HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1999/11/17
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, November 17, 1999
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROll CALLlMOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF AllEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1, PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-00-01; Consideration of amendments to the Eastlake II General
Development Plan, Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan and Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations, to
transfer density from parcel R-16 to parcel R-26; transfer 2.2 acres
from parcel PQ-1 to parcel R-26; and change the land use designation
of said 2.2 acres from Public/Quasi-public (PQ) to Medium-High
residential (11-18 du/ac).
(Applicant has withdrawn application)
2.
REPORT:
Growth Forecast
Ed Batchelder, Senior Planner
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-00-08; Conditional Use Permit to in stall, operate and maintain
a 31-foot high monopole, supporting two (2) panel directional
antennas, with an associated equipment/building at 700 East Naples.
Project Planner: Steve Power, Associate Planner
4, PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-OD-01; Tentative Subdivision Map known as Sycamore Ridge Chula
Vista Tract 00-01 for a 96 units condominium project on 8,9 acres
(Shea Homes)
Project Planner: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
Planning Commission
- 2 -
November 17, 1999
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
to a Planning Commission meeting on December 1, 1999.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas
for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunicalions Devices for the Deaf (TOO)
at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 3
Meeting Date:11I17/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-OO-OS, Proposal to install,
operate and maintain a 3 I-foot high monopole, supporting two (2) panel
directional antennas, with an associated equipment/building at 700 East
Naples.
GTE Worldwide Telecommunication's Services is requesting permission to construct and operate
an unmanned cellular communications facility at 700 East Naples, at the future site of the
Veteran's Home of California at Chula Vista Project. The project will consist of an equipment
building, and a 31-foot-high street light (monopole) supporting 2 directional (panel) antennas. The
monopole location is proposed adjacent to the Veteran's Home facility which is presently under
construction.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded this project is a Class 1 Categorical
Exemption from environmental review, minor alteration of an existing public facility, per the
California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt attached Resolution PCC-OO-OS
recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit based on the attached
draft City Council Resolution and the conditions and findings contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The project site is currently undergoing construction activities and will be the future site of the
Veteran's Home. The site is zoned RIH (Public/Quasi Public). The project site is situated on
a hill to the south of Telegraph Canyon Road. Surrounding uses include Sharp Chula Vista
Medical Center to the immediate south, as well as single-family residential and multi-family uses
in the Sunbow housing development area.
PCC-00-08
November 17, 1999
2. General Plan. Zoninl! and Land Use
The following table specifies the types of land uses surrounding the project site:
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
CURRENT LAND USE
Site
North
South
East
West
Public/Quasi Public
Medium Density Residential
Public/Quasi Public
Planned Community
Low Density Residential
RlH
R3P12
H
PC
R15P
Veteran's Home
Multi-family Residential
Hospital
Vacant
Single-Family Residenria1
3. Proposal
GTE Worldwide Telecommunications Services proposes to construct an unmanned cellular
communications facility at 700 East Naples. The 31 foot-high monopole would consist of a light
standard that would support two directional panel antennas. The proposed cellular site would
provide service to the Telegraph Canyon Road area. The project plans depict a total of three light
poles at the northeastern corner of the property. Only one light pole would support the proposed
cellular antennas. The two other light poles were included with the plans for the Veteran's Home
project. The proposed monopole would match the other light poles on the site.
A 200 square-foot modular equipment building would be placed to the north (down slope) of the
proposed monopole. This building would measure 10' by 20' and would house electronic
equipment. Construction of this building would require minor grading and the construction of a
low retaining wall.
In accordance with Section 19.48 (Unclassified Uses), Conditional Use Permits are required for
uses listed in this section of the Zoning Code, and shall be considered by the City Council upon
recommendation by the Planning Commission.
4. Similar Establishments
There are several monopole facilities currently in the City of Chula Vista. Those facilities include
the Pac Tel and U.S. West site adjacent to 1-5 and south of Anita Street (60 foot-high monopole).
Other sites include AirTouch and Nextel cellular communication facilities located on top of Sharp
Chula Vista Medical Center at 751 Medical Center Drive, as well as a facility located at 625 H
Street. A 60 foot-high monopole is also situated 428 Broadway.
PCC-OO-08
November 17, 1999
5. Analvsis
The proposed wireless facility would be located in the PC (Public/Quasi Public) Zone, on the
Veteran's Home site. The State of California has governing authority over uses and functions on
the property. The state has authorized GTE Wireless to file the subject application. The City of
Chula Vista retains permitting authority over the proposed cellular facility.
The proposed use will be located in a parking lot and road area at the northeast of the site. The
proposed cellular facility is designed to minimize its visibility by co-locating the antennas on a
light standard that will match other light standards to be installed by the Veteran's Home. The
visibility of the monopole would be minimized by flush mounting the two panel antennas near the
top of the light standard and by painting the antennas. to match the light standard. The proposed
equipment building would be screened from view through the planting of screening vegetation.
The location of the monopole and associated equipment at the rear of the site would further
minimize the visual impact of the facility upon surrounding properties.
6. Issues:
Desien
Staff has not identified any design issues associated with the proposed monopole. The cellular
facility appears to be appropriately sited, and will blend in well with other hardscape in the
parking area of the Veteran's Home. Sufficient landscaping has been provided to screen the
equipment building from surrounding uses.
Alternative Sites
The site chosen is well suited for a cellular site. Alternative locations for the cellular facility are
available but not as desirable from an aesthetic and functional point of view.
Co-locatine
The applicant has indicated that it would not be possible to co-locate the proposed cellular facility
with existing monopoles located on top of Sharp Community Hospital. According to the applicant,
transmission interference would occur if the proposed cellular facility were to be collocated at the
Sharp site.
PCC-OO-08
November 17, 1999
Emissions
The applicant will be required to submit proof of compliance with ANSI standards on emissions
control prior to the issuance of building permits for the project (Please see Condition No.4)
7. Conclusion
Staff is recommending approval based upon the findings and conditions of approval as noted in
the attached draft resolutions.
Attachment A - Draft Resolutions
Attachment B - Application materials
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-00-08
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, PCC-OO-OS, TO GTE WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES,
TO CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT
700 EAST NAPLES.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Planning Department on August 31, 1999 by GTE Worldwide Telecommunication Services; and
WHEREAS, said application requests permission to construct an unmanned eellular communications
facility, a 31 ft. high monopole and equipment building, at the Veteran's Home of California at Chula Vista,
located at 700 East Naples; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is a Class 1
Categorical Exemption from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Direetor set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was scheduled and advertised for November 17, 1999, 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at
the public hearing with respect to subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit PCC- 00-08 in accordanee with the findings
and subject to the conditions and findings contained in the attaehed City Council Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 17th day of November, 1999, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
John Willett, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
H: \HOMEIPLANNINGlSTEVEIPCCIPCCOOO8.RES
I
!11T!1C- I-i MENT \' All
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PCC-00-08, TO GTE WORLDWIDE TELECOMMUNICATION
SERVICES TO CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED CELLULAR
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 700 EAST NAPLES
STREET.
A. RECITALS
1. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is represented
in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the
purpose of general description is located at Veteran's Home of California at Chula
Vista, 700 East Naples Street ("Project Siten); and,
2. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, on August 31, 1999 a duly verified application for a conditional use
permit (PCC-OO-08) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department
by GTE Worldwide Telecommunications (Applicant); and,
3. Project Description; Application for Conditional Use Permit
WHEREAS, Applicant requests permission to construct an unmanned cellular
communications facility consisting of a 31-foot high monopole. The facility will
consist of one monopole with two panel directional antennas, with a 200 square
foot equipment building on the Project Site; and,
4. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission scheduled and advertised a public hearing
on the Project for November 17, 1999, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission meeting of November 17, 1999 considered
a motion to support staffs recommendation for the monopole; and
5. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held
before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on , to receive the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with
regard to same. ~
Resolution No.
Page #2
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on this project held on November 17, 1999 and the
minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is a Class 1
Categorical Exemption from environmental review pursuant to !}15303 and !}15311 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the
Environmental Review Coordinator was reached in accordance with requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the
City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as herein below
set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated fmding
to be made.
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 cellular facility is necessary to provide and maintain a quality cellular phone
system in eastern Chula Vista, specifically providing service for the Telegraph Canyon
Road area near 1-805. The cellular facility will contribute to the general well being of the
community by facilitating telephonic communication in the area surrounding said facility.
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.
3
Resolution No.
Page #3
According to study submitted by the applicant, cellular communications operate on low-
power radio waves. Emissions from cellular antennas have been shown to be below any
levels that would cause hazardous biological effects. In addition, cellular antenna
emissions are so far below all recognized safety standards that they constitute no hazard
to public health or safety. The project has been conditioned that the applicant prove
compliance with the accepted ANSI standards for emissions control.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the code for such use.
Conditional Use Pennit PCC-OO-08 requires the permittee to comply with all the applicable
regulations and standards specified in the Municipal Code for such use.
The conditioning of PCC-OO-08 is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to
the impact created by the proposed development in that the conditions imposed are directly
related to and are of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the project.
4. That the granting of this conditional nse permit will not adversely affect the
general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of PCC-OO-08 will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General Plan in that
said project is proposed to be built on a public/quasi-public site. The site is surrounded
by residential, commercial and public/quasi uses, said uses conforming with the General
Plan.
F. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Pennit PCC-OO-08 subject to the
following conditions whereby the applicant and/or property owner shall:
I. Construct the Project as described in the application, except as modified herein to
allow for the monopole design, storage/equipment building and emergency
generator.
2. The monopole shall maintain a design and color that is similar to other light poles
on the Veteran's Home site.
3. Applicant shall cooperate in good faith with other communications companies in
co-locating additional antenna on pole structures and/or on the tops of buildings,
provided said co-locates have received a conditional use pennit for such use at said
site from the City. Permittee shall exercise good faith in co-locating with other
communications companies and sharing the permitted site, provided such shared
use does not give rise to a substantial technical level- or quality-of-service
impainnent of the pennitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict or financial
burden). In the event a dispute arises as to whether pennittee has exercised good
~
Resolution No.
Page #4
faith in accommodating other users, the City may require a third party technical
study at the expense of either or both the permittee and applicant.
4. Comply with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. Within six (6) months of the
Building Division final inspeetion of the project, the Applicant shall submit a
project implementation report to the Director of Planning and Building which
provides cumulative field measurements of radio frequency (EMF) power densities
of all antennas installed at subject site. The report shall quantify the EMF
emissions and compare the results with currently accepted ANSI standards. Said
report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and
Building for consistency with the project proposal report and the accepted ANSI
standards. If on review the City in its discretion finds that the Project does not
meet ANSI standards, the City may revoke or modify this conditional use permit.
5. Ensure that the project does not cause localized interference with reception of area
television or radio broadcasts. If on review the City, in its discretion, finds that
the project interferes with such reception, the City may revoke or modify the
conditional use permit.
6. Upon completion of construction, provide one 2A: lOBC fire extinguisher at a
location satisfactory to the Fire Marshal.
7. Obtain all necessary permits from the Chula Vista Building Department and Fire
Department.
8. The applicant shall use anti-graffiti paint for the equipment building.
9. Comply with the City's Municipal Code noise standards. Within three (3) months
of the Building Division's final inspection, the applicant shall submit a report to the
Director of Planning and Building which provides cumulative field measurements
of facility noises. The report shall quantify the levels and compare the results with
current standard specified in the Municipal Code for residential uses. Said report
shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building
for consistency with the project proposal dated September 30, 1998 and Municipal
Code noise standards. If on review the City finds that the project does not meet the
Municipal Code noise standards, the City may revoke or modify the permit.
10. This Conditional Use Permit services a defined service radius. If the Applicant
requests a second tower within the same service radius, the Applicant shall be
required to amend this Conditional Use Permit.
11. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions
imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest
related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance
written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the
.')
Resolution No.
Page #5
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 can not, in the normal
operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
12. This conditional use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or
extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with
Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code.
13. The Applicant shall remove the monopole and return the site back to its original
condition within ninety (90) days of cessation of use of the monopole.
14. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands,
claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, "liabilities")
incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and
issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any
other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection
with the use contemplated herein, and c) Applicant's installation and operation of
the facility permitted hereby, including, without limitation, any and all liabilities
arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy
waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this
provision by executing a copy of this Conditional Use Permit where indicated,
below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express
condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any
and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns.
G. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided
below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood
and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded
with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner
and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Planning Department. Failure to
return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the
City Clerk shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the
corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance
without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as
Document No.
Signature of Representative of
GTE Worldwide Telecommunications Services
Date
o
Resolution No.
Page #6
H. ADDITIONAL TERM OF GRANT
This permit shall expire ten (10) years after the date of its approval by the City Council.
After the first five (5) years, the Zoning Administrator shall review this Conditional Use
Permit for compliance with the conditions of approval, and shall determine, in consultation
with the Applicant, whether or not the tower height can be lowered.
I. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Exemption and file the same with the County Clerk.
J. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that
in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a
Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and
the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect
ab initio.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
H: IHOMEIPLANNINGlSTEVEIPCCIPCCOOO8C.RES
7
[1AjUdj
::~~--'--' ~J~I- \1d"\TYR::
_0, '" ~):'5SC\C:
.. -,.
;,<
August 27, 1999
Ms. Beverly Blessent
City of Chula Vista, Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
SUBJECT:
GTE WIRELESS - TELEGRAPH CANYON CELLULAR FACILITY
Dear Beverly:
Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates, on behalf of GTE Wireless, is submitting the attached application
paekage for a eonditional use permit for a eellular eommunication facility. The application package
includes the City of Chula Vista development processing applieation form, projeet deseription and
justification (Appendix A), ownership disclosure statement (Appendix B), 16 sets of site plans,
photographic survey and location map, photo-simulations, a map identifying the area of coverage
provided by the facility, agent authorization letter, a copy of the Report of a Biological Survey of the 30-
Aere Veterans Administration Home Project Site (as included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Southern California Veterans Home) and a $2000 deposit to cover review costs.
Proposed Facility Design
GTE Wireless is proposing an unmanned cellular facility consisting of two (2) panel directional antennas
mounted on a 31' -0" high light standard, a 200-square-foot modular equipment building, and connecting
cables in the northeast corner of the lot for the Veteran's Home currently under construction at 753
Medical Center Court. One (1) GPS antenna will be mounted to the new modular equipment building.
The associated eleetronic equipment will be housed in a lOx 20 foot modular equipment building
located approximately 104 feet northeast from the light standard.
The proposed faeility is designed to minimize its visibility by collocating the antennas on a light standard
which will match the design of the light standards to be installed within the Veteran's Home. The bulk
and visibility of the facility will be further minimized by flush mounting the two panel antennas near the
top of the light standard and by painting the antennas to match the light standard. The 200-square-foot
equipment building will be screened from view by planting of five-gallon bushes to the north, northwest
and south of the building to block it from view for the residents of the Veteran's Home and the multi-
family residential development below the site. The building will not be visible from Telegraph Canyon
Road. Limited grading is proposed for the equipment building, which will be set into the manufactured
slope with a retaining wall on three sides.
Previous Environmental Review
The proposed GTE facility would be located within the 30-acre Veterans Administration Home Project
Site for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared by the Chula Vista Community
Development Department in 1996. The MND for the Veteran's Home project assumed worst-case
development of 100 percent of the site since site specific development plans had not yet been prepared.
The MND identified that the loss of onsite biological resources from the Veteran's Home project was to
] ::;:"1 Fourth A\'t'nu,,-', Suite -1-3U, S,m Die-so, California (;:UI1-3152 / it-FJi 238-4241 ./ FAX (/.1FJ) 230~-:'C";"':
g
lIirlle H IV[ t=- NT ,\ '611
be mitigated through the offsite acquisition, dedieation and preservation of eoastal sage scrub habitat
through either the NCCP program or through the 4(d) process established under the Endangered Species
Acr for interim take (Special Rule).
As indicated on the enclosed site plans for the Veteran's Home, the proposed GTE facility is located in
an area disturbed as part of the Veteran's Home projeet. Speeifically, the light pole colloeation is
proposed on the northern edge of the Veteran's Home development pad and the equipment building is
proposed on the manufaetured slope below the pad. The manufactured slope is proposed to be
hydroseeded with California poppy, scarlet flax, Afiiean daisy, strawberry clover, monkey flower, salt
bush, and deerweed as part of the Veteran's Home development Consequently, the proposed GTE
facility would not result in any impacts to biological resources.
Alternative Locations Considered
When GTE approaehed the Department of Veteran's Affairs (DV A) regarding the possibility of
installing a cellular facility, GTE proposed a clock tower or a building collocation, but the DV A was not
in favor of either option. The only option the DV A agreed to was a collocation with a light standard.
GTE also considered locating the proposed facility at the Chula Vista Medical Center located south of
the Veteran's Home site. However, the hospital is located at a higher elevation and would cause
interference in the GTE network in the surrounding areas. The lower elevation of the Veteran's Home
site will satisfY the requirements of GTE's network without negatively impacting the service quality for
users in other parts of the network.
We would appreeiate it if you eould please fill out the attaehed questionnaire and return it in the self-
addressed stamped envelope provided. If you have any questions please call me at 238-424 I.
Sincerely,
LETTIERI-McINTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
;6AM ~ ~
Deborah L. Collins, AICP
Senior Project Manager
S:\PLANNINGGrEWTS\22O\COVERLI.DOC
9"
~{fc,
::~:-:
-- -~
ern' OF CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
(619)691-5101
TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED
(staff use onlY) ,{.Cose No.: r'C 1". - ?Jt'i-O>r
Filing Date: g/~/'1 '( By: ~_
~ Planner: (
TrocldngNo.: T 00 .39
Receipt No.:
Deposit Acct: Dry & 0 ='J
Related Cases: ~
o ZA ~ Public Hearing
Development Processing
Application Form
Page One
01Y OF
CHUlA VISTA
II
!Rl Conditlanal Use Permi!-
o Variance
o Design Review
o Special Land Use Permit
(ReciBVe/opment Area Only)
o Miscellaneous:
~
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Ii
IApPlicant Name
GTE Worldwide Telecommunication Services
Applicant Address
I Phone No. 1
2835 Camino del Rio South Suite 110
IApplicanfs Interest in Properiy
I
I 0 Own ill Lease 0 In Escrow
IArchitect/Agent
Lettieri-Mclnt re and Associates
Architect/Agent Address
ff applicant is not owner. owner's authorization
o Option to purchase is required to process request. See signature
on Page Two.
: Phone No.
!
,
1551 Fourth Avenue. ,Suite 430 San Die 0, CA 92101
GTE Tel r
General Description of Proposed Project
{Ptease use Appendix A to prcMde a full description and jusfiflCXJfion for the project}
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (for all types)
I Proposed Use
I
ProjectName
An unmanned cellular facility consisting of two panel directional antennas mounted on a
31'-0" high light standard, a 20Q-square foot modular equipment building and connecting
cables. One GPS antenna will be mounted to the new modular equipment building.
Has a representative attended a Pre-Application Conference to discuss this project?
ff so. what was the date? 8/6/99 Pre-App No.: PA-00-09
I SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION (for all types)
Location/Street Address
Yes
I
II
I
753 Medical Center Court
Assessor's Parcel No.
Total Acreage
Redevelopment Area (~ opplicoble)
urren
Iff applicable)
i Public
RIH
Residental
(U
FORM 1A.DEV PL ("'GE 1 OF 2)
7199
~(~
~
""!::-~~ -=
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Depanmem
276 Fourth Avenue
(619)691-5101
uevelopment Processing
Application Form
Page Two
I (staff use onlY)
., Case No.:
I
I
,
01Y OF
CHUlA VISTA
[I
Type of Use Proposed
o Residential 0 Comm.
PROPOSED PROJECT (all types)
Landscape Coverage [% 01 lol)
o Ind. I&lOther
Builc:ing Coverage (% of lot)
!Type of Dwelling Unit[s)
N/A
INO. of Dwelling Units
I lBR
I 2BR
3+BR
Total
i
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY
Number of Lots
N/A
Proposed Existing
I
IPorkino SDoces Total Off-street I Type of Parking Is~e; Whe!her covere:il
I Required by Code: !
I i
1 Provided: I
Open Space Description (Acres each of private. cammon. and landscaping)
Proposed
Existing
Ii
NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY
200 sf for the modular equi ment buildin
Hours of Operation (Days & Hours)
This is an unmanned cellular communication facility
bldg.
ft for equip.
Anticipated Total # Empioyees
I N/A
IPorking Spaces Required
N/A
1# 0 u ents I dren [ro o;:>Diicable}
1 N/A
I
I
I Spaces Provided
I
!
I
I N/A
N/A
iType of parking (size)
I
ren [ro oppi.cO:>e} I
I
't\i/l:i
.
