #248 Phone 697-7547 City za Me~ State CA Zip 92041 Relation to Applicant Project Consultant 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: · General Plan Revision Design Review Committee x Public Project _ Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map " Annexation _, Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board ., Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevel,~pment Agency ~ Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review" ., Variance ' Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental 'Review Coordinator). · Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report · Grading Plan '" Landscape Plans Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey .. Precise Plan . Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report X Other Approvals Required DRAFT Growth Management Program CITY OF CHULA VISTA DFIAFT EX'ECU 'IVE SUMMARY Overview The City of Chula Vista has looked comprehensively at issues dealing with develop- ment and the additional impacts it places on public fac/lities and services. The approval of the Threshold Ordinance and the General Plan update were th 'st steps in the overall process of addressing growth related issues. The second s~cp in process was the development and adoption of a specific Growth Management Elemen~ which set the stage for the creation of the this Growth Management Program. The Growth Management Program is the final component in the City's effort to create a comprehensive system to manage its' future growth. This program implements the Growth Management Element of the General Plan, and establishes a foundation for carrying out the development policies of the City by directing and coordinating future growth in order to g~arantee 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 is located. The Growth Management Program is divided into the follow/ng sections: 1. Introduction 2. Development Planning 3. Facilities 4. Development Phasing 5. Finance 6. Implememation 7. Appendices Section 1, Introduction, begins by reviewing the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Growth Management Element and describing how the program meets those goals and objectives. The Growth Management Oversight Committee's function is discussed and the annual respor~ibilities of the GMOC are outlined. After listing the thirteen facilities to be evaluated, the term threshold standard is deft.ned. Section 2, Development Planning, overviews the different community planning areas, describes the existing development process and the status of specific development projects for planning purposes the phasing of approved Final and Tentative Maps. Section 3, Facilities, contains a separate discussion or subsection for each of the eleven public facilities which has adopted threshold standards. Two additional facilities, Civic Center facilities and Corporation Yard have also been addressed. Each subsection follows the same basic format beginning with the goal, objective, threshold standard, implementation measure, project specific analysis section, service analysis, facility inventory (existing and future), a map illustrating the location of these facilities and a specific adequacy analysis section. Section 4, Development Phasing, provides a description of the various compouents of the overall phasing policy, proposes specific development phasing policies and presents a development phasing forecast. Section 5, Finance, begins with an overview, provides a discussion of the existing finance approaches currendy used and lists the various methods available to finance public facilit3' improvements. Section 6, Implementation, summarize~ the key components of implementation. This section describes threshold standards, facility master plans, project processing requirements, the development phasing forecast, Growth Management Oversight Committee, information system, financial management and specifies the proposed finance policies and overviews the organizational structure necessary to operate this program. Summary' Findino~s Figure 1 summarizes the most current status of the facilities in relation to threshold standard compliance as reported in the second annual report by the Growth Management Oversight Committee. This status report is consistent with the findings of the facility analysis contained in the Growth Management Program. The facilities which currently have problems meeting the threshold standards are; 1. Libraries 2. Schools 3. Water Each of these facility shortfalls are described in detail in the individual facility section of the report. Proiected Facility Shorff;~ll Based upon the analysis contained in ~ update to ~e ~tem ~ula Vista Tr~po~a~on Ph~g PI~ it h~ been dete~ined ~at ~e dem~d for ~fic facilities ~m app~d ~ ~d tenta~ ~bdi~ion maps ~ ~ceed ~e ~pad~ of ~e ~c ne~r~ %is =~ t~es into co~derafion ~e ~p~emeat condifiom which have been placed on ~ese project. In addi~o~ ~e dem~d from approved fin~ ~d tentative subdi~ioa maps ~ll ~so ~er ~e ~eshold requirement for the comt~ction of State Route 1~. However, ~e development impact fees which ~ be co~ected for s~eeu ~m ~ese app~ed p~jec~ ~11 not generate ~e ~nds req~ed for ~s ~p~vemenL ~e spe~c =~ys~ is det~ed in ~e Tra~c section of ¢h;~ repo~ It ~ ~co~ended · at no addi~on~ tentative sub~ion raps be app~ed for ~e~ for which a Gener~ Development PI~ (or Specific PI=) ~d Secfion~ planning ~ea PI~ have not been adopted, m of date of ~e app~ of thk Pmgrm ~ ~e ~=~g of State Route 1~ ~ be ~=teed. It ~ recommended ~at ~e Ci~ ~=~ dire~ st~ to be~ to e~lore ~e poten~ ~tema~ves a~able to ~tee ~e ~=~g of Yhis ~c fa~. Conclusion The City is attempting to alleviate the eta'rem library facility shortfall and is working with both school districts and water districts to resolve the facility issues and plan for future facilities. The overall structure of the Growth Management Program and development process establishes a system which will facilitate the early exchange of information between the City, special districts and developers. This information will provide both the City and special districts with additional time to plan for thc provision of and to construct new or upgraded facLllties. The implementation of the Growth Management Program will guarantee that facilities and services axe available to meet the demands of new development. Development approvals will not be made unless these facilities can be guaranteed. By providing these facilities and services and moMtoring future development activity, the quality of life can be maintained and improved in the City of Chula Vista. The Growth Management Program and Growth Management Ordinance adoption will complete the City's overall structure to manage furore growth. These documents carry out the goals and objectives of the General Plan and link the various operational. systems within the City (planning, engineering, finance, etc.) necessary to effectively and progressively manage the City as it grows. iv OUTLINE OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Purpose - Manage growth to ensure adequate public facilities and improvements are provided in a phased and logical fashion. .Definition- The "Growth Management Program" includes Threshold Standards, Facility Master Plan, new project processing requirements for public facility financing plans, intermediate development forecasts (5 to 7 years) and Growth Management Oversight Committee review. Prohibitions- New projects east of 1-805 require approved public facilities financing plan before tentative subdivision map submitted. Threshold New projects shall meet adopted Threshold standards as set forth in Standards- the project's public facilities financing plan. Growth Incbrporate Threshold Standards, Facility Master Plans, defines Management project review requirements with public facility financing plan, Program- establishes a development phasing policy based upon transportation facilities, creates a development forecast and expands the role of the Growth Management Oversight Committee. Public Establishes requirements for approved public facility financing Facilities plan prior to filing a tentative subdivision map. Each PFFD shall Finance show how and when the nesessary facilities and improvements to Plan- (PFFD) accommodate new development within the area will be installed or financed. Said PFFD shall contain a public facilities plan, phasing schedule, and f'mancing plan. Compliance- No development project shall be approved unless it is consistent with an approved public facilities finance plan. Development project includes SPA Plans, tentative maps and building permits. Implementation- Development projects may be halted when a public facility inadequacy occurs. ,Review- Growth Management Oversight Committee shall annually review the Growth Management Program. Exclusions- Governmental facilities or structures are exempt from this ordinance. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. Policy: THRESHOLD/STANDARDS and GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Final November l?, 1987 Introduction Purpose Preservation of the perceived "quality of life" is an important issue uith residents of a growing city such as Chula Vista. It is also important to those who wish to develop there, who want to maintain the city as an attractive and desirable location for their projects. This document is the result of interested citizens and developers within Chula Vista meeting together, over a several month period, and working out a program which could preserve and enhance the public services and quality environment now enjoyed by Chula Vista residents while growth occurs. Structure Eleven issues are addressed in this policy document; each is discussed in terns of a goal, objectives, a "threshold" or standard, and implementation measures. Each goal describes a desired condition or "end state," while the objectives represent measurable steps toward achieving the goal. Thresholds are levels of service or maintenance standards, adherence to which will achieve the objectives and goal. Implementation measures are those techniques which will be used to encourage or enforce maintenance of the threshold. They are the actions which the City can take to preserve the current quality of life while development progresses. Two types of implementation measures are included: those which can be applied on a project-by-project basis, and those which are to be applied city-wide on a periodic basis to evaluate general conditions. Evaluation of individual projects can be completed by staff in conjunction with the review they currently undertake for each subdivision project. The task of an annual city-wide threshold review is assigned to the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC). The GIqOC reports through the Planning Commission to the City Council, which then holds a public hearing to discuss the report and take any necessary actions. The ~40C's review and report are intended to be complete prior to Council budget workshops so that threshold situations which require funding for solution can be accommodated during the regular budget process. The structure of the GMOC and details of its charge and operation are described near the end of this text. The final section describes the mechanism for staff review in conjunction with CEQA procedures. The summary table on the following page identifies the review mechanism and implementation measure associated with each threshold issue. -1- ~HRESHOLDS SUM~. APPLICATION/ IMPLEMENTATION T__IMING _MEASURES FIRE/EMS X X X POLICE X X X _TRAFFIC I X PAR·S/RECREATION X X (~') X DRAINAGE I · X LIBRARIES i I AIR QUALITY X ~ · ECONOMICS X · SCHOOLS · · SEWER I · I WATER I X · (') Only if construction does not COmmence within 3 years of initial finding of nonconformance. -2- AIR QUALITY GOAL: To maintain and improve the ambient air quality enjoyed by the citizens of Chula Vista. OBJECTIVE: Recognizing that air quality is a regional issue which cannot be effectively be addressed by Chula Vista, the City shall implement the tactics established in the currently adopted Regional Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP). THRESHOLD: The City shall annually provide the San Diego APCD with a 12 to 15 month development forecast and request an evaluation of its impact on current and future air quality management programs, along with recent air quality data. The growth forecast and APCD response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. II,IPLEMENTATION MEASURE Should the GMOC determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect to air quality, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on the GMOC's report, to be directed to the responsible public agency with follow up to assure appropriate response by that agency. -3- ECONOIIICS GOAL: To provide land uses and activities which respond to the economic needs of the residents and the City of Chula Vista. OBJECTIVE: Use Fiscal Impact Reports (FIRs) and Public Facility Financing Plans (PFFPs) to evaluate and plan for healthy economic attributes in balance with environmental, social, and public policy criteria. THRESHOLD: The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report prepared by staff which addresses the economic condition of the City and its residents, including a 12 to 15 month development forecast and an evaluation of its anticipated economic effects. The report will include statistics and data relevant to the economic well being of residents in general le.g., income level, average home price, etc.), the vitality of local business (e.g., number of business licenses, commercial vacancy and lease rates, etc.), and significant fiscal changes over the past year. The Committee will evaluate the apparent economic effects of local development policy decisions and report any adverse impacts or recommended policy adjustments. IMPLE~.IENTATION MEASURE: Should the GMOC determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect to economics, it. may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on tile GI.lOC's report. POLICE GOAL: To maintain or improve the current level of police service in the City of Chula Vista. OBJECTIVE: Ensure that police staff, equipment, and training levels are adequate to provide police service at the desired level through out the City. THRESHOLD STANDARD: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to emergency calls throughout the City within five (5) minutes in 75% and seven (7) minutes in 90% (current service level to be verified of the cases (measured annually). [Pi* IMPLEI1ENTATION MEASURE: Should the Gi,IOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GlqOC's report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: 1. That a moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption which are intended to bring tile condition into conformance. 2. The implementation measures stated above will be reviewed on March l, 1989 to determine if a more direct causal relationship exists between the established Threshold Standard and new development. [P]-Denotes a Threshold Standard which shall be applied on a project-by-project basis (see page 19). -5- FIRE AND EMERGENCY I,IEDICAL SERVICE GOAL: To maintain and improve the current level of fire protection and emergency medical service (EMS) in the City of Chula Vista. OBJECTIVE: Ensure that Fire/EllS staff are properly equipped, trained, and funded to provide the desired level of service throughout the City. THRESHOLD STANDARD: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within a seven (7) minutes in 85% (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annually).[P] II.~PLE~tENTATIOI~ MEASURES Should the GI,10C determine that the Threstlold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC's report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: 1. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a causal relationship to the problem has been established; and, 2. That the moratorium provides a mitigation rleasure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, tile time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption ~hich are intended to bring the condition into conformance. -6- SCHOOLS GOAL: TO ensure that the Chula Vista City School District and Sweetwater Union High School District have the necessary school sites and funds to meet the needs of students in new development areas in a timely manner. OBJECTIVE: Provide school district personnel with current development forecasts so that they may plan and implement school building and/or allocation programs in a timely manner. THRESHOLD: The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12 to 15 month development forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommooate the forecast and continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. 2. Ability to absorb forecast growth in affected facilities. 3, Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. 4. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. The growth forecast and school district response letters shall be provided to the G~IOC for inclusion in its review. Ii.1PLEI.iEldTATIOIJ ),IEASURE: Should the GMOC determine that a potentially serious problem, exists with respect to schools, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on the GIIOC's report, to be directed to the responsible public agency(s) with follow up to assure appropriate response by that agency. -7- LIBRARIES GOAL: To provide a high quality, contemporary library system which meets the varied needs of the community. OBJECTIVE: Supplement the Central Library Facility by providing branch library facilities in the Montgomery/Otay area and in the area east of 1-605. THRESHOLD STANDARD: Population ratio: 500 square feet (gross) of library adequately equipped and staffed facility per 1,OUO population. IMPLEMENTATIO~ ~IEASURE: Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the library system into conformance. Construction or other actual solution shall be scheduled to commence within three years. Note: The City Council is encouraged to designate a percentage of RCT or other currently collected fees on ne~ development for construction of new liDrary facilities. PARKS AND RECREATION GOAL: To provide a diverse and flexible park system which meets both the active and passive recreational needs of the citizens of Chula Vista. OBJECTIVE: Provide public park and recreational opportunities in a timely manner, implementing a five-year master plan which describes the location, facility improvements, and funding program for pro- posed neighborhood and community parks. THRESHOLD STANDARD: Population ratio: three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,O00 residents east of 1-805. IMPLEMENTATION 1.1EASURES Should the Gl,lOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the park and recreation system into conformance. Construction or other actual solution shall be scheduled to commence within three years. If construction of needed new park and recreation facilities is not started witilin three years of the deficiency reported by the GI~OC, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC's report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: 1. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a causal relationship to the problem has been established; and, 2. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. Any such moratorium shall be in effect until construction of the needed new park and recreation facilities has commenced. -g- WATER GOAL: To ensure that adequate supplies of quality (appropriate for intended use) water are available to the City of Chula Vista. OBJECTIVE: 1. Ensure that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth. 2. Ensure that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. THRESHOLD: 1. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District for each project.[P] 2. The City shall annually provide the San Oiego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Municipal Water District with a 12 to 15 month development forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. e. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to communicate to the City and GFIOC. The growth forecast and water district response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. IiIPLEt,IENTATIOt~ I.IEASURE: Should the GIIOC determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect to water, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on the G:,IOC's report, to be directed to the responsible public agency(s) with follow up to assure appropriate response by that agency. -10- SEWER GOAL: To provide a healthful and sanitary sewer collection and disposal system for the residents of Chula Vista. OBJECTIVE: Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. THRESHOLD: l, Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards.[P] 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego ~letropolitan Sewer Authority with a 12 to 15 month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth, or the City Engineering Department staff shall gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include the following: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. d. Other relevant information. The growth forecast and Authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. IIqPLEtiEIITATION MEASURE: Should the Gt40C determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect to sewers, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report Such a "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on tile GMOC's report, to be directed to the responsible public agency(s) with follow-up to assure appropriate response by tl~at agency. -ll- DRAINAGE GOAL TO provide a safe and efficient storm water drainage system to protect residents and property in the City of Chula Vista. OBJECTIVE: Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. THRESHOLD: 1. Storm ~.~ater flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards.£P] 2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet the goals and objectives above. I~IPLEI,1ENTATION MEASURE: Should the GI,iOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the storm drain system into conformance. Construction or other actual solution shall be scheduled to commence within three years. -12- TRAFFIC GOAL: To provide and maintain a safe and efficient street system within the City of Chula Vista. OBJECTIVE: 1. Ensure timely provision of adequate local circulation system capacity in response to planned growth, maintaining acceptable levels of service (LOS). 2. Plan new roadway segments and signalized intersections to maintain acceptable standards at build-out of the General Plan Circulation E1 ement. THRESHOLD STANDARD: 1. City-wide: Maintain LOS 'C' or better at all intersections, with the exception that LOS 'D' may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day.[P] 2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet Standard #1 above, may continue to operate at their current (1987) LOS, but shall not worsen.[P] 3. City-~ide: 14o intersection shall operate at LOS 'F' as measured for the average weekday peak hour.[P] Notes to Standards: 1. LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hour, excluding seasonal and special circumstance variations. 2. The measurement of LOS shall be by the ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) calculation utilizing the City's published design standards (see page 20). 3. Intersections of City arterials with freeway ramps shall be excluded from this policy. 4. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to anticipated deterioration of LOS below established standards. -13- IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: Should the GHOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC's report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: 1. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a causal relationship to the problem has been established; and, 2. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. CITY OF CHULA VISTA STANDARDS FOR ICU AND LOS (August 25, 1987) Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) This procedure will be used to evaluate the impact of any proposed development within the City of Chula Vista. Values will be as follows: 1. Through lane - 1700 vphgl (vehicles per hour green per lane) 2. Left turn lane - 1500 vphgl Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)' Equivalent LOS Volume/Capacity Ratio A 0.00 - 0.60 B 0.61 - 0.70 C 0.71 - 0.80 D 0.81 - 0.90 E U.91 - 1.00 F 1 .