Kim~ A. ~~-~i- ~I~ f.~
Print Applicant or Agent Nom Ap iicant or gent 'gnatur
see atiz:lk keoI c;w. t{M:rv i 'Ucr1:7"\1 I-e-t+e-v-
B/:2'1/ qq
Dote '
Dote
Print Owner Name
Owner Signature*
(Required if Applicant is not Owner)
" Letter of ovvner consent may be used in lieu of signature.
II
FORM 1A-PAGf 2 OF 2
7199
Appendix A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
PROJECT NAME: GTE WTS - Telegraph Canyon Cellular Site
APPLICANT NAME: GTE Worldwide Teleconununications Services
Please describe fully the proposed project, any and all construction that may be
accomplished as a result of approval of this project and the project's benefits to yourself.
the property, the neighborhood and the City of Chula Vista. Include any details
necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project.
You may include any background information and supporting statements regarding the
reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if
necessary.
For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "Findings" as
listed in listed in the Application Procedural Guide.
DescriDtion & Justification.
See Attached
Id--.
Appendix A
Project Deseription and Justification
Telegraph Canyon Cellular Site
GTE Wireless is proposing an unmanned cellular fadlity consisting of two (2) panel directional
antennas mounted on a 31'-0" high light standard, a 200-square-foot modular equipment
building, and eonnecting cables in the northeast eomer of the lot for the Veteran's Home
currently under construction at 753 Medical Center Court. One (I) GPS antenna will be mounted
to the new modular equipment building. The associated eleetronic equipment will be housed in a
10 x 20 foot modular equipment building located approximately 104 feet north ftom the light
standard.
The proposed facility is designed to minimize its visibility by collocating the antennas on a light
standard which will match the design of the light standards to be installed within the Veteran's
Home. The bulk and visibility of the faeility will be further minimized by flush mounting the
two panel antennas near the top of the light standard and by painting the antennas to match the
light standard. The 200-square-foot equipment building will be screened ftom view by planting
of five-gallon bushes to the north, northwest and south of the building to bloek it ftom view for
the residents of the home and the multi-family residential development below the site. The
building will not be visible ftom Telegraph Canyon Road. Limited grading is proposed for the
equipment building, which will be set into the hillside with a retaining wall on three sides.
REQUIRED FINDINGS:
. That the proposed use at the particular 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.
Improved coverage along Telegraph Canyon Road, which is one of the major streets providing
access to the eastern portion of Chula Vista, is critical given the amount of new development that
is currently underway. The cellular facility will provide a necessary and desirable serviee by
providing additional cellular coverage and capacity for the eastern portion of the City of Chula
Vista in the following ways: I) Mobile communications service provided by the faeility is
growing in general use for both small and large businesses as well as individuals and public
agencies. The technology allows for mobile communications of telephones, faxes and eomputer
data. 2) The growing importance of mobile communication devices makes such service
necessary for the future business climate of the City of Chula Vista. 3) The mobile phone service
is also of use for families, individuals and publie agencies to allow instant communication with
others as well as providing mobile contact with the 91 I emergency service system, thus
contributing to the general well being of the community.
13
. 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 within the vicinity, or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed use will not pose a danger to the public safety and welfare as it only involves the
operation of a cellular antenna whieh operates well below the safety standards established by
ANSI and utilized by the FCC. The proposed facility is also designed so that it will not block
views from the surrounding areas. The operation of the antenna will not cause any conflicts
between the operations of other businesses in the area.
. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this code
for such use.
The facility is required to comply with the regulations of the Municipal Code and in any case
where it does not comply, the Conditional Use Permit will be subject to modification or
revoeation.
. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the general plan of the City
or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The proposed use is permitted subject to approval of a CUP. The proposed light standard
collocation has been integrated into the design of the Veteran's Home which is currently under
eonstruction adjacent to Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, thereby avoiding any adverse land
use impacts. The proposed faeility is a publie utility to be located with institutional uses
including the Veteran's Home and the adjacent hospital, making it a compatible use within the
area. Consequently, the proposed facility is in compliance with the General Plan and the Zoning
Ordinanee and the land use designation and will not alter the land use patterns of the General
Plan. Monthly maintenance that the facility will not result in the intensification of the use of the
site and is an insignificant increase in traffic for the neighborhood.
)'1
SEP 03 '99 02:46PM LETTIERI-MCINTYRE & ASSOCIATES
P,2/2
C6D
Interoffice Memo
To: Mary Hami~on - S~e Acquisition Specialist
From: Darang Tech - Engineer Radio Design
Date: 09l01/99
Subject:
Justification for Telegraph Canyon cell site.
The area w~h service quality issues in the Telegraph Canyon area is well defined and can be
resolved by adding the Telegraph Canyon cell site. The approach selected involves the use
of a site w~h low ground elevation and a relativaly low antenna elevation. In this manner, we
are able to improve service to the immediate area withoul generating interference to
surrounding areas; areas where the site does not need to serve.
In a mature netwoli< such as that of GTE Wireless, seMce quality is often defined by the
amount of interference in the network. Each user is served by a cell site that is often close to
their geographic location. This is the desired signal. The.desired signal needs .to be a eertail'!
number of times stronger than the signals transmitted from other sites throughout the
network; the undesired signals, or interference.
As the network expands and usags increases, the amount of undesired signals. must be
controlled. This is typically done by locating cell sites such that they have elevations and
antenna centerlines Ihat will provide adequate service in the area.of interesl; butrnot .
propagate interference throughoul the rest of the network. .
..
The current Telegraph Canyon cell site does just that. It will improve service in the area of
interest, but it will not increase the Interference in the rest of the network by any perceptible'
amount. The hospital, on the other hand, is located with a high enough elevation, roughly
200' higher in antenna centerline, that it would cause increased interference in.the netwoli<.
After extensive study and testing, we concluded that the lower site 'answers our needs
without negatively impacting the service quality for users in other parts of the network.
The fact that other carriers are located at the hospital is irreleval"\t to our needs. Each
network is different in its requirements based on where their existing cell sites are located
and what their long-term strategies are. It is impossible for us to know what their strategy is,
but we clln explain our strategy and how the lower lel/Ell site fits into it.
I r---
0arnlD
GTE Wireless - Telegraph Canyon
Example of Light Standard Collocation
I~
Figure 7
00
(1)
I-<
;:!
OJ.)
......
~
cI:S
(1)
<
(1)
~
I-<
(1)
:>
0
U
s:::
0
~
U
...t:1
~
5h
(1)
-
~
I
I;/)
I;/)
(1)
~ -
(1)
::Ii I-<
E ~
.,
a
17 ~ ~
"
~
. d
.:!
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.: 4
MeetingDate: 11/17/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCS 00-01; Tentative Subdivision Map known as
Sycamore Ridge Chula Vista Tract 00-01 for 96 unit
condominium project on 8.9 acres - Applicant: Shea Homes
The applicant, Shea Homes, has submitted an application requesting approval of a
Tentative Subdivision Map known as EastLake Trails South TS 7, Chula Vista Tract
00-01 for 8.9 acres located on the south side of Clubhouse Drive, between future Silver
Springs Drive and Granite Springs Drive (see Locator)
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that environmental review for
this project was covered under the previous certified FSEIR 97-04, EastLake
Trails/Greens Replanning Program, and therefore no further action is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt attached Resolution PCS 00-01 recommending
that the City Council approve Tentative Subdivision Map Chula Vista Tract 00-01 in
accordance with the attached draft City Council Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is within the EastLake Trails SPA Plan. It is designated as lot 536
of The EastLake Trails Master subdivision map Chula Vista Tract 99-03.
A proposal for a 96 unit multi-family condominium project (consisting of 32 triplex
buildings) was considered by the City's Design Review Committee on October 18,
1999. The project was conditionally approved, contingent upon approval of the subject
tentative map.
The purpose of the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is to allow the housing units
to be sold individually as condominium units. All land will remain under common
ownership with exclusive rights to use applicable fenced yard areas.
Page No.2, Item: 4
Meeting Date: 11/17/99
DISCUSSION:
1. Existing Site Characteristics
The project site is located in the EastLake Trails, at the southwest corner of
Clubhouse Drive and future Silver Springs Road. The site is surrounded by
Clubhouse Drive on the north, an elementary school (under construction) to the
west and future single family detached residential to the south and east.
The parcel is irregular in shape and was graded as part of the Trails mass
grading program. The site is designated Medium Density Residential (6-11
du/ac) in both the EastLake II General Development Plan and EastLake Trails
SPA Plan. The site development potential ranges from 80-110 du's, and is
targeted for 92 units.
2. SPA Land Use Designations and land use
Zonin2 SPA Plan desig. Existin2 Land Use
Site PC, Planned Community RC, Residential Condominium vacant
North PC, Planned Community RP, Planned Residential vacant
South PC, Planned Community RS, Sin.le Familv vacant
East PC, Planned Community RS, Sin-Ie Familv vacant
West PC, Planned Community OS, aDen SDace Future School
3. Proposed Development
The Tentative Subdivision Map consists of an 8.9-acre lot containing a total of 96
housing units to be sold as condominiums with the land and physical improvements to be
held in common. Individual homeowners will be given exclusive right to use applicable
building air space and fenced yard area.
Parking/Circulation
The circulation system shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map consist of private streets
with an internal circular loop. A large recreational area will provided in the center of the
project with easy vehicular and pedestrian access points. Parking consists primarily of
individual garages and additional open parking stalls provided at various points
throughout the project.
The following table illustrates the required and proposed parking:
Page No.3, Item: 4
Meeting Date: 11/17/99
TABLE: REQUIRED & PROPOSED PARKING
Required parking ratio per unit type: Parking Spaces Required per total units
2 bedroom 1 covered 1 open 2 bedroom (64 units) 64 covered 64 open
3 bedroom 1 covered 1.5 open 3 bedroom (32 units) 32 covered 48 open
Total Required: 96 covered 112 open
~208
Parking ratio Provided: Parking Spaces Provided per total units
2 bedroom 1 covered 1 open 2 bedroom (64 units) 64 covered 64 open
~ 128
3 bedroom 2 covered 3 bedroom (32 units) 64 covered 16 open
~80
Additional provided 7 open compact size
Total provided: 128 covered 87 open
~215
As shown on the above table, the parking provided exceeds the requirements in that: 1)
they are providing garages when only carports are required; and 2) they are providing 128
covered parking spaces when only 96 covered spaces are required.
Common Open Space/Recreational Areas:
The applicant has prepared a conceptual landscape plan for the project. The Conceptual
Plan includes a detailed description of the proposed open space/recreational area (in the
center of the project site) as well as an open space pocket (with picnic table and
benches) at the northeast corner of the project. The City's Landscape Planner has
determined that the proposed landscape plans meet the requirements of the City's
Landscape Manual. However, specific details will be worked out in conjunction with the
building permit applications.
ANALYSIS:
At buildout, the project will include 96 units at a density of 11 du/ac. This falls within
the Medium High Density Residential (6-11 du/ac) category of the EastLake II General
Development Plan.
The EastLake Trails SPA Plan (Site Utilization Plan) identifies the subject site as parcel
R-5, with a development potential range of 80-110 dwelling units and targeted for 92
units (see Attachment 5). The proposed 96-unit condominium project exceeds the 92-
unit target, but falls within the 80-11 0 dwelling units permitted for this parcel.
However, to insure that the overall SPA number of permitted dwelling units is not
exceeded, staff has included a condition requiring that an administrative density transfer
of 4 units from parcel R-6 to parcel R-5 be made prior to approval of final map in
order to accommodate the proposed 96 unit project (see condition 26 of attached draft
City Council Resolution).
Page No.4, Item: 4
Meeting Date: 11/17/99
The project site is a component of the overall Eastlake Trails Neighborhood. A detailed
traffic analysis was previously conducted in conjunction with the Eastlake Trails SPA.
In accordance with this previous analysis all potential traffic impacts have been
addressed through previously adopted mitigation measures. The proposed
condominium project does not trigger the requirement to implement any specific traffic
mitigation measures.
The applicant has indicated that there will be a number of construction phases for the
project. It is necessary to know the boundaries and timing of construction of each
phase in order to insure the adequacy of roads and other project amenities. A condition
of approval has been included that indicates prior to final map, the developer must
submit a development phasing plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and
Director of Planning and Building. Said plan shall indicate required infrastructure and
project amenities required at each phase of construction.
Conclusion:
As mentioned in the body of this report, the proposed project meets the density
restrictions for development of the proposed condominium project on the subject site.
In addition, the project meets or is conditioned to meet all other requirements for
development of the project on the site.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Draft City Council Resolution
3. Locator
4. EastLake Trails SPA Site Utilization Plan
5. Ownership Disclosure Statement
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-OO-Ol
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAKE TRAILS SOUTH
TS-7, WITHIN THE EASTLAKE TRAILS PLANNED COMMUNITY AND PC
ZONE DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map was filed
with the Planning and Building Department on August 9, 1999 by Shea Homes
("Developer"); and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to subdivide 8.9 acres into a
single lot containing a total of 96 condominium units ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the property is located on the south side of Clubhouse Drive,
between future Silver Springs Drive and future Granite Springs Drive within the
EastLake Trails Planned Community and P-C , Planned Community Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the
project implements and falls under the purview of FSEIR 97-04 and that no further
environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a
hearing on the tentative subdivision map and notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and
its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property
at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m., November 17,1999 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has previously considered FSEIR 97-04
and, therefore, no further environmental action by the Commission is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City
Council Resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 00-
01 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to
the City Council.
(
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this I ih day of November, 1999, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
John Willett, Chairperson
~
A TT ACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS OF THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP TS-7 FOR EASTLAKE TRAILS SOUTH, CHULA VISTA
TRACT -00-01.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and
for the purpose of general description herein, consists of 8.9 acres located on the south
side of Clubhouse Drive between future Silver Springs Drive and future Granite Springs
Drive ("Project site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on August 9, 1999, Shea Homes ("Applicant") filed an application with the
Planning and Building Department of the City ofChula Vista requesting approval ofa
tentative subdivision map known as EastLake Trails South TS-7, Chula Vista Tract -OD-
D I ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the project consists of a single lot containing 96 condominium units, private
streets, recreational facilities and common landscaping area; and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the subject property has been the matter of 1) a prior General Development
Plan resulting in the current land use designations as shown on the Eastlake 11 General
Development Plan, previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15198; 2) The
Eastlake Trails Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, previously approved by Resolution
19275 on November 24, 1998,3) Eastlake 11 (Eastlake I expansion) Planned Community
District Regulations and Land Use District Map, previously approved by Ordinance
No.2765 on and 4) EastLake Trails Master Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 99-
03) which was approved by Resolution No. 19447 onMay 4, 1999.
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project
on November 17, 1999 and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the project
based upon the findings and subject to the conditions listed below; and,
3
E. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project
application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners
within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the
hearing.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby find, determine and resolve as
follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on this Project held on November, 17, 1999 and the minutes and resolution
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby determines this project was covered under previous FSEIR 97-04,
EastLake Trails/Greens Replanning Program, and therefore no further action is required in
accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR
Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
IV. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned herein for Sycamore
Ridge Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 00-01, is in conformance with the EastLake II
General Development Plan, EastLake Trails Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and the
various elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following findings:
1. Land Use
The EastLake Trails SPA Plan (Site Utilization Plan) identifies the subject site as parcel
R-5, with a development potential for 80-100 dwelling units and targeted for 92 dwelling
units. The proposed 96 unit condominium project exceeds the 92-unit target, but falls
within the 80-1] 0 dwelling units permitted for this parcel. However, to insure that the
overall SPA number of permitted dwelling units is not exceeded, staff has included a
condition requiring that an administrative density transfer of 4 units from parcel R-6 to
P-5 be made prior to approval of the first final map.
'I
Resolution No._
Page No.3
2. Circulation
All on-site streets required to serve the subdivision will be constructed in accordance with
the City design standards and/or requirements for private streets and provide for vehicular
and pedestrian connections with adjacent streets. A waiver was granted by the
Engineering Department regarding the required tangents along the street in order to
accommodate curvilinear street pattern.
3. Housing
Resolution No. 1571 adopted by the City Council on August 7, 1990, requires the master
developer (Eastlake) to provide ten percent of the total number of units allowed in the
EastLake Trails Planned Community for low and moderate income households. In 1998,
the City Council approved a comprehensive affordable housing program for the
remaining buildable areas in EastLake which includes the EastLake Trails Neighborhood.
The program outlines the number of units to be provided and the construction timing and
delivery of units. The master developer is required to enter into an agreement with the
City to provide the required affordable housing, as specified in the affordable housing
program, prior to approval of the first final map in Phase 11 of the overall Trails
Subdivision.
4. Conservation
The previous environmental impact report, FSEIR 97-04, EastLake Trails/Greens
Replanning Program, addressed the goals and policies of the Conservation Element of the
General Plan and found that the development of this site to be consistent with these goals
and policies.
5. Parks and Recreation, Open Space
Community trails will be constructed along Clubhouse Drive on the north side of the
subject site. Said trail will provide connection to future public park. In addition, a
pedestrian walk will be provided along Silver Springs Road to provide a connection to
future open space/habitat conservation to the southeast.
6. Seismic Safety
The proposed subdivision is in confonnance with the goals and objectives of the Seismic
Element of the General Plan. There are no known active faults underlying the project
site.
7. Safety
The Fire Department and other emergency service agencies have reviewed the proposed
--
)
Resolution No.
Page No.4
subdivision for conformance with city safety policies and have determined that the
subdivision meets the City Threshold Standards for emergency services.
8. Noise
The project is required to meet existing standards for residential development. All
dwelling units must be designed to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA and
exterior noise exposure to 60 dBA in accordance with the City's performance standards
and the noise level standards of the Uniform Building Code.
9. Scenic Highway
The project is not adjacent to scenic highways.
10. Bicycle Routes
No bicycle routes are required with the proposed development. An on-street bike lane
is proposed along Clubhouse Drive, just north of the project site.
II. Public Buildings
No public buildings are proposed on the project site.
B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies that it has
considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those
needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and
environmental resources.
C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the optimum sitting
oflots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by Government Code
Section 66473.1.
D. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all
standards established by the City for such projects.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is
approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed
development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the
general and special conditions set forth below.
~
Resolution No._
Page No.5
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the foregoing Tentative Subdivision Map which is stated to be conditioned on "General
Conditions" is hereby conditioned as follows:
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project
as described in the Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract No. 00-01, Resolution No._,
and FSEIR 97-04 Mitigation Measures except as modified by this Resolution.
B. Implement Mitigation Measures.
Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation
measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report FSEIR 97-04.
C. Implement previously adopted conditions of approval pertinent to project
Unless otherwise conditioned, developer shall comply with all conditions of approval of
the EastLake Trails Master Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-03, established by
Resolution No. 19447 and approved by Council on May 4,1999; and shall remain in
compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of the EastLake
Trails Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, General Development Plan, Planned
Community District Regulations, Water Conservation Plan, Air Quality Improvement
Plan, Residential Design Guidelines including landscaping criteria and Public Facilities
Financing Plan and as may be amended from time to time and as are applicable to the
property which is the subject matter of this tentative map, prior to approval of the Final
Map or shall have entered into an agreement with the City, providing the City with
security (including recordation of covenants running with the land) and implementation
procedures, as the City may require, assuring that after approval of the Final Map, the
developer shall continue to comply with, remain in compliance with, and implement such
plans.
D. Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan
Developer shall install facilities in accordance with thee Eastlake Trails Public Facilities
Financing Plan, and as amended or as required by the City Engineer, to meet the Growth
Management threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer
and Planning and Building Director may, at their discretion, modifY the sequence of
improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such modifications.
7
Resolution No._
Page No.6
E. Design Approval
The applicant shall develop the condominium project in accordance with the applicable
Eastlake Trails Planned Community District Regulations and Design Guidelines, and as
conditionally approved by the City's Design Review Committee on October 18, 1999 as
set forth in letter of conditional approval dated October 25, 1999.
F. Project Phasing
If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, the
Developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City
Engineer and Director of Planning prior to approval of any final map.
The phasing plan shall include:
I. A site plan showing the phase lines and phase numbers and number of dwelling
units in each phase.
2. A table showing the phase number and number of units included in each phase.
Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of
development shall be as detennined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. The
City reserves the right to conditionally approve each final map and require improvements,
facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the
requirements of police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Planning and
Building Director may at their discretion, modifY the sequence of improvement
construction should conditions change to warrant such revision( s).
G. Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions
Prior to approval of the first final map, unless otherwise indicated, the developer shall:
GENERAL/PRELlMIINARY
1. The approval of all the Final Maps by the City Council will require compliance with the
City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and
Building Director and the City Engineer.
STREETS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
2. Guarantee the construction of all and construct all improvements (streets, sewers, drainage,
utilities, etc.) prior to the approval of any Final Map for any lot or unit deemed necessary to
provide service to such lot or unit in accordance with City standards, which guarantee shall,
at the option of the City, be bonded in a form satisfactory to the City.
f
Resolution No._
Page No.7
3. Provide notarized letters of permission for all off-site grading and construction of
improvements.
4. Designate all streets within the development to be private. Detailed horizontal and vertical
alignment of the center line of said streets shall be reflected on the improvement plans for
said developments. Design of said streets shall meet the City standards for private streets
or as approved by the City, and shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Fire Marshall.
5. Design all street vertical and horizontal curves and intersection sight distances to conform
to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. All streets which intersect other streets at or near
horizontal or vertical curves must meet intersection design sight distance requirements in
accordance with City standards. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to
comply with the requirements in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Lighted SAG
vertical curves will be permitted, with the approval of the City Engineer, at intersections per
AASHTO standards.
6. Construct sidewalks, pedestrian ramps on all walkways, and parking areas to meet
"Americans with Disabilities Act" standards and as approved by the City Engineer. In the
event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of-way which are in
conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting
with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise required
by federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal
regulations, only after construction has commenced.
7. Submit and obtain approval prior to first final map by the Director of Planning and Building
and City Engineer for all street names. No two intersections shall have the same street name
and street name suffixes shall comply with City standards.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
8. Dedicate only sewers and storm drains within public rights-of-way to be publicly maintained.
All sewers and storm drains within the subject property shall be privately maintained.
9. Provide graded access to all storm drain structures, including inlet and outlet structures as
required by the City Engineer. Paved access shall be provided to drainage structures located
in the rear yard of any lot.
10. Provide a paved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet to all sanitary sewer manholes.
The roadway shall be designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the
'7
Resolution No.
Page No.8
City Engineer.
11. The subject property is within the boundaries of Assessment District Nos. 90-3,94-1, and
91-1. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with reapportionment of
assessments as a result of subdivision of lands within the project boundary. The developer
shall request said reapportionment and shall provide a deposit to cover the initial costs prior
to the approval ofthe First Final Map.
12. Submit calculations to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes
and inlets as required by the City Engineer.
13. Design the storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices
to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City Engineer.
14. Designate on the plans as private, to the point of connection with the public system, all storm
drain systems that collect water from private property.
15. Designate as private and maintain by Home Owner's Association all storm drain clean outs
carrying private property water and determined by the City to be in areas inaccessible for
maintenance equipment. Include in the CC&R's conditions and restrictions to assure proper
maintenance.
16. Submit to and obtain approval from the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building
for an erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of grading plans.
17. Enter into an agreement with the City wherein the City is held harmless from any liability
from erosion, siltation or increase in flow of drainage resulting from this project.
GRADING
18. Submit a list of proposed units, prior to approval of the corresponding Final Map, indicating
whether the structure will be located on fill, cut, or a transtion between the twon situations
prior to approval of the first final map.
19. Submit "as-built" improvements and grading plans as required by the City Subdivision
Manual. Additionally, provide the City said plans in a digital D.X.F. file format.
AGREEMENTS
20. Agree to ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are
permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot
within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable
10
Resolution No._
Page No.9
television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions
of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations,
ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television
companies as same may have been, or may rrom time to time be issued by the City ofChula
Vista.
21. Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees,
rrom any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers, or employees,
to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning
Commission, City Councilor any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard
to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City
promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further
condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
22. Submit, prior to the approval of the first Final Map, evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer
and the Director of Planning and Building the formation of a Homeowner's Association
(HOA), or another financial mechanism acceptable to the City Manager.
The HOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of all improvements within the project
boundaries other than the individual condominium units contained therein. The City
Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building may require that some of those
improvements shall be maintained by the other financial mechanism. The HOA formation
documents shall be approved by the City Attorney.
CC&R's for the Project shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for
review and approval prior to approval of the first final map, and shall include:
a) Maintenance of all facilities located within open space, recreational or other common
areas by the Homeowner's Association to include, but not be limited to: walls, fences,
lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads, recreational amenities and structures,
drainage structures and landscaping.
b) Include language in the CC&R's establishing the HOA responsibility to maintain all
streets, drainage and sewer systems that are private. Said private streets shall be
maintained in perpetuity by the HOA and no request shall be made for future
maintenance by the City.
c) Include language in the CC&R's establishing the HOA responsibility to maintain all
perimiter fencing in accordance with the established guidelines set forth in the
Eastlake Trails SPA Plan and as approved by the City's Design Review Committee.
d) Name the City of Chula Vista as a party to the CC&R's, with the authority, but not
(/
Resolution No._
Page No.1 0
the obligation, to enforce the terms and conditions ofthe CC&R's.
e) Include language in the CC&R's for the project specifying that individual owners
may not modify the location, materials, height or otherwise alter the established rear
yard fencing.
f) Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&R's that may particularly affect the
City, said revisions shall be approved by the City. The HOA shall not seek approval
from the City of said revisions without the prior consent of 100 percent of the holders
of first mortgages or property owners within the HOA.
g) The HOA shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims, demands,
causes of action liability or loss related to or arising from the maintenance activities
of the HOA.
h) The HOA shall not seek to be released by the City from the maintenance obligations
described herein without the prior consent of the City and 100 percent of the holders
of first mortgages or property owners within the HOA.
i) The HOA is required to procure and maintain a policy of comprehensive general
liability insurance written on a per-occurrence basis in an amount not less than one
million dollars combined single limit. The policy shall be acceptable to the City and
name the City as additionally insured.
j) The CC&R's shall incorporate restrictions relating to architectural control and
indicate to what extent, if any, exterior modifications may be made by the individual
homeowner.
k) The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring HOA membership in an advance
notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service in perpetuity.
MISCELLANEOUS
23. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California Coordinate System-Zone VI
(1983).
24. Design configuration of the perimeter landscape area, plus the location, height and materials
for any retaining or garden walls or combinations thereof, subject to review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator and the City Landscape Architect.
25. Install fire hydrants, to be tested and fully operational prior to any combustible materials
being placed on site, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
11-
Resolution No.
Page No.ll
26. Prepare an amendment to the Eastlake Trails Sectional Planning Area Plan to reflect the
transfer of 4 units from parcel R-6 to parcel R-5.
CODE REOUIREMENTS
27. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation ofthe
Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act and the City ofChula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
(Engineering)
28. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code
requirements.
29. Comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act.
The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and docwnentation to
demonstate said compliance as required by the City Engineer.
30. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the
Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual development
patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlement and market conditions,
shall govern EastLake Trails South development patterns and the facility improvement
requirements to serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which improvements
are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing
Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City.
The City Engineer may modifY the sequence of improvement construction should conditions
change to warrant such a revision.
(Engineering)
31. Pay all applicable fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy, including, but
not limited to, the following:
a) The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
b) Signal Participation Fees.
c) All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees.
d) Interim SR-125 impact fee.
e) Telegraph Canyon (Gravity Flow) Sewer Basin DIF.
f) Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF as may be adopted by the City in the future.
g) Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIF.
h) Salt Creek Basin Drainage DIF.
i) Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pwnped Flow DIF.
r)
Resolution No._
Page No.l2
Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
(Engineering)
32. Ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments"
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 regarding projected taxes and Ensure that
prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments" assessments.
Submit the disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map
approval. (Engineering)
33. Comply with section 19.56.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code in terms of required
enclosed storage space requirements for each dwelling unit.
VI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be implemented and
maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all
approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits,
deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of
approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with
said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution.
VII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption ofthis Resolution is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in
the event that nay one or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed
to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
/'1
A TT ACHMENT 3
PROJECT
/ LOCATION
LOCATOR
ATTACHMENT 4
FU
~I
Land UM
FU
--
fl-.1 LOW-SFD
R-2 Law-SfD
R03 Low'MIId. - SFO
R-4 LowMed.-SFD
IW M.:IhMn - SFlWfAIMF
R.:.e MedIum-SFD'SfAIIiF
--
i~
. ~RecfuIIon
EllmenllJySchaal
CPF ...
Opon .....
Opon .....
· ...~ . M$'C_
--
~Futu"Urtlen
SPA TOTAL
R-1
100C
10.0
711.2
I06.C
'.9
9~
22U
C>S-< 25.3
os.< ..
PO-1 132
CPF ...
()$.7 20.4
()$.7 .3
18.0
---.0:0
FU 7.7
....7
3.0 31
3.0 20
eo 363
a.o 533
10.3 92
9.9 90t
&.1 1143
05-1
R-3
FU
3.1 1,..,.
...............................110 11G.
-
t ....~"'---.....--_..~~.
N~~...........-*lItI...........,....AoII.*\IIIIId_
s.unw.P&D~1IIIc.
EastLake Trails
A Planned Community by The EastLake Company
!l,
nJ1
- - -
~intim
Land Planning ~ ~
s...D6fto.CA (6191 %Z.'-7.
~ ~
Exhibit 5
1-14
ATTACHMENT 5
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are requITed to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all matters which will required discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property wmch is subject of the application or the contract,
e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
SHEA HOMES
THE EASTLAKE COMPANY. LLC
2. If any person* identifies pursuant to (I) 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.
SHEA HOMES
THE EASTLAKE COMPANY. LLC
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving
ass director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ Nollfyes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identifY each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
RYAN GREEN. SHEA HOMES
MARYBETH MURRAY HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO INC
LEX WILLlMAN. HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO INC.
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding election period? Yes_ NolL lfyes, please indicate councilmember(s): N/A
DEBORAH SANTANGELO. MCKINLEY ASSOCIATES INC.
JOHN PATTERSON. GilLESPIE DESIGN GROUP
DateX '6 \ "'- \ ~'"
\
*** (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)***
~~:?~$ ~"
RYAN GREEN. SHEA HOMES
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
... Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm. co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club. fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver. syndicate, this
and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district. or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ..
n
P:\Appjatlons\OOll1I353V'J'PENDIXB.cIoc
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, September 15, 1999
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CAWMOTlONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 14, 1999
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1.
REPORT:
Consideration of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 97-02), (Third Tier EIR), California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for San Miguel Ranch SPA.
Staff presenting report: Barbara Reid
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCM 96-04; Request to approve the San Miguel Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan including the Planned Community District
Regulations and Design Guidelines; Public Facilities Finance Plan;
Affordable Housing Plan; Air Quality Improvement Plan; and Water
Conservation Plan - Trimark Pacific - San MiguelLLC
Staff presenting report: Ed Batchelder
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Planning Commission representative to GMOC.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS,
ADJOURNMENT:
to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 29, 1999.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas
for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD)
at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, July 14,1999
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALU MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair Willett, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Ray, Thomas,
O'Neill
Absent:
Staff Present:
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning
Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager
Ed Batchelder, Senior Planner
Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Read into the record by Chair Willett
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 98-06; Tentative Subdivision Map subdividing Village One
West of Otay Ranch, Sectional Planning Area (SPA One), into
783 lots. The Otay Ranch Company.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue public hearing to the regular
Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1999.
MSC (Thomas/Hall) to continue public hearing to July 28,1999.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR 97-02; Consideration of comments on the San Miguel
Ranch Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Third-
Tier Draft SEIR).
Background: Ed Batchelder, Senior Planner gave an overview of land use plan and project
history. The San Miguel Ranch consists of two parcels (north and south) and has been at
various stages of planning since the mid 1980's. The property was first acquired by San
Miguel Partners and the City approved a GDP and EIR in April 1993. San Miguel Partners
lost the property in a foreclosure and Emerald Property subsequently acquired the property
and commenced further in the planning of the GDP. At that time, various routing scenarios
for SR-125 were being discussed and in December 1996 Council approved two alternate
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
July 14, 1999
versions of the GDP for the project that were called The Amended Proctor Valley GDP,
which is predicated on a westerly alignment through Proctor Valley and also approved "The
Horseshoe Bend", which was predicated on an alighnment through Horseshoe Bend.
In March 1997, Caltrans announced that Horseshoe Bend was their preferred route
alignment and at that time Emerald Properties moved forward with the SPA plan based on
the Horseshoe Bend GDP and that alignment of SR-125.
In August 1997 Emerald Properties entered into a conservation bank agreement regarding
mitigation for development of the southern parcel; the northern parcel (approximately 1,852
acres) was entirely designated as an open space preserve.
In September 1997 Emerald Properties sold the southern parcel to Trimark Pacific Ltd. and
has actively been processing a SPA since early 1998.
Under the amended Horseshoe Bend GDP, much of the northern parcel, which is
designated as an open space preserve, is under the control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and is part of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.
The south parcel (approximately 738 acres) was set up in two different planning concepts.
The western area (west of the SR-125 alignment) was to be more of a low density
community and the eastern area was to more urban-type with more typical single-family
detached residential subdivisions and commercial-serving areas to the south.
Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager presented a brief history of prior San Miguel
Ranch environmental review. Prior to the Third Tier EIR, there were two prior EIRs
certified for the project. The first EIR analysed the impact of developing 357 lots on the
northern parcel and 1,257 lots on the south parcel and was certified in 1993. Two addenda
were prepared to that document. The first addenda evaluated the environmental effects
or refinements to the proposed land use concept. The second Addendum incorporated
additional changes to the Plan and mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources.
In 1996, Emerald Properties, the former project applicant, redesigned the project and a
second EIR analyzed the impact of an Amendment to the GDP and General Plan
amendments and the document was certified in 1996.
Typically in a tiering process, the first tier EIR addresses broad environmental issues
affecting a large physical area associated with a program, plan, policy or ordinance.
Successive tiers address project impacts. This EIR is a project level document and
incorporates prior EIR's by reference.
When the GDP was approved, it committed the City to include County staff in all aspects
of the traffic analysis and also required that if there was a circulation element amendment
required in the County, that it take place prior to the Council hearing on the SPA Plan. The
County has subsequently submitted letters indicating that they are not requiring a circulation
element amendment as part of this project.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
July 14, 1999
County staff has participated in all aspects of the traffic study which includes the scope, the
analysis, findings and recommendation.
A San Miguel Ranch Citizens Advisory Group was formed to provide staff with comments
on all aspects of the SPA Plan and on the EIR. The group has been active and meeting
on a monthly basis for over a year.
Chair Willett expressed concern with the number of letters that were placed on the dais,
raising issues regarding the DEIR and that the commissioners have not had an opportunity
to review them.
John Maddox, with the law firm of Remy & Thoma, explained that the materials that were
placed on the dais were received late today. Staff felt it would be appropriate to distribute
them to the Commission, understanding that they would not be required to respond tonight,
but rather that staff would include them as part of the public input and would be included
in the Response to Comments.
Mr. Maddox further stated that part of the CEQA process emphasizes informed public
decision-making. The purpose of the public hearing is:
to receive public testimony, via written letters and/or personal testimony at tonight's
hearing
close the public hearing which ends the public review period
direct staff to proceed with preparing a Response to Comments made verbal and
in writing prior to the closing of the public hearing, and
to prepare a final EIR.
Betty Dehoney, P&D Consultants, stated that the EIR analyzed five alternatives. They are:
The proposed project
Land use intensities under existing County Land Use designation
Reduced grading alternative
North parcel/Otay Water District Parcel Annexation, and
No project alternative
The impact analysis included the direct and indirect impacts of the project, cumulative,
significance criteria were established for each issue area in which the project was
evaluated, and mitigation measures. Each section identifies the mitigation measures and
a mitigation monitoring program is provided.
The following impacts were identified:
Land Use
The land use issues were identified as not significant because they were found to be
consistent with the previously adopted GDP.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
July 14, 1999
There were significant impacts associated with the landform alteration and visual quality.
With 7.5 cubic yards of landform alteration and manufactured slopes, the issue was
considered significant and unmitigated.
Transporation Impacts
Transportation impacts are considered significant both at the project level and cumulatively.
A number of different traffic scenarios were analyzed, including full build-out analysis.
There are potential issues with the timing of SR-125 and ultimate build-out. The analysis,
which was coordinated with the County of San Diego indicated that there is not going to be
necessary a Circulation Amendment with the County related to any of the project
components. Since there is no funding mechanism for the County to build their roads in
accordance with the demand, therefore, the impacts were considered significant and
unmitigated because there is no enforcement mechanism for this project to improve County
roads.
If a funding mechanism is established with the County regarding cumulative impacts to the
circulation element, there is a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to provide their
proportionate pro-rata share of contribution. There are cumulative impacts with the circulation
element outside of the project that are unmitigated. The project will be required to adhere to
City threshold standards
Air Qualitv
Air quality impacts are considered significant both on a project level emissions and on a
cumulative basis.
To reduce short-term pollutant emissions during the construction phase, the following
mitigation measures shall be incorporated in the SPA Plan:
Modified combustion/fuel injection systems for heavy equipment during grading and
construction.
To reduce dust, disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as
soon as possible.
Trucks hauling fill material shall be covered.
20 mph shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces
To control dust raised by grading activities, the graded area shall be watered twice a
day.
Noise
Noise impacts were considered significant and were mitigated to below a level of
significance with the incorporation noise walls along the project.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
July 14, 1999
Public Services and Utilities
Water, sewage, police, fire, gas & electric, and storm drains were evaluated and no
significant impacts were identified that are not mitigable through the standard DIF
contribution.
Schools have been identified as both project specific and cumulatively significant. We
recognize that the applicant is working with the school districts to come to some agreement,
but because of a lack of ability to provide enforcement on the City, that impact is still being
considered significant and unmitigated through the CECA process.
Parks. Trails. and Open Space
The previous EIR for the GDP/GPA concluded that the project would provide adequate
parkland and open space, however, development of the community park would require
substantial alteration of the existing landform on the South Parcel. Implementation of the
adopted GDP would significantly impact the trail system because SR-125 would bisect
numerous routes of the trail system. This impact was proposed to be mitigated by the
following measures:
Creation of trails that intersect with the greenbelt in other areas, or
Creation or utilization of planned structures (e.g. Mt. Miguel Rd) that would allow
trail users to cross over SR-125, which will need to be analyzed at the SPA level.
Cultural Resources
A testing program, and mitigation monitoring and salvage program were conducted for
cultural resources.
Paleontolocical
There is a geological strata on the project site that has a high potential for containing fossils,
therefore, there is a potential for a significant impact. However, the standard mitigation
measures of monitoring during grading operations will be incorporated into the mitigation
monitoring reporting program thereby reducing that impact to a level below significant.
Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager reported that the public review for the Draft
SEIR began on May 28, 1999 and the State Clearinghouse 45-day review period ended on
July 11, 1999. The City of Chula Vista procedures require that the Planning Commission
hold a public hearing to receive public comments and the public review period ends with the
closing of the Planning Commission public hearing.
As stated on the report, the following impacts were identified as significant and not mitigated
to a level below significant in the Draft SEIR:
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6 -
July 14, 1999
. Biological Resources (Project and Cumulative)
. Landform and Visual Quality (Project)
. Transportation (Project and Cumulative)
. Air Quality (Project and Cumulative)
. Public Services and utilities (schools) (project)
Additionally, the following areas have impacts, which will be reduced as a result of mitigation
measures.
. Noise
. Specific Public Services and Utilities (Water, Sewage, Police Protection and Fire
Protection)
. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
. Cultural Resources
. Paleontological Resources
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing on the
Draft SEIR (EIR 97-02), close the public hearing and public review period and direct staff
to prepare the Final EIR including: mitigation monitoring report, responses to the comment
letters received to date and testimony at the public hearings, Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Public Hearing Opened 7:07.
Stephen Hester, Division President, Trimark Pacific, 85 Argonaut, Suite 205, Alizo
Viejo, CA 92677
Mr. Hester thanked the Commission for their time and commended Planning staff, City
Attorney's office and the Environmental staff for their diligence and work on this project.
Mr. Hester clarified that they will pay school fees of $1.93 per square foot of habitable space
as required by SB-50 and have also committed themselves to go beyond that work with
both Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District to
enter into agreements to provide full mitigation for school impacts.
The next item to clarify is related to the archeological work on the project. The EIR states
that a Research Design would be submitted. The Research was submitted several months
ago to the City and the archeology mitigation work has been underway for approximately
one year now and is expected to be completed later this Fall.
Kathy Wright, Director of Planning for the Sweetwater Union High School District,1130 Fifth
Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
Ms. Wright stated that schools everywhere have been hard-hit, specifically with new growth.
In Chula Vista, that occurs both on the west and east side of town, but fortunately in the
eastern territories, there is a mechanism for dealing with and facilitating construction of new
Planning Commission Minutes
- 7 -
July 14, 1999
schools.
Since 1984, the development community has participated with the SWD in forming 11
community facilities districts that has resulted in the construction of Eastlake High School and
most recently Rancho Del Rey Middle School. In the future, there will be two additional high
schools and three middle schools in the eastern territories to serve the growth.
Senate Bill 50 changed the rules in terms of how school impacts from new development can
be mitigated. The development community consensus is that school are very important and
they are aware of the inadequacies in the State program which will result perhaps in less
than ideal schools in this community.