~1+ -15- GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHARGE/PURPOSE The purpose of the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) is to provide an independent annual review of the effectiveness of the General Plan in regard to development and growth oriented issues; to make determinations in regard to the impact of development on the "quality of life" in Chula Vista, using the threshold criteria and activities of this section as a basis; and, to publish findings and make recommendations on same. Cor,1).IITTEE MEETINGS AND COMPOSITION The GMOC shall convene annually over an approximate two month period. It shall meet as frequently as necessary during this period to complete its charge. The GMOC shall be composed of nine persons appointed by the City Council acting as a body. Representation shall be as follows: -- one person at-large from each of the four residential general plan areas (Central City, Montgomery/Otay, Sweetwater/Bonita & Eastern Territories) (4) -- one person representing local educational interests (1) -- one person representing local development interests (1) -- one person representing local environmental interests (1) -- one person representing local business interests (1) -- one member of the Planning Commission (1) The length of appointments for eight of the nine members shall be for two years, except the initial appointments, four of which shall be for three years, and five of which shall be for two years. The exception is the member from the Planning Commission, this member may be changed annually at the discretion of the Planning Commission. C(]MMI TTEE RESPOIJSIBILITIES The annual responsibilities of the Gl.lOC shall include the following: 1. Consider the eleven issues designated in this report on a City-wide basis and determine and/or recommend as appropriate using the following criteria: a. l~lhether or not compliance with the adopted thresholds have been maintained on both a cumulative and project basis; b. If each threshold is appropriate for its goal; -16- c. Whether any new threshold should be adopted for any issue; and, d. Whether any new issues should be added or deleted to the thresholds analysis group. e. Whether the City has been using fees and funds derived from developers for the intended purpose. f. Review and make any appropriate recommendations concerning the means of achieving the enforcement outlined. 2. The GMOC shall make and publish its findings and recommendations, including formal "Statements of Concern" when appropriate for such issues as water, schools, sewer, and air quality. The report shall be forwarded to the City Council via the Planning Commission for their action. 3. One possible result of the "threshold" process is that the construction of a public facility is required, therefore the work of the GMOC shall be completed by March 1 of each year, so that the conclusions can be integrated into the budget process in a timely manner. The City Manager shall ensure that this appropriate timing occurs. 4. For thresholds affecting Montgomery, the GMOC recommendations to the Planning Commission should proceed via the Montgomery Planning Committee. 5. The role of the GFIOC will be further clarified by policy statements by the City Council once the Growth Management Component of the General Plan is adopted. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES The City Manager shall provide or ensure staff support for the GMOC. It shall be the support staff's general responsibility to provide the information and actions necessary for the productive and orderly conduct of the GIqOC meetings. Staff support includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Approximately eight weeks prior to the scheduled publication of the findings and recommendations of the GMOC staff shall schedule an orientation meeting with the Committee. At that meeting,, staff shall provide a document which summarizes the status of each threshold, describes project implementation concerns, discusses threshold concerns and, in general, provides the advance information needeU by the GMOC before it begins its review meetings. 2. Staff shall provide administrative and clerical support to the GI.iOC during its meetings and in the preparation of its annual report. -17- 3. Within 60 days of receipt of the GMOC's report, the City Council shall schedule and hold a public hearing to consider the findings, recommendations, and "Statements of Concern" (if any) included in the report, and to consider any actions required by those conclusions. 4. After action has been taken by the Planning Commission and City Council on the report by the GIqOC, staff shall ensure that appropriate policy changes are published and, if necessary, a General Plan Amendment initiated, within thirty (30) days of Council action. These policies shall be in a separate document which summarizes all threshold values and other pertinent information. This document is intended to be a ready and through reference for the public, staff, developers, and decision makers when processing and considering applicable plans and permits. 5. Staff shall apply and monitor the threshold criteria throughout the year. At the individual project level, thresholds shall be reviewed for each proposed tentative tract map which comes before the Planning Commission and/or City Council for consideration and approval. Threshold consistency conclusions shall be made for each project and reported to the decision making body. Further, those thresholds which are best considered from a City-wide perspective shall be continually monitored and evaluated to assure attainment. 6. When threshold levels are not achieved or exceeded, the decision making body (Planning Commission or City Council) shall take appropriate actions to bring projects into compliance with the adopted threshold. -18- I~IPLEMENTATION ~.IEASURES FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS Some Thresholds or Threshold Standards are appropriate for application to individual projects. These are denoted by the symbol "[P]". Such Thresholds shall be evaluated in conjunction with the General Pla~ consistency finding made prior to the approval of any project. For projects which have an EIR prepared, the evaluation may be included in that document which is certified by the Planning Commission. If no EIR is prepared, the threshold analysis shall be included in the alternative CEQA documentation (i.e., negative declaration, etc.), reviewed and approved accordingly, prior to project approval. Every proposed tentative subdivision project shall be subject to these requirements. ~JPC 4734P -19- Attachment 1 Responses to Comments Regarding the Draft Growth Management Program and Pr¢limii~a~ Transportation Phasing Plan Report The following comments address each response submitted to the City as requested at the City Council\Planning Commission Workshop on August 30, 1990. Where changes will be made to either report, as a result of the specific comment received, it is indicated in the response. Each response or letter received is attached. In the left hand margin of the attached comments is a number which corresponds to the response provided below. Sunbow Transportation Phasing Plan - Preliminary Report 1. Calibration - A cordon line analysis was conducted. The model predicted 146,000 trips on the City's streets east of 1-805 and 142,000 were measures in 1990. This represents a 3 percent variation which is well within acceptable limits. (See Appendix B of the report for further details) The calibration process was reviewed and discussed with a technical group of traffic engineers (your traffic engineering consultant included) as it was being done. This group reviewed the process and the specific data generated from the various calibration model runs. The re-calibration of the transportation model was completed with a high degree of accuracy. There is no need to do further analysis. 2. Roadway Performance System Testing - The information requested here was provided to your traffic engineering consultant as previously requested during a technical traffic consultants meeting. This information will be documented in the technical appendix to the final report. 3. Approved Projects Test - There is a comment that incorrect network assumptions were made along Telegraph Canyon Road between 1-805 and Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue. Willdan Associates at the direction of City staff, has reviewed these network loading assumptions. The model has been manually adjusted to reflect the new network assumptions. 1 A more detailed analysis was conducted at the Telegraph Canyon Road\Crest Drive\Oleander Avenue intersection with approved projects and Rancho Del Rey SPA III conditions. This analysis incorporated observed interaction between commemial land uses on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road and observed intersection operations. Although the traffic volumes are reduced, there is still a projected problem at this location. Technical data being prepared for Rancho Del Rey SPA II shows that with mitigation this problem can be corrected. A similar analysis at H Street as suggested would not change the traffic volume information. The comment regarding the use of enhancements at key intersections was to indicate that the Circulation Element provides a different level of analysis and that the volumes shown in the Element to determine level of service can not be directly transferred to the analysis contained in the T.P.P. It is anticipated that special enhancements to intersections may be considered as part of the Sectional Planning Area Plan review. 4. Developer Phasing Year 1994 and 1995 Test - The data requested will be incorporated into the technical appendix of the final report. This information was reviewed and discussed during the technical traffic consultant meetings. 5. Additional Transportation Analysis - It is recommended in your comments that additional testing be undertaken regarding the maximum development which can be permitted without State Route 125 and the maximum development that could be permitted with an interim facility. The report indicates that the approved final and tentative subdivision maps will utilize the remaining and programmed roadway capacity. Additional approvals can not be made until a guaranteed finance plan and facility improvement in the State Route 125 corridor has been approved by the City Council. It is recommended that a specific study be undertaken to determine what facility improvements will be required. The study will also review the available finance alternatives and recommend that the City Council approve a proposed plan to guarantee funding and the construction of this facility. Once this study and finance plan is approved which guarantees the facility improvement, additional transportation testing can be done to determine what development can proceed prior to the physical construction of the identified facility improvement in the State Route 125 corridor. 6. Conclusions and Recommendations - noted. 2 Draft Growth Management Pro.am 1. Existing Circulation - cormc~ion noted and changes will be made in the final report. 2. Future Circulation - correction noted and changes will be made in the final report. 3. As discussed previously there was a loading assumption question not a modeling error. 4. Same comment as #3. 5. Summary and Recommendations - comment noted. 6. There was an additional comment regarding the Second Annual Growth Management Oversight Committee Report which was referred to the Public Works Department. The Buie Co oration Development Phasing Forecast clarification - The Development Phasing Forecast is a prediction of how development is likely to proceed in the next 5 to 7 years. The forecast will be updated annually as additional information is available. The forecast will also be used as stated on page 117, item 4 of the Draft Program, that is it shall be used as baseline information in the evaluation of new development proposals, to evaluate cumulative impact on public facilities. At the present time there is a limitation on development based upon available facility capacity. As additional studies are undertaken and completed, then may be refinements proposed to the interim Phasing Policy. Rancho Del Rey Draft Growth Management Program 1. Financing is guaranteed when an irrevocable agreement is approved by the City Council which provides the funding necessary to make the identified improvements in the State Route 125 corridor. 3 The selection of this facility as a privateX~public toll facility by the State does guarantee the facility can be built or financed. California Transportation Ventures (CTV) is in the process of negotiating a franchise agreement with CALTRANS at this time. As Bruce Podwal, President of ~ indicated at our meeting on October 1, 1990, the first stage of their overall approach is the completion of the federal environmental review requirements. This is anticipated to be completed by November 1992. If the environmental documents and route alignment are approved, CTV will then be in a position to secure financing for this facility. At the present, there is no financial guarantee to fund an improvement in the State Route 125 corridor. The formation of a financing district may be one alternative to guaranteeing the financing for this facility. The allocation of funds by itself in the State Transportation Improvement Plan is not a financial guarantee. This designation does not guarantee that the monies will be available when needed to finance the construction of this improvement. 2. Based upon the City's experience with Development Agreements, they are generally entered into after the conditions of approval for the tentative map have been determined. This reference in the Growth Management Program is not intended to serve as a City Council policy, but it is provided as general information. 3. An additional footnote will be added in the final report to indicate remaining units as of January 1, 1990. This figure was not intended to show the total number of units approved. 4. The exact procedure to be followed has not been specifically defined at this time. City staff will be formalizing this process as part of the implementation of the Growth Management Program. In the meantime, should a threshold violation be noted it would be brought to the attention of the GMOC and then reported to the City Council with a specific action recommended. City staff would determine the causal relationship. If a developer felt the determination was in error, an appeal could be made to the City Council. 5. The difference has to due with the Growth Management Program showing the buildout network and the Transportation Phasing Plan preliminary report showing the roadway network prior to buildout. 6. These questions can not be answered at this time nor would the answers affect the draft Growth Management Program or Preliminary TPP. These questions will be considered and answer as part of the specific State Route 125 study. 7. Fire stations - correction noted and it will be reflected in the final report. 8. The H Street park site has a fire station and library site located on it. This site is no longer of sufficient size and the Park and Recreation Department has removed it from the list. 9. This item is being reviewed by the Park and Recreation Department. If determined appropriate, it will be changed in the final report. 10. See comment #8 and #9. 11. It is not foreseeable that the situation described in your response would actually occur. However, the intent of this is to ensure that new development pays for those facilities its project demands require. 12. Comments have been noted regarding why Rancho Del Rey SPA III should be shown as an exempt project. As indicated in the draft Growth Management Program, if RDR SPA III can demonstrate how the traffic threshold standard can be met then it would be allowed to proceed so long as all other conditions are met. Staff has requested that specific information be provided to the City regarding the assessment district and Community Facilities District financing assumptions. 13. Same comment as 12. 14. This is a guideline to be considered when determining maximum debt. It is not a policy. 15. The reference on page 131, item b, means each project must provide facilities concurrent with the specific impacts of the project. If a facility has existing capacity, the first project can not use up this capacity without providing for added capacity in the future. The exact wording will be modified (shown with underlining) as follows, "The phasing schedule shall ensure that development of one area will not utilize more than the area's prorata share of the facility or improvement capacity within the projected service area of the proposed facility unless sufficient capacity is ensured for other areas at the time of first 5 development." This is intended to overcome the first come first serve approach to available facility capacity. 16. The cashflow requirement is not intended to be provided for internal improvements, but will be required to be provided for facilities where public funding is anticipated such as from a fee program or assessment district. 17. The facility listing will be provided as part of the Sectional Planning Area Plan process. These facilities will be correlated with the projected phasing of development from the SPA Plan. Transportation Phasing Plan - Preliminary_ Report 1. The three points contained in the response were reviewed and noted. San ~ 1. The proposed language change regarding the interim policies contained in the letter dated October 2, 1990 was reviewed. The reference to a 12 month time frame is being considered for inclusion into the final language of the interim policy. The suggestion to allow certain projects to move forward with tentative maps before the financing of an improvement in the State Route 125 corridor is approved by the City Council is not consistent with the overall Growth Management Program which requires that facility capacity be guaranteed as part of the Sectional Planning Area Plan process. 2. The use of Development Impact Fees for Streets to finance an State Route 125 corridor improvement will not provide sufficient funds when they are needed for this improvement: Although fees are being and have been collected, they have been used to finance other DIF Streets. 3. Adding language, as proposed on Exhibit A to your letter, which would allow certain projects to move forward to tentative map prior to the financial guarantee for an improvement in the State Route 125 corridor being approved by the City Council, is counter productive. The projects which would be exempted create facility impacts which would not be adequately addressed. Following the approval of a finance plan and construction schedule, it would be acceptable to determine what projects could receive tentative map approvals and could build a certain portion of their development project prior to the 6 physical opening of the:'facility in the State Route 125 corridor provided level of service standards are met. 4. The entire General Plan Area was included in the study including the roadway network used in conjunction with the SANDAG 1995 data for those areas outside of the planning area. 5. There are projected facility capacity problems which are not addressed in your suggestion. The exemptions suggested impact facilities where capacity has been identified as being insufficient. 6. The primary goal is not to identify the financial planning for an improvement in the State Route 125 corridor, but to have the City Council approve a finance program which guarantees funding. The Baldwin Comnanv 1. The initial point made in your letter is that tentative maps do not buildout in the order in which they are approved. Although this may be correct, it has little bearing on the conclusions contained in the draft Growth Management Program. The Growth Management Program analyzed the cumulative impacts from those projects which have received discretionary approvals in the form of final or tentative maps. These impacts where compared with the existing and programmed capacity for each facility to determine adequacy. This analysis indicated a projected shortfall of Traffic capacity. It is the intention of the interim phasing policy to ensure that no additional tentative maps be approved until such time as additional roadway capacity can be financially guaranteed within the State Route 125 corridor. Once this finance plan has been approved by the City Council, the City will consider increasing circulation capacity to allow certain developments to occur prior to the physical opening of a transportation improvement along the State Route 125 corridor provided level of service standards are met. 2. Stopping the processing of tentative maps does not reduce the ability of the development community and City from working toward facility solutions as indicated in your letter. It does ensure that additional development approvals (tentative and final maps) will not be made until the planning for additional facilities is complete. The implementation process contained in the draft Growth Management Program ensures that the necessary planning is done and opportunities for creative facility solutions are developed. The processing of General Development Plans and Sectional Planning Area Plans are not effected by the interim phasing policy. This process allows for the planning of development and corresponding facility improvements to take place. This is where the phasing of development is projected and compliance with the City's Threshold Ordinance for Public Facilities is demonstrated. Then at the tentative map stage, these solutions can be agreed to and conditions incorporated into the approval of the tentative map to ensure that these facilities are provided as required. When the final map is approved, these conditions will be implemented and building permits can be issued so long as the thresholds for all facilities are maintained. The processing of a tentative map could proceed quicker than the 18 months to two years as described in your letter. 3. The interim phasing policy will not have an effect the availability of new housing in Chula Vista. There am approximately 8,000 approved dwelling units which can be built under the interim phasing policy. 4. California Transportation Ventures (CTV) has been awarded a public/private partnership to build a toll facility within State Route 125. It is our understanding as indicated by Bruce Podwal, President of ~ they are just now finalizing the franchise agreement which will allow them to move forward with the environmental review process necessary to adopt a specific alignment for State Route 125. It is their optimistic estimate that the environmental documents could be completed and approved as soon as November of 1992. At that time CTV will then attempt to secure the final financing for the interim facility. The financing for this facility has not been guaranteed and based on our meeting with CTV will not be secured until sometime after the environmental documents are approved. 5. The suggestion to change the language in the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan to allow tentative maps to be approved and building permits conditioned to comply with the threshold standard is not consistent with the Growth Management Program. This process would allow projects to be approved that would not be providing the facilities necessary to meet the project impacts. 8 The Growth Management Program requires development projects to demonstrate how compliance with the threshold ordinance for each facility will be maintained as development is projected to occur in the SPA Plan. In addition, the monitoring of facilities will be done to verify that the thresholds are actually being met. Once the finance plan has been approved by the City Council to fund an interim improvement in the State Route 125 corridor, then the City through the Sectional Planning Area Plan process and Tentative Map review and approval process would consider allowing development to be approved and building permits to be issued prior to the opening of State Route 125. Approvals would be contingent upon the developer providing added roadway capacity to serve the project and to meet the level of service standards. 6. Tentative Map Moratorium - This has been addressed. 7. Page 22 Right-of-way dedication. Yes, this should provide for the ultimate right-of-way to be dedicated and the final report will be changed. 8. Page 25 Cost Estimates. It should be noted that cost estimates provided in this plan are just that, estimates. They are not intended to serve as the final cost figure for any project or improvement within the Growth Management Program. These costs are anticipated to be updated by the City and developers as additional information becomes available. 9. Pages 37 and 38 Police Substations. It is the City's desire not to indicate at this time that the police substation may be moved in the future. If during the processing of the SPA plans this is determined to be a practical item, the Growth Management Program would be modified to indicate this. 10. Page 41, Temporary Fire Facilities. It was suggested that the draft Growth Management Program should expressly provide that, in some instances, it may be appropriate and desirable to use temporary facilities if approved by the Fire Department. This consideration would occur as part of the SPA Plan process. 11. Page 68, Park Standards. This reference would not preclude a large project from proposing to dedicate land in an amount greater than that required by the threshold standard for an individual portion of the overall project. The applicant could propose to do this and it would be considered by the City. The park land dedication requirements for a project will be taken in total. Should 9 the phasing of this park land be conducted in such a way that surplus acreage is dedicated prior to the need established by the threshold ordinance, the applicant may be able to receive credit for surplus park acreage in subsequent phases provided this is agreed to by the City prior to the initial dedication. This reference in the draft program was meant to indicate that a project would not be approved unless it paid park fees or dedicated sufficient land to meet the Park standard. 12. Page 70, Water. The suggestions regarding water reclamation, water conservation, and the specific role of water agencies will be considered by the City through the implementation of the Water Task Force recommendations. 13. Page 71, Water Master Plans. The suggestion that the processing requirements of the Sectional Planning Area Plan reference conformance to the applicable master plan of the water district serving the proposed project will be added to this section in the final report. 14. Page 84, Sewer Trunk Estimates. The dollar amounts shown are estimates. It is anticipated that facility cost estimates will be refined over time as additional information is provided. These updated estimates would be shown in the Public Facilities Finance Plan. 15. Page 108, Civic Facilities. The suggestion to develop a specific standard for Civic Facilities to aid in the implementation process will be considered and addressed by the appropriate City departments. 16. Page 123, Reimbursement Agreements. Current fee programs do not include any funds to pay interest. The desire for a developer to move ahead of the City's proposed development fee program funding schedule to make a facility improvement is at the option of the developer pending approval by the City. Therefore, the developer in choosing to go ahead of the City's schedule assumes the responsibility to pay any carrying costs or interest associated with that decision. The developer would be reimbursed for the cost of the facility as contained in the fee program at the time the City had anticipated to construct the improvement. 17. Page 127, Implementation. Yes, the implementation of this program will require year-round commitment of significant resources and the diligent good faith and cooperative efforts of both public and private sectors. 10 EastLake Development Comoanv 1. Exemptions These have been reviewed and no exemptions can be recommended due to the projected facility capacity problems which have been identified. 2. The scope of work for the TPP update was modified by staff during the development of this update. This determination was made based upon the Growth Management Program findings that the existing approved final and tentative maps traffic generation will utilize the remaining roadway capacity. It further identified a need for a facility to be constructed in the State Route 125 corridor prior to approving additional projects. 3. Item II 2, "the end product of the report is not as useful as it could have been in that the analysis is predicated on levels of development rather than levels of roadway system implementation" is a statement which is unclear. Whether the analysis looked at roadway system implementation or levels of development, the final result is the same. Existing approved projects, final and tentative maps, utilize the remaining and programmed roadway capacity. Additional approvals will over burden the roadway system unless there is a guaranteed finance plan to construct a new facility in the State Route 125 corridor. It is the intention of the interim phasing policy to ensure that no additional tentative maps be approved until such time as additional roadway capacity can be financially guaranteed within the State Route 125 corridor. A two part study is being considered. The first phase would be the finance plan to guarantee the funding of the facility in the State Route 125 corridor. Once the finance plan has been approved by the City Council, then the second phase of the study would be to specifically examine what other roadway facilities could be built to increase circulation capacity which would allow some development to occur prior to the opening of a transportation improvement along the State Route 125 corridor. 4. These intersections may be mitigable. The City is looking at possible mitigation for these locations in conjunction with the review of development proposals. 11 5. Excess Capacity - The Growth Management Program indicates on page 131, item b, how this issue will be addressed. The specific language is being modified (new language is underlined) as follows, 'Whe phasing schedule shall ensure that development of one area will not utilize more than the area's prorata share of the facility or improvement capacity within the projected service area of the proposed facility_ unless sufficient capacity is ensured for other areas at the time of first development." This is intended to overcome the first come first serve approach to available facility capacity. Each project must provide facilities concurrent with the specific impacts of the project. If a facility has existing capacity, the first project can not use up this capacity without providing for added capacity in the future to meet the projects total impacts. 6. Parks - EastLake Community Park will be changed in the final report to a future park. The statement on park size will also be clarified in the final report. Chula Vista City School District 1. Figure 14 as well as related paragraphs will be changed to clarify the fact that the schools listed as "over capacity" are the schools which were reported to the GMOC as being impacted by the 12-18 month growth projections only. 2. The specific order for the construction of future elementary facilities will be deleted to reflect the fact that the opening dates and order of construction have not yet been determined. 3. The text will be changed explain that the schools listed as "over capacity" do not represent the status of the entire district but only the schools impacted by the 12-18 month growth projections. Reference is made to the fact that 17 of the schools are actually Operating over capacity. 4. The reference to Figure 15 will be deleted. 5. The comment regarding paragraph three was correct and will be incorporated into the summary statements regarding the cities needed support for the District. 6. In response to the previous letter, of July 11, 1990, corrections will be made to the map. 12 Sweetw~ter Union High School District 1. The suggested changes in items 1 through 6 will be incorporated into the final report. 2. The paragraph regarding the three schools sites owned by the District will be re-written to reflect this information. Additional Comments Received 1. Will Hyde suggested that the Threshold Ordinance standard recommendations presented as part of the second Annual Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) be added into the final Growth Management Program. The City Council's action taken to accept the recommendations from the GMOC to update the Threshold Ordinance standards will be reflected in the final Growth Management Program. 2. Will Hyde also commented that with the added responsibilities for the GMOC as a result of the recommendations contained in the Growth Management Program that staff should consider reconvening the Committee early in the year. As part of the implementation process, staff will be examining the most effective way to process information through the GMOC to ensure there is sufficient time for the Committee to complete its charge each year. 13 S U N BOW ~ October 1, 1990 Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 Re: Comments on Preliminary Report on Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan and City of Chula Vista Growth Management Program Dear Mr. Leiter: Response to comment Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment upon the Eastern Chula vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) and the Chula Vista Growth Management Program. AS you know, we have been monitoring the preparation of these documents carefully and can certainly appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the p~ocess. We extend our congratulations to you and your staff on accomplishing this tremendous task. In order to fully comprehend the ECVTPP, we discussed the Report with our traffic engineering consultant. As a result of those discussions, we submit the following comments for your consideration: 1. 1. Paqe 7 Calibration: Our traffic engineering consultant believes this section should be expanded to include an analysis of the cordon lines for comparison of regional traffic. We believe it is important to include a study of cordon lines in order to obtain realistic data concerning the volume of traffic. Including an analysis of cordon lines in the recalibration of the Travel Forecast Model for 1990 would contribute to the reliability of the updated modeling work. 2. · Paqe 7 - Roadway System Performance Testinq: This section should be expanded to describe how AM/PM peak hour volumes were generated and calibrated. We would like an opportunity to review the resulting AM/PM volumes in order to effectively comment on the Report's conclusions that certain areas are problem areas. 3. 3. Paqe 8 - "Approved" Projects Test: Our traffic engineering consultant met with a representative from Willdan Associates 2445 Fifth Avenue, Fourth FloOr, San Die~o, California 92101-1892. (619) 231-3637, FAX (619) 232-4717 Response to comment Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director October 1, 1990 Page 2 3. continued and with your City Traffic Engineer, Harold Rosenberg. Together, they reviewed the peak hour volume data for the intersection at Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest Drive/Oleander and they came to the conclusion that the peak hour volume data was incorrectly modeled. A similar review of H Street/Hidden Vista/Terra Nova Shopping Center also should be conducted to determine the validity of the peak hour volume data for this intersection. The Report should look at all intersections from 1-805 east to these critical intersections. The Report appears to be based on incorrect network assumptions along Telegraph Canyon Road between 1-805 and Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue. For example, traffic originating from the residential ~evelopment and the shopping center were loaded at the Telegraph Canyon Road/Oleander Avenue/Crest Drive intersection. The correct loadings should have included Telegraph Canyon Road at Halecrest and the access to/from the shopping center. Because it appears that the conclusions formed in this section are based on incorrect information, we request that this section be corrected and revised accordingly. The last paragraph of this section implies that special enhancements will be provided to key intersections throughout the City. These special enhancements were not incorporated into the Circulation Element. We believe it would be beneficial to include a discussion of how and where these enhancements are used and the results that will be obtained from them. 4. 4. Page 10 - Developer Phasing Year 1994 and 1995 Test: We request that information and data be provided in sufficient detail concerning, for example, network plots, TAZ map, and land use data to determine the accuracy of the 1994 and 1995 model. Confirming the accuracy of the 1994 and 1995 model, will enable us to effectively comment on the conclusions reached in this section. 5. 5. Page 12 - Additional Transportation AnalYsis: This section addresses a transportation analysis which takes into account an interim facility in the same corridor that SR 125 will ultimately be located within. The interim facility assumed is a four lane at-grade expressway from East Orange Avenue to SR 54. This section concludes that, from a review of traffic volumes at the identified intersections with standard geometrics, they would fail to meet the threshold standards. Therefore, this Response to comment Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director October 1, 1990 Page 3 5. continued interim alternative would not provide the necessary roadway capacity to support additional developer phasing as proposed. We believe this section of the Report needs to be expanded to identify the maximum development that could be permitted without SR 125 and the maximum development that could be permitted with an interim facility. 6. 6. Paqe 13 - Conclusions and Recommendations: This section identifies the need for further study of SR 125. Until additional studies are completed and the information requested in the previous comments are provided, these conclusions cannot be confirmed and may have to be expanded and/or revised. We also reviewed the Chula Vista Growth Management Program with our traffic engineering consultant and have the following comments regarding the Growth Management Program: A. Section 3.2 - Traffic: 1. 1. Paqe 26 - Existinq Circulation: Palomar Road, east of 1-805, and Orange Avenue, east of 1-805, are not shown on this Figure but should be included because they are existing roadways. Also, Telegraph Canyon Road, east of 1-805, should be corrected to indicate that it is a "six- lane prime arterial" as opposed to a "four-lane major street," as is currently depicted on this Figure. 2. Paqe 27 - Future Circulation System: Telegraph Canyon Road, east of 1-805, should be corrected to indicate that it will be a "six-lane prime arterial" as opposed to a "six-lane major street," as it is depicted on this Figure. 3. 3. Pa~e 31: The fifth paragraph identifies two problem intersections: the intersection at Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue and the intersection at East H Street/Hidden Vista/Terra Nova S-hopping Center main entrance. The paragraph concludes that these intersections will need to be closely monitored to ensure conformance with the threshold standards. This conclusion is not documented in the ECVTPP update. It should be noted that we have identified modeling errors regarding this conclusion and therefore this statement will need to be revised. When the ECVTPP revisions are completed, analysis of these intersections should be included with the analysis contained in the updated ECVTPP document. Response tu c~rrn~t Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director October 1, 3990 Page 4 4. 4. Paqe 32: The fourth paragraph identifies three problem intersections: the intersection at East H Street/Midden Vista/Terra Nova Shopping Center main entrance, the intersection at Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue, and the intersection at East Orange Avenue/Oleander Avenue. The paragraph concludes that these intersections will need to be closely monitored to ensure conformance with the threshold standards. This conclusion, also, is not documented in the ECVTPP update. It should be noted that we have identified modeling errors and therefore this conclusion will need to be revised. When the ECVTPP revisions are completed, analysis of these intersections should be included with the analysis contained in the updated ECVTPP document. 5. 5. Paqe 33 - Summary and Recommendations: The second paragraph concludes SR 125 is needed by Increment 5 (9100 DU). The Growth Management Program and ECVTPP address four development scenarios as approved by the City and/or proposed by the developers. However, we believe this document should contain an analysis and provide documentation as to how much and where development can occur with full development of the arterial street system without SR 125. B. Attachment "A"- The Growth Manaqement Oversiqht Committee Second Annual ReDort: 6. Paqe 5, Paraqraph 4: This paragraph states that: Adequacy of sewers must also be addressed in the environmental documents of proposed new projects, which will be required to pay a proportional share for the construction of needed new sewers. The Sunbow development, which will' connect to an undersized 8 inch line...,is an example of such a development. We believe the last sentence in this paragraph should be clarified to provide that Sunbow development is not connecting to an inadequate pipeline. We suggest the following language be substituted: Respone to comment Mr. Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director October 1, 1990 Page 5 6. continued Adequacy of sewers must also be addressed in the environmental documents of proposed new projects, which will be required to pay a proportional share for the construction of needed new sewers. A qood example of such a proposal is the Sunbow development. The Sunbow development has a~reed to install adequate sewer f~cilities even thouqh it will utilize only a portion of the uD~raded capacity in the upqraded sewer system. A sewer reimbursement a~reement will be entered into bY Sunbow and the City which will nrovide for fair share reimbursement to the developer of Sunbow from proceeds of fees collected by the City at the time of future connections to the sewer system. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Very truly yours, SUNBOW ASSOCIATES BY:~t~ T. ~ging Director 0: \3\3330\35685\LTRLEIT2. 278 ...... TheBuieCorporation 16935 WEST 8ERNAROO ORIVE SUITE 200 September 28, 1990 Response to comment PERSONAL DELIVERY Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning CITY OF CHULAVISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Re: Growth Management Program Dear Mr. Leiter: Response on Page 3. These comments are submitted on behalf of The Buie Corporation, the owner and developer of Bonita Meadows which is located in the eastern territories. The Buie Corporation has reviewed the draft Growth Management Program and seeks to clarify the "Development Phasing Forecast" in Section 4.2 on Page 118. It is the Buie Corporation's understanding that the Development Phasing Forecast, as depicted on Figure 36 on Page 119 does not prevent any project from proceeding which is not listed. The Buie Corporation is of the opinion that the existing constraints on its ability to develop Bonita Meadows will be removed in order to permit the development of the property within five to seven years. Accordingly, we suggest the inclusion of strengthening of the fourth paragraph on Page 118 to insure that the Development Phasing Forecast does not limit or permit the development of any given project. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ~R~PR~TION Sheryl Me: =ado Pro~ect M~ nager SM/lw ~ cc: Doug Buie Charlie Gill c^ wo~o-66z~ October 1, 1990 Mr. Robert Leiter, Director Planning Department CITY OF CHULA VISTA 275 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Re: Draft Growth Management Program Response to comment Dear Mr. Leiter: Thank you for allowing us to comment on the Draft Growth Management Program (DGMP) and Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP). The following comments and questions are organized by the order in which the issues are raised in the DGMP first, then in the ECVTPP. DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1. 1. Page iv - Paragraph 2 What is meant by "until the financing of State Route 125 is guaranteed"? Is approval of the construction of a toll road facility by the California Transportation Commission considered a "guarantee" of financing? Is the formation of an assessment district or some other fee district considered a guarantee? Is the allocation of funds for the facility in the State Transportation Improvement Plan considered a guarantee? 2. Page 14 - Paragraph 2 Recognizing that a development agreement is a voluntary option for both the City and the property owner, must consideration of the adoption of a development agreement wait until after conditions of approval on the tentative subdivision map are established by the City Council? Might there not be times when a development agreement at the SPA or even the Specific Plan level of approval be desired by both the City and the developer? 3. 3. Page 15 - Figure 4 It should be noted that the number of dwelling units and acres of commercial and industrial under the "Approved Final Maps" section reflect that amount without building permits pulled as of 1/1/90 and not the total number approved. Robert Leiter Page 2 Response to comment October 1, 1990 4. 4. Page 21 - Paragraph 1 If the City Council were to establish a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications because the GMOC has reported that threshold standards have been exceeded, who would decide and in what manner would the decision be made as to the ~area wherein a causal relationship to the problem has been established? Is there an appeal process to the determination? 5. 5. Page 27 - Future Circulation System Otay Lakes Road is shown as a six-lane prime medal, but the exhibits in the ECVTPP shows this road as a four-lane major. Why is there a difference? 6. 6. Page 33 - Summary and Recommendations A number of projects in the eastern portion of the City have been paying a transportation development impact fee for the last several years. This fee has included a component to provide the financing for an interim facility on the State Route 125 right-of-way. What will happen to these funds ff the City and/or State determine to finance the SR 125 facility through some other means? What fights will the projects that have paid these funds have to access the facility when finally built? · 7. 7. Page 42 - Paragraph I The County of San Diego does not provide fire protection services. Any reference to the County in relation to fire protection should be changed to reflect the applicable special fire protection district(s). 8. 8. Page 64 - Figure 19 Under existing neighborhood park the 'H" Street Park in Rancho del Rey (SPA I) should be added which is 16 acres. 9. 9. Page 66 - Figure 20 Under future neighborhood parks the Rancho del Rey. SPA 3 neighborhood park should be added which is 10 acres. 10. 10. Page 67 - Parks Under existing neighborhood park the "H" Street Park in Rancho del fey (SPA I) should be added which is 16 acres. Under future neighborhood parks the Rancho del Rey SPA 3 neighborhood park should be added which is 10 acres. Robert Leiter Page 3 Response to comment October 1, 1990 11. 11. Page 115 - Paragraph 6 and Page 116 - Paragraph 1, 2, and 3 The discussion concerning finance policies states in part that it is the "City's intent to build new facilities only when increases in revenues allow sufficient funding to operate, maintain and staff these new facilities.' There might be occasions when it is in the City's interest to have facilities opened prior to sufficient revenue being available to operate. In these cases advance construction should be allowed if a willing party were to commit to advance funding for operations subject to reimbursement from future City revenue. 12. 12. Page 117 - Paragraph 4 Rancho del Rey SPA III should not be considered an "exception" to the interim policy but should be represented as an ~approved' project for the following reasons: RDR SPA IH is final development phase of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan approved in 1985. RDR in its entirety has been annexed to the City of Chula Vista. RDR is an infill project surrounded by previously approved development and previously installed infrastructure (i.e. sewer, water, etc.) The immediate development of SPA IH is consistent with the City's policy of west to east development. SPA IH will complete needed public improvements including street and utility extensions, i.e. Paseo Ranch and East "J" Street. The immediate development of SPA III will provide a needed junior high school site, projected to be opened in 1995. SPA IH will provide a 10 acre neighborhood park determined by the Parks and Recreation Department to be critically needed for the area. The SPA Plan for SPA HI was submitted over one year ago and should be considered a "pipeline project". This is the only project with a SPA Plan in process. The tentative tract map for SPA III has also been formally submitted and is in the review pipeline which is also unique to any other project east of 1-805. SPA III is within two previously approved City of Chnla Vista public improvement assessment districts, 87-1 and 88-2. When the bonds were sold certain assumptions were made concerning the timing, intensity and density of SPA III. Any action of the City which alters these assumptions may affect the security for the bonds. Robert Leiter Page 4 Response to comment October 1, 1990 12. continued SPA IH is within Community Facilities District No. 3 of the Sweetwater Union High School District and Chula Vista School District. When the bonds were sold certain assumptions were made concerning the timing, intensity and density of SPA III. Any action of the City which alters there assumptions may affect the security for the bonds. Transportation DIF credit has been accrued by SPA IH because of the completion of 'H' Street, Otay Lakes Road, and 1- 805/"H" Street interchange improvements. 13. Page 119 - Figure 3 Rancho del Rey SPA III should not be considered an 'exception" to the interim policy but should be represented as an Napproved' project for the following reasons: RDR SPA III is final development phase of the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan approved in 1985. RDR in its entirety has been annexed to the City of Chula Vista. RDR is an infi!l project surrounded by previously approved development and previously installed infrastructure (i.e. sewer, water, etc.) The immediate development of SPA III is consistent with the City's policy of west to east development. SPA IH will complete needed public improvements including street and utility extensions, i.e. Paseo Ranch and East "J" Street. The immediate development of SPA III will provide a needed junior high school site, projected to be opened in 1995. SPA IH will provide a 10 acre neighborhood park determined by the Parks and Recreation Department to be critically needed for the area. The SPA Plan for SPA III was submitted over one year ago and should be considered a "pipeline project". This is the only project with a SPA Plan in process. The tentative tract map for SPA III has also been formally submitted and is in the review pipeline which is also unique to any other project east of 1-805. SPA III is within two previously approved City of Chula Vista public improvement assessment districts, 87-1 and 88-2. When the bonds were ~old certain assumptions were made concerning the timing, intensity and density of SPA III. Any action of the City which alters these assumptions may affect the security for the bonds. Robert Lelter Page 5 Response to comment October 1, 1990 13. continued SPA HI is within Community Facilities District No. 3 of the Sweetwater Union High School District and Chula Vista School District. When the bonds were sold certain assumptions were made concerning the timing, intensity and density of SPA IH. Any action of the City which alters there assumptions may affect the security for the bonds. Transportation DIF credit has been accrued by SPA III because of the completion of "H~ Street, Otay Lakes Road, and 1- 805/"H" Street interchange improvements. 14. 14. Page 121 - Paragraph 6 A statement is made that the "City uses a guideline of 1 percent of the assessment (SIC) valuation of a residential dwelling unit as a limit of the maximum debt which can be levied." What is the basis for this limit? There is a rule of thumb used by many jurisdictions that the annual debt service should not exceed 1 percent of the assessed valuation, but not the limit of the amount of debt of not exceeding 1 percent. If this in fact the policy of the City of Chula Vista, how is the debt measured? Is it only the principal financed by the debt, or is the entire amount of the debt to be repaid over the term of the debt? Is the "debt" amount determined in current dollars or constant dollars? does the total amount of debt include debt from other agencies such as the water district and school districts? 15. 15. Page 131 - Item b. Reference is made to the need of the public facilities financing plan to contain a phasing schedule which "shall ensure that development of one area will not utilize more than the area's prorata share of facility or improvement capacity within that area unless sufficient capacity is ensured for other areas at the time of the first development." Its unclear how this statement would apply in practice. 16. 16. Page 131 - Item b. Item b. states that the public facilities financing plan shall contain a cash flow analysis for financing of facilities and improvements for the project. This would appear to not be appropriate for those facilities which will be made subdivision exactions and become the complete responsibility of the developer. This statement would only seem to apply to those facilities that use some form of public financing including a fee program and/or assessment districts. Robert Leiter Page 6 Response to comment October 1, 1990 17. 17. Page 132 - Item d. Item d. states that the public facilities financing plans shah contain 'A list or schedule of facilities requirements correlated to individual development projects within the area.' What does this mean? Is an ~individual development project' a tentative map within the SPA Plan area or is it an entire SPA Plan or something else? ff it is an entire SPA Plan, will there be a need to show how particular portions of the SPA Plan correlate to the facilities projects? EAST CHULA VISTA TRANSPORTATION PHASING PLAN 1. Page 8 - Paragraph 1 and 4 Explanation of Rancho del fey SPA l~l's unique status should be expanded to include comments presented in comment #12 of DGMP. 2. Page 13 - Paragraph 3 Reference to approve Rancho del Rey SPA III should be included here. See page 8, paragraph 4. 3. Page 13 - Paragraph 3 The same comment contained in #1 under the DGMP discussion also applies here. This concludes our comments on the DGMP and ECVTPP. Thank you for providing the opportunity for us to comment. Please contact me if you may have any questions. cc: Phil Carter - Willdan Associates SAN i~IGUEL PARTNERS D~v~op~r o~ Rdncho San A4JXu¢] ~F ~ Chula Vhta C~'~I~ V~:g ~ 92010 1. Response to this ~ ~ ~u~ of our mtt~ o~ ~rid~y S~r ~ it ~ ~u~ted letter w~ fo~u]~t~ ~pcclEc l~gu~gc to ~d ~ ~ ~ ~=cl[ m t~,~= un~r~t~0mg cf the Intent a~ te~ o~ the ~:cnm p~mg ordinance p:opu:~d ~ item on pat~ 117 ~ ~e Dr~ Oro~ Ma~g~m,~nt ~o~. ~dr ~huls is ~o I~re thit ~e cl~ ~uncH un~rst~ds ~he ~ondiSo~ sur~un~ ~e adopuon of ~e m~r[~ ord~nce ~ add~t the l~a to tha l~ff '~e p:o~sed ~1~' is in~e~d~ to provide · l~mon~ dine city eoun~l. ~bould nO financ~ rob!ut:on ~ de?rmt~d within t~ gme ba~e. then ~nher publ[c hearings and eevelo~r ~ut would be seared ~ ~tter~e h~ ~ ~r~ of ~ ln~m ~li~ in the SR.12S ~mgo. ~uld ~ ~ndeA r ......... ro~=. ...... r Ac~rdingly, SpeCie ~roJe~s wo~d b~ ~ut~d th? l~ [he proJeci s~fic traffic ~d cir~ii~on studiel et ~ic~ r~q~red by the city for ~e ~n~on of ~ pro, eot &~{~ f~r s~ O~ ~e $R-1~ ~rrldor ~,~ld ~I~o be r~quired. ~i~ w~Id bc ~u%~e~ to n~t(~on ~nd t~eement the c~ty In~ ~c rc~ccttvc dcvelo~r at th~ t me ~ t~nt~t ~ 12707 Hi&h Bluff Dri~'e, Suite 110. Sin Dl¢~, Cilifomis 92130. ~KX ~GV BY:WILLDAN ~AN DI~O ;I~- 27~0 = ~=I?PN ~GITY O~ GHULA VISTA ? WILL,AN ~AN DIE~O;i~ 3 Robert l~l:er, ?Itm~I~ Di~e~r October 2, lP~ - Bob, I ~v~.~h~t ~n~ru about ~ ~at ~inS to m~: ~e ~"s r~q~remen~ G~L w~ SAN MIGUEL PARTNERS Mr. Ro~ ~iter" ' ~ Pl~n~g Dk~tor Ci~ of Chda V~ta 276 Fou~h Avenue Ch~a V~ta, CA 92010 Subjm: Co~ents Coning the Proposed Oro~h Management ~o~am and the E~t Ch~a VNta Transpo~ation PhasNg Phn (EC~P) Update Response to comment Dear Bob: Fu~her to ~e Ci~'s requ~t for co~en~ eoneemNg the a~ve ite~ proposed for r~ at a pubic hea~g on O~o~r 16, 1990, San Mi~el PaNners would offer the fo~o~g ~en~ on each Rem. East Ch~a VNta Transpo~ation PhasNg Plan (EC~P) Update - San ~el Panners h ~itted to wor~g with the d~ and o~er d~elopers h the Eastern Te~itori~ to hsure that $R-I~ ~m~ re~. Ident~hg the options for ~ancNg t~ fac~ N obviously n~, ~thou~ it ~ ~ely that there ara s~er~ additionfl approach~ w~ch are ve~ aeN~aNe ~ven ~ ~e~ood of p~at~tion of the fac~. ~e pend~g r~endation ~ the Gro~h Management PI~ conca~g an Nte~ or.ante to ~t prong of n~ proj~ts to the SPA l~e~ thou~ not d~kaNe, may ~ a~eptaNa ff done stripy ~ an Nter~ measure not to ex.ed a 12 month peNod and ~th the ~cit unde~tandhg that eve~ reasonable effo~ w~ ~ undertaken by the ei~ ~ conjun~ion with the d~elopment ~mmu~ to ident~ left.ate sohtions. g. FoHow~g the completion of t~ 12 month stu~, pr~e~g of tentative maps shoed r~ume u~ ~here are absolutely no solutions that have ~en ident~ed and a~eed to by the ci~ and d~elopers m the Eastern Te~itories. ~ the u~ely event that there k not a proper ~anc~ plan a~eed to wit~ t~ 12 month period, we r~mmend that the ci~ contNue to pried with the ~plementation of a DW fee which would ~ Ntended to generate su~cient ~nds for at least an Nter~ fac~ty. 3. San Mi~el Panners would also ~e to r~ommend additionfl word~g to ~ Ncluded N the EC~P which would ~ow some proj~ts to move fo~ard durNg thN Nter~ period. Supplementfl wordNg should be Ncluded which ~ants fle~b~ to pr~ proj~ts throu~ and ~clud~g a tentative map level based upon the geo~aphic areas which were not previously Nduded N the ~P. ~ese areas which were not previously studied may have a left.ate opponuni~ for a mN~um amount of development to ~ur prior to the a~ufl need for SR-125. ~ese areas which would ~ evaluated throu~ appropriate traffic and c~c~ation studies at the SPA level would then complete the pi~ure for the development of the surface street ckculation ne~ork with~ the Chula Vkta plannNg area. ~thou~ it is clear that SR-125 ~ ~remely ~ponant to the future development of Chun Vista and the South Bay suNre~on~ area, surface street 4. ckculation ~ also important for 1~1 travel, the delive~ of goods and se~ic~, and the provision of safe~ Re.ices. To this end we have Ncluded as "E~ibit A" alternative lan~age which may ~ appropriate for Nclusion of page 33 of the EC~P 12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 110 · San Diego, California 92130 · FAX {619} 792-6217 · {619} 792-5362 Robert Leiter October 1, 1990 Response to comment Page Two Growth Management Plan - 5. The Growth Management Program outlines a comprehensive approach in threshold determination for development within the City of Chula Vista and from tkis perspective gives guidance to the developer which is appropriate. It may however also be desirable to create incentives for the development community to achieve projects which may be in the best long term interest of the community from an image as well as service and income perspective. Enhancement of a community, especially from an aesthetic and economic perspective increases the desirability and usually the quality of life. Uses that may deserve exemptions from the Growth Management Program, or at least additional consideration may inelude such alternatives as the development of custom lot projects which are oriented toward the development of custom homes on large lots which will enhance the image of the community and produce income to the city far in excess of the normal cost of delivery of public services. Commercial and tourist oriented development which frequentb] serves to bring more income to the city than the cost of public service delivery may also deserve additional attention in the Growth Management Program. The creation of jobs for residents of Chula Vista through the placement of new industries within the city limits could hopefully serve to reduce or minimize traffic and transportation impacts thus being beneficial to the community. 6. In summary we would ask that the Council accept the information which has been assembled for the Growth Management Program and the ECVTPP and at the same time recognize the unique circumstance of several geographic areas within the city relative to the transportation needs that will be required beth along SR-125 as a regional facility as well as within the localized community. The provision of alternatives based upon the ultimate decision by the City Counci! as to there validity would not in any way compromise the primary goal, that of identifying the .financial planning for SR-125 and ultimately seeing its development. Sincer~ Partner WJH:bs cc: George Krempl w/attachments attachment 'EXI-ITBIT A~ 3.2.6 Summary and Recommendations Presently, the circulation system is working in conformance with the threshold standard. Those initial improvements identified in the original ECVTPP are being planned and constructed. The original ECVTPP projected that by increment 5, (or 9,100 dwelling units, 172 acres of industrial and 85 acres of commercial development), it would be necessary to construct State Route 125 as a 4 lane freeway from Telegraph Canyon Road, north, to State Route 54. This conclusion soecificallv auplies to the Eastern Territories Drolects which have been reviewed aporoved or anticinated in the eeouraphic area south of ~I-I' Street and west of Bonita Hi~,hlands. The update to the ECVTPP is projecting that, based upon demands generated from projects with approved final and tentative subdivision maps, in the Eastern Territories area south of 'Iq' Street and west of Bonita Hiehlands. the total traffic generation is approaching the threshold requirement for State Route 125. The threshold for the construction of SR 125 which was first presented in the original ECVTPP has been validated as part of the update to the original study ~ eeom-aphlc area. Other areas within the Eastern Territories north of 'H* Street and east of the Bonita Hiehlands neiehberhood have not been evaluated relative to the traffic caoacitv available throuv, h the use of existine or pronosed surface streets in the area. There may be sienifieant e~n~t~itv available in the system that would service this area such that certain levels of develot~ment could occur within the threshold standards for local streets and prior to the need for Highway 125 as either a tempora~ or oermanent imorovement. Soeclfin eeom-ar~hic areas that mav be aonronriate for further evaluation such as Rancho San Mieuel should be identified in this document as ~candidate study' areas for transoortation imorovements and eiven the onnortunitv to perform the technical transoortation studies that e~qn identify needed levels local street of imnrnvement consistent with traffic eeneration. These studie~n should be reuuired at the time of Drecessine of soecdic area plans and would be used to establish oroiect conditions consistent with the Growth Manaeement Plan and the Eastern Chula Vista Transoortation Phasine Plan. (Ba/ance of page 33 to remain the same) NOTE: Areas underlined are recommended by San Miguel Partners for inclusion in the Draft ECVTPP to be reviewed by City Council on 10-1-90 The Baldwin Company Craftsmanship in building since 1956 October 1, 1990 Mr. Robert Lieter Director of Planning City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Response 'co comment The Baldwin Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed draft Growth Management Program. Your Council, staff and consultants should be commended on the preparation of a comprehensive and coherent statement of modern land use policy. While generally impressed with the proposal, our initial review has lead us to identify the areas of concern discussed below. TRANSPORTATION PHASING PLAN Growth Management Pages 30, 33, 115, 117, 118 and 119 Transportation Phasing Plan Page 13 Portions of the draft Growth Management Plan and the draft Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan recommend: Until the financing for the construction of State Route 125 is adopted by the City Council, no additional tentative subdivision maps may be approved for areas for which a General Development Plan (or Specific Plan) and Sectional Planning Area Plan have not been adopted, prior to the date of the approval of the growth management program; The City undertake a study to determine the appropriate improvements required to be made in the State Route 125 corridor, and attendant funding options; and The City prepare a Development Phasing Forecast (5 to 7 years) to ~effectively and efficiently manage future development." 11995 El Camino Real · Suite 102 * San Diego. CA 92130 · (619) 259-2900 Response to comment These recommendations are inter-related. The proposed SR 125 tentative map moratorium and the SR 125 improvement and funding study are dependent upon the Development Phasing Forecast's underlying assumptions. Therefore all three of these recommendations must be evaluated jointly. 1. The Development Phasing Forecast assumes that previously approved tentative maps will pull building permits before pending future tentative maps. The Development Phasing Forecast also assumes hntffic generated from previously approved projects will exhaust circulation capacities. These assumptions provide the foundation for the proposed SR 125 tentative map moratorium. These assumptions overlook real world practices and the dynamic influences of market conditions. Tentative maps do not build-out in the order that they are approved. g. Furthermore, halting the processing of tentative maps will not remedy projected road capacity challenges. To the contrary, continued planning and discretionary approvals consistent with adopted plans generate the resources necessary to solve 3. the projected facility problems. Since it takes 18 months to two years to process a typical tentative map, refusing to consider tentative map applications will simply create a planning hiatos and housing supply gap. 4. Finally, the recommendation that the City undertake a study to determine State Route 125 conidor improvements was prepared before the Governor designated State Route 125 as a public-private partnership facility. This designation greatly expedites SR 125. The CTV program provides that the route will be completed by January 1, 1996. Accordingly, the focus of additional local studies concerning SR 125 should address how best to provide needed capacity until the opening of the route. Consistent with the comments above, it is recommended that the draft Growth Management Plan and the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan be modified as follows: S. Until the financing for the construction of State Route 125 is adopted by the City Council, approval of tentative subdivision maps for which a General Development Plan (or Specific Plan) and Sectional Planning Area Plan have not been adopted prior to the date of the approval of the growth management program, should be conditioned to provide that building permits shall not be issued if at the time of the application of the building permit the City Council has determined that issuance of additional building permits will cause the City to violate the traffic threshold standard. If the City receives more building permit applications than can be served by available road capacity, the City may prepare allocation criteria to govern the issuance of building permits. The City shall undertake a study to determine the appropriate traffic capacity and attendant funding options, sufficient to provide adequate traffic capacity pending the construction of State Route 125, scheduled for January 1, 1996. The City shall establish an ad hoc advisory committee comprised of City staff, City consultants and representatives of Eastern Territory property owners to assist in Response to comment the preparation of the improvement study, and the I~velopment Phasing Forecast. 6. TENTATIVE MAP MORATORIUM Pages: Through-uut Plan The implementation provisions for several of the facility thresholds provide that the City should consider a moratorium on the acceptance of tentative map applications should the GMOC determine that a threshold standard is not being met. Rarely is a tentative map moratorium an effective solution for a facility problem because discretionary approvals are generally neces.~ry to generate the resources to solve facility deficiencies. Therefore, the implementation section should permit processing of tentative maps, but require that the issuance of the building permit be conditioned upon satisfying the threshold standard. 7. RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION Page 22 The project processing requirements for tentative maps should be clarified to provide that the ultimate right-of-way be dedicated. 8. COST ESTIMATES Page 25 The listed cost estimates for the circulation street inventory should be closely examined. The estimates for Orange Avenue seem low, while Palomar Street appears high. 9. POLICE SUBSTATION Page 37 and 38 The textual reference to a substation on page 38 is not graphically depicted on page 37. Also the Chula Vista Police Master Plan indicates the possibility of moving the headquarters to the medical center area. This possibility is not referenced in the draft Growth Management Plan. 10. Temporary Fire Facilities Page 41 The draft Growth Management Plan should expressly provide that in some instances it may be appropriate and desirable to use temporary facilities if approved by the Fire Department. The map on page 38 should also depict the two facilities planned for Otay Mesa East and Brown Field. 11. PARK STANDARDS Page 68 The park adequacy analysis states that ~ench project seeking approval will provide acreage or pay fees equivalent to the three acres per 1,000 population standard regardless of the amount of surplus park acreage existing in the City at the time of Response to comment the approval." It is foreseeable that in some instances, especially involving a large scale phased project, an applicant may dedicate local park acreage in excess of the three acre standard. ]"he surplus dedication may be intentional (planned 'up front" facilities) or unanticipated (a subdivision builds out with a product type different than that anticipated). In these instances, the applicant should be able to receive "credit" for the surplus acreage in subsequent phases. WATER Page 70 The water section should include a more thorough discussion of the following items: 1 Z. Water Reclamation - The City of Chula Vista should lake an active role in the coordination of reclamation facilities. These facilities should be reconciled between the Sweetwater Authority and the Otay Water District to assure a coordinated supply of reclaimed water. Water Conservation - The City of Chula Vista should take the leed role as the land planning agency for installation of water conserving devices within the City. These measures should be coordinated with the Otay Water District and the Sweetwater Authority. t n ' - The City of Chula Vista should clearly state that the role of the water districts is to provide water in accordance with the City's general plan. If districts are unable to provide these supplies, the City of Chula Vista will take steps necessary to assure that there is adequate water to meet the general plan needs. WATER MASTER PLANS Page 71 13. The project processing requirements of the sectional planning areas references conformance with the Swcetwater Authority Master Plan. Since the Otay Water District is in the process of preparing a master plan,. It would be appropriate to modify the statement to require conformance with the "master plan of the water district serving the proposed project." 14. Sewer Truck Estimates Page 84 The cost estimate for the Main Street Basin should be increased from $5,784,300 to $12,555,350. Also, be advised that /he cost estimate for the Date-Falvre trur~k sewer (7,300 foot parallel trunk line along Orange Avenue) is $1,963,750. 15. CIVIC FACILITIES Page 108 In order to provide guidance in the implementation of this section it will be desirable for the City to prepare a Civic Center Master Plan to establish standards and thresholds. Response to comment 16. REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS Page 123 The paragraph concerning reimbursement agreements provides that no interest accrues to the developer when the developer constructs a facility at a date earlier than scheduled under the pay-as-you-go or fee system. This paragraph should be clarified to provide that payment of interest does commence at the originally scheduled construction date. 17. Implementation Page 127 It is worth noting that the draf~ Growth Management Plan is a very thorough and ambitious prog?m: Implementation of the program will require a year-round comms~nent of significant resources, and the diligence, good faith and cooperation of both the public and private sectors. Your consideration of these comments is appreciated. RECF..~/EO WILLOAN AssOC. SAN DJ~GO Septe~er 28, 1990 George Krempl Deputy City Manager CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92011 RE:DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM/TRANSPORTATION PHASING PLAN Response to comment Dear Sir, ~ EastLake Development Company has reviewed the referenced documents. The attached comments are being submitted to you as requested in our meeting of September 12, 1990. We look forward to further discussing these issues in our meeting scheduled EASTLAKE for October 3 at 8:30 ~.~ tf in the interim you have any questions, ple~$~ do not hesitate to call DEV~LOPME~ me or Kent Aden. CQM~ANY Sincerely, EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Bruce N. Sloan Project Manager BNS/cll cc: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning Phil Carter, Willdan & Associate~ SU/~_~RY EASTLAKE CO~ENTS - Response to comment RE: DRAFT CHULA VISTA GMP/TPP I. GMP/TPp Permit Exemptions (see attached letter of 8/15/90) 1. 1. The exemptions in our letter of 8/15/90 would apply to the interim phasing policy outlined on page 117 of the draft GMP. 1. 2. The traffic generated by the exemptions being requested would continue to be monitored under the city's annual intersection analysis and traffic threshold evaluation. 1. 3. Examples of tentative maps in EastLake which could be processed, were the exemptions to be implemented, would include: a. The EastLake Business Center Phase II, b. Low/moderate income housing within the EastLake Greens project if approved in future applications, c. Custom lots within the EastLake Greens, Trails, vistas and Woods neighborhoods. II. TPP/Scope of Work 1. The draft TPP does not conform with the consultant scope of services contained in the Chula vista/Willdan contract. 3. 2. The end product of the report is not as useful as it could have been in that the analysis is predicated on levels of development rather than levels of roadway system implementation. 3. 3. The TPP'was to have investigated possible improvement/mitigation efforts which could be implemented prior to SR 125. As an example, this investigation should have identified the level of development which could be achieved with the construction of Orange Ave. (Sunbow to EastLake) prior to the completion of any SR 125 improvements. 4. 4. The two intersection capacity constraints identified in the report are mitigable and should be demonstrated as such during the studies outlined in section II.3 ahoy%. III. Excess Capacity 5 .... 1% The GMP/TPP implies that a minimum of 1380 EDU's of roadway system capacity is available following the full development of currently approved tentative maps. 5. continued 2. Capacity above 1380 EDU's may ~e available ~ith the ~study of alternatives outlined'in section II.3 above. 5. continued 3. Since they have approved general development plans, the EastLake Trails, Business Center II, Wo~ds and vista's should be considered eligible to utilize any additional capacity. VI. GMP/Parks 6. 1. Page 66 of the draft GMP should be modified to show the EastLake Greens Community Park under the "Future Community Parks" category. 6. 2. The EastLake project, as approved by the City, conforms to all general plan park acreage requirements and is consistent with the current City policies. The statement~on page 66 of the draft G~P regarding park acreage requirements does not conform to general plan requirements and should be deleted from the report. AUgUS~ 15, 1990 Mr. George Krempl Deputy City Manager CITY OF C.h~JLA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92011 Response to comment RE: GROWTH ~_~NAGE.'~ENT PLAN/TP~NSPORTATION P.~L~$ING PLkN (GMP/TPP) PEP~IT EXEMPTIONS Dear Mr. Krempl: Responses made as pa~t It is our understahding that the Chula Vista City of £irst letter Council will soon be reviewing the draft GMP/TPP. One of their immediate tasks will be to approve a formal review end adoption schedule for the plan. Having not been afforded the opportunity to review the plans development we are no~ totally familiar with its content. It is our understanding that it growth ratee if public facilities and services are not maintained at pre-established threshold levels. In anticipation of periods of "controlled" grow~ch (i.e. caps, moratoriums, etc.) EastLake would propose that ~he following uses be given special consideration. 1. Low/Moderate Income Housing 2. Commercial/Industrial/office A discussion of the issues relating to the exemption of these uses from building restrictions established during controlled growth periods is presented below: 1. Low/Moderate Income Housing A. This type of housing is defined'as the product which is purchased by individuals or families whose income level is less than 80% of the state median income (low) and 80-120% of the state median income (moderate). Mr. GeOrge Krempl Augus~ 15, 1990 page 2 B. EastLake I (Hills and Shores) provided over 200 homes to families with moderate income. In addition, 109 homes were purchased by families with low income. C. The newly adopted Chula vista general plan encourages the provision of low/moderate income housing. This exemction should be considered an extension of the City's existing policies. D. Given the difficulty in economically providing this type of product i% would be in the City's best interest to maintain and encourage a continuous supply of low/moderate income housing. This effort would enable Chula Vista to maintain a healthy, balanced housing'mix. 2. Commercial/Industrial/Office A. The City's commercial, industrial and office uses provide a major portion of the annual City operating budget. B. It is in Chula vista's best interest to .maintain a continuous supply of this product in order to provide an expanding tax base to support its se-~-vices. C. corporate relocation decisions typically take 2-3 years to implement and given the magnitude of the effort involved, uncertainties about pe-~m, it availability would have an deleterious impact on City's ability to at~ract new industry. Many of the corporate prospects whick have expressed interest in the EastLake Business Center were attracted to Chula · vista due to uncertainties in San Diego's fee structure and permit availability. D. Providing for and encouraging business expansion as a part of the. EastLake Masterolanned Co,~munity creates more opportunity for individuals to live and work in Chula Vista. This will inherently benefit the city by reducing AugUs~ !5, 1990 Page 3 com~ute distanceS, traffic and associated air pollution- E. Local employees who commute to work from residences outside Chula Vista usually do not add to ueak traffic counts. Their transportation demand is generally ,,contra-flow" rather than additive. 3. Custom Lots A. Custom lot owners building residences for · small percentage of the total building product. B. The city of Chula vista has expressed interest in achieving the positive uoscale image created by custom lots. T~is use typically involves "high.end" product which has a net positive lmpactl' on the City's fiscal stature. C. It is inherently unfair to ask individuals to compete with large scale developers and merchant builders for limited quantity of building pe-~m, its- We woul~ propose that the issuance cf permits for these uses continue as'nol-mal during periods of controlled growth. Additional deficiencies in city se~ices caused by the approvals would be added to those deficiencies which precipitated the original moratorium, caps, We urge you to sincerely consider this proposal. The exemptions outlined would help maintain Chula vista's ~conomic prosperity and housing mix goals. I would w~lcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with you at your earliest convenience. sincerely, EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY . Project Manager BNS:cll CHULA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH Director of Planning SUP~I~ENDmCT City of Chula Vista SEP 276 Fourth Avenue ~HNF~GR~.Ph.O. Chula Vista, CA 92010 Response to comment RE. Draft Growth Manage~nt Program Co,~nents Dear Mr. Leiter: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Growth Management Program. On July 11, 1990, I responded to a draft of the facilities section of this document (copy enclosed). Unfortunately, some of my comments appear to have been misunderstood and the draft document still contains several errors. My comments are listed below. 1. Page 48 - Figure 14 lists existing schools with projected numbers of students over capacity and proposed new schools and their estimated costs. As explained in my July 11 letter, it is incorrect to state that this information represents the District's projected number of students over capacity. The information contained in Figure 14 was extracted from the District's March 13, 1990, report to the City's ..... Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC). This data pertains only to seven of the twelve schools located within the Sweetwater Authority service area which are affected by the City's 12 - 18 month growth projections. Since not all schools were projected to be impacted by the City's growth forcast, information was provided only for those affected. Figure 14 appears, erroneously, to present data for all District schools. The Growth Management Element should discuss school capacity district-wide, and information on all District schools should be provided. For your information, enclosed is a breakdown of all facilities, including projected Fall enrollments, and permanent and temporary capacity figures. Z. Page 50 - The order of future elementary facilities is incorrect. It is likely that the District's next school will be located in the Rancho Del Rey Community, not EastLake Greens. Beyond that, new schools will be provided based on development phasing. My July 11 3. letter states that information relative to future schools was derived from the District's Draft Master Plan, and that the estimated opening dates and order of construction of new schools have not yet been determined. 3. continued Page 53. 3.5.5, Adequacy Analysis - The statement that eight existing schools are operating over pemanent capacity as defined by District standards is incorrect. Again, this statement was extracted from the District's March 13 GMOC report and pertains only to those 12 schools discussed in that report. As seen in the attached data sheet, 17 schools are operating over permanent capacity. 4. Reference is made in this section to Figure 15. There is no data on CVESD in Figure 15. 5. Paragraph three of this section states "...with the City's support and the coordination of the construction of facilities like streets, water and sewer, the District can provide elementary school facilities in a timely manner". While constuction of the infrastructure cited above is essential, it won't assure that the District can provide facilities. I believe what is intended here is a statement relative to the District's need for City support in implementing alternative financing mechanisms such as Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts to pay for new facilities. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact my office. Sincerely, Director of Planning KS:bjo cc: John Linn Tom Silva CHULA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 84 EAST"J" STREET · CIIU[~A VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 EACH CI II[,D IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH so~noOF~m, July Il, 1990 F~NKAT~r~ Mr. Bud Gray City Planning Dept. ~mr.~n~.~o 276 Fourth Avenue Chu)a Vista, CA 92010 Response to comment RE: Draf~ Faci)i~ies Section - Growth Hanage~n~ Program Dear Bud: Thank you for the opportunity to review and cogent on the Draft Facilities Section of the C]~y's Growth Management Program. I have the following co~ents: Under "Project Specific Ana)ysis", reference is made to the Chula Vista City School District's Long Range Master Plan. This document was a draft, and was accepted, not adopted, by the Board of Education. Therefore, please de]ere reference to this p]an and replace it wi~h "...in conformance with Chula Vista City School District's standards and criteria." The School Faci]ities Inventory section again references a document from the Draf~ Chu]a Vista City Schoo] District's Long Range Faci]ities Plan, Table 4.2, the Facilities Schedu]e for New Residential Development, dated January 24, 1990. It ts stated that this tab]e "...lists the existing schoo]s with the projected number of students over capacity and the proposed schoo)s and their estimated costs." This is incorrect. Tab)e 4.2 is the faci)ities schedu)e for new residentia] deveIopment from the aforementioned Draft Master P)an, and does not )fs~ exist]ng schoo]s or discuss capacity. Further, since this is no~ an adopted District document, we ask that reference to it be de)eted. The District does tentatively p]an for construction of three new schoo]s over the next three years, depending on growth; however, the estimated opening dates and the order of construction of these schoo]s, shown in lab]e 8, have not yet been determined by the District. The Facilities Inventory Section includes a map, presumed to be Exhibit 7. P)ease note that an additiona] elementary schoo) si~e has been designated in the northern portion of the Sa]t Creek Ranch Deve]opment. The starred District sites on the map refer to Chu]a Vista City School District sites, and shou]d not be confused with Sweetwater Union High Schoo) District. On]y 26 of the District's 31 existing schools are shown on the map; three Iie outside the City's boundaries to the south, and ~be fourth is Southwestern Satellite Schoo), adJacen~ to Southwestern College. duly 11, 1990 Mr. Bud Gray Page 2 RE: Draft Facilities Section - Growth Management Program Response to comment The data presented in Table 8 of the Growth Management Program appear to represent existing relocatable classrooms and numbers of students over capacity at various schools. This material was taken from the District's Hatch 13, 1990, report to the Growth Hanagement Oversight ConeHttee (GHOC) and ts out of context as present&d here. That report discusses the Sweetwater Authorlty's area and the fact that seven schools in that area are projected to be over capacity by 481 students. Of these 481, capacity exists for 244 students at otl~er scl~ools discussed tn that portion of the report, and the remaining 237 children will be accomi~odated through facilities modifications, program changes, or busing. Also shown in Table 8 are the 12 relocatable classrooms the District added to five western schools In 1989. It appears that the District only utilizes 12 relocatable buildings, whereas in reality approximately 65 are tn use at eighteen schools throughout the District. The Adequacy Analysis sectton of the Growth Management Program discusses District alternatives to overcrowding. We are currently evaluating tl~e feasibility of implementing year-round multi-track programs at several schools. The report states the opening of EastLake Elementary School and realignment of attendance area boundaries will lessen projected overcrowding shown tn Table 8. Given that EastLake Elementary was constructed to serve children generated by new development east of the 1-805, and the geographical difficulties associated with the distances between the crowded western area and EastLake Elementary, it is highly unlikely that this new school will tn any way alleviate overcrowding in western Chula Vista. The District does not open a new school until 300 - 400 children are present in an area, and additional growth in these new planned conmlunJties quickly fills up any remaining space. We appreciate the opportunity to conment on the Draft. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Tom Silva PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS/PEPd~;~NENT AND TEMPOP~Ry* CAPACITi~,~$ Proiecte~ Perm. Temm. School ~ Capacity** ~ Allen/Ann Daly 737 602 102 Castle Park 532 555 - Chula Vista Hills 741 602 - Cook 505 514 - EastLake 521 590 - Feaster 837 528 180 Finney 692 481 180 Halecrest 600 542 60 Harbor$ide 817 510 210 Hilltop 550 543 Juarez-Lincoln 611 602 30 Kellogg 454 437 Lauderbach 798 587 180 Loma Verde 553 589 60 Los Altos 493 514 - Montgomery 471 425 30 Mueller 655 654 - Otay 619 649 - Palomar 492 479 - Parkview 479 590 - Rice 744 6?9 - Rogers/R. Center 576 586 50 Rohr 491 514 Rosebank 639 542 90 Silver Wing 591 600 150 Southwestern Sat. 90 - 90 Sunnyside 800 587 210 Tiffany 613 528 180 Valle Lindo 516 561 - Valley vista 656 506 150 Vista Square 539 514 60 TOTALS 18,412 16,610 2,012 * Temporary/relocatable classrooms, providing interim housing. Schools utilizing relocatables are over permanent capacity. **Based on current usage of all regular classrooms. Totals include Kindergarten classrooms which can only be used for Kindergarten due to classroom configuration (AM/PM classes). CVESD 4/30/90 CHULA I"';TA EI,EMENTARY SCH(-' L DISTRICT 84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 92010 ° 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDWIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH LARRY CUNNINGHAM SHARON G LES PATRICK A. JUDB GREG R. SANBOVAL Mr. Bob Leiter SUPERI~ENOENT Planning Director City of Chula Vista ~HNF. VUGRIN, Ph.D. 27~ ~ourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Dra~ GroUch Hanagement Progra~ & Implementation Ordinance Dear Nr. Le±ter: ·hank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the revised draft Growth Management P~ogram and ~mplementation Ordinance. ~e appreciate the modifications which were made to the Program at the District's request, particularly replacement of ~igure 14 with District data. ~ have a ~ew ~ema£ning concerns. The first relates to Section 3.5.5, Adequacy Analysis. The second sentence discusses the District's response to the city's 12 - ~8 month growth forecast. As previously explained, this reference is incorrect, having been taken out of context from the District's report to the GMOC. Data from Figure 14 is also cited, data which refers to Figure 14 prior to its revision. These inaccuracies could be remedied by deleting the first paragraph after the first sentence and replacing it with the £ollowing: Total current District capacity is 18,622 students, with permanent facilities to accommodate 16,610 and temporary facilities for 2,012 students. 1990 enrollment is projected at 18,412. Several District schools will be unable to accommodate new growth within their attendance areas; however, through a combination of changes in facilities usage, program changes, busing or conversion to year-round multi-track programs, the District will be able to accommodate this projected growth at other schools. My second concern relates to the Draft Ordinance. In earlier correspondence on this subject, I expressed the District's desire to have the ordinance apply uniformly throughout the City. I understand from our conversation that the ordinance is intended to deal only with the eastern territories, and that another ordinance may be considered for the area west of the 805 at some future date, but that is not clear in the Ordinance. As written, paragraph (b) states that Section 2 makes findings that adequate January 18, 1991 Mr. Bob Leiter Page 2 RE: Draft Growth Mgmt. Program & Implementation Ordinance facilities within the developed portions of the City are currently operating in conformance with adopted threshold standards; therefore, these areas are exempt from the ordinance. Review of Section 2 reveals discussion only of the threshold for traffic which is found to be in conformance. Other thresholds and compliance with standards are not mentioned. The City's GMOC found that the Threshold for Schools has been exceeded for most schools in western Chula Vista. Almost all facilities in this area are operating above permanent capacity, and the projected infill, redevelopment and rezoning currently being approved by the City will further exacerbate this situation. The District has no means to finance needed facilities to serve this growth, and exempting these developed areas from the requirement to provide a public facilities financing plan will worsen the problem. If this Ordinance is intended only to apply to new development to the east, inserting language to this effect, instead of exempting the western area by finding it in compliance with standards, would seem more appropriate. The current wording is inconsistent with actual conditions relative to schools and the findings of the GMOC. Section 2.2 of the Ordinance states that "the City Council finds that these actions are necessary to ensure adequate public facilities are available to serve any new development in the City" (emphasis added). Additional development west of 1-805 will exacerbate current facility inadequacies, as well as further exceed the Threshold Standard for Schools. Of additional concern to the District is the potential that the findings relative to conformance with threshold standards contained in the Draft Ordinance could negatively impact the District's ability to justify imposition of developer fees and other mitigation for impacts on schools in the western portion of the District. We welcome the opportunity to continue working cooperatively with the City in this important endeavor. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: John Linn Sweetwater Union High'School Distri September 10, 1990 Mr. Robert A. Letter SEP 1 3 I990 Director of Planning City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Leiter: Response to comment Re: City of Chula Vista Draft Growth Management Program Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Growth Management Program prepared for the City of Chula Vista. The Sweetwater Union High School District supports the City's efforts to comprehensively plan for the public facilities and services that new development requires. In the construction of schools, it is vital that the provision of streets and utilities be coordinated with the district's plans if schools are to be made available in a timely manner. The Growth Management Program will facilitate this coordination. In my review of the draft document I have found that the following sections should be revised. Due to the large number of households required to justify the construction of new secondary school facilities, not all development applications will warrant the need for a school site and/or facilities: 1. 1. Sentence 3 in Section 3.5.3 (Sectional Planning Area Plan/ Public Facilities Finance Plan) should be revised to read: "Reserve school sites, if necessary, or coordinate with the district a solution to accommodate student housing." 1. 2. Sentence l(a) in Section 3.5.3 (Tentative Map) should be revised to read: "provision of school site(s), if necessary." 1. 3. Sentence l(a) in Section 3.5.3 (Final Map) should be amended to read: "executed agreements for site dedication if required in the approval of the tentative map." 1. 4. Figure 15 (Future Schools) - delete the word "Greens". The name of the new school is Eastlake High School. 1. 5. Page 54, third sentence of the first paragraph, delete the word "Greens". 1. 6. Page 54, fourth sentence of the first paragraph, delete "EastLake Trails High" and replace with "a junior high/middle school in the EastLake Trails Community." Mr. Robert A. Leiter September 10, 1990 Page 2 The third sentence on page 50 (Schools Facilities Inventory, Sweetwater Union High School District) should be deleted - it is false. The district owns three sites east of 1-805, however, two are unbuildable due to seismic constraints and the proposed alignment of State Route 125. One site is located adjacent to the Chula Vista Community Hospital, and the other is in the Sunnyside Community. The third site is in the EastLake Greens Community. Construction plans for a new high school are underway and its completion is anticipated for the 1992 school year. Mr. Leiter, thank you again for the opportunity to review the Draft Growth Management Program. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 691-5553. Cordially, Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/sf cc: Kate Shurson, Chula Vista Elementary School District Bud Gray, Bud Gray and Associates "'Attachment 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING TITLE 21 OF THE £HULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A TITLE ESTABLISHING A GROW?H MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Title 21 is established by the addition of Chapter 21 to read as follows: CHAPTER 21 Growth Management Sections: 21.01 Purpose and intent. 21.02 Definitions. 21.03 Applicability. 21.04 Exceptions and Exclusions. 21.05 Extensions of Prior Approvals 21.06 Quality of Life Thresholds 21.07 Growth Management Program. 21.08 Public Facilities Finance Plans. 21.09 Contents of Public Facilities Finance Plans. 21.10 Public Facilities Finance Plan Preparation 21.11 Public Facilities Finance Plan Processing. 21.12 Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan. 21.13 Compliance with this Chapter. 21.14 Implementation of facilities and improvements requirements. 21.15 Obligation to pay fees or install improvements required by any other law. 21.16 Implementing guidelines. 21.17 Council actions, fees, notice. 21.18 Severability. 21.01 Purpose and intent. (a) It is the policy of the City of Chula Vista to: (1) Provide quality housing opportunities for all economic sections of the community; (2) Provide a balanced community with adequate commercial, industrial, recreational and open space areas to support the residential areas of the City; (3) Ensure that public facilities, services and improvements meeting City standards exist or become available concurrent with the need created by new development; (4) Balance the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of Chula Vista residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; (5) Ensure that all development is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan; (6) Prevent growth unless adequate public facilities and improvements are provided in a phased and logical fashion as required by the general plan; (7) Control the timing and location of development by tying the pace of development to the provision of public facilities and improvements to conform to the City's Threshold Standards and to meet the goals and objectives of the Growth Management Program. (b) The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has determined that the demand for facilities and improvements has outpaced the supply resulting in shortages in public facilities and improvements including but not limited to streets, schools, libraries and general governmental facilities. The City Council has further determined that these shortages are detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Chula Vista. (c) In order to ensure the implementation of the policies set forth above and to eliminate the identified shortages in public facilities and to ensure that no development occurs until such time as there are public facilities and improvements to support such development and to regulate the pace of development thereby ensuring a continued supply of housing over a period of years and to continue the quality of life for all economic sections of the Chula Vista community, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: -2- SECTION 1 Growth Manaqement Ordinance Short Title. This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the Growth Management Ordinance of 1991. Policy. This chapter will further the policies, goals and objectives established herein by requiring identification of all public facilities and improvements required for development, by prohibiting development until adequate provisions for the public facilities and improvements are made within the City, as herein provided and by giving development priority to areas of the City where public facilities and improvements are already in place. 21.02 Definitions. Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter they shall have the meaning established by this section unless from the context it is apparent that another meaning is intended: (1) "Growth Management Program" means a plan prepared and approved according to Section 21.06 which establishes compliance with the Threshold Standards and the applicable Facility Master Plans for fire protection, schools, libraries, parks, water, sewer, drainage, traffic, civic center, corporation yard, air quality and economics consistent with the goals set forth in the General Plan. The Growth Management Program identifies existing public facilities and those public facilities and improvements required to serve the future buildout of the City as established by the General Plan. (2) "Discretionary planning approval" means any permit, entitlement or approval issued under this Ordinance and any legislative actions such as zone changes, general plan amendments, sectional planning area plans or general development plan approval or amendment. (3} "Development" means any land use, building or other alteration of land and construction incident thereto. (4) "Facilities" means any schools, parks, corporation yard or recreational areas or structures providing for fire, library, or governmental services, identified in a public facilities finance plan. (5) "Facility Capacity" means the maximum amount of development which could take place prior to increasing the number or size of a facility as determined by applying the appropriate threshold standard. (6) "Available Facility Capacity" is determined by subtracting the demand for the specific facility of existing plus approved development from the total Facility Capacity. -3- (7) "Improvement" includes traffic controls, streets and highways, including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, bridges, overcrossings, street interchanges, flood control or storm drain facilities, sewer facilities, water facilities and lighting facilities. (8) "Public facilities finance plan" (PFFP) means a project specific public facilities finance plan prepared by the developer or the City at the developerfs expense. (9) "Quality of Life Threshold Standards" means those certain "Quality of Life" thresholds and/or standards requiring the construction or development of specified facilities to provide desired levels of service to the public, as adopted by Resolution No. 13346 on November 17, 1987, and as may be amended from time to time. 21.03 Applicability. (a) Unless exempted by the provisions of this chapter, no application for SPA or tentative subdivision map shall be accepted, processed or approved until a public facilities financing plan ("PFFP") for the applicable project has been submitted and approved according to this chapter. The SPA and the PFFP may be processed simultaneously. (b) No project shall be approved unless it is consistent with the General Plan and the Growth Management Program, the Threshold Standards and the applicable PFFP for the project. 21.04 Exceptions and Exclusions (a) Buildinq Permits for Approved Projects. Building permits will be issued for projects for which all required discretionary planning approvals were issued or approved on or before the effective date of the General Plan Update, adopted July 11, 1989, and upon payment of all required fees. (b) Developed Portions of City. It is the policy of the City to encourage development in areas where public facility thresholds are met before allowing development in areas where facilities and improvements are not assured to meet the needs of such development. Accordingly, pursuant to the findings in Section 2 of this Ordinance that adequate facilities within the developed portions of the City as shown on page 2-8 of the Growth Management Program are operating in conformance with adopted threshold standards, those portions of the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance. (c) Exclusions. Development proposals which consist of facilities, or structures constructed by a city, county, special district, state, or federal government or any agency, department, or subsidiary thereof for governmental -4- purposes are excluded from the provisions of this chapter. This exclusion shall not apply to development proposals to which a possessory interest tax would be applicable. 21.05 Extensions of prior approval. After approval of an applicable PFFP for a development project, an extension of the expiration date of a tentative subdivision map may only be granted if the project is in conformance with the PFFP and the Growth Management Program. The extension should be conditioned upon compliance with the applicable public facilities finance plan. 21.06 Quality of Life Threshold Standards. The City Council has adopted threshold standards for each facility or improvement listed in Section 21.09. The standards may be amended from time to time on the review and recommendation of the Growth Management Committee and approval of the City Council. 21.07 Growth Manaqement Proqram (a) To implement the City's General Plan and to ensure that development does not occur unless facilities and improvements are available to support that development, the City Council shall adopt by resolution a Growth Management Program. The program shall: identify all facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate land uses specified in the General Plan and by the zoning ordinance, specify size, capacity, service level and Threshold Standards for each identified facility; project total buildout development levels and identify projected facility and improvement needs; identify the financing method or methods for each facility and improvement. (b) The Growth Management Program will incorporate the Threshold Standards, as referenced in Section 21.06. Each new project is subject to compliance with the Threshold Standard for each facility identified in Section 21.08 and shall not be approved unless the project meets such standards. (c) The Growth Management Program will incorporate the Facility Master Plans for fire protection, schools, libraries, parks, water, sewer, drainage, traffic, civic center, and corporation yard. The Growth Management Program also addresses air quality and economic issues. Each new project must demonstrate consistency with the Threshold Standards and the phasing provisions of each respective Facility Master Plan. Projects which cannot demonstrate consistency shall not be approved until the applicant shows to the City's satisfaction, how facilities required for the project in advance of the phasing schedule as set forth in the Master Plan will be provided. If no Facility Master Plan exists for a particular facility, the PFFP for the project must demonstrate how that facility will be provided and financed in a phased and timely manner. -5- (d) The Growth Management Program incorporates a defined public facilities development phasin9 policy. This policy interrelates the timing, location, facility capacity limitations, and fiscal/economic considerations for each public facility and service identified in Section 21.08. This phasing policy insures that approved development has priority to available public facility capacity and that developed areas of the City have priority over undeveloped areas. (e) Amendments to the Growth Management Program may be initiated by action of the Planning Commission or City Council, or upon request of an applicant. The City Council shall act on the requested application. 21.08 Public facilities finance plans. (a) The City Council shall require the preparation of a PFFP prior to SPA Plan approval, unless the PFFP is waived by the City Council upon a showing that there are no public service, facility or phasing needs warranting the preparation of a PFFP. (b) The boundaries of the plan shall be established at the time a SPA Plan is submitted by the applicant by the City. The boundaries shall be based upon the impact created by the project on existing and future need for facilities. The project boundaries will correlate the proposed development project with existing and future development proposed for the area of impact to ensure the economically efficient and timely installation of both onsite and offsite facilities and improvements required by the development. In establishing the boundaries for each submitted project, the City shall be guided by the following considerations. (1) Service areas or drainage or sewer basins; (2) Extent to which facilities or improvements are in place or available; (3) Ownership of property; (4) Project impact on public facilities relationships, especially the impact on the City's planned major circulation network; (5) Special district service territories; (6) Approved fire, drainage, sewer, or other facilities or improvement master plans. 21.09 Contents of public facilities finance plans (a) A PFFP shall contain a complete description of the proposed development project and a complete description of all public facilities included within the boundaries of the Plan as defined by the -6- Director of Planning. The Plan shall contain a description of the impacts of the proposed development on the community as it relates to the Growth Management Program, the specific Facility Master Plans and the Threshold Standards. (b) The plan shall consist of maps, graphs, tables, and narrative text and shall be based upon the General Plan and zoning applicable within the area of impact. The PFFP shall be consistent with the Growth Management Program and Threshold Standards and shall implement the Growth Management Program within the area. {c) The PFFP shall show how and when the following facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate development within the area will be installed or financed as specified in subsection (d). {1) Police (2) Fire/EMS (3) Schools {4) Libraries {5) Parks and Recreation (6) Water (7) Sewer (8) Drainage (g) Traffic {10) Civic Facilities (11) Corporation Yard Quality of life standards for air quality and water shall be addressed through preparation of an Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan, pursuant to Section 21.12. The quality of life standard for economics shall be addressed through preparation of a "fiscal analysis/economic impact report," pursuant to Section 21.0g(h). {d) The plan shall include the following information with regard to each facility and improvement listed in subsection {c): {1) An inventory of present and future requirements for each facility and improvement based upon the lhreshold Standards established for each facility. Because requirements for certain facilities and improvements may overlap plan boundaries, the plan addresses the need for coordination and proposes a coordination plan for facilities extending from one project boundary area to another. Cost estimates for funding public facilities directly related to the impact created by the project as well as for proposals for funding existing deficiencies required by the project prior to the phasing schedule set forth in the Growth Management Plan shall be included. It must be shown that development in the area will not reduce the existing facilities or improvements capabilities within the project boundaries or create facilities or improvements shortages in other areas or reduce service capability in any area below the Threshold Standard which is established pursuant to Section 21.06. The growth inducing impact of the out of area improvements shall be assessed and mitigation provided to the satisfaction of the City Council. -7- (2) A phasing schedule, which complies with the adopted development phasing policy as set forth in the Growth Management Program and the Threshold Standards which establishes the timing for installation or provision for facilities and required improvements by the project. The phasing schedule shall ensure that development of one area will not utilize more than the area~s prorata share of facility or improvement capacity within the projected service area of a facility unless sufficient capacity is ensured for other areas at the time of development. The phasing schedule shall include a schedule of development within the area and a cash flow analysis for financing of facilities and improvements for the plan area. The phasing schedule shall identify periods where the demand for facilities and improvements may exceed the capacity and provide a plan for eliminating the shortfall. In those situations when demand exceeds capacity and it is not feasible to increase the capacity prior to development, no development shall occur unless a time schedule for and a means of increasing the capacity is established in the plan area through the execution of a binding agreement. (3) A financing plan establishing specific methods of funding each facility and improvement identified in the plan which allocates the cost to the various properties within the plan area. The plan shall identify those facilities and improvements which would otherwise be provided as a requirement of processing a development project (i.e. requirements imposed as a condition of a development permit} or provided by the developer in order to establish consistency with the general plan, Growth Management Program, Facility Master Plans or this Section, and those facilities and improvements for which new funding methods which shall be sufficient to ensure that funds are available to construct or provide facilities or improvements when required by the phasing schedule for the project. Where facilities or improvements are required for property within the Plan area, other than the Project, the phasing plan shall identify those other properties and the plan for each property shall be coordinated. Coordination, however, shall not require identical funding methods. (4) A list or schedule of facilities requirements correlated to individual development projects within the area. {e) The public facilities finance plan shall establish the proportionate share of the cost of facilities and improvements identified in the Growth Management Program and the Master Facilities Plans attributable to the development of each property in the PFFP area. {f) In the event that an applicant provides private financing for public facilities or services to service a project in advance of the normal time frame for constructing such facilities, the approval of credits against any city fees for such advanced private financing may be postponed until the estimated time of such construction as specified in the specific Facility Master Plan or the City's Capital Improvement Program budget. In lieu of a Facility Master Plan phasing schedule, such determination shall be made by the City Council after reviewing information from the Planning Director, City Engineer, Finance Director, and Deputy City Manager. In no -8- event shall a developer receive interest on funds for providing public facilities or services in advance of the City's schedule. The developer shall also become responsible for the maintenance and operation costs associated with the early construction of said facility. No repayment will be made to the developer for the funds provided for maintenance and operational costs. All repayments will be considered in accordance with the City's projected construction dates for said facilities. (g) Assessment districts requested by the developer shall not be given credit for facility fees when a facility is constructed above the standards established by the respective facility master plan or standards imposed as conditions on the approval of the project by the City Council. (h) A fiscal analysis/economic impact report shall be provided identifying capital budget impacts on the City as well as maintenance and operation costs for each proposed phase of development. The report shall include an analysis of the project impact on school districts and water agencies. Each year during the development of the project, the Director of Planning may require the applicant to provide the City with an updated fiscal impact report reflecting the plan and actual revenue and expenditure impacts based upon the development of said project. The project shall be conditioned to provide funding for periods where expenditures exceed projected revenues. 21.10 Public facilities finance plan preparation (a) A PFFP for a project shall be prepared by the City, or consultant selected by the City, according to the procedures established by this section. (b) A deposit shall be collected by the City at the time any application for a PFFP is accepted. (c) The cost of preparation shall be advanced to the City by the requesting owner or owners. 21.11 Public facilities finance plan processinq (a) Public facilities finance plans shall be reviewed according to the following procedure: (1) A PFFP complying with this chapter, and accompanied by a processing fee may be prepared by the City or a consultant hired by the City at the applicant's expense. When the Planning Director determines that the plan complies with the provisions of Section 21.08 of this chapter, the Director shall set the matter for public hearing before the Planning Commission together with the accompanying Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. (2) The hearing shall be noticed according to the provisions of Section 19.12.070 of the Municipal Code. A staff report containing recommendation on the plan shall be prepared and furnished to the public, the applicant, and the Planning Commission prior to the hearing. -g- (3) The Planning Commission shall hear and consider the application and shall by resolution prepare recommendations and findings for the City Council. The action of the Commission shall be filed with the City Clerk, and a copy shall be mailed to the applicant. (4) When the Planning Commission action is filed with the City Clerk, the Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be noticed according to the provisions of Section 19.]2.070. (5) The City Council shall hear the matter, and after considering the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the plans. The City Council may include in the resolution adopting the PFFP any fees or facilities improvement requirements provided for in City ordinances in order to implement the Growth Management Program, the Master Facility Plans and the Public Facilities Finance Plan. (b) A PFFP may be amended following the same procedures for the original adoption. 21.12 Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan (a) No SPA plan shall be accepted for review unless accompanied by an Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan, in such form and/or containing such information including maps, drawings, diagrams, etc., as the City Planning Director shall direct. (b) No SPA Plan shall be approved until such time as an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation Plan has been approved, the Air Quality Improvement Plan and the Water Conservation Plan may be processed currently with the SPA Plan. (c) Projects with SPA Plans approved after July 11, 1989, and prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall not be issued building permits until an Air Quality Improvement Plan and a Water Conservation Plan have been approved by the City Council. 21.]3 Compliance with this chapter. (a) No discretionary planning approvals shall be granted unless the City Council finds that the project is consistent with an approved PFFP. An approved PFFP shall include a Sectional Planning Area Plan. No tentative subdivision map shall be approved without an approved PFFP. To ensure consistency, the City Council may impose any condition to the approval of a PFFP or tentative subdivision map necessary to implement the Growth Management Program and the Master Facility Plans. (b) No final map shall be approved until all of the conditions of the PFFP has been met or provided for. -10- (c) No building permit pursuant to a tentative map described in Section 21.03 shall be issued unless the permit is consistent with the PFFP. (d) The requirements of this chapter are imposed as a condition of developing the property to ensure implementation of and consistency with the General Plan and zoning and to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that public facilities and improvements will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrently with need. 21.14 Implementation of facilities and improvements requirements. (a} To ensure that the provisions of this chapter and the General Plan are met the following shall apply: (1} No building permit shall be issued unless all applicable fees, including but not limited to, development impact fees, traffic impact fees, drainage fees, school fees, park fees, sewer fees, water fees, or other development fees adopted by the City Council have first been paid or provision for their payment has been made to the satisfaction of the City Council. (b) The Growth Management Program and the PFFP process is part of the City's ongoing planning effort. It is anticipated that amendments to the plans may be necessary. Adoption of a public facilities finance plan does not establish any entitlement or right to any particular general plan or zoning designation or any particular development proposal. The Growth Management Program and the PFFPs are guides to ensure that no development occurs unless adequate facilities or improvements will be available to meet demands created by development. The City Council may initiate an amendment to any of the plans at any time if in its discretion it determines that an amendment is necessary to ensure adequate facilities and improvements and subsequent permits will be conditioned on conformance. {c) If at any time the City Manager determines that facilities or improvements within a PFFP are inadequate to accommodate any further development within that area the City Manager shall immediately report the deficiency to the Council. If the Council determines that a deficiency exists then no further building or development permits shall be issued within the affected area, and development shall cease until an amendment to the applicable public facilities finance plan which mitigates the deficiency is approved by the City Council. (d) The City Manager shall monitor the development activity for each PFFP and shall require the preparation of an annual report by the applicant consisting of maps, graphs, charts, tables and text and which includes a developmental activity analysis, a facilities and improvements adequacy analysis, a facility revenue/expenditure analysis and any necessary amendments to the PFFP, if necessary. -11- (e) The City Council shall annually review the PFFP Report prepared by the applicant at the time it considers the Growth Management Oversight Committee Annual Report. 21.15 Obliqation to p~y fees or install improvements required by any other law. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as relieving a builder, developer or subdivider from any public improvement requirement, dedication requirement or fee requirement which is imposed pursuant to this Code or pursuant to any City Council policy. 21.1~ Implementinq §uidelines. The City Council may adopt any guidelines it deems necessary to implement this chapter. 21.17 Council actions, fe~s, notice. (a) Whenever this chapter requires or permits an action or decision of the City Council, that action or decision shall be accomplished by resolution. (b) The City Council shall establish application and processing fees for the submission and processing of public facilities financing plans. (c) Whenever written notice is required to be given to property owners under this section the notice shall be mailed by first class mail to the owners shown on the last equalized assessment roll. 21.18 Severabili~y. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the ordinance codified in this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance codified in this chapter. The City Council declares that it would have passed the ordinance codified in this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any part thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 2: The City Council makes the following findings: 1. Since 1986, the City of Chula Vista has been undertaking a comprehensive review of its General Plan. As part of that review a consultant team prepared a comprehensive report and recommendation to the City Council. That report was subject to public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Included were recommendations that no new development should occur unless adequate public facilities are available concurrently with need to serve the new development. -12- 2. On , 1991, the City Council finds that these actions are necessary to ensure adequate public facilities are available to serve any new development in the City. Without Chapter 21.00 and the requirements imposed by it, adequate public facilities may not be available to serve new development or building. Development or building without public facilities is contrary to the City General Plan and would be dangerous to the public health, welfare and safety. 3. This action of the City Council is consistent with long standing policies and objectives of the City to ensure adequate public facilities within Chula Vista. This action will protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Chula Vista by ensuring safe streets, adequate water, sewer and drainage facilities, adequate schools, and sufficient police and fire protection and recreation facilities. 4. This action is consistent with the City's policy to provide housing opportunities for all economic sectors of the community, because sufficient opportunities for new housing continue to exist within the City and Chapter 21.00 does not affect the number of houses which may be built. In addition, development of housing for low and moderate income persons and families would most likely occur in areas of the City which are designated for highest development priority. 6. Adoption of Chapter 21.00 will not adversely affect the regional welfare. By ensuring that adequate and safe public facilities and improvements will exist to serve all of the development in Chula Vista and because many of these facilities and improvements are used by persons residing in neighboring areas and cities the safety and welfare of the whole region is enhanced. 7. That the Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Report prepared in 1989 found that intersections within areas within the developed portions of the City (as shown on page 2-8 of the Growth Management Program as "existing development"), are operating in conformance with the adopted Threshold Standards; and, that future large scale developments planned for the area east of 1-805 will require the provision of major facilities including facility within the SR-125 corridor to accommodate projected traffic and other needs of development in accordance with the adopted Threshold Standards. WPC 8609P -13- 7.3 FACILITY MASTER PLAN REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Police "A master Plan for the Chula Vista Civic Center Solving City Space Needs Through Year 2010," dated May 8, 1989 Fire/EMS "Fire Station Master Plan," dated March 23, 1989 Schools Sweetwater Union High School District - "Sweetwater Union High School District Long Range Comprehensive Master Plan," dated November 1984 Water Sweetwater - "Sweetwater Authority Water Master Plan," dated December, 1989 Sewer "City of Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan," dated July 19, 1989 Libraries "Chula Vista Public Library Master Plan. Facility Planning to the Year 2010," dated April 30, 1987 Parks & Recreation There is no existing detailed master plan. The Chula Vista General Plan Parks and Recreation Element dated July, 1990 serves as the parks master plan Drainaqe "City of Chula Vista Public Facilities Plan Flood Control Summary Report, dated March 1989 (Phase II)" Traffic "East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan," approval date pending Air Quality No local Master Plan exists for Air Quality. The Air Pollution Control District is updating the Air Quality Maintenance Program to comply with the California Clean Air Act. WPC 8609P -14- Attachment 3 John K. Kra,--ha C:OMMENTS ON CITY OF CHULA VISTA DRAFT ORDINANCE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1. What's a SF'A? Sh,--,uld be within definitions. If it is "Se,: t i c, nal Planning Area", is there a GDP fc, r "General Development Plan"? The first time a definitic, n is identified is on page 9. Sugges~ it be moved forward. 2. Can't find "figure 5 at page 16 c,f the Growth Management F'rogram". I don't think tha~ this is the "Potential Develc, pment" s~own on page 2-8. 3. Why are the words "threshc, ld standards" capitalized in some 4. Para 21.07. r'liq~t it not be more correct to refer back to para 21.02(9) rather than para 21.06 when re,erring tc, the basis for threshold standards'}' 5. Para 21.09. Can't this be made more clear? If the PFFP is ge, lng to implement the program shc, uldn't it be consistent? The PFFP is prepared by the City or agent. 6. F'ara 21.09. Ordinance requires both review as single entity and cooperation between two separate entities. What wc, uld happen if c, ne PFFP prc, vided less than threshold =tandard in one area and the c,t her PFFP provided an excess. Then there would be rec ipr c,cat ic, n in anc, t her 'threshold standard. Both in the 7. Para 21.Ou(f). isn't this the first time we have mentic, ned t~e "Liiuy's ~chedule"? What happens in the case where the '..~Ltggest i~ say so. 9. F'ara 21. 1.d(c.~. Section 21.,:]~J(a.~ and (d) (1.) re'rer to, w~at 10. Para 21. 1~. 11. Sec~ic, n 2.7. See cerement 2 a. bc, ve except this is ~,],¥~ ...... "c'xistinq devetzpment" and I can't find it. John K. Kracha Reseurce Conservation Commission 12. If SR-125 becomes toll road, will it s~ill bear the name of SR-125. If it is a private operatic, n, w~at is the developer's responsibility insefar as effect on the Growbh Management Plan? COMMENTS ON CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1. Page 3-14 (center). What's an EDU? Is it Estimated Dwelling Units? Whatever it is s~ould be defined. Ah, there it is on page 3-62 as "Equivalent Dwelling Unit" 2. General question. W~at are enhanced gec, metrics? Refers to traffic. It appears it includes free right-turn lanes, dual left-turn lanes and additional trough lanes but ~,_-,w many of these enhancements ,can be crammed into the existing land area? 3. "Fire and Emergency Medical Service" appears to cover enly the L~ity Fire Department Facilities. What about emergency medical services rendered by Hartson's? How are these put into the fc, rmula if at all'}' 4. ~'age 3-31. 7hreshold item 3. What is "sit availability"? 5. Page 3-31. Threshold statement is not as definitive as that fer previous facilities. W~-~y ,--an it riot be made more specific as te student/teacher ratio or some c, ther measuring stick? 6. H'age 3-34 Figure 14. Surprised at the "Projected Enrollment" over "Curren~ Capacity" for several schools west of I--b'05. is there a reason? ]he permanent capacity ~elates to current usage c,f all regular classrc._-,ms. Is there n,z, District/State/~ederal definition as to sq. ft/student by type of operation er ,--lass type"::' 7. ~"age 3-37. Recommend a time line c,r date for over capacity (nc, w or ]ZOO0) . G. Page 3-3'9. Hc, w does t~'~e "Adequacy Anal ysi s" take 9. Page :.S-4~. "~hres~old Stanciar'd" r'e'~ers only to, the .area EA~dl c,t 1-~(2~5. Sugges~ a "Standard" for the City and then deveLop a attain the standard. I don't believe there st~,:,uld be separate standards t,:,r East and West. It appears that ,:,ne thresheld Jo~-ln K. Kracha 1U. Page 3-56. 'Fhreshold statement is not definitive. Can't we develop some specifics? ]'he statement is not a standard but c, nly a statement. Obviously t~e water authorities have such standards c,r t~ey weuld not be able to prc, ject 't~eir requirements. 11. Page 3-65. St c,r age facilities. What are they? W~at is ~heir capacity? How many days reserve? What happens when they go dry? 12. Page 3-68. Center of page i~em 4. Recommend brief one sentence statement c,f the findings of the Luke-Dudek study. Is the study of wastewater treatment still on-going? According to Page 3-80, para 2 it is. 13. Page 3-72. Public Facilities Finance Plans ~3. Recommend add "and proposed financing responsibilities." 14. Page 3-83. F'ublic Facilities Finance Plans ~3. Recc, mmend add "and proposed financing responsibilities." 15. Page 3-87. (Does everyone else know what "downstream facilities" are? ~is could mean that drainage from the Eastlake Area '~lowlng ~ewn the lelegrap~'~ Canyc, n Basin would have to funded by Eastlake and Baldwin. Several pottle, ns of this system have never been improved and o~hers probably could not handle t~e tiew (i.e. , Hilltop and ~elegraph Canyon) . W~a~ is the correc~ d e ~ i n i t i on ? ) 16. Page 3-8'~. threshold s~ould be established. ]he thres~aold mig~st identify specific maximum levels of pollutants such as c,Jmpounds; particulate matter; Lead compounds including elemental lead; Asbestos; Beryllium; Plercury; Vinyl L:~leride; ~luorides; 5ui 'rut i c AC i d mi st; Hydrogen 5ul f i de; and Compounds c ont ai n i nO 1Z. Page 3-90. ~he entire Adequacy Analysis seems tc, be ~c, cused clearly identify te "Prehibitic, ns outlined by Rules 50 Sbrc, ugh 71 ef the County of San Diege Air Pc, llutien L~ontrol I_:istrict ~'.ules ,~nd ~<egulatic, ns". 18. Page 3-'~5. ]hres~old. This is probably the least tangible ef the threshelds. It appears to be the summation of ail ore, ers · t~resh,z, lds. A separate facility threshold might be valuable ~c~hn K. Krac~a 19. Page 3-99. T~reshold. Maintain the consistent fermat c,f _x_al , ObJe_tiw. . This simply seems to be an add-eh to t~e GMOC and if the Cc, mmittee is in agreement, prepare it cerrectly without excuse. If they are not ~urrently in agreement, delete the facility until such time as the GM[]C 'l'eels it s~ould be incerpora~ed. Recemmend inclusion and es'tabiis~a specific ge, als, ebje,ztives and standards. 2('~. Page 3-103. Threst~old. ~aintain t~ae censistent ~ermat ef "Geal", "Objective". This simply seems to be an add-on to, t~e GMOC an~ if the Cc, mmittee is in agreement, prepare it cc, rrectiy withc, u~ excuse. If tt~ey are net currently in agreement, delete the facility until such time as t~ae ~BMOC feels it s~aould be incorpc, rated. Recc, mmend inclusic, n a~d es~ablista specific goals, objectives and standards. 21. Page 4-4. Paragraph 3. Line 3. Capitalize a~ start o~ new 22. F'age 5-4. Paragrapt~ I. Identify the bar chart as a "Chart 4-1" er semet~ing similar rate, er than sa~'ing "following bar chart" since the ,:hart page precedes the paragraph. 23. Appendix. Include Glessary of acronyms. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Draft Growth Management Ordinance Responses 1. A SPA is a Sectional Planning Area Plan. SPA plans are referred to in the Definitions Section 21.02(2) on page 3. GDP refers to General Development Plan. Each of these terms are defined in the Zoning Ordinance as follows -- General Development Plan in Section 19.48.040 and Sectional Planning Area Plan in Section 19.48.090. 2. Figure 5 is "Potential Development" on page 2-8. The Ordinance reference to Figure 5 at page 16 on page 4 of the Ordinance will be corrected to read "on page 2-8." 3. The formally adopted title of "Quality of Life Threshold Standards" is capitalized or defined in Section 21.02(9) on page 4 of the Ordinance. The shorter reference to these standards are commonly not capitalized. 4. Either reference would be correct. Section 21.06 is used because it is more convenient for the reader. Section 21.06 does refer the reader back to 21.02(9). 5. The PFFP must be consistent with the Growth Management Program and General Plan. The PFFP will be prepared by consultants under contract to the city. 6. Each PFFP must provide facilities to meet or exceed the requirements necessary to maintain the Threshold Standards. Later on the developer who provided excess facilities would be paid back by the City from fees paid by the next developer when he/she pays his fair share. 7. When the Council approves a Sectional Planning Area Plan and a Public Facilities Financing Plan in accordance with the city's schedule, then that is the schedule for the completion of the project even though the City's schedule may be changed later on. 8. This refers to the Municipal Code. Since this ordinance is being added to the Municipal Code as identified in the title of the ordinance, it is a correct reference. 9. Section 21.03(a) refers to the Growth Management Implementation Ordinance. The reference to (d) (1) is a typographical error that has been corrected. 10. Guidelines refer to the handout materials available at the City that explain to applicants how to prepare planning and zoning applications. Usually these guidelines are prepared by the staff for permits that generate recurring questions. This section simply requires Council approval of the procedural guidelines for Public Facility Finance Plan due to the importance of specifically carrying out the Council's direction. 11. The page number is incorrect and has been corrected to 2-8. 12a. The specific name for State Route 125 and whether or not it will be changed if the road does become a private road cannot be answered at this time. b. The second question deals with the developer's responsibility in regard to the Growth Management Program. The developers are responsible for ensuring that the City's threshold standard for traffic is maintained in order to allow development to occur. The effect of State Route 125 becoming a toll road is not fully known at this time and the City is undertaking specific studies to analyze this impact. In any case, whether the road is public or private, the developer's responsibility will be to ensure that the Growth Management traffic standards, as well as all facility standards, are maintained as growth occurs. Draft Growth Management Proqram Responses 1. EDU is an equivalent dwelling unit. It is referenced for the first time on page 3-14 and it should be indicated in that section of the document that it is an equivalent dwelling unit. 2. Enhanced geometrics are those items mentioned above. In regard to how many enhancements can be made to an intersection, it is determined based upon the size of the existing right-of-way and the ability for those enhancements to fit within the existing land area. Enhanced geometrics are not intended to over utilize the existing land area, but are intended to maximize the available space which would allow for the intersection to operate at more efficient levels of service. 3. This covers fire and emergency medical response. 4. The City's performance standard for fire and emergency medical services deals with the city's ability to respond for calls for service and do not include services rendered by private agencies. 5. This item can be referred to the Growth Management Oversight Committee for further review as they analyze the appropriate nature of each of the threshold standards. The Threshold standards which have been developed were those first adopted in 1987 by the city Council and, since that time, have been reviewed by the Special Districts, the Growth Management Oversight Committee, and the City Council. There is no reason why this threshold standard could not be reviewed in the future. 6. There are classroom size guidelines but no guideline for allowable numbers of temporary classrooms. 7. This is up to the School District. 8. The School District determines the adequacy of their facilities. 9. The second annual Growth Management Oversight Committee report recommended to the City Council that there be a change to the threshold standard for parks. On August 23, 1990, the City Council referred the proposed change to the Parks & Recreation Commission to review and make their recommendations to the city Council. 10. The City has chosen to defer to the three water districts to determine their respective water storage, supply and distribution standards. Once these districts have adopted Facility Master Plans, it may be desirable to consider incorporating their standards into the Threshold Standards. 11. The reference to storage facilities pertains to the Otay Municipal Water District. This District is under a requirement from MWD to build a 10-day storage facility in case of an interruption in deliveries from pipelines carrying water into San Diego County. The District is currently preparing a master plan to locate and size the needed storage facilities. 12. Agree to add a one sentence description of Luke-Dudek Study. 13. Agree to add "and proposed financing responsibilities" to page 3-72, ~3. 14. Agree to add "and proposed financing responsibilities" to page 3-83, #3. 15. Downstream facilities is the correct terminology to refer to drainage channels, culverts and other drainage facilities. The developer contributing the extra runoff is responsible for improving downstream facilities or constructing on-site retention facilities to hold the water so that peak period drainage flows to not increase overflows prior to the new development. 16. These standards have been established by the State and Federal government. The City is required to assist in the implementation of the Clean Air Act strategy presently being prepared by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (A.P.C.D.). 17. All of these industrial standards are being enforced by A.P.C.D> The new State law is focusing mainly on indirect sources such as transportation. 18. The economics threshold is exactly as recommended by the Growth Management Oversight Committee in last year's report to the City Council. Staff agrees that it is more difficult to quantify this standard since it is a relative measurement rather than a fixed capacity such as a sewer pipe. This threshold is not solely dealing with the degradation of existing areas. It also involves the new projects developing east of 1-805. 19. The addition of a threshold standard for Civic Center will be discussed with GMOC this year. They will start their review on February 14, 1991. 20. Same response as #19 above. 21. This will be corrected. 22. This will be corrected. 23. Concur with comment. (GMORD.COM) MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:00 p.m. Conference Room 1 Monday, January 21, 1991 Public Services Building CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order with a quorum at 6:12 p.m. by Commissioner Kracha. City StaffEnvironmental Review Coordinator Barbara Reid called roll. Present: Commissioners Stevens, Johnson, Hall, Kracha. Absent: Fox, Ray and Ghougassian. The Communications section of the agenda was taken out of order. Mary Ann Miller, Staff from Environmental Review, gave a status report for Debra Fisher of Rohr Industries regarding the EIR 90-10. Questions were clarified by the Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUP (Stevens/Hall) to approve the minutes of January 7, 1991. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Phil Carter, Willdan & Associates gave an overview of the Growth Management Plan. The whole presentation will be given to the Planning Commission on February 13. Bud Gray of Gray & Associates presented a synopsis of the ordinance and how to enforce it into law. It was MSUP (Johnson/Hall) for RCC commissioners to submit questions on the Plan and Ordinance to Barbara Reid before Feb. 4, and for the consultants to return to the next meeting with written responses. B. The RCC Budget item will be continued to the next meeting with a presentation by Doug Reid. C. It was MSUP (Hall/Stevens) to continue the item on the Environmental Agenda for the 90's until the next meeting. D. Items for the Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting of January 23, 1991 were reviewed with no action taken. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Kracha commented that the Growth Management Plan was presented well, however the Ordinance was inadequate with too many discrepancies. ADJOURNMENT: It was MSUP (Stevens/Hall) to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned by Commissioner Kracha at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - HALL 1. Economics - Section 3-12 The impacts of economic growth is managed in several ways. First, the City annually prepare a long range development forecast (5 to 7 years) to be able to project where development is most likely to be located. Second, the City evaluates the compliance of new projects with the Threshold Standards whenever a tentative subdivision map is filed. This evaluation is performed within the project environmental impact report. Third, the Growth Management Oversight Committee reviews the compliance with the Threshold Standards from all projects each year and prepares a report and recommendation to the City Council on any observed problem. In summary, the City's growth management program tries to consider the economic impacts on all parts of the City. 2. Water - Page 3-66 This amount of water usage is for all urban uses. It is not a standard or baseline amount. For residential uses, the typical water use is 130 gallons per capita per day. This typical is broken down between inside use (72 g.p.c.p.d.) and outside use (58.0 g.p.c.p.d.). With a three person household, the baseline amount would be 390 gallons per day. The State is currently discussing a 300 gallon per day limit based upon the current drought. The City does not provide water and, therefore, relies upon the water districts to adopt conservation measures for water use. The MWD is currently in a Stage 3 water alert which requires the water districts to reduce water usage by about 14.7 percent, adjusted for population growth. Stage IV would require a 21.6 percent conservation goal. Water districts will focus largely on requiring efficient outdoor irrigation systems, promoting drought tolerant landscaping, eliminating washing cars or washing down driveways and sidewalks, and perhaps odd day/even day outdoor watering among other means to achieve water conservation goals. 3. Civic Center - Page 3-100 If the Civic Center and/or parking lots are expanded, the City would purchase land at fair market value from the owners. 4. General Question No. The Growth Management Program focuses on Tentative Subdivision Maps and not on Conditional Use Permits because new residential growth is largely a result of new subdivisions rather than Conditional Use Permits. WPC 8919P Attachment 4 MINUTES OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETING January 31, 1991 1. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Hugh Christensen, Susan J. Fuller, Steve Hann, Harry Hillock, Will Hyde, Lupe Jimenez, Nancy Palmer, Chuck Peter, Frank Tarantino MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Leiter, Bud Gray and Phil Carter GUESTS: Bruce Sloan, Eastlake Development Company Tom Bandy, Willdan & Associates 2. The purpose of the meeting was to review the proposed Growth Management Program and Implementation Ordinance with the Growth Management Oversight Committee. Bob Leiter explained to the committee members that staff had been working in conjunction with Willdan Associates, putting together this program as a follow-up to the Council's adoption of the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. The schedule for public hearings on the Growth Management Program entail a public hearing by the Planning Commission on February ]3, and thereafter a public hearing by the City Council for final adoption. The authors of the program and ordinance were introduced. Mr. Phil Carter, from Willdan Associates and Bud Gray, Planning Consultant to the City of Chula Vista, were available to present an overview of the program and to answer questions by members of the Committee. Phil Carter presented an overview of the program beginning with the facility threshold standards and explaining that the most recently amended threshold standards by the City Council have been included in the program. The most recent amendments to the traffic threshold have been incorporated as well as the amended economic threshold standard. The recommended changes to the parks threshold standard was referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission by the City Council. On January 18, the Parks and Recreation Commission endorsed the GMOC recommendations. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation will now be forwarded back to the City Council for final action and following the Council's action, the amended parks threshold standard will be incorporated into the final printing of the Growth Management Program. Phil Carter also explained the relationship of public facility master plans that have been used in conjunction with each of the public facility sections of the Growth Management Program. These facility plans identify needs, locations of future facilities and costs at full buildout of the planning area and they indicate how facilities should be phased as development occurs. GMOC Minutes -2- January 31, 1990 Mr. Carter reviewed how the Growth Management Threshold Standards and Facility Master Plans are linked to project processing requirements, particularly in terms of the use of the general development plan, spa plans, public facility financing plans, subdivision maps and building permits for any new project that will be subject to growth management review. In addition, the development phasing policies included in the program were discussed and it was indicated that the city has identified the need for five- to seven-year development phasing forecast which will be updated on an annual basis and monitored on a quarterly basis to direct and phase future growth in the undeveloped area of the city. Of particular note is the finding that only a certain amount of approved development can proceed to construction without the addition of SR-125 to the highway system. Accordingly, the program recommends that the Council adopt an interim Growth Management Phasing Policy which restricts the approval of new tentative subdivision maps east of 1-805, beyond what is currently approved until such time as a financing plan guaranteeing the construction of SR-125 is adopted by the Council. The final component of the program overview presented by Phil Carter involves the compliance monitoring and the role of the Growth Management Oversight Committee. The role of the Committee is expected to be expanded to include the review and approval of the proposed development phasing forecast which will be discussed at the first meeting of the GMOC on February 14 of this year. It was also mentioned that there is an Implementation Ordinance being proposed to guarantee that the requirements of the Growth Management Program are adopted by law and enforceable by the staff with respect to a new development project. In terms of the Committee's discussion, Mr. Chuck Peter asked how the City of Chula Vista compares with other cities with respect to our adopted threshold standards. Mr. Carter responded that most cities in California really do not have threshold standards in the eleven areas that Chula Vista has and therefore Chula Vista is really quite a bit ahead of many of the other cities in the State. Mr. Hugh Christensen asked about the status of the computerized traffic signal system and staff responded that a report will be made back to the Committee by the Engineering Department when traffic is discussed in one of our future meetings. It was also asked about the impact of SR-54 in terms of traffic volumes on east-west streets, and this is another area where the Engineering Department is currently having a consultant study. The status of traffic on the various intersections of the city and the impact of SR-54 is one of those special questions that will be reported on at a future meeting of the GMOC. GMOC Minutes -3- January 31, 1990 Member Hyde asked if anything new had occurred with respect to the statement of concern about the school situation. Mr. Bob Leiter responded that the districts are amending the Mello-Roos district to include projects 20 units or less as well as including commercial and industrial areas within the district in an attempt to generate funding for future school facilities. Mr. Chuck Peter indicated it would be desirable to ask speakers to this year's GMOC meetings to submit the written statements in advance of their appearance so that the Committee members could become more familiar with the subject matter of the particular meeting. Mr. Hugh Christensen asked why the School District did not show a school in the mid-Bayfront? Mr. Leiter responded that the City and the School District have been working cooperatively on the mid-Bayfront plan and that if residential is included in that project area, then provisions will have to be made up front by the developer to the School District's satisfaction to accommodate the children anticipated in the project. Mr. Hugh Christensen asked about the Boy's Club and indicated that there is a very critical need for that type of facility in the city. This is a question that will be referred to the Parks and Recreation staff for a response. Mr. Will Hyde suggested that a member of the newly created Water Commission be invited to attend the appropriate meeting of the GMOC when water is being discussed this year. Staff agreed to invite both a staff member and a policy member of that Commission to the appropriate meeting. Mr. Hyde asked what is happening with respect to the Air Pollution Control District situation which the GMOC had some concerns about last year, and Mr. Leiter indicated that the Director of the Air Pollution Control District and he had met that day and discussed the current efforts in responding to the State Clean Air Act of 1988. This new law mandates a new air quality strategy be submitted to the State Resources Board by July 1991. Mr. Sommerville also indicated that this year~s GMOC meeting will provide an overview to implement the Clean Air Act as well as review the role of local cities and other public agencies in attempting to improve air quality. Mr. Leiter also explained that the Growth Management Program includes an "Air Quality Improvement Plan" which will be a program prepared in conjunction with future SPA plans to incorporate design features in new projects to encourage mass transit usage, pedestrian bicycle usage, and to decrease future reliance upon the automobile for unnecessary trips. Mr. Hugh Christensen suggested with respect to the economic threshold that the city could obtain many excellent studies of the local economy from such organizations as the Realtor Group and the Chamber of Commerce, and that those might be useful to the GMOC. Mr. Will Hyde indicated that the newly created Economic Development Commission should be apprised of GMOC Minutes -4- January 31, 1990 the GMOC Economic Threshold and invited to the April 11 meeting to see if there can be some mutual cooperation between the two bodies with respect to the economic threshold work. The staff of the Planning Department will focus on the fiscal side of the threshold in conjunction with working with John McTighue and Associates in trying to update an overall fiscal report for the city. The Community Development Department will assist us in looking at the economic information available on the local economy. Mr. Hugh Christensen spoke to the need for a financial briefing on the fiscal health of the City by the City Manager and, after some discussion, it was agreed to invite Mr. John Goss, the City Manager, and/or the Budget Officer to attend a future meeting to brief the Committee (April 18) on the future budget outlook for the City, particularly with respect to the significance of revenues generated by new development on the fiscal health of the City. Mr. Chuck Peter indicated that he has been disappointed about the length of time it takes to get feedback from the city on the GMOC Recommendations and suggested that there needs to be some mechanism to advise the members of the GMOC on follow up actions by the city. The staff was also asked to prepare a report on the status of the terms of office of the GMOC members for their information at the February 14 meeting. Mr. Will Hyde indicated that at the February 14 meeting the Committee will be asked to elect a chairperson for 1991. Mr. Gray asked whether or not the GMOC wished to make a formal recommendation on the Growth Management Program and Implementation Ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Committee members agreed that Susan Fuller, who is the Planning Commission's representative to the GMOC, could share the GMOC's perspective of the Growth Management Program with the Planning Commission at the Commission's February 13 Public Hearing. WPC 8904P February 6, 1991 TO: Members of Planning Commission FROM: Bud Gray, Planning Dept. ~ The Growth Management Program was delivered to you on January 7, 1991. February 11, 1991 To: Planning Commission From: Resource Conservation Commission Subject: Growth Management Recommendation Recommend the approval of the Growth Management Program and Ordinance with the following exceptions: 1. That the threshold standards for Water, School, Air Quality and Economics should be made more measurable. 2. That the City should send letters to the appropriate legislators to allow the City to establish a specific measurable School threshold standard. 3. That specific standards be established for Civic Facilities and Corporation Yard within the next six months. The RCC also recommended that the members' comments and staff's responses be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council. RAL:nr (RCC.COM) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 1 5. Report: Amendment No. I to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area: Preliminary Plan - City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency A. Background The Southwest Redevelopment Project Area was approved by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on November 13, 1991. At the direction of the Redevelopment Agency, staff is preparing an amendment to the project for inclusion of approximately 10 acres. These 10 acres include approximately 6 acres south of Palomar now being planned as part of the Trolley Center development, and 4 acres of the MTDB Trolley Station at Palomar. A map of the amendment area is attached as Exhibit "A". This amendment, though small in land area, will require virtually the same schedule for approvals as the original project area adoption. The first step in the redevelopment plan amendment process is approval by the Planning Commission of the Preliminary Plan, which is attached. The Preliminary Plan, in form and content, is dictated by state redevelopment law. It generally addresses the land uses on the property in question, planned development, conformance with the City's General Plan, and the impact of planned development on surrounding property and neighborhoods. The Preliminary Plan was approved by the Southwest Project Area Committee on February 4, 1991 and was reviewed by the Montgomery Planning Committee on February 6, 1991; their recommendation will be reported to you verbally at tonight's meeting. The Preliminary Plan will be followed by more specific documents, the Preliminary Report and the Draft Redevelopment Plan, both of which will review in greater detail the financial and land planning issues associated with the subject properties and the amendment. B. Recommendation 1. Approve the Preliminary Plan for Amendment No. 1 to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. C. Analysis The amendment is being pursued for several reasons. First, inclusion of the properties in the redevelopment area will result in approximate annual tax increment revenues of $40,000 for the 40-year life of the redevelopment plan. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 13, 1991 Page 2 Putting the properties under redevelopment will also give the Agency and City Council additional tools with which to facilitate the development of the Trolley Center project. On the property are four single family residences, two properties used for storage of industrial equipment and three businesses for the repair of cars and recreational vehicles. Pacific Scene, Inc., the Trolley Center developers, are in the process of negotiating purchases of these property interests. But if these negotiations fail, use of redevelopment agency powers and funds may be necessary. WPC 8920P · THE PRELIMINARY-PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1 January30,1991 Prepared For: Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 619/691-5047 Prepared by: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305 Santa Ana, CA 92705 714/541-4585 510 North Pacific, Suite 1 Oceanside, California 92054 619/967-6462 PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 SECTION Il. THE AMENDMENT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .............. 2 SECTION III. GENERAL STATEMENTS OF PROPOSED PLANNING ELEMENTS ................................................................................. 3 A. Land Uses .......................................................................................... 3 B. General Statement of Proposed Layout of Principal Streets .............................................................. 3 C. General Statement of Proposed Population Densities ........................................................................ 3 D. General Statement of Proposed Building Intensities ........................................................................... 4 E. General Statement of Proposed Building Standards ........................................................................... 4 SECTION IV. ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSES OF THE [,AW ................................. 4 SECTION V. CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY ................ 6 SECTION VI. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS .............................................. 6 PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE SOUTWvVEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1 I. INTRODUCTION This document is the Preliminary Plan ("Plan") for Amendment No. 1 to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and Project Area. With Amendment No. 1, the Agency is proposing the addition of eight (8) parcels (the "Amendment Area"), consisting of approximately ten (10) acres, to the existing Project Area. This Plan's purpose is to designate the proposed boundaries of the Amendment Area, and to provide a general description of the reasons for Amendment No. 1 to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. It has been prepared pursuant to the authorization set forth by the Redevelopment Agency on March 7, 1991. In November of 1990, the Agency adopted the Southwest Redevelopment Plan which established the 1,040 acre Southwest Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"). Midway through the adoption process, the Agency identified eight additional parcels in need of redevelopment. However, rather than stop the adoption process for the main body of the proposed Project Area and lose the ability to receive tax increment in December of 1991, the Agency opted to continue with the boundaries as originally designated. Instead, the Agency directed staff to process an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to add the additional parcels; Amendment No. 1 is in fulfillment of this directive. This Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 33324 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("Health and Safety Code") which states that the Plan should: (a) Describe the boundaries of the project area; (b) Contain a general statement of land uses, and of the layout of principal streets, population densities, building intensities and standards proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the project area; (c) Show how the purpose of the preliminary plan would be attained by redevelopment; (d) Show how the preliminary plan conforms to the community's general plan; (e) Describe, generally, the impact of the redevelopment project upon residents of the project area and surrounding neighborhoods. II. AMENDMENT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION As illustrated in Exhibit A, the proposed Amendment Area is located in the City of Chula Vista, San Diego County. Exhibit A details the exact location of the eight (8) parcels being considered for inclusion in the Project Area. Seven (7) of the eight (8) parcels are contiguous to each other and consist of approximately six (6) acres of land. Currently located on these seven (7) parcels are four (4) single-family homes, two (2) automobile repair businesses, one recreational vehicle sales business, and one church. The remaining four (4) acre parcel, which lies just west of the other seven (7), contains the Palomar Trolley Station and is owned by the Metropolitan Transit District Board (MTDB). \chula\preplnam 2 1/31/91 ~ ~ L_~ ~ ............ ................. :.,: ., \\ ........ : / Chula Vista Revelopment Agency EXHIBIT PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY - AMENDMENT NO. 1 ~Area to be Added by Amendment No. 1 ~ Existing Project Area Boundary III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING ELEMENTS A. Land Uses The seven (7) contiguous parcels located along the SDG&E right-of-way are currently designated by the Montgomery Specific Plan as Mercantile and Office Commercial, Institutional, and Research and Limited Industrial. City planning staff is currently processing a General Plan Amendment which will change their zoning to Central Commercial and a small portion to Limited Industrial. As for the Palomar Trolley Station, it is currently zoned Public Utility Right-Of-Way, an old San Diego County zoning designation. When MTDB begins development of the air rights over the station, it is anticipated that the zoning will be changed to the City of Chula Vista's Visitor tCommercial zoning classification. B. General Statement of Proposed Layout of Principal Streets The principal streets within the Project Area are as shown in Exhibit A. These include Broadway, Palomar Street, Industrial Boulevard, and Jayken Way. The layout of principal streets and those that may be developed in the future shall conform to the Circulation Element of the General Plan and to the Montgomery Specific Plan, as currently adopted or is hereafter amended. In order to assemble sufficient land to make redevelopment of these parcels possible, the City plans to vacate two unnamed "paper" streets. The roads to be vacated are a 60 foot wide street bisecting the property and a 30 foot wide road adjacent to the westerly property boundary. C. General Statement of Proposed Population Densities Permitted densities within the Amendment Area shall conform to the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the Montgomery Specific Plan as currently adopted or are hereafter amended, and other applicable codes and ordinances. D. General Statement of Proposed Building Intensities Building intensity within the Amendment Area shall be controlled by limits on: (1) the percentage of the building site covered by the building (land coverage), (2) the ratio of the total floor area for all stories of the building to the area of the building site (floor area ratio), (3) the size and location of the buildable area on the building site; and (4) the height of the building. The limits on building intensity shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Montgomery Specific Plan and other applicable codes and ordinances, as they now exist or are hereafter amended. E. General Statement of Proposed Building Standards Building standards shall conform to the building requirements of applicable codes and ordinances. IV. ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW Redevelopment of the Amendment Area would attain the purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law by alleviating blighting conditions that the private sector, acting alone, cannot remedy. Among the blighting conditions existing in the Amendment Area are the following: o The subdMsion of lots into parcels that are inadequate for proper development and redevelopment. A review of Exhibit A shows that all of the eight (8) parcels are irregularly shaped, and/or dysfunctionally configured. Further, these lots are held by eight (8) different owners. These conditions make it difficult for the private sector to recycle/redevelop older deteriorated structures. Modern planning and development standards require greater setbacks, open space areas and off-street parking facilities than can be accommodated on these existing lots as subdivided. o The existing land uses are incompatible with the adjacent light industrial, office, and commercial uses which surround the Amendment Area. The four (4) single-family residences and the church do not conform with the existing zoning and would continue to be non-conforming under the anticipated Central Commercial zoning designation. The addition of these ten (10) acres to the Project Area will eliminate the blighting conditions detailed above by permitting the creation of a financially viable parcel for redevelopment. The seven (7) contiguous parcels are part of the proposed Palomar Trolley Center commercial development. As currently designed, the Palomar Trolley Center includes approximately 198,000 square feet of retail space, fast-food establishments, and entertainment uses. The seven (7) contiguous parcels are essential to providing enough depth to the development site to accommodate parking for the major anchor tenants needed to make the Trolley Center financially viable. The addition of the Trolley Station will provide essential public access to the proposed development. In fact, the inclusion of the Palomar Trolley Station, owned by the MTDB, is being included at the request of MTDB. MTDB's future plans for the development of the air rights over the station and additional parking are consistent with the goals of the Plan, and may require Agency financial assistance to develop fully. V. CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY This Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista and the Montgomery Specific Plan. It proposes an identical pattern of land uses, and includes ail roadways and public facilities as indicated by the General Plan and the Specific Plan. VI. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS The impact of the Amendment No. 1 upon existing residential uses within the Project and Amendment Areas will generally be in the areas of improved public facilities, utilities and services, improved living environment and economic activity. Although it is the desire of the Redevelopment Agency to avoid or minimize the involuntary displacement of residents through the power of eminent domain, it is apparent that the redevelopment of some of these eight (8) parcels will facilitate the early conversion of existing incompatible residential uses. If displacements were to occur, the Redevelopment Agency will be responsible for relocating residents displaced by the Agency and for providing last resort housing if necessary, as well as replacing any low and moderate income housing units removed from the housing stock. Plan implementation will, however, be subject to future review and approval by the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, Planning Commission, the Montgomery Planning Committee and other appropriate bodies after input from affected residents and other interested parties. February 12, 1991 TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission VIA: Bob Leiter, Planning Director FROM Chris Salomone, Community Development Director~ RE: Resolution for Adoption of Preliminary Plan, Southwest Redevelopment Amendment No. 1. Item No. 5 for your meeting of February 13, 1991 addresses the Preliminary Plan for Amendment No. 1 to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. As discussed in the staff report, this amendment is being pursued by staff at the direction of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency in order to capture significant tax increment funds from the expanded Trolley Center development, and to facilitate the recycling of existing uses in the area for the center. To begin the amendment process, the California Health and Safety Code (Redevelopment Law) requires the adoption by the Planning Commission of the attached resolution. This resolution has been drafted by the Agency's redevelopment consultants to satisfy legal requirements. Please accept our apology for the late and irregular submission of this resolution to you. We considered pulling this item and rescheduling for February 27th, however, Planning Department staff have tentatively cancelled that meeting. This item must be adopted in February in order to proceed with the redevelopment amendment to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency in a timely manner. Thank you for your cooperation. We will be requesting your adoption of this resolution at your meeting of February 13, 1991. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C.,OMMISSION OF THE OlTY OF OHULA VISTA, CAUFORNIA, 8ELEOTING THE BOUNDARIES OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROEJCT AREA AND FORMULATING AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 WHEREAS, the Chuls Vista Redeveloprnem Agenc~ (the "Age .n~") created the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area (the 'Project Ares"j on Novemoer 13, lg90, in the City of C.,hula Vista; and WHEREAS, the City Counc~, I~j Resolution No. 15631, designated Redeyelopment. Survey Nee and referred the Redevelopment Survey Area to the Planning Oommlssion for study and report; and WHEREAS, the City Counoil desires, that an amendment to the Southwest Rec~evelopment Project be initiated and reterred to as 'Amendment No. 1", which expands the boundaries of the ProJe~ Area; end WHEREAS, p. ursue~t to ,~.otlon a~12"d .of the California H. ea.lth and .~afety. Oo.de,. flee Planning Comm~s$10n may select or amana one or more. project all or part of any redevelopment survey area and shall formulate a preliminary plan: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista, es follOW~: Section 1. The above recitals are ell true end correct. Section2. The Planning Commission ss.lecte anti designates es .t~. "Amendment No. 1', that area shown on the proposeo Amendment No. I Map attaeneo hereto arld made a part hereof am Exhibit Section3. The PlannlngCommlsslon approves anti aclopts the Preliminary Plan formulated for AmandmentNo, I of the 80uthwest Redevelopment Project Area, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 'B". Section 4, The Planning Dlre. otor la he.reby authorized and direoted to submit the Amendment No, 1 Map and Preliminary Plan ;othe AgenCy. 80d 100 ONI '~S~ §Dz[gcgD[ZI gO:gO Se~lon 5. The Secretary i~hell oertlfy to the adoption of thie Resolution. Presented by: Approved ms to form by: ~-,htis Salomone Bruce Boogeard Community Development Director Agency Attorney ~0w I00 ONI '~ gbz[g£g~tZt 0[:G0 21-~0-[GG[