I am pleased to report that the applicant has agreed to mitigate fully, though they don't have
to. I have received today a letter from Mr. Hester and he has indicated that Trimark will
voluntarily enter into a mitigation agreement with us and that they will agree to a condition
of the EIR that says the following:
"Prior to the SPA Sectional Planning Area approval, by the City Council, the
project applicant shall provide documention to the City confirming
satisfaction of Sweetwater Union High District's School Facility Funding
requirement to off-set student generation impacts. Compliance with this
condition shall be evidenced by the execution of a school mitigation
agreement with the Sweetwater District for the formation of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District. H
Ms. Wright thanked the applicant for their leadership and commitment to the Community
and stated that the school district fully supports their project.
Steve Bilson, Re-Water Systems Inc., 477 Marina Parkway, Chula Vista gave an
informational update on Re-Water Systems' concept as an irrigation system that uses the
showers, tubs, clothes washer water for on-site landscape irrigation. We've been in
discussions with City staff to incorporate gray-water systems into new developments. The
City hired a consultant to investigate this concept and has strongly supported the concept
of re-use of recycled water its use. Steve Bilson also recommended that a financial
incentive be offered toward a reduction in sewer connection fees.
Stanley Waid, Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, 5617 Galloping Way, Bonita, CA
stated he is the finance officer for the Bonita Highlands Homeowners association and also
the Flooding and Water Chairman of the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association and Co-Chair
of Traffic and Roads.
Mr. Waid expressed concern with and stated that there needs to be some update on the
cumulative impacts to arterial roadways.
Additionally, Mr. Waid expressed concern with cumulative impact from eastern Chula Vista
developments with regards to flooding in Central Creek.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 8 .
July 14, 1999
The Bonita Highlands Home Owners Association is responsible for lot 50, which is on the
flood plain on Central Creek. We were sent a Violation of Water Ordinance notice and it
has cost the HOA approximately $20,000 to date to dig out that flood channel.
The HOA wrote a letter to the City Attorney and requested reimbursement out of the impact
fees for Eastlake and other developments in the east. We was told that there wasn't any
money in the impact fund for drainage problems.
Mr. Waid stated that, in his opinion, the cumulative effect of Eastlake, Rolling Hills and Salt
Creek and now San Miguel Ranch exacerbates the flooding condition of Central Avenue.
The County has stated that it would be cheaper to buy the nine homes in the flood plain
than to put in a flood channel. They quoted about 3 million dollars to buy the properties and
about 9 million dollars to put in the flood channel.
Donald Jensen, P.O. Box 127, Bonita, CA stated he has followed this project since its
inception, and he and his wife own and operate a dog boarding kennel adjacent to the
property in question. He further stated that he has been vocal with regard to the adverse
impacts their business will have to any neighbor that is willing to purchase a home right next
to them.
Another area of concern is drainage from the detention basins where the water line is at
least 20 feet from the San Diego County Water Authority and then dumping that water onto
another private property, which is the BUIE Corporation.
They have experienced about a 20% increase in traffic due to the construction of Rolling Hills
and they are concerned with traffic impacts from Mt. Miguel Road which will end right at the
end of their property.
Georjean Jensen, P.O. Box 127, Bonita, CA stated she is on the Citizens Review Committee
and is very much aware of the issues related to this project. She reiterated her husband's
concerns relating to drainage, traffic impacts and urged the commission to take a good look at
those issues which are so-called mitigatable.
Phil Gaughan, 455 Rivercreek Ct., Chula Vista, CA stated he is also a member of the Citizens
Review Board and he would like to talk about the school area that is going to be a part of San
Miguel Ranch.
The EIR addresses the traffic that will be lightened for the adjoining areas as far as 2.5
miles away due to SR-125 going through, but it does not address the traffic impacts from
the school in the San Miguel Ranch and how the Estancia development, immediately to the
south of it, will bare the brunt of the school traffic.
The proposed entrance/exit into the school through Proctor Valley Road, a two-lane road
is inadequate to contain the amount of traffic the school will generate. It will create vehicles
backing up on to Proctor Valley, which will create congestion and more road-rage.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 9 -
July 14, 1999
To state that people are going to drive through Estancia is really an understatement and
they're going to speed. The roadways in Estancia were specifically designed narrow with
cars to be parked on the roadway to slow traffic down. So now we have a narrow roadway
with cars parked in it and speeding traffic.
The people of Estancia, (91 % of us) have gotten together to say that we need to move the
school. We cannot move the entrance/exit; its going to be on Proctor Valley Road. We
need to move the school into the development; the best idea we can come up with is next
to NP and have the applicant move the homes.
Chair Willett
Stated he remembered reading somewhere that the committee did not concur with moving the
school.
Ed Batchelder responded that, in effect, in a July 9th memorandum to you from myself
stated that this is an issue that Phil has raised a number of months back and when we took
the petition, Phil asked at the last Citizen's group meeting on July 8th, that this petition be
made aware to the group and that a request be made to the group as to whether they also
desired to embrace this particular issue as one of the recommendations that would come
formally from the entire Citizen's group.
At that meeting, we spent some time discussing Phil's request and the group decided that
it did not feel collectively that it was ready to embrace this issue, which they felt was more
personal and unique to the residents of Estancia so they opted to not make a formal
recommendation on this and simply requested that this issue be brought forward by Mr.
Gaughan and the residents through the petitions they have submitted.
The school district has not completed site planning in terms of the actual on site circulation
and driveways, and whether roads would connect through the site. They are not at that
level.
What the District has done, when Phil first brought this up, is that they had the District
architect look at their new prototype plan that they're trying to use on school sites. Lowell
Billings was at the last meeting and we also had a meeting independently with Lowell and
Phil to discuss this.
The District is saying is that they've changed the way they approach site design. They've
learned some things from the experiences that Phil is speaking to that are bad examples
out there today. They are understanding these issues in their normal course of their site
planning. They would work with the neighborhood and City to look at a more detail level
traffic analysis once they've got something nailed down on a site plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 10 -
July 14, 1999
Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager clarified that the concept of the tiered
document. School site impacts would be addressed at another level. Impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood will be addressed when we have a specific plan for the school
and would include entrances and exits, and that kind of detail, and would be extemal to the
Final EIR.
Stephen Hester stated that the school site is located in the center of about half of the
generated population. Only about half of the school population comes from San Miguel
Ranch, the rest comes from surrounding areas and a lot of it from Estancia. So where it
is currently proposed to be located is in the center of that population area on Proctor Valley
Road, which is the most accessible road for that population to reach the school site.
I also wanted to add that the current location is consistent with the General Plan
Amendment and GDP, which was previously approved in which CEOA documentation was
done on this project. The school in and of itself does not generate significant impacts. In
addition to that, a large amount of the traffic will be handled through on-site design of the
school itself.
Cindy Burrascano, Conservation Chair of the San Diego Chapter of the Califomia Native
Plant Society, P.O. Box 121390, San Diego CA 92112. Our organization is a non-profit
organization dedicated to the preservation of California's native flora.
This project has not minimized impacts to Otay Tarplant (Hemizonia Conjugens) and the
species is being placed in jeopardy due to the low level of preservation of the species with
this project.
Ms. Burrascano stated that their lawyer would be filing a lawsuit against U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego because of the impacts
of this project.
If you look at calculations, approximately 31 % of the plants on site will be preserved,
including the south and north parcel. That means there is going to be 69% take of a State
listed endangered species.
I would suggest that the existing County land use alternative be approved and the reduced
density come out of this area here so that you can increase the preservation level to an
acceptable level.
I am also a resident of Chula Vista at 771 Lori Lane and have great concern with traffic
analyzis that state that there will be Level of Service F on the major freeways at build-out..
Ray Ymzon, Sweetwater Civic Association stated that he is also a member of the
citizens review group of the San Miguel Ranch project and I'm speaking on behalf of the
Sweetwater Civic Association. The SCA opposes the approval of the Draft SEIR for San
Miguel Ranch for the following reasons:
Planning Commission Minutes
. " .
July 14, 1999
Transportation impacts, which has already been covered.
Air quality
Sewage
Jo Holehouse a 27 year resident of San Miguel Rd. and am a member of the Sweetwater
Civic Association stated that apart from the obvious inadequacies of this report regarding
the air quality and the biological resources, transportation, flooding etc. that my colleagues
have already noted, I would offer the following:
Archeology - I would like to know were any Native American Archeologists consulted any
time during that year of mitigation mentioned earlier? Were any artifacts removed, if so,
may we know where they removed to?
Schools - I don't think that building a school in the proposed site, being built half a mile from
the proposed 10 lane toll way is not very conducive to our children's learning.
On page 47 of the report was the Reduced Grading Alternative. It says that it has been
determined that the implementation of the project would result in significant impacts to land
form alteration of visual resources. These impacts are a result of significant amounts of
grading to accommodate flat padded areas. The result is being extensive manufactured
slopes of approximately 100 feet in elevation. It says that Chula Vista has a hillside
development policy, which I'd never heard of, Resolution 7088 dated 11/20/73. I'm
wondering why this is not being adhered to. What is the point of having it.
Commissioner Ray stated that there are limitations as to how much they can build up and
to the point that SR-125 goes through.
Ed Batchelder stated that we completed the Public Facilities Finance Plan, which is part
of the SPA document; there are some phasing-related controls that are presented in that
document that we intend to make conditions of approval of the project and I believe that
675 EDU's worth of development can be constructed in this project prior to the time that
SR-125 is needed. The general provision has been that the project is going to phase from
east to west and there will not be construction in this area nor will Mt. Miguel Road connect
through until after the time that SR-125 is in. The 675 EDU's does not even add up to the
total amount of development that is in this eastern portion of the project. So there is a
phasing limit we've established through subsequent traffic work and that will come forward
as a condition of approval on the project.
Commissioner Ray asked if that means that Eastlake can build 675 less than what we
approved previously on their phasing plan?
Ed Batchelder responded, "No". My understanding is that the study that was done
considered any other commitments or entitlements that had already been granted regarding
the circulation capacity to any other project. We were trying to determine how much of this
project could be built before SR-125 was needed.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 12 -
July 14, 1999
Frank Rivera, Traffic Engineer stated that we also have the City's Traffic Monitoring
Program and on an annual basis the program looks at the major corridors of the City. The
Eastlake area is separated from this one in the sense that the additional analysis that was
done by the PFFP showed that after 675 EDU's from this area from the eastem area of this
project there would be an impact on the City's infrastructure in the vicinity of this project.
That's why that threshold was put in.
The Eastlake one has a different analysis and at this point, its through the Traffic Monitoring
Program that we're aware of the project's limitations on their arterial streets that they are
in proximity to, such as Otay Lakes Road.
Commissioner Ray stated that he hopes the Final EIR will address specifically, as opposed
to a generic comment, on cumulative impacts, specifically the phasing plan of Eastlake, San
Miguel Ranch and as those two compete for development.
Mark McGuire, Land Use Counsel to Trimark Pacific Homes, 19900 MacArthur, Irvine,
CA 92675 thanked the Commission, staff for their efforts and outside counsel, Remy
Thomas and Moose, and John Maddox of that firm.
I did want to take a minute to comment on a couple of things. One is the Table 1.3-1 in the
Draft EIR. It has language in a number of topics that's slightly different in each instance
and I think it would be our view that they probably mean to say the same thing.
In particular, if you look at the column for the proposed project come down to the impacts
of Landform, Visual Quality, Biological Resources and then Transportation, and on down
to Air Quality also; in each of those columns, there are significant impacts and the language
then "impacts after mitigation" is slightly different in each case. In one case it says
"Significant and not mitigable". In another it says"Significant, not fully mitigable.
It would be our view that for each of these, the impact would be significant. We are
implementing mitigation, but they're not fully mitigable; things such as landform alteration
on a project of this size is almost never fully mitigable, although we have done significant
efforts to reduce the amount of landform alteration from the GDP approvals which is
discussed in the EIR.
Also, on biological resources, we have gone to great lengths to try to address biological
impacts. Where it says, "Not Mitigated", I think what's intended there is that we've done
everything we can to mitigate those impacts. We have adopted mitigation, but that the
impacts aren't fully mitigable.
With regard to the Otay Tarplant, we have worked with the resource agencies, our
predecessors worked hard with the resource agencies, and we realize that it is a sensitive
resource. The preservation of the north was partly for Tarplant, partly for a variety of
sensitive resources and then there are two of the large open space areas that have
significant concentrations of Tarplant. Those areas have been designated and preserved
Planning Commission Minutes
- 13 .
July 14, 1999
specifically for that purpose and in fact, for the GDP EIR they've increased substantially.
The commitment at the GDP approval and EIR was for 23 acres; we've increased that to
37 acres.
The last thing that I would say on that is that the Tarplant is going to need intensive
management to preserve. Although the good news is that in a real wet year, like EI Nino,
we apparently have more Tarplant out there than they believed. As our additional survey
showed, they assumed maybe 200,000 Tarplant on our site. In a good year, we have
actually close to 2 million in the same general areas; a robust population just after EI Nino.
The Tarplant is going to need affirmative management preserve and we are committed to
doing that. Without it, the Tarplant would be worse off even if the project wasn't
implemented.
Public Hearing closed 8:25.
Chair Willetts asked why on the Agenda Statement, "Schools" was not included as an
issue along with Biological Resources, Landform, Transportation, Air Quality.
John Maddox responded that it was left out by error. The EIR does disclose that the
impacts to schools are considered significant and unmitigable because we recognize that
the fees do not make up for short-fall.
Commissioner Thomas expressed great concerned with traffic and the Levels Of Service.
I just completed my two year term of GMOC, and the concept of what they're going through
is also to find out if the City of Chula Vista or Council is going to support the threshold
standards. Another concern Commissioner Thomas has is with drainage.
Commissioner Ray stated his primarily concern is on traffic and Levels of Service, as well
as the school issue. He then urged the Commission to take a very good look at the
cumulative impacts of what's already been approved and what's coming forward because
SR-125 "is not going to cut it".
Commissioner Hall stated that the prevailing word at tonight's hearing has been
"mitigation" and in his mind, when we continue to hear the word "mitigation", it ought to
raise red flags because it tells us that there is something going on and we need to proceed
very carefully.
I would like staff to address the word "mitigation" in terms of lesser density, the next time
around. I want to know what lower levels of density, what we have to get to to mitigate a
lot of these problems because I don't think that they're going to be easily achievable without
this developer doing flips, twists, and turns.
Cmr. Hall further that we've approved so many things down the road that we're not even
sure of what the ultimate results of that is going to be.
We can have all of these rocket-science traffic studies we want, but I'm not convinced SR-
125 is going to solve the forthcoming traffic problems and the toll road is the not going to
Planning Commission Minutes
- 14 -
July 14, 1999
be the panacea for the interior of this City that we might think it is.
I want to see less density. I've been around City Hall now, along with Commissioner Willett,
since the mid 1980's when we started in Parks and Rec. When we looked at the initial
maps that were being drawn a long time ago; by the time we started crawling up the side
of the mountain like we're doing, we were thinking a whole lot less density than what we're
looking at today. We were thinking large-acre lot estate homes. Now we're talking about
a development that is approaching over 1300 DU's.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that he too is concerned about all the significant non-
mitigatable points that were raised. The issue of traffic is clear to all of us who travel these
roads. When the Final Draft comes back, we'll decide whether or not its sufficient, and vote
that way.
Cmr. Castaneda stated he is also concerned about the landform visual quality element.
Although 20% of the grading has been reduced, we're still at 7.5 million cubic yards, which
is extensive. Without reducing density, I'm not quite sure what can be done and I'd like to
see some kind of analysis on that; I don't think this report really talked about that enough.
The other element of concern is the visual impacts that are created by all of the soundwalls.
How are we going to mitigate that. I'd like to see this issue address further.
With respect to the schools and the issues relative to that; we can talk about it all night, but
frankly, the school is an autonomous government entity and they're going to develop the
school and design it the way they want to. I would hope, however, and am confident that
the developer would be able to get some guarantee that the school districts will incorporate
in their school design the issues that were brought up.
The drainage also is something that I think we need to look at a little bit further.
Another item that was not addressed and would like to know if it is a potential impact is the
proximity of the school in relation to power lines and EMF's.
Commissioner O'Neill stated he echoes all of the previously stated comments and
concerns from the Commission with regards to traffic. The development to the east,
whether its Eastlake, Sunbow, San Miguel or the Ranch; they tend to feed 1-805 and then
feed through either Telegraph Canyon, Orange, Olympic Parkway, or H Street.
Cmr. O'Neill stated that in his opinion, this is a larger issue because, we can do all of the
sacrificing that we want, but the fact remains that the City is straddled by the County and
City of San Diego. They've demonstrated that they will do as they please, so whatever we
do, we need to make sure we're all in the same row-boat. This is a like air quality; it is a
regional issue.
Chair Willett thanked the commissioners and said he would like staff to follow-up and
come back in two or three weeks with a summary, comments, discussion, of the literature
Planning Commission Minutes
- 15 -
July 14, 1999
that you gave to us tonight.
I would also like staff to consider issues brought up tonight with regards to the school,
come drainage, and traffic. Also, I would like to see more discussion on the drainage
problems on Central Creek get more involved with the County to come up with a permanent
solution to this problem and cleaning of the creek.
Chair Willett called for a motion.
Commissioner Castaneda
MSC (Castaneda/Ray) (6-0) that the Planning Commission close the public hearing
and the public review period and direct staff to prepare the Final EIR including the
Mitigation Monitoring Report, Responses to Comments, letters received to date and
testimony at this hearing, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Consideration. Motion carried.
Commissioner Ray asked what would happen if we don't want you to develop the Final
EIR?
Barbara Reid responded that if you want to vote on the project ultimately to approve the
project, then you need an ErR that has been certified prior to doing that.
John Maddox stated that there is an obligation that once you've put a Draft EIR out for
public comments, it then needs to be brought back to the Planning Commission and at that
point in time if the Planning Commission vote is to not recommend to the City Council or
some other action, that is certain within your discretion to do that. Under CEQA the City
does have an obligation to prepare a Final EIR and to respond to comments.
Ann Moore stated that the Planning Commission is advisory in this regard. Basically, what
John Maddox is saying is that the process needs to be finished and when the Final EIR
comes forward, if you feel appropriate, recommend that it not be certified by the City
Council.
Call for vote on motion.
ADJOURNMENT at 10:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of July 28,1999.
Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date:
/
9/15/99
ITEM TITLE:
REPORT: Consideration of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report (EIR 97-02), (Third Tier EIR), California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations
and Mitigation Monitoring Program for San Miguel Ranch SPA
RESOLUTION EIR 97-02: Resolution of the Planning Commission of
the City of Chula Vista certifying the Final Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (FSEIR 97-02) for the San Miguel Ranch Sectional
Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map making certain Findings of Fact,
adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act; and adopting a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
BACKGROUND:
A public hearing on the Draft of this SEIR was held by the Planning Commission on July 14,
1999. Staff and the consultants, (P&D Environmental Consultants, and the law firm of Remy,
Thomas & Moose) have prepared the Final EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of
Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Attached for your information, is the July 14, 1999 Planning Commission staff report
(Attachment 1) which contains a detailed discussion of the content of the Draft EIR. Subsequent
to the Planning Commission hearing, staff prepared a memorandum summarizing the issues that
were raised by Planning Commissioners and the public. That memorandum is also attached.
(Attachment 2)
This staff report discusses the content of the Final EIR, focusing primarily; on those impact areas
in which the majority of comments were received. The staff report also includes a discussion of
those which were found to be significant at the Draft SEIR level due to newly enacted
legislation, recent changes in case law and the infeasibility of controlling mitigation within
another jurisdiction. City staff and the environmental consultant believe that the Final SEIR
contains adequate responses to comments.
Resource Conservation Commission
Two meetings were scheduled for the Resource Conservation Commission's review of the
DSEIR on June 28, 1999 and July 12, 1999. Unfortunately, there was not a quorum at either
meeting. As a result the Resource Conservation Commission did not review and comment on the
DSEIR for San Miguel Ranch.
/
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/15/99
DISCUSSION:
Consistent with the previously approved GDP and Amended GDP for San Miguel Ranch, the
purpose of the currently proposed SPA Plan is to develop a master planned residential
community on the southern parcel.
The 1,852-acre northern parcel will not be developed but instead has been established as an
ecological reserve through a conservation bank process.
In accordance with the approved GDP the southern parcel will be developed with a variety of
residential densities including: 344.1 acres of low, low-medium, medium and medium-high
density residential development totaling 1,394 dwelling units. The remainder of the southern
parcel will be comprised of 260.7 acres of open space, 13 acres of commercial uses and 15.6
acres of institutional uses, 3.6 acres of community services as well as easements, 21.6 acres of a
community park, a neighborhood park and circulation issues.
This document is a "Subsequent ElR" and a Third-Tier ElR. This project has undergone
environmental review at the GP A and SPA levels where major land use decisions were made by
the City of Chula Vista. It is intended to provide the additional project level analysis necessary
for the City Council to make an informed decision on the applicant's (Trimark) proposed SPA
Plan and tentative map.
Letters of Comment were received on the Draft SElR from the following agencies and
individuals. (They are included in the Comments/Response section of the Final SElR):
. US Department ofFish and Wildlife/California Department ofFish & Game
. Caltrans
. Chula Vista Elementary School District
. Barbara Reid, City of Chula Vista Planning Department (for the San Miguel Ranch Citizens
Advisory Group)
. Local Agency Formation Commission
. California Highway Patrol
. Preserve South Bay
. California Native Plant Society
. Connty of San Diego, Department of Public Works
. City of San Diego
. Trimark Pacific Homes, Ltd.
. Sweetwater Union High School District
. Sweetwater Authority
. Sweetwater Valley Civic Association
Also included are the minutes from the Planning Commission public hearing on the Draft SElR.
~
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/15/99
Si~nificant and Not FuIlv-Mitil!able Imoacts.
During the hearing on July 15, 1999, the Planning Commission expressed concern over a number
of the significant and unavoidable project-related impacts identified in the draft EIR. The draft
EIR disclosed, in particular, that implementation of the proposed project would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA on the following resources:
Biological resource impacts (project and cumulative)
Transportation impacts (project and cumulative)
Public services and utilities impacts, (specifically schools - project and cumulative)
Landform/visual quality impacts (project)
Air quality impacts (project and cumulative)
In light of comments regarding the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the draft
EIR, the following is a more detailed explanation of the logic underlying the significance
conclusions. It is important to note that the significance conclusions in the draft EIR for project-
related impacts on schools and biological resources reflect newly-enacted legislation and recent
developments in case law, respectively. The conclusion in the draft EIR regarding project-related
transportation impacts is based on the absence of any mechanism the City has to condition the
proposed project in a manner that would ensure that improvements to roadways within the
County of San Diego, as well as to freeway segments (under the jurisdiction of Caltrans), are
constructed concurrent with need.
Schools
The Draft SEIR discloses that the proposed project would generate a number of elementary
school and middle/high school students. The Draft SEIR also discloses that, because the two
closest schools to the proposed project currently exceed or are expected to exceed capacity at the
time of completion of San Miguel Ranch, project-related impacts on schools are significant.
The Draft SEIR notes that the applicant is required by state law to pay school impact fees, but
that the payment of such fees generally covers less than 25% of the cost to construct new
schools. Even though other potential school impact mitigation measures are identified, including
Mello-Roos, the Draft SEIR states that no potentially feasible mitigation measures exist that
would reduce project-related impacts to below a level of significance. The Draft SEIR proposes
as mitigation that funding for schools shall be in compliance with state law in effect at the time
bnilding permits are issued.
The conclusion in the Draft SEIR that project-related impacts on schools are significant and not
fully mitigable is best understood against recently-enacted legislation known as "SB 50." The
enactment of SB 50 (also known as the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998)
significantly reformed the methods of financing school facilities construction. Prior to the
enactment of SB 50, case law allowed local agencies to require certain types of development
3
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/15/99
projects to contribute impact fees in excess of limits imposed under state law. The enactment of
SB 50; however, preempts and limits the exercise of traditional local agency police power to
mitigate school impacts. Under SB 50, mitigation measures available for impacts on -school
facilities are limited to school district-imposed fees set forth in the Education Code and local
agency-imposed fees for interim, non-permanent facilities. These mechanisms are the exclusive
means in the post-SB 50 era for local agencies to devise and impose project-specific mitigation
of school impacts. In fact, SB 50 provides that local agencies may conclude that project-related
impacts are fully mitigated with the payment of the fees authorized under SB 50 even though, as
the Draft SEIR note, the payment of such fees provides insufficient funding for school districts to
address school-related impacts. The City has however taken a more conservative position and
without the ability to condition the developer to pay sufficient monies to fully fund new school
construction we have continued to label the impacts as significant not fully mitigable.
It is our understanding that the short-fall appears to have been addressed by an agreement
between the applicant and the various school districts affected by the proposed project.
Biological Resources
Project-related impacts on biological resources are addressed in the Draft SEIR in Section 3.3.
As noted in Section 3.3, the proposed project will result in significant direct and indirect impacts
to plant communities and wildlife, including species protected under the
state and federal Endangered Species Acts. (Draft SEIR, pp. 3.3-10 to 3.3-13.) To address these
impacts, the Draft SEIR proposes:
(1) the preservation of certain portions of the South Parcel as open space
(2) implementation of and adherence to a Conservation Bank Agreement entered into by the
applicant and the State and Federal wildlife agencies in August 1997;
(3) preservation of 166 acres in the North Parcel, an area which is recognized in the MSCP as
consisting of "V ery High Quality Habitat";
(4) a host of other requirements carried forward to the SPA-level of planning rrom the City's
previous environmental review of proposed development of San Miguel Ranch. (See Draft
SEIR, pp. 3.3.13 to 3.3-16.) As noted in the Draft SEIR, each of these mitigation measures
will be placed as a condition of project approval on the proposed tentative map(s) in the
event that the City Council approves the proposed project. (Draft SEIR, p. 3.3-16.)
Despite the mitigation measures set forth in the Draft SEIR, as well as the preservation of the
entire North Parcel of San Miguel Ranch agreed to by the applicant in the Conservation Bank
Agreement with the wildlife agencies, the Draft SEIR identifies project-related impacts on
species "listed" under the state and federal ESA as significant and not fully mitigated. This
conclusion and the underlying analysis in the Draft SEIR reflects recent case law addressing the
-f
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/15/99
extent to which regional habitat conservation planning under the ESA provides a basis to
conclude that project-related impacts on' "listed species" are mitigated to below a level of
significance for purposes of CEQA. Recent court decisions, coupled with the "mandatory finding
or significance" for "endangered, rare or threatened species" under the CEQA Guidelines (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 14 15000et. Seq.) can be construed to require a finding that the net loss of a
"listed" species, or its habitat, is a significant impact under CEQA that is not fully mitigated
through ESA-based regional habitat conservation planning. (See Draft SEIR, pp.3.3-16 to 3.3-
17).
Transportation
Project-related impacts on traffic and circulation are addressed in Section 3.4 of the Draft. SEIR,
Section 3.4 describes the "existing conditions" of the area circulation system in the vicinity of
the proposed project. (Draft SEIR, pp. 3.4-1 to 3.4-10.) The Draft SEIR then goes on to discuss
and analyze project-specific and cumulative impacts on freeways, arterials and intersections in
and aronnd the project site during the various "phase" of planned development for the proposed
project. (Draft SEIR, pp. 3.4-10 to 3.4c52.) Finally, the Draft SEIR discusses potentially feasible
mitigation measures to reduce of avoid project-related impacts to the extent feasible. (Draft
SEIR, pp.3.4-53 to 3.4-63.)
In general, mitigation measures identified in the Draft SEIR for traffic-related impacts require
that infrastructure improvements to the circulation network keep pace with need. For example,
the Draft SEIR discloses that under 2010 conditions no significant project-related impacts to
roadway segments would result if the City's circulation system is constructed as required
pursuant to the Traffic Study.
For roadways, intersections and other circulation network improvements within the City's
jurisdiction, the Growth Management Ordinance and Traffic Threshold Standard requires that
City thresholds be met. Under the City's Growth Management programs, traffic analysis are
required to be conducted as part of the environmental review for each project to verify the City's
threshold policies are met. As the Draft SEIR discloses, if the City's thresholds are not met, the
project cannot proceed until the deficiencies are rectified. (See, e.g., Draft SEIR, p. 3.4-54.)
In contrast to the City's Growth Management Program and Transportation Development Impact
Fee (Trans DIF) program, the County of San Diego has no program to ensure that specific
circulation network improvements are in place concurrent with need. The City has informed the
County that it is willing to work with them to establish a proportionate share-funding program to
resolve cumulative impacts to the County circulation network. In fact, the Draft SEIR proposed
to condition the proposed project on a proportionate share contribution to the County of San
Diego should a County funding program be established. Absent such a program, however, the
Draft SEIR concludes that project-related impacts on County roadways that are not included in
the annexation under the proposed project remain significant and not fully mitigated. (See Draft
SEIR, p.3.4-58) Likewise, because freeways and freeway-related infrastructure improvements
~
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/15/99
are the responsibility of Caltrans, there is no enforceable means by which the City could require
Caltrans to ensure that freeway infrastructure improvements keep pace with demand. (See Draft
SElR, p.3.4-54) Accordingly, the Draft SEIR identifies project-related impacts to County
roadways and intersections, as well as freeway segment impacts, as significant and not fully
rnitigable by the City.
Landform and Visual Quality
The project site is virtually undeveloped with the exception of several roads and trails. The
SDG&E Miguel Substation complex is located to the north of the south parcel, and is screened
from several directions offsite by intervening topography. Residents located directly west and
southwest have nnimpeded views of the site that include Gobbler's Knob, Mother Miguel
Mountain, and the western and southern slopes of Horseshoe Bend. The site is also highly visible
from the north side of Bonita Valley and Highway 54 at Sweetwater Road. Guidelines are
incorporated that require that grading protect natural features, minimize the amount of landform
alteration, the modification of the development design to minimize slopes up against open space
and reduce overall earthwork by 20% from the GDP grading design, the use of curvilinear
streets, the landform alteration and visual impacts are considered significant.
Air Qnality
Project related air pollutant errussJOns from both mobile and stationary sources during
construction and operation would exceed significance thresholds. Implementation of mitigation
measures would include emissions control for heavy-duty construction equipment with modified
combustion/fuel injection systems for the hydroseedingllandscaping of the project as soon as
possible in order to reduce dust generation, covering of trucks hauling fill material and the
watering of the graded area twice a day. These measures would reduce construction-related
emissions but not to below a level of significance.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Regional Air Quality
Strategies; therefore the project does not result in a significant project specific impact. However,
the San Diego Air Basin is a non-attainment area; therefore, any incremental increase in
pollution is considered a significant cumulative impact. The cumulative impact is a regional
impact beyond the control of the project applicant and cannot be mitigated to a level less than
significant.
Findings ofthe FSEIR:
Project level and cumulative impacts were identified and divided into three categories:
(1) significant and unmitigated
(2) significant and mitigable to a less than significant level
(3) less than significant
o
Page 7, Item:
Meeting Date: 9/15/99
All feasible (those which can be implemented) mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the project or made conditions of approvaL If they are infeasible, they cannot
be implemented. A more detailed analysis of some measures will be required at the tentative map
or grading plan level of consideration (i.e., noise). The significant and unrnitigable cumulative
impacts require a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to approve the proj ect. The
Statement of Overriding Considerations is part of the proposed "Findings of Fact".
The conclusions regarding the level of significance of each project level and cumulative level
impact is based on the previous EIRs and the subject FSEIR.
Sil!nificant ImDacts Mitil!ated to Less than Sil!nificant
Impacts in the following areas will be mitigated to less than significant with the implementation
of mitigation measures:
. Noise
. Public Services and Utilities
Water
Sewage
Police Protection
Fire Protection
Emergency Medical Services
. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
. Cultural Resources
. Paleontological Resources
Impacts in the above areas have been mitigated to less than significant through various means
such as submittal and approval of plans (Water Master Plan and Water Conservation Master
Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, Brush Management Plan) mitigation monitoring, payment of fees
and threshold compliance.
Less than Sil!nificant ImDacts
Landuse impacts for the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan are less than significant.
CONCLUSION:
All feasible mitigation measures with respect to project impacts have been included in the
FSEIR. Since there are five impact areas that are significant and unrnitigable (biology, air
quality, public services and facilities - specifically schools, traffic, landform and visual quality),
staffhas included a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the draft Findings of Fact.
7
/17/4CtfME/UT 2..
Depart:m.ent of Planning an~ Building
Date: August 13, 1999
To: Chairman Willett and Planning Commissioners
,~
From: f~.D. Sandoval, AICP, Assistant Planning Director
Subject: San Miguel Ranch DSEIR
Below is a list of the general areas of concern which were raised by the Planning Commission and
the public at the July 14, 1999 hearing on the San Miguel Ranch Draft EIR. The list includes the
concerns that were raised in letters that you received at the dais. As you are aware, the purpose of
the public hearing was to receive input and listen to concerns which will be addressed in the
forthcoming Final Environmental Impact Report.
Schools
Concern over adequacy of funding - ability to meet school district needs with appropriate mitigation.
Location of school adjacent to existing residential and proximity of school to SR-125 (0.5 mile) as
well as circulation and access issues. Request to move elementary school site within the SPA Plan.
Water Conservation
The benefit of including a gray-water component in the SPA Plan.
Biological Resources
Adequacy of preservation for the Otay Tarplant and need for inclusion of a detailed management
plan. Litigation by the California Native Plant Society against U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Wildlife
agencies have not agreed to process this project through the County's MSCP Plan. How does the
project comply with the conservation measures regarding San Diego barrel cactus salvage/
transplant?
Mitigation and Monitoring
Concern over the number of issues that require mitigation and number of items that are considered
significant but can not be fully mitigated. Monitoring of traffic should be included in Section 6, and
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program should include other agencies with over-lapping
jurisdiction in the column Party "Responsible for Monitoring".
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and mitigation measures on pages 3.3-14, 3.3-15
should include a detailed discussion of fencing, signage, brush management and other land use
adjacency requirements as per the MSCP and CEQA.
7'
Chairman Willett and Planning Commissioners
August 13, 1999
Page 2
Visual Quality
Concern over amount of grading and landform alterations, and concern as to whether the Hillside
Development Guidelines will be met. Concern over potential visual impact oflarge number of sound
walls.
Density
Is there too much density? Is it greater than in prior plans?
Traffic
Was "avoidance of toll" used in the traffic modeling assumptions for future SR-125? Overall
concern related to timing of improvements (SR-125), and phasing limits on this, and cumulative
impacts (e.g., prior EastLake trip allocations). What version of SANDAG modeling was used?
Concern that EastLake was to be built only if the SR-125 toll road went through. Concern that the
2% increase in traffic this project will cause is unacceptable because of the already overburdened
roadways. Concern that the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Threshold Standards have
allowed several streets within the City to exceed the exception of 2 hours per day at LOS D or worse.
Table 3.4-3 needs to be updated to current conditions. East 'H' Street is currently not functioning
at the LOS level listed on the table.
Concerns regarding San Miguel Road. Will San Miguel Road be widened and if so, how will this
be done since the location of existing homes preclude? If San Miguel is widened, a concern that
some people will be walking from their front door to the traffic. Will heavy trucks be passing along
San Miguel Road where children are walking to school? Concern that the traffic review needs to
look at how traffic will get to and from the school. Concern that we have to do a better job of
planning schools to make sure there is an ability for vehicles to drop off children or teachers on the
site and mitigate any impact to the surrounding neighborhood.
Additional segments of arterials that have a cumulatively significant impact are:
Sweetwater road from Central Avenue to Briarwood; and,
Bonita Road from Otay Lakes Road to the new bridge and beyond Bonita.
Recommendation that the school be located in the middle ofE Neighborhood. That the residential
in E drop down to where the school is and another roadway be put in connecting Proctor Valley
Road going back up to the northeast to the proposed street between Neighborhoods G and E. This
is a street that has no residential uses fronting on it that runs through the project.
!O
Chairman Willett and Planning Commissioners
August 13, 1999
Page 3
Drainage
Are detention basins located properly? (drain all of site) Proj ect will exacerbate eXlstmg,
downstream flooding conditions in Proctor and Central Creeks. There should be funds within the
impact fees for drainage problems. The cumulative effect ofEastLake, Rolling Hills, Salt Creek and
this project contribute to existing flooding in Central Creek near Central Avenue. Where the drainage
pipe for the catch basin will drain needs to be defmed. The DSEIR should identify the route of the
drainage stream and which private property owners would be impacted. Will the detention facilities
function as desilting basins? Who will be responsible for maintenance of the detention facilities?
Sewage
Resolution of the existing maintenance problems in County's Frisbee Trunk Sewer. Concerns
regarding the adequacy of funding. The estimated cost to fix the sewage lines of $100,000 should
be verified, adjusted for future inflation and included in the FSEIR.
Air Quality
Location of monitoring station in Chula Vista. The Air Quality readings in Section 3.5 are not
representative of Bonita - past, present or future. Bonita is receiving an inordinate amount of air
pollution from Chula Vista development.
Cultural Resources
Were Native Americans Archeologists consulted? Were artifacts removed? If so, to what location?
Correction is needed with regard to archeology - Research design was submitted and approved
several months ago, and archeology mitigation work is underway.
Electromagnetic Fields
Location of development in relation to SDG&E transmission lines.
Financing
What measures will be imposed to e1irninate the financial deficit expected for this proj ect by the time
the project is built out?
MSCP
What is the City's timeline for preparation and approval of the MSCP Subarea Plan?
SDG&E
Why haven't SDG&E's expansion plans been analyzed in the document?
/1
Chairman Willett and Planning Commissioners
August 13, 1999
Page 4
lfyou have any question, you may contact me at 691-5002 or Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects
Manager, at 691-5097 -
cc: Robert L. Leiter, AICP, Director of Planning & Building
Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager
Ed Batchelder, Senior Planner
Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner
Betty Dehoney, P&D Environmental Services
Stephen Hester, Trimark Pacific
Skip Harry, Trimark Pacific
Ann Gunter, Lightfoot Planning Group
(a:\lIb\jimsandoval\jw081199.1tr.doc)
/J....
-----.
/171 A/If M t"JJT .:3
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
d--
Meeting Date: 07/14/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Draft ElR 97-02; Consideration of comments on the San
Miguel Ranch Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Tbird- Tier
Draft SEIR)
The public hearing on the San Miguel Ranch is intended to solicit comments from the Plamring
Commission and the public on the Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR began public review on May 28,
1999. The State Clearinghouse 45-day review period ends on July 11, 1999. City of Chula Vista
procedures require the Plamring Commission to hold a public hearing to receive public
comments on the Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR public review period ends with the closing of the
Plamring Commission public hearing.
ISSUES:
The following :impacts were identified as significant and not mitigated to a level below
significant :in the Draft SE1R:
. Biological Resources (Project and Cumulative)
. Landform and Visual Quality (Project)
. Transportation (Project and Cumulative)
. All Quality (Project and Cumulative)
Impacts to the additional following areas will be reduced as a result have proposed mitigation
measures:
. Noise
. Specific Public Services and Utilities (Water, Sewage, Police Protection and Fire Protection)
. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
. Cultural Resources
. Paleontological Resources
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing on the DraftSEIR (EIR 97-02), close
the public hearing and public review period and direct staff to prepare the Final EIR :including:
mitigation monitoring report, responses to the comment letters received to date and testimony at
the public hearings, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
13
_::--
Item:
Page 2, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
As there was not a quorum at the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) meeting of June
28,1999, the RCC's discussion of the above cited report has been scheduled for July 12, 1999.
Their action will be reported at the dais on July 14, 1999. The San Miguel Ranch Citizens
Advisory Committee met (SMRCAC) on June 17, 1999 and July 8, 1999 to discuss the Draft
SEIR.. The draft minutes of the June 17, 1999 meeting are attached. (Attachment 1) Co=ents
of the SMRCAC from their meeting of July 8, 1999 generally are concerned with traffic and
drainage. A memorandum detailing their specific concerns will be presented at the time of the
public hearing or before. A member of the SMCAC also presented a petition signed by residents
of the Estancia community requesting that the school be moved. This petition will also be
presented at or before the public hearing.
DISCUSSION:
A. Background
This document is a "Subsequent EIR" and a Third-Tier EIR, which means that it is tiered off
previously, certified EIRs. The GDPIAmended GDP EIR was prepared as a "Program" EIR..
Typically, in a tiering process, a "first tier EIR" addresses the broad environmental issues
affecting a large physical area associated with a proposed program, plan, policy or ordinance.
Successive tiers address project impacts.
The first EIR for this project, EIR 90 - 02, which analyzed the impact of developing 357 lots on
the Northern Parcel and 1,25710ts on the south parcel, was certified in 1993. Two Addenda were
prepared to that document. The TIrst evaluated the environmental effects or refinements to the
proposed land use concept. A second Addendum incorporated additional changes to the Plan and
mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources. In 1996, Emerald Properties, the former
project applicant, redesigned the project and a second EIR; EIR 95-04 analyzed the impact of an
Amendment to the GDP and General Plan amendments.
EIR 97-02 is intended to provide the additional project level analysis necessary for the City
Council to make an informed decision on (Trimark), the applicant's proposed SPA Plan and
tentative map.
B. Project Description
San Miguel Ranch was initially comprised of two parcels: the 739-acre South Parcel and the
1,852-acre North Parcel. Revisions to the plan included development only on the south and
conservation of the North through a Mitigation Bank. As part of this project, Trimark will
contribute 166 acres on the south to the Mitigation Bank on the north.
North Parcel.
In 1997, the resource agencies and Emerald Properties entered into a Conservation Bank
Agreement, which, in effect, preserved the North Parcel as a mitigation bank. As part of the
.'
If
Item:
Page 3, Meeting Date: 07114/99
agreement regarding preservation of the North Parcel, the development potential for the South
Parcel was modified to allow increased density. This is reflected in the adopted GDP
development footprint as previously approved by the City. The USFWS purchased a SOD-acre
portion of the North Parcel and established an ecological reserve. Other developers may purchase
mitigation credits to comply with their mitigation mandated by enforcement of the Endangered
Species Act from the "San Miguel Conservation Bank". The North Parcel is not being proposed
for annexation as part of the proposed action; however, an alternative is included which would
annex the North Parcel into the City of Chula Vista while maintaining its ecological reserve
status. This is reflected on the adopted GDP development footprint as previously approved by
the City.
South Parcel
The Draft SEIR evaluates the impacts associated with the development of the southern parcel
providing a master planned residential community with a variety of residential densities
including 344.1 acres of low, low-medium, medium and medium high density residential
development totaling 1,394 dwelling units. The remainder of the plan includes 260 .7 acres of
open space, 13 acres of commercial uses and 15.6 acres of institutional uses, 3.6 acres of
community services as well as easements, 21.6 acres of a community park, a neighborhood park
and circulation uses.
Discretionary approvals that will be necessary to complete the SPA Plan process are:
1. Approval of the SPA Plan;
2. Approval of Tentative Map (s);
3. Annexation to the City ofChula Vista ;and
4. Approval of Streambed Alteration Agreement by CDFG
C. Analysis
The SEIR analyzes all of the issues identified in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) to determine
whether a potentially significant impact would result. Based on that analysis, the SEIR identifies
the project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from
implementation of the proposed project. With respect to cumulative impacts, the SEIR identifies
the project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from
.implementation of the proposed project. With respect to cumulative impacts, the SEIR considers
whether such impacts would result even where no significant project-specific impact would
result. The SEIR takes such an approach because cumulative impacts may result under CEQA
where incremental project-specific impacts less than significant when considered in isolation, but
cumulatively significant when considered against similar incremental impacts resulting from
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. In such cases, proposed projects
are said to result in cumulative impacts if the incremental project-specific impact is
"cumulatively considerable" when compared to the impacts resulting from other similar projects.
I~
Item:
Page 4, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
Biolo!!:icaI ResourceslProiect and Cumulative
The previous EIR for the GDP/GP A identified impacts to sensitive plant communities, including
6 acres of dry marsh/wetland, 154 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 330 acres of annual
grassland. 200,000 individual Otay tarplants that were detected during 1991 surveys would be
impacted by the development of the SPA Plan. In 1998, surveys in a more optimal year indicter
two million Otay Tarplant.
Significant impacts would occur due to the direct impacts to the habitat of various wildlife
species. Large carnivorous mammals such as mountain lion, bobcat and fox could be reduced
due to increases in human activity and loss of habitat The bobcat would probably be most
affected because this species currently uses the property. Reductions of habitat for this species
are considered significant. Coastal cactns wren and five other sensitive upland bird species were
detected on site. The displacement of these species by development is considered significant
based on an updated survey; marsh/wetland impacts are reduced over those previously reported.
Additionally, the previous EIR also identified approximately 11 to 12 pairs of California
gnatcatchers that would be affected by the development on the South Parcel measures.
Mitigation measures 1hat were identified in the previous EIR to reduce impacts to the above
sensitive plant and animal species include:
. Dedication of approximately 231 acres of open space and the establishment of a 21-acre Otay
tarplant preserve within the South Parcel;
. No net loss of wetland habitat as required by CDFG and ACOE;
. Incorporation of the following measures at the SPA Plan level, which are included in this
section:
Hydroseeding of graded areas and development of revegetation plan
Use of nan-invasive plants in landscaping areas;
No grading activities within 200 feet on areas of identified California gnatchers during
breeding or nesting season; and
Restriction of site preparation activities to areas not being placed in open space.
EIR 97-02 in its evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed SPA Plan on biological
resources in the South Parcel included a recent survey for the federally-listed Qtrino checkerspot
butterfly, updated wetland delineation and federally-threatened Otay tarplant survey.
Mitigation measures for SPA Plan-related impacts that would partially reduce impacts to the
identified biological resources included in EIR 97-02 are:
/(P
~,
Item:
Page 5, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
. The applicant must receive "take" authorization before any impacts occur to threatened or
endangered species. The applicant will also be required to prepare a Management Plan for
the Otay Tarplant preserves prior to approval of any grading permit adjacent to the OS-I,
OS-3, OS-7, planning areas.
. Grading areas along roadways shall be hydroseeded with native plant species consistent with
surrounding natural vegetation to help minimi7.e erosion and runoff and to improve the area
aesthetically.
. Use of non-invasive plants in landscaping areas adjacent to open space.
. Grading activities within 200 feet of areas of identified coastal California gnatcatcher pairs or
their associated coastal sage scrub habitat shall not be conducted during the breeding or
nesting season (March 1 through August 15).
. Restriction of site preparation activities to areas not being placed in open space.
Important to determining the level of significance of Biological impacts is the following. The
Conservation Bank Agreement requires that 146 acres of open space, contallring significant
populations of Otay tarplant, be maintained on the South Parcel and 166 mitigation credits be
obtained from the San Miguel Mitigation Bank (North Parcel). "Mitigation Banks" are
contiguous areas of land that the Resource Agencies have approved for preservation.
Developers may purchase "mitigation credits" from the Mitigation Bank allowing the
developer to develop their land in spite of the sensitive resources on the land.
The proposed Mitigation Bank is a large expansive area that will ultimately be under the
long-term protection of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This project will contribute to the
ultimate fulfi11ment of the Mitigation Bank by providing 166 acres.
The Conservation Bank agreement was acknowledged within the final rule published in the
Federal Register that granted threatened status to the Otay tarplant. Therefore, providing all
the conditions of the Conservation Bank Agreement are satisfied, a jeopardy opinion under
the Federal Endangered Species Act would not occur and the "take" of the Otay tarplant,
which would result from the proposed project, would be authorized. A jeopardy opinion is an
opinion that development of a project would jeopardize the continued existence of a
particular species.
Analysis of such impacts under CEQA and take effectiveness and feasibility of habitat-
oriented planning under the State and Federal Endangered Species Act to fully mitigate
impacts on listed species, has been the subject of recent litigation. The analysis of
significance and the proposed determinations set forth in this EIR reflect recent case law. In
light of the recent court decisions, the mandatory finding of significance for listed species in
the CEQA Guidelines can be construed to require lead agencies to find that the net loss of
species listed under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, or its habitat is a
(7
-------
Item:
Page 6, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
significant, unrnitigable impact under CEQA. Such an approach may also be appropriate
absent further clarification regarding the issue from the Legislature or the courts.
Landform and Visual Oualitv
Visual simulations of the existing and proposed conditions have been prepared.. The
development of natural open space with residential development on the South Parcel would
alter views to the site from the south., west, east and northwest of the proposed project. The
overall visual impact of introducing homes is not considered to be significant as the City has
designated this area for some form of residential development.
Views to Mother Miguel and the San Miguel Mountains from a short portion of East 'H'
Street that extends through the southernmost tip of the San Miguel Ranch grading and
development would modify project associated with the proposed project. The mountains
would continue to be in the backgronnd view; however, the foreground view would change
from hillsides and landforms dominated by natural vegetation to residential development
characterized by landscaped manufactured slopes, ranging in height from 50 feet to about
100 feet and single-family residences.
The impacts to scenic roadway views from this portion of the proposed project are
considered to be significant even though the SPA Plan includes measures to minimize the
impacts such as:
. the rounding of the landform as much as possible,
. the use of vegetation to simulate a contour landform,
. the use of landscaping techniques to create the effect of a horizontally and vertically
undulating slope terrain,
. use of native and naturalized plant species to provide a subtle blending between
manufactured and natural slopes,
. use of contour grading in some of the setback areas outside of the right-of-way along
Mount Miguel Road to reinforce the parkway character of the roadway, and the use of
curvilinear streets and slopes to conform to the existing topography.
No further mitigation measures are available or feasible beyond those incoIporated into the
project design, which could avoid the impacts to landform alteration and visual quality.
TransDortation
For the Year 2000, the significant cumulative impacts (such as unacceptable levels of service
of roadway segments), that will occur to freeways, arterial roadways, and intersections are
listed as follows.
. Significant cumulative impacts to freeway SR-54:
- Reo Drive to Woodman Street
If
Item:
Page 7, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
- I-80S: SR-54 to East 'H' Street
The mitigation for the same is the development of a Cal- Trans deficiency plan for SR-54 and
I-80S.
. Significant cumulative impacts to arterial roadways:
- Briarwood Road: SR-54 to Sweetwater Road
- Corral Canyon Road; Central Avenue to Country Vistas Lane
_ Central Avenue: Bonita Road to Corral Canyon Road
- East 'H' Street: I-80S to Hidden Vista Drive.
. Significant cumulative impacts to intersections:
- Briarwood RoadlSR-54 westbound ramps
Mitigation, which would fully mitigate performance, includes proposed improvements to
Briarwood Road/SR-54 WE Ramps.
For the Year 2005 without SR-12s, the significant cumulative impacts include the
following:
. Significant cumulative impacts to freeways:
- SR-54: I-80S to Woodman Street
- SR-54: Briarwood Road to Paradise Valley Road
- SR-54: Jamacha Road to lldica Street
- I-80S: SR-54 to Telegraph Canyon Road
Mitigation reqnirements include development of a deficiency plan for SR-54 and 1-805.
. Significant cumulative impacts to Arterial Roadways include:
- Briarwood Road: SR-54 to Sweetwater Road
- Corral Canyon Road: Central Avenue to Country Vistas Lane
- Otay Lakes Road: Bonita Road to A venide del Rey
- Otay Lakes Road: East 'H' Street to Telegraph Canyon Road
- Bonita Road: Palm Drive to Central Avenue
- San Miguel Road: Bonita Road to Proctor Valley Road
- Central Ave: Bonita Road to Proctor Valley Road
- East 'H' Street: 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive
- Otay Lakes Road: Telegraph Canyon Road to Rutgers Avenue
19
Item:
Page 8, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
Even though several roadway segments and intersections are forecast to be impacted under this
scenario, mitigation is deemed unnecessary because all roadways and intersections resume
acceptable levels of service after opening the SR-125 tollway.
For Year 2005 With SR-125
Significant Cumulative lmpacts include:
. Significant Cumulative lmpacts for Freeways:
- SR-54: 1-805 to Woodman Street
- SR-54: SR-125 to Ildica Street
- SR-54: SR-54 to Telegraph Canyon Road
Mitigation is the development of a deficiency plan for SR-54 and I-80S.
For Year 2010 (project Buildout) With SR-125
. Significant Project Related lmpacts and Cumulative lmpacts will occur to Freeways:
- SR-54: I-80S to Woodman Street
- SR-54: SR-125 to Ildica Street
- I-80S: SR-54 to Telegraph Canyon Road
Certain freeway segments are impacted under CMP guidelines, although they carry a low
percentage of project traffic. Mitigation is the development of a deficiency plan for SR-54 and 1-
805. Evaluate widening I-80S to 10 lanes.
Significant cumulative impacts to arterial roadways include the possible widening of Otay Lakes
Road: Otay Lakes Rd.: SR-125 to Eastlake Pkwy. Mitigation requirements include possible
widening of Otay Lakes Road between SR-125 and Eastlake Parkway to eight lanes.
Full Southbay Bnildout
Project related significant impacts and significant cumulative impacts are as follows:
. Freeways
- SR-54: I-80S to Ildica
- SR-125: SR-54 to Olympic Parkway
I-80S: SR-54 to East 'H' Street
. Significant Cumulative lmpacts to Arterial roadways include:
_ Proctor Valley Road: San Miguel Road to Mt. Miguel Road
c2()
-
Item:
Page 9, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
- San Miguel Road: Bonita Road to Proctor Valley Road
- East 'H' Street: 1-805 to Hidden Vista Drive
- Otay Lakes Road: SR-125 to EastLake Parl:way_
Mitigation requirements - Certain roadway segments are forecasted to reqnire improvements
due to cumulative traffic impacts. Recommendations made in this chapter could fully
mitigate these impacts and return these facilities to acceptable levels of service.
Within the project boundaries in the City of Chula Vista, and per the City's Circulation
Element, there will be no significant impacts. However the traffic from the project may
reduce the level of service on County streets. There is not a guarantee of the County
improving County streets. Therefore, the project has both a project specific and cumulatively
significant impact.
Air Onalitv
Project-related air pollutant emissions from both mobile and stationary sources during
construction and operation would exceed significance thresholds. Mitigation Measures
include the following
Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for
emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction.
Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped or developed as soon as possible and
directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
Trucks hauling fill material shall be covered.
To control dust raised by grading activities, the graded area shall be watered twice a clay.
Public Services and Facilities
Water, sewage, police protection, fire protection and emergency medical services have been
mitigated to a level below significance. Mitigation measures for the specific utilities are as
follows:
Water
. Submittal and <lJ>proval of a Water Master Plan, which requires identification of the
location and sizing of specific facilities: and,
. Preparation of a Water Conservation Plan to be submitted with the SPA Plan.
Sewa2e
. Submittal and approval of a Wastewater Master Plan, which requires identification of the
location and sizing of sewage facilities; and,
. Payment of wastewater development fees.
<:2/
Item:
Page 10, Meeting Date: 07/]4/99
Police Protection
. Payment of proportionate share of the funding for police protection facilities.
Fire Protection
. Payment of a proportionate share of the funding for fire protection facilities; and,
. Implementation of an acceptable brush management plan, which will be submitted with
the SPA Plan.
Emer!!encv Medical Services
Provision of a second access road to the North Parcel if the North Parcel is armexed to meet
the response time.
Schools
The developer has indicated a willingness to satisfY the requirements of the School Districts.
Developers 1etters to the Chula Vista Elementary and High School Districts are enclosed.
(Attachments 2 and 3). Recent legislation, S.B.50 precludes the Districts from mitigation. In
1998, the Legislature adopted S.B. 50 and, with the Governor's approval, enacted significant
amendments to provisions in the Government and Education Codes related to developer fees
for school impacts. The bill reformed methods of school construction financing in Califomia
by, among other things, requiring local school districts to fund at least 50% of the cost of
new school construction and eliminating the ability of cities and counties to impose school
impact fees in excess of state-mandated limits. In fact, provisions enacted pursuant to S.B. 50
set forth the "exclusive methods of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities"
resulting from any state or local development project. (See Gov.Code 65996, subd). (a))
Accordingly, cities and counties are now prohibited by law from imposing development
requirements related to school facilities in a marmer inconsistent with the exclusive methods
set forth in the provisions enacted by S.B. 50. Indeed., with the passage of S.B. 50, the
statutory authority to impose "School impact fees" or "development impact fees" lies mainly
with school districts, not cities or counties.
D. Alternatives
The following alternatives were analyzed:
1. 'No Project
Under this alternative, the San Miguel Ranch would remain in its existing undeveloped
condition. .Ai; no development would occur, none of the project specific environmental
effectS identified in this EIR and in previous EIR analyses would occur. However, none of
~
.-..
Item:
Page 11, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
the commitments to permanent preservation of significant natural op.en space within the
South Parcel and 166 acres of the North Parcel would be required to be implemented. This
alternative would not be consistent with the City's General Plan that designates the project
area for future urban development nor with the adopted Amended GDP.
2. Existing County Land Use Alt=ative
Under this alt=ative, the project area would be developed under the County's land use
jurisdiction. Under the Existing County Land Use Alt=ative, the project site would be
developed according to the Specific Planning Area classification, which allows development
of 0.28 dwelling units per gross acre. Based on the residential density allowed on the project
site, which occupies approximately 738 gross acres (South Parcel), a maximum of 206
dwelling units could be developed on the South Parcel. However, since the North Parcel has
been established as an ecological reservelconservation bank, the County of San Diego
procedures allow for a residential density transfer from the North Parcel to the South Parcel.
This is substantially less (669) units than the maximum number of units proposed under the
SPA Plan. Consequently the substantial reduction in residential density on the project site
would result in the corresponding reduction in land use impacts, traffic generation of
approximately 7,824 daily trips, air emissions, noise and demand for public services and
utilities. The roadway impacts under this alternative are similar to those identified for the
proposed SPA Plan. The applicant has indicated that this alternative is not feasible due to the
costs of the infrastructure improvements and off-site mitigation.
3. Reduced Grading Alternative
Under this alternative elements of 5 communities, the Community Park, Mount Miguel Road,
and the Elementary School Site would need to be redesigned to reduce the grading. This
would require an amendment to the General Development Plan and General Plan
Amendment. The applicant has not selected this alternative due to the anticipated significant
reduction in the number of dwelling units. The costs associated with the construction of the
infrastructure and off-site mitigation requirements make this alternative infeasible.
4. North Parcel/Otay Water District Parcel Annexation Alternative
Under this alternative the Northern Parcel would be annexed to the City. No development
would be proposed, and the North Parcel would retain its cmrent designation as an ecological
reserve included within the Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife
Refuge. If annexation of this parcel is ultimately approved, the physical link between the
South Parcel and the North Parcel would be provided. At the time of this staff report was
written, the decision of whether to annex the North has not been made.
E. Public Comments
Two co=ent letters have been received to date. These are attached. They are from LAFCO
and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. (Attachments 4 and 5)
02.3
~Ch"~",,\
~
SAN MJGUEL RANCH
SECrIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN (SPA)
CITIZENS REVIEW GROUP
MEETING NO. 10 (June 17, 1999)
MINUTES
Ed Batchelder caIled the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
PRESENT: Members: Uwe Werner, Ron Speyer, Ray Y mzon, Warren Oakland, Georjean Jenson,
Phil Gaugbanand Allison Rolfe
ABSENT; Members: Barbara GilmHTt: AJtP.mAt..S: Toni Ingrassia, Ernie Schnepf, Joanne
Malcolm, and Judy Tieber.
STAFF: Ed Batchelder,J3arbaIa Reid, RicbardZumwalt - PllIT1Tring and Building Department,
Frank Rivera - Engineering Department .
GUESTS: Ann Gunter - Lightfoot PIHTtnmg Group, Skip Hany - Trimark, Betty Dehoney - P&D
Environmental, Ralph Munoz - County of San Diego Department Of Public Works,
Bob Goralka - County of San Diego Public Works, Don Jenson, John Hammond _
Sweetwater Community Planning Group.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
. The meeting minutes of March 18, 1999 were approved
lmHTtimously without changes.
1. DISCUSSION OF ANY GROUP QUESTIONS ON TOPICS FROM THE MARCH 18,
1999 MEETING (GROUP ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS).
There were no questions or comments regarding the previous meeting.
2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OFTBE PROJECI"S DRAFT SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
Barbara Reid presented an overview of the ftamewotk of the Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (DSEIR.) including the following infonnation. There have been two prior EIR.s for this
project .The dates of cerlificationof the prior EIR's were provided, as were brief project
descriptions. The above cited EIR. is a Third Tier EIR. In a tiering process, a "first tier" EIR
addresses the broad environmentiU issues affecting a large physical area associated with a proposed
"program, plan, policy or ordinance." Successive tiers address Project impacts DSEIR 97-02 EIR
is a project level document that incorporates the prior EIR by reference. An EIR isa diSclosure
docwnent It discloses the potential impacts of the development of a project. If members of the SMR.
Citizens Review Group disagree with the technical analysis in the report then that concern should
be brought up.
.'
.,21
SMR-SP A-CRG Minutes
2
June 17.1999
Betty Dehoney, 1he City'sEIR consultant, presented a Summmy of Impacts on a Project Specific and
Cumulative basis. She explained the difference between a "project specific impact" and a
"cumulative impact". .
QuestiODS and Concerns bv the Membership about the issues presented included:
. Does the City monitor enforcement of mitigation during the grading process?
- City hires specialist in some areas, and uses City staff in other areas.
-
· Will the developer construct fences, and will they replace existing owner's fencing adjacentto
Jonel Way properties?
Staff will ensure that the developer constructs any required fencing.
Ann Gunter, represerrt:iIJg Trimark, does not know.uthe project will be affecting any existing
fences yet.
Ed Batchelder indicated that as a basic requirement, existing fences will remain 1IDless the
owner's desire replacement through negotiation with the project applicant.
. Is 1raffic data outdated?
No. March 1998 BRW study was determined to be acceptable for SElR public review. It uses
SANDAG Series 8 Forecast, which is acceptable.
· The City seems to approve more and more development just to capture revenue.
Fiscal Impact Ana1ysis shows minor net fisca1loss to City in the long TIm. as a result oftbis
project.
Distances between tIfOrerties with horses in the County and the DrOwsed. develoDIIlent
Alison asked if property owners in the Jonel Way area who keep horses on their Jlluperty within 200
feet of the project site will be required to move the locatiori of their horses? She also stated that a
prqject in the Cannel Mountain Ranch area of SaD. Diego was J"f".lI~g1'f'.(} to allow for existing horses
to TP.m~in
Barbara Reid resporided that she would speak with County staff regarding the matter and report back
at the next meeting. Bob Goralka of the County Department of Public Warks suggested that the
County Health Dc;y<Utwent be contacted about this matter.
02..)
~
SMR-SP A-CRG Minutes
~
.)
June 17.1999
Traffic Imuact from Schools
Phil stated he felt the EIR did not address the problem of excess 1n1fIic around 1he school site would
result in traffic being backed up onto residential streets in the Estancia subdivision. Phil indicated
that the Estancia residents have signed a petition that requests that the school be moved north away
:!Tom Proctor Valley Road, farther into the project site. They are concerned with the impacts that
"drop-off" and "pick-up" traffic may have to their neighborhood with the school site entrance on
Proctor Valley Rd. Ed indicated that he has made the elementary school district aware of this
concern, and that he will arrange to have Dr. Lowell Billings attend 11 future meeting to discuss the
issue.
Barbara Reid responded that site-specific traffic patterns could not be analyzed in the EIR without
a site plan, and that the School District would do their own Environmental Analysis of the site.
Traffic
· Ray Ymzon indicated that the EIR should conclude that traffic impacts will be significant He
felt that to find otherwise would be incorrect
Draina!!:e
· Was the lOO-year flood used as a model to study flooding?
- Yes.
· Are the detention basins just going to prolong the dumtion of flooding?
The increase in duration is insignificant because it amounts to a matter of a few minutes of
additional flow.
· What is peak flow? What happens when the detention basins fill up and overflow due to rallrliill .
that is longer or larger than anticipated?
The standard used for the drainage study is the lOO-year flood. The project has complied with
this, and proposed facilities to address this level of impact. Staff will. provide more
information on the definition of the 1 OO-year flood and how it is modeled (1 DO-year flood
rnnoff ~fficient). .
3. REVISED MEETING CALENDAR
Ed Batchelder reviewed the revised meeting calendar (6/11/99) distributed tonight. The calendar
reflects rem"iniTlg dates for Group meetings, and the public hearing dates for the SPA and the EIR.
Based on Group discussion, the next meeting will be on July 8, 1999, to provide memb= additional
,;L~
..--~._.
SMR-SPA-CRG Minutes
4
June 17. 1999
time to complete their review of the EIR doCUIDf:IIt and an opportunity to snmm"';7.(' their comments
which will be presented to the Plamring Commi~~ion. Phil requested that the meeting be held in
Council Chambers as he would like enough room for his neighbors to attend.
4. OTHER MEMBER OR PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments.
5. ADJOURNMENT
.
The meeting was adjourned at 8 p=. to the proposed meeting of July 8, 1999 at 6:00 pm. This
meeting will be held at Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District address.
Prepared By: Barbara Reid
Plann;ng and Building Department
(A:0617_)
c27
f',\"CX MI,\,,"\\'\ ~
~~ T rimar k
~ ~ Pacific Homes. LP.
.=-'
JuJy 6, 1999
Mr. ADQrew Campbdl
A.ssistant Sup.nntcndcnt ofPbmning and Faciliri~
Sweetv."atef Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista., CA 9191 1
Re: San Miguel Ranch
Dear Mr. Campbell:
We have had the opportUnity subsequent to our meeting on June 23, 1999 to review the
mirigationagr=cnts that you have entered into with other developers in the Sweetwater Union
High School District ("District'.,) V.rnile we desire that the District follow procedures as outlined
in SB 50 relative to pursuing available local, Stare and federal fimds, we aiso Tealize the value to
the San Miguel Ranch project of a wen fimded District which will provide a quality education to
the children \\~thin the District.
A.s such, we have made the cf:cision to pursue '\'\rith you a mitigation agre~:nt and CFD which
\\'il1 provide full miti~arion for OUT s~hool impac!5. Our 'willingness to enter intO a mitigation
agr=cnt is d:p::nd::nt on the District's affinnative support of our project and assurances that we
are m:ated on p2Ttt)' with other agre=ents.
Please give me a call v.~th any questions regarding this le= and to set up a meeting to regin
discussions on the agre=cnt.
Z:l)', ~lL:J~,,-
st:p~er
Division President
Cc: Genxge KIempI
Dennis O'Neil, Esq.
c2t
85 Argonaut. Suite 205, Aliso Viejo. California 92656 949.465.1655 FAX 949.465.1660
1\.-\ ~c \->."1...-<\\ ..3.
4~ Trimark
" Pacific Homes, LP.
--~
~
- -------
- ---.----
July 6. 1999
Mr. Lowell Billings, EcLD.
,.o.ssistaI1t Sup::rint::nd::nt for Business Sm;ces and Support
Chula ViSIltEI::m::nwy School District
S4 East "r S=t
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: San Miguel Ranch
Dem- MI. Billings:
We have had the opportUnity to ~view the mitigation agre=::nts that you have ::ntcred into \\~th
other developers in the Chula ViSIltEl::mentm-y Schoo] Dismcl ("Distric!".) W'nile we desire that
the District follow procedures as outlined in SB 50 relative ~o pursuing available local, State and
federal funds. we also realize the value to the San Migu::1 R1mch project of a well funded District
which wilJ pro\~de a quality education to the childr::n within the District.
A.s su::n. we nEve made the decision to pu..~ue 'with you a mitigation ag:re~entand ern which
will provide Iul1 mitigation for our schoo} impacts. OUT v.rillingn::ss to ent= into 2 mitigation
agreem=nt is d~::nd::nT on the District's aifiTInarive suppo:!. of ow-project and 2.SSUTImCeS that \\'t
.:lre treated on pa.-ny with other agreements.
Pl::ase give me a call \\~th any questions regarding this le= and to set up a meeting to begin
discussions on the 2greement.
~' \(cJ\~ \
q"..I, ~ \....-
Steph::n E: HeSter
Division President
Cc: George Krempl
Dennis O'Neil., Esq.
.,2'1
85 ..o.rgonauL Suite 2C5. Aliso Viejo. Califorma 92656 9~9.465.l655 FAX 949.465.1660
=
. --,.. ".. \1,'1:. '57PMo "'.PW-;"-CT-E' ENGINEERS
-. JUL 06 '99 ~ _
C]!I;l.& VI STA EKG Iffi"'='tINt;
P.14/15
-
JiI 01'
JlJL B2 . 99 B2: H~PM
~~""'\ ~
[LArFCCO
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
1 SOD Pacific Highway. Room 452
Sail Diego, CA 9.2101 . (61&1) 531-6400
WDbsiIe: -.st!Iafcc.com
Chairman
BID Ham
CDIIIIIy Board r1f
S_loalS
VIce Chail'WDllllUI
J~~III
~r..
Cfiyaresrt&bild
Members
Dianne .1_
CDIInty BaaJII uf
SuJoaIWlaors
PaII,y D....
Coun__.
City r1f Chule \IIsta
Hall)' MiUhIs
CDII~r.
Ci17 DI SSn DiIIg.
Dr. UIIIan M. Cftild&
HeIb: Water DisIIIc!
Ranalli W.__
VIoIoI Ar. Praboctian Oi&trll::t
An."_ L Vanderiaan
PubIC IoIemti8r
Altemata Members
GIeg eo.:
Calmly BIIIUd r1f
SUperwiscors
AIoJ;y Tara.. Sesaam
Mayar.
~ DfLlonan ~
Juan "8JP5
. Calmz::llrnembllr,
CityDfSanDIega
Bud PDdcl1npn
SOLCh Bay IrrJptian DtsU1t:
Guy W. Winlan III
Pubtic: Member
EXIIc:utive OITIcer
loIiclJaelc.oa
Counsel
John J. Sans...",
June 25, 1999
.r:.~,:-..~,;. "r-~
f... . .. ..
.. ".
. .. '.
,. ". ..
JUt! 2 li 'kO':',:i
Barbara Reid
Environmental Projects Manager
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula VISta, CA 91910
SUBJECT: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report _ San
Miguel Ranch
r~"i';;:j'i~
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you fer the opponunity to review the Draft Subsequent
Environmel1taJ Impact Report (SEIR) for the Sal1 Miguel Ranch. We
offer the fallowing comments:
Section 1-5 of the SEIR indicates that a decision has not been made as
to whether both the North and South Parcels of the San Miguel Ranch
will be included in an annexation Proposal This slilction further states
that, if the North Parcel is selec:ted for annexation, the scope and
responsibility of public; service$' required in. the HoIth Parcel WOuld
require resoltnion. In addition, Section 4.4 of the SEIR indicates that
potential impacts related to public services and land Use could result if
the North Parcel is included in an annexation. If the North Parcel is
included in an annexation and LAFCO is to use this SEIR in its review,
then the SEIR will need to address aU Impacts associated with annexing
the North Parcel.
Although the annexation of the North Parcel is discussed in the
Altematives Section, the only justification provided is that the City would
attain conservation credits if the area were annexed. In our November
12. 199B comments "On the Screenc::hec:k SEIR, we requested additional
discussion of why open-space terrttory should be annexed to the City.
Please be remindeclthat, if the North Parcel is included in a proposed
annexation, LAFCO will require a detailed justification for the inclusion of
the territory. Any environmental consequences associated with this
potential annexation boundary needs to be discussed in the San Miguel
Ranch SEIR.
.
3D
- .. rAA KIW ~D' ~,~.
-.. -iUC-06' :99 --01: 58PM P&D/CTE ENGINEERS
-
.'
Barbara Reid
.June 25, 1999
Page Two
C!!UIJ. VI STA ENGINEERIJIOG
--,
P.1S/1S ""
",,015
JLL 12 '99 12: lBPM
Also, while the otay Water District Golf CoulSe would establish contiguity between the
North and South Parcels, the North Parcel Annexation Alternative should contain a
discUssion of why the intervening San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) property should
not be included in the annexation proposal. Exclusion of the SDG&E property would
leave a peninsula of unincorporated territoI)' almost surrounded by the City. Since
LAFCO is prohibited from creating unincorporated 'islands Wlless specific findings are
adopted, exclusion of the SDG&E property could have'long-tenn implications for future
annexations west of the San Miguel Ranch.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the above comrnems, please contact
me at (619) 531-540D.
Sincerely,
7/ -c.
vJ6E Cq>NVE
Loi:al Govemme
JFC;h~
3/
-., ~jUL~06r~99uL0i:56PM P&D/CTE ENGINEERS
CBL~ VIsrA ~GrXEERING
P.12/15 @012
.JI.L 02 '99 B2: lBPM
~'\\od~~ J)
CHVLA. VISTA RT.~ARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
86 EAST . r S1'REEr . C!JDLA VIST.... CALIPOBNU. 91910 . 619 or PIIOO
EACH CIIJL1) III AN INIJIYmtJAL OF GBEAT WO&'l1l
Ms, Barbara Reid
Environmental Projects Manager
City of Chula Vista .
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
R~^"r~ ,~
{..~...~,_..::t\.~ -' '-r..': 1
'JUN 2 (1 .---
l) r:.';.....,
-~~
&JLAev" ~l' ..
..--~ ...:;.. 1
"I":~~~
IIa&IID OF ~
June 24, 1999
~ -........,- --
-- CD
l........._.......n::ImJ
............. J. ~
~., IIIIInr
Sl/PERIIITEMDI!IIT
1JBIA S. GILAJ>.
RE: San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan
Draft SEIR (Third Tier EIR)
ElR-97 -o2JFB-OS3/DQ 421
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the San Miguel
Ranch Draft SEtR draft of May 1999. This project Is withIn the Chula Vista
Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through
Grade 6, Using a generation rate of .3 students per dwelling Unit. we can
ellCpect to generate 418 students from the proposed master planned
residential community of 1.394 dwelling units. ' ., .
The .District's current schools are designed to house 750 students on a
traditional calendar or single-track year-round schedule. Of our 36 elementary
schools, 20 are on traditional ten-month calendar, 14 are on single-track: year-
round calendar, and 1 is on a four-track: year-round schedule. Our newest
school. Thurgood Marshall Elementary, located at 2295 Mackenzie Creek
Road. will open on a single-track year-round schedule in July.
The District is in agreement with 'the location of the school site. With our site
a.djacent to a neighbomood park, we jointly create needed open spa.ce for
school and recreation activities. The State Department of Education must
approve the site prior to District acceptance. The District plans to participate
in a community forum to address concerns on the location of the school.
Due to the tremendous growth and enrollment in our Di5trict, it is our intent to
retain the 12.7 acre school site. Should the site be determined to be excess
property for .the purposes of a 'new school, we wiD notify appropriate parties at
thattime. . . .., -
.'
3.:<
UJ ~ ...)t I ~ 17'
JUL 05 '99 -0i:S7PM~P&D/CTE ENGINEERS
CHI:I..4 VISIA ENGIN:EE:RING
~
P.13/15 @OlJ
-TLIL az '99 az:1BPM
June 24. 199.
Ms. Barbara Raid
Page 2 of Z
The current rate of school fees for residential projects is $1.93 per .square
foot. Our portion Df the fee is $.85 per square foot However, the mechanism
for funding the proposed SChool site and the needed facilities is unclear. In
order to assure elementary facilities will be available to serve children from
this project. panicipation in a Mello-Aoos Community Facilities District Dr an
altemative financing mechanism is necessary.
Recently I spoke 10 Steve Hester, President of Trimark, and the Company
remains committed to necessary school mitigation. He emphasized the focus
on a master planned community for families.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. It you have any que5tions, please
give me a call.
SincereJy,
~~
Lowell Billings, .
Assistant Supenntendent
for Business Services & Support
LB:lh
33
/l7TAC.HM~AJT 1-
RESOLUTION NO. EIR-97-02
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF OlliLA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR-97-02) FOR THE
SAN MIGUEL RANCH SPA PLAN
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF .
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City") circulated a request for proposals to
prepare an environmental impact report for the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and selected
the fIrm of Tetra Tech Inc. with P&D Environmental Consultants (P&D) as a
subcontracter to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). On March 21,1998, the
City, Tetra Tech, Inc. and Trimark PacifIc Homes, Ltd. entered into a three-party
contract, where the City managed the preparation of the EIR, Tetra Tech Inc.
subcontracted to P & D Environmental Consultants to prepared the EIR, and Trimark
PacifIc Limited reimbursed the City for the full cost ofEIR preparation, and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was issued for public review on fIll in date, and was
processed through the State Clearinghouse; and,
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the Draft EIR on July 14, 1999; and
WHEREAS, P&D prepared a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR 97-02) on the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan; and,
WHEREAS, THE Final SEIR incorporates, by reference, the prior EIRs that
address the subject property including FEIR 90-02 and SFEIR 95-04 as well as their
associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs. FEIR
90-02 was certifIed by City Council on March 23, 1999 and SEIR 95-04 was certifIed by
Council on December 17, 1996 EIR, and;
WHEREAS, to the extent that these Findings of Fact conclude that proposed
mitigation measures outlined in the Final SEIR are feasible and have not been modifIed,
superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant
and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely
informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the Project. The adopted mitigation
measures are express conditions of approval. Other reqnirements are referenced in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings
of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project.
3'1
Resolution: EIR-97-02
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order
as follows:
I. FEIR CONTENTS
That the FEIR consists of the following:
A. Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan, FEIR 90-02
B. San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment, General Development Plan
Amendment, SEIR 95-04
(ALL HEREAFTER COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS "FSEIR 97-02"
FEIR REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
That the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed
and considered FEIR 97-02, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution), and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (Exhibit B to this Resolution), prior to approving the Project.
Copies of said Exhibits are on file in the Planning Department office.
ll.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WITH
CALIFORNIA
That the Planning Commission does hereby find that FEIR 97-02, the Findings of
Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A to this
Resolution), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B) to
this Resolution) prior to approving the Project. Copies of said Exhibits are on file
in the Planning Department office.
ill. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
That the Planning Commission finds that the FEIR 97-02 reflects the independent
judgment of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission and the City of Chula
Vista staff.
IV. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Finmngs of Fact
The Planning Commission does hereby approve, accept as its own,
incorporate as if set forth in.full herein, and make each and every one of
3.r
Resolution: EIR-97-02
Page 3
the findings contained III the Findings of Fact, Exhibit A of this
Resolution.
B. Statement of Overriding Consideration
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and imy
feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant
environmental effects caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Gnidelines
Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set
forth in Exhibit A identifying the specific economic, social and other
considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse
environmental effects acceptable.
C. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FSEIR 97-02 and in the Findings
of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit A to this Resolution, the Planning
Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures
described in the above referenced documents are feasible and will become
binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City)
assigned thereby to implement same.
D. Unfeasibility of Mitigation Measures
As more fully identified and set forth in FSEIR 97-02 and in the Findings
of Fact for the project, which is Exhibit A to this Resolution, certain
mitigation measures described in the above-referenced documents are
infeasible.
E. Unfeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in SFEIR 97-02 and in the Findings
of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit A to this Resolution, the Planning
Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the
project, which were identified as potentially feasible in FEIR 92-04, were
found not to be feasible.
F. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required in the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6; Planning
Commission hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
("Program") set forthin Exhibit"" of this Resolution, a copy of which is
3?-
Resolution: EIR-97-02
Page 4
on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Planning Commission hereby
finds that the Program is designed to enwsure that, during project
implementation, the permittee/project applicant and any other responsible
parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible
mitigation measures identified the Findings of Fact and the Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
recommends that the Cityl Council certify SFEIR 97-02.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 15th day of September, 1999 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas
Secretary - Planning Commission
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring Program
37
EXHIBITS A AND B
. Exhibit A - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are
attachments 6 and 7 to the staff report.
. Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring Program is Section 6.0 in the FSEIR, page 6-1
to page 6-16.
3J
A7I4LHMENT ~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR-97-02) FOR THE
SAN MIGUEL RANCH SPA PLAN
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City") circulated a request for proposals to
prepare an environmental impact report for the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan and selected
the firm of Tetra Tech, Inc. with P&D Environmental Consultants (P&D) as a
subcontractor to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). On March 21, 1998, the
City, Tetra Tech, Inc. and Trimark Pacific Homes, Ltd. entered into a three-party
contract, where the City managed the preparation of the EIR, Tetra Tech, Inc. with P&D
Environmental Consultants as a subcontractor prepared the EIR, and Trimark Pacific
Limited reimbursed the City for the full cost ofEIR preparation, and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was issued for public review on July 14, 1999, and was
processed through the State Clearinghouse; and,
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the Draft EIR on July 14,1999; and
WHEREAS, Tetra Tech, Inc. with P& D as a subcontractor prepared a Final
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 97-02) on the San Miguel Ranch SPA
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, THE Final SEIR incorporates, by reference, the prior EIRs that
address the subject property including the FEIR 90-02 Rancho San Miguel General
Development Plan and SEIR 95-04, San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment,
General Development Plan Amendment, as well as their associated Findings of Fact and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs. FEIR 90-02 was certified by City
Council on March 23, 1999 and the Second EIR SEIR 95-04 was certified by City
Council on December 17, 1996. and;
WHEREAS, to the extent that these Findings of Fact conclude that proposed
mitigation measures outlined in the Final SEIR are feasible and have not been modified,
superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant
and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely
informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the Project. The adopted mitigation
measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the
31'
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings
of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order
as follows:
1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on the Draft SEIR held on July 14,1999, their public hearing
on this project held on September 15, 1999 and the minutes and resolutions
resulting thererrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision-makers,
including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6,
subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of Proceedings for any claims
under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (pub. Resources Code
21000 et seq.).
II. FEIR CONTENTS
That the FEIR consists of the following:
1. Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan, FEIR 90-02
2. San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment, General Development Plan
Amendment, SEIR 95-04 (ALL HEREAFTER COLLECTIVELY
REFERRED TO AS "FSEIR 97-02"
That the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, analyzed and
considered SFEIR 97-02, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution), and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program ( Exhibit B to this Resolution), prior to approving the Project.
Copies of said Exhibits are on file in the Planning Department office.
II.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WITH
CALIFORNIA
That the Planning Commission does hereby find that FEIR 97-02, the Findings of
Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this
Resolution), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B"
to this Resolution) prior to approving the Project. Copies of said Exhibits are on
file in the Planning Department office.
ill. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
<rC~
That the Planning Commission finds that the FSEIR 97-02 reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission and the
City of Chula Vista staff.
IV. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
a. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The Planning Commission does hereby approve, accept as its own,
incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of
the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this
Resolution.
B.
Statement of Overriding Consideration
Even after the adoption of all feasible rmtIgation measures and any
feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant
environmental effects caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set
forth in Exhibit "B", identifying the specific economic, social and other
considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse
environmental effects acceptable.
C.
Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
D.
As more fully identified and set forth in FSEIR 97-02 and in the Findings
of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, the
Planning Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation
measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and
will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the
City) assigned thereby to implement same.
Infeasiility of Mitigation Measures
As more fully identified and set forth in FSEIR 97-02 and in the Findings
of Fact for the project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, certain
mitigation measures described in the above-referenced documents are
infeasible.
E.
Infeasibility of Alternatives
~
As more fully identified and set forth in SFElR 97-02 and in the Findings
of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit " " to this Resolution, the
Planning Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to
the project, which were identified as potentially feasible in FElR 92-04,
were found not to be feasible.
F.
Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required in the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6; Planning
Commission hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
("Program") set forth in Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is
on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Planning Commission hereby
finds that the Program is designed to enwsure that, during project
implementation, the permittee/project applicant and any other responsible
parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible
mitigation measures identified the Findings of Fact and the Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
recommends that the Cityl Council certify SFElR 97-02.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 15th day of September ,1999 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
------------------------------
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas
Secretary - Planning Commission
40t
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring Program
"'7L3
EXHIBITS A AND B
. Exhibit A - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are
attachments 6 and 7 to the staff report.
. Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring Program is Section 6.0 in the FSEIR, page 6-1
to page 6-16.
SLy
ATTACHMENT 6 - 7
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA
RE: SAN MIGUEL RANCH
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT (E1R-97-02)
State Clearinghouse Number 96051038
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for this project addressed the
potential environmental effects of approving an annexation to the City of Chula Vista, Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Tentative Maps, and other discretionary decisions. The SPA is consistent
with the approved General Development Plan which proposed a mix of land use including
residential, commercial/retail, school, community and neighborhood parks, circulation, a trail
system, and open space.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would provide a master planned residential community with varying residential
densities including low, low-medium, medium, and medium-high; and develop community facilities,
including an elementary school, a community service facility, community and neighborhood parks,
and a retail commercial center. Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the SPA Plan land use
categories and a comparison between the amended GP A and the SPA Plan.
The amended GDP for San Miguel Ranch provides the major circulation system and access points
for the project site, but not the internal circulation system that serves the residential neighborhood.
Mt. Miguel Road is proposed as a four-lane Class 1 collector road that would provide an important
link to help implement the City's Circulation Element by connecting East H Street to Bonita Road.
This roadway would carry traffic to local collectors within the development area of the project. It
would also provide access to the proposed SR-125, connect to Proctor Valley Road on the west side
of the project, and improve circulation for safety and emergency services.
East H Street (west ofMt. Miguel Road) and Proctor Valley Road (east ofMt. Miguel Road), which
is designated as a scenic highway, is proposed as a six -lane prime arterial. Secondary roads,
primarily residential collectors, would serve the rest of the community and take access from Mt.
Miguel Road.
Findings of Fact
-1-
SLJ
Drcift3
September I, 1999
Table 1
Land Use Summary Table for
San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan
Residential Land Uses GDP SPA
Low (0-3) L K 86 60.5 1.4
L L 71 62.2 1.1
Low-Medium (3-6) LM J ]62 50.5 3.2
LM F 47 12.7 3.7
M G 68 21.8 3.1
LM H 137 33.2 4.1
LM I 118 31.7 3.7
M E 141 29.7 4.7
Medium (6-11) M B 219 11.4 19.2
LM C 100 13.1 7.6
LM D 116 22.9 5.1
Medium High (12-17) MH A 129 7.2 17.9
Residential Total 1,394 356.9 3.9
Non-Residential Land Uses
Commercial Uses RC N 14.3
Institutional Uses ES S 13.7
CS M 4.6
OS (So. Parcel) OSI 244.3
Easements E OSI 6.3
Community Park CP OS2 21.6
Neighborhood Park NP OSI 3.5
Circulation uses SR-125 49.6
Major Streets 28.3
PROJECT TOTAL 1,394 743.1
Findings of Fact
-2-
c,L~
Drqft 3
September I, 1999
Table 2
Land Use Comparison Table for
San Miguel Ranch GDP vs. SPA
Land Use Designation GDP and SPA
Residential Uses
R-L - Low 132.3 122.7 184 157 1.4 1.3
R-LM - Low Medium ]65.8 ]64.] 624 680 3.8 4.1
R-M - Medium 67.5 62.9 473 428 7.0 6.8
R-MH - Medium High 7.8 7.2 113 ]29 14.5 ]7.9
Subtotal 373.4 356.9 1,394 ],394 3.7 3.9
Commercial Uses
RC - Retail Commercial
Institutional Uses
CS - Community Service 7.5 4.6
ES - Elementary School 12.4 13.7
Subtotal ]9.9 ]8.3
Open Space Uses
CP - Community Park 19.0 21.6
NP - Neighborhood Park 3.0* 3.5
OS - South Parcel/Natural 213.2 244.3
E - Utility Easements/Parkways 15.4 6.3
Subtotal 83.4 77.9
PROJECT TOTAL 738.2 743.1 1,394 1,394 1.9 1.9
Note: The 3.0-acre Neighborhood Park was included in Medium Residential land use acreage of67.5 acres.
Findings of Fact
-3-
'-17
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
III. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS/APPROVALS
Project approval by the City of Chula Vista would require the following discretionary actions:
. Annexation to the City of Chula Vista;
. Approval of the SPA Plan; and
. Approval of Tentative Map(s).
The following state and federal agencies may also be required to take discretionary action before the
applicant could implement the project: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USA CO E), California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG), and the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For the purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, and pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6, the administrative record of the City Council decision on the environmental
analysis ofthis Project shall consist of the following:
. The Draft and Final Subsequent EIR (97-02) Third Tier EIR for the Project, including
appendices and technical reports;
. The Draft and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) 95-04 for the Project,
including appendices and technical reports;
. The Draft, Final, and Supplemental San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan EIR
90-02, including appendices and technical reports;
. The Sphere of Influence Update Study and Final Program EIR for the proposed City of Chula
Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update;
. The Draft EIR/EIS for the Route Location, Adoption, and Construction of State Route
(SR) 125 between SR-905 on Otay Mesa to SR-54 in Spring Valley, prepared by Caltrans,
including appendices and technical reports;
. All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters, and other planning documents prepared
by the Applicant, the planning and environmental consultants, and the City that are before
the decision-makers as determined by the City Clerk;
. All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies to the decision-
makers in connection with SEIR on the Project;
Findings of Fact
-4-
vi"
Draft 3
September I, 1999
. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings, and public hearings held
by the City of Chula Vista, or video tapes where transcripts are not available or adequate;
. AIty documentary or other evidence submitted at public meetings and public hearings; and
. Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which they considered including,
but not limited to, the following:
Chula Vista General Plan (Update) - 2010;
Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance; and
Chula Vista Threshold/Standards Policy.
For purposes of the City's environmental analysis of the Project, the record of proceedings shall be
limited to the documents considered by the City of Chula Vista at the time of its decision on the
Project (Western States Petroleum Association v. Superior Court, (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 565 [38
Cal.Rptr.2d 139]).
V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (emphasis added). The
same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant
effects" (emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific
economic, social or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation
measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented,
in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for
which EIRs are required (see Pub. Resources Code, ~21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, ~15091,
subd. (a)). For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the
approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible
conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
as identified in the Final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, ~15091, subd. (a)(1)). The second permissible
finding is that "[ s ]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd.
(a)(2)). The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR" (CEQA
Findings of Fact
-5-
'f7
Draft 3
September I, 1999
Guidelines, 915091, subd. (a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to
mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines
Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Vallev v.
Board of Supervisors ("Goleta If') (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 {276 Cal. Rptr. 410]).
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives ofa project (City of Del Mar v.
City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal. Rptr. 898]). '" [F]easibility' under
CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing
of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see also Sequovah
Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182]).
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental
effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must therefore glean the
meaning of these terms nom the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code
Section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather
than "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the
policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects" (Pub. Resources
Code, 921002).
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation
measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast, the
term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially
reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less than significant level.
These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners
Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr.842], in which the
Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid
significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the
significant impacts in question (e.g., the "loss of biological resources") less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a
particular significant effect is "avoid[ ed] or substantially lessen[ ed]," these findings, for purposes
of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less than
significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.
Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental
effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless
fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise
Findings of Fact
-6-
s-~
Draft 3
September I, 1999
occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA
Guidelines, g15091, subd. (a), (b)).
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened
either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior
alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project
if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons
why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse
environmental effects" (CEQA Guidelines, gg15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources
Code, 921081, subd. (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of
approving... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is
necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are
responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those
decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576).
VI. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City hereby binds
itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational,
but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when City decision-
makers formally approve the Project.
The mitigation measures are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently
with these [mdings, and will be effectuated through the process of constructing and implementing
the Project.
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for the Project and has been adopted
concurrently with these Findings (see Pub. Resources Code, 921081.6, subd. (a)(I)). The City will
use the MMP to track compliance with Project mitigation measures. The MMP will remain available
for public review during the compliance period.
VIII. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The following summary briefly describes effects determined to be less than significant in the
preparation of the EIR:
Land Use
No significant impacts to land use were identified (SEIR Section 3.1).
Findings of Fact
-7-
<)/
Draft 3
September I, 1999
Finding
The land uses associated with the SPA are consistent with those identified for the GDP and analyzed
in the GDP EIR. The project did not conflict with any land use plan or policy, physically divide a
community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan.
Public Services
No significant impacts to water were identified (SEIR Section 3.7. J).
No significant impacts to sewage were identified (SEIR Section 3.7.2).
No significant project impacts to police protection were identified (SEIR Section 3.7.3).
No significant impacts to fire protection were identified (SEIR Section 3.7.4).
No significant impact to emergency medical service were identified (SEIR Section 3.7.5).
No significant impacts to gas and electric were identified (SEIR Section 3.7.7).
No significant impacts to storm drains and water quality were identified (SEIR Section 3.7.9).
Parks Recreation and Open Space
No significant impacts to parks, recreation, and open space were identified (SEIR Section 3.8).
Direct Significant Effects, Mitigation
The San Miguel Ranch GDP SEIR and attendant Findings of Fact impose numerous requirements
to be addressed at the SPA and Tentative Map level of planning. To ensure compliance with the
requirements set forth in the previous Final SEIR, this section sets forth the applicable requirements
from the GDP findings for each resource area.
LandformNisual Quality
Significant Effect
A comparison between the GDP and SPA Grading Plans shows that the SPA design reduces the
limits of grading by approximately 32 acres, a 7 percent reduction from the GDP. The total quantity
of grading is also reduced by approximately 2 million cubic yards, a 21 percent decrease from the
GDP Grading Plan. The majority of this reduction occurs on the west side ofSR-125 in order to be
more sensitive to the general configuration of the landforms in this area. The total quantity of
grading has been reduced from an average of20,000 cubic yards per graded acre as shown on the
GDP, to 17,000 cubic yards per graded acre, a reduction of 15 percent. Notwithstanding these
substantial reductions in grading, the development of the San Miguel Ranch will still require an
extensive quantity of grading with alteration of topography into padded and terraced building sites,
and the landform impacts are considered significant.
Findings of Fact
-8-
S- ol..
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
Because of the extensive quantity of grading (average of over 17,000 cubic yards per acre) resulting
in the substantial alteration of the topography into padded and terraced building sites, the landform
alteration impacts are considered significant.
Views to Mother Miguel and San Miguel Mountains from a short portion of East H Street that
extends through the southernmost tip of the San Miguel Ranch project would be modified by grading
and development associated with the proposed project. The mountains would continue to be in the
background view; however, the foreground view would change from hillsides and landforms
dominated by natural vegetation to residential development characterized by landscaped
manufactured slopes, ranging in height rrom 50 feet to about 100 feet, and single family residences.
The impacts to scenic roadway views from this portion of the proposed project are considered to be
significant.
Visual impacts to the portion of East H Street (scenic roadway) views are considered to be
significant.
Because of the magnitude of the manufactured slopes (3 of which exceed 100 feet), and the fact that
these slopes are visible from public viewpoints, the visual impacts are considered significant.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project
impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations;
however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are
made binding on the Applicant through these Findings.
. In developing the SPA Grading Plan, the development design was modified to minimize
slopes up against open space and reduce the overall earthwork by over 20 percent from the
GDP grading design. Detailed earthwork calculations indicate that the GDP Grading Plan
would have required 9,783,000 cubic yards, and the earthwork based on the SPA Grading
Plan is 7,699,000 cubic yards.
. The SPA Grading Plan makes extensive use of curvilinear streets to help development
conform to the current landforms and minimize grading. The design also uses cul-de-sacs
to allow street and lot grades to work with the topography, rather than requiring more
extensive cut and fill grading, while utilizing the resulting slope and open space areas to
retain pedestrian connections and trails within and between neighborhoods. Single-loaded
streets are also used where needed to preserve open space and minimize slopes.
Findings of Fact
-9-
S-3
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
. The landform is to be rounded as much as possible to blend into the natural grade. When
slopes cannot be rounded, vegetation is to be used to simulate a contoured landform through
the use of landscaping techniques to create the effect of a horizontally and vertically
undulating slope terrain.
. Transitional slopes and graded areas adjacent to natural, ungraded terrain are to be planted
with native and naturalized plant species to provide a subtle blending between manufactured
and natural slopes, and to meet fuel modification requirements.
. Contour grading is used in some of the setback areas outside of the rigbt-of-way along Mount
Miguel Road to reinforce the parkway character of the roadway. The landscape setbacks
exceed the minimum City requirements along Mount Miguel Road,JIIld will be graded with
slopes varying from 5:1 to 2:1. The minimum 2:1 slopes along these roadways is used in
locations where necessary to preserve Otay tarplant areas, where needed to minimize
encroachment into the open space, or in 2: 1 downslope conditions where the slopes are not
visible from the roadway.
. Curvilinear streets and slopes are used to conform with the existing topography, to provide
visual interest and to minimize straight, hard-edged slopes.
A. Biological Resources
Significant Effect
Significant impacts to a variety of sensitive habitats and individual species would occur as a result
of the. project.
Wetlands. Direct elimination by filling of wetlands and potential degradation or elimination by
placement of wetlands within residential lot boundaries could result in impacts to less than 1.5 acres
ofUSACOE and CDFG jurisdictional resources. Two sensitive species of plants, San Diego marsh
elder, and spiny rush would be impacted.
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. The SPA Plan would result in the elimination ofa total of 137.3 acres
of coastal sage scrub. This loss is significant because of the sensitive species located in these areas.
Several thousand coast barrel cactus individuals on-site would be impacted. California adolphia is
also abundant on the project site, with the two largest populations occurring in the eastern portion
of the South Parcel. Both of these populations would be impacted. In addition, small populations
ofMunz's sage would be impacted in the southern portions near the property boundary. All of these
impacts are considered significant.
Annual Grassland. The extensive loss of non-native grassland habitat is considered cumulatively
adverse but not significant, except where it contains large populations of rare native plants such as
Findings of Fact
.]0-
S-(
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
Palmer's grapplinghook and Otay tarplant. A large portion of Otay tarplant would be impacted by
the development of the SPA Plan. Impacts to these species are considered significant. In addition,
a large population (about 11,000 individuals) of Palmer's grapplinghook exist in the south-central
portion of the site and would be impacted. A total of 330 acres of annual grassland would be
impacted by the proposed SPA Plan. Surrounding grasslands are rapidly being developed or are
proposed for development which leaves remaining foraging habitat an important cumulative loss.
Wildlife. Significant impacts to wildlife may also result from the project. Fragmentation of wildlife
habitat and increased impacts from pets, lighting, noise, and wild fires would reduce the quality of
the existing habitat for many large mammalian predators, birds of prey, and their prey species.
Movement corridors for wildlife identified in the northern sections of the project site would be
impacted by the placement of roads or by the removal of vegetation that may affect wildlife
movement. Once the predator-prey interactions are disrupted, the resulting quality of wildlife habitat
and existence is reduced.
Reptiles. Sensitive reptiles, including the San Diego horned lizard and orange-throated whiptail,
would be incrementally affected by the implementation of the proposed development on the project
site. The San Diego horned lizard and orange-throated whiptail are expected throughout coastal sage
scrub on-site. The retention of the large majority of Diegan coastal sage scrub should enable these
species to continue to exist in the area. The impacts to these species are considered significant.
Birds. The wildlife species of highest sensitivity in the upland habitat is the coastal California
gnatcatcher. The proposed project would significantly impact this species. Approximately 11 to 12
pairs of gnatcatchers and 5 single males would be affected by the development of the SPA Plan.
Only 200 pairs of coast cactus wren are known to remain in San Diego County (Rea and Weaver
1991). Of the 11 pairs on and near the project site, 3 pairs would be eliminated as a result of the
proposed development.
Five other sensitive upland bird species were detected on-site: loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow,
blue-gray gnatcatcher, rufous-crowned sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. The displacement of
these species by development is considered significant.
The project site, supports great horned owl, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk,
American kestrel, and black-shouldered kites. Cooper's hawks are common in the vicinity, but
apparently did not nest on the project site. Northern harriers were also observed on-site. The habitat
is attractive to a wide variety of raptors which indicates its high quality for these birds.
Foraging habitat would be reduced for a number of raptor species occurring on the site or having the
potential to occur in the project area. These impacts are considered significant.
Mammals. Large carnivorous mammals, such as mountain lion, bobcat, and fox could be reduced
due to increases in human activity and loss of habitat. The bobcat would probably be most affected
because this species currently uses the property. Reductions of habitat for this species are considered
Findings of Fact
-11-
s-s-
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
significant. The ringtail, if resident, would be affected mostly by an increase in human activity as
sufficient habitat would continue to exist on-site to support ringtails.
Deer corridors in the northern portion of the site would be significantly impacted by the proposed
development. Unless the off-site northern areas become developed, movement can occur around the
northern portion of the site and through the San Diego Gas and Electric easement after
implementation of the project.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 1509l(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate these project
impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations; however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of
specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are
made binding on the Applicant through these Findings.
The SPA Plan proposes, as partial mitigation for the impacts, to preserve portions of the South Parcel
for biological habitat purposes. The mitigation measures for this project will include implementation
of the previously agreed upon requirements established within a Conservation Bank Agreement, as
well as site specific mitigation measures that are proposed as a result of analyzing the more refined
SPA Plan. Emerald Properties Corporation, the former project applicant and former owner of the
project site, signed a Conservation Bank Agreement with the USFWS and the CDFG in August 1997
to devote the North Parcel as part of an ecological reserve for the preservation and protection of
sensitive species and habitat.
According to this agreement, the 1,852-acre North Parcel has been established as a conservation
bank; 500 acres of this area has been acquired by the USFWS. The North Parcel, which is
recognized by the MSCP as consisting of "Very High Quality Multi-Species Habitat Values,"
including coastal sage scrub that is predominantly of "Very High Quality Habitat" and as providing
core gnatcatcher populations at a high density, would also be used to sell conservation bank credits
to third party purchasers in need of mitigation of biological impacts off-site. Establishment of this
conservation bank provides an excellent opportunity to implement the on-going regional biological
planning efforts in Southwest San Diego County by conserving highly valuable resources within an
area which is recognized as an essential part of a regional biological preserve system. Additionally,
the North Parcel serves as an integral linkage parcel to the Sweetwater River Corridor, South County
Segment of the County of San Diego's Subarea Plan, and the City ofChula Vista's Subarea Plan.
The Conservation Bank Agreement requires that 146 acres of open space, containing significant
populations of Otay tarplant, be maintained on the South Parcel and 166 mitigation credits be
obtained from the San Miguel Mitigation Bank (North Parcel) to mitigate project-related impacts
Findings of Fact
-12-
),
Draft 3
September I, 1999
on biological resources. As mentioned previously, this agreement was acknowledged within the
final rule published in the Federal Register that granted threatened status to the Otay tarplant.
The following mitigation measures for SPA Plan-related impacts would partially reduce impacts to
the identified biological resources:
. Before any impacts occur to threatened or endangered species. The applicant must receive
"take" authorization. This may occur by the City adopting (and having approval by USFWS
and CDFG) a Sub Area Plan of the Multiple Species Comprehensive Plan (MSCP). If the
City has not adopted their Sub Area Plan, the applicant may be able to obtain authorization
("take") from the County of San Diego under their "take" authorization, if concurrence is
reached between the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego (coordination with
U8FWS and CDFG), will also be required. If take authorization is not obtained from the
City or County, project specific take authorization would be required from the USFW8 and
CDFG to impact threatened or endangered species listed by the federal and state
governments.
. The applicant will also be required to prepare a Management Plan for the Otay Tarplant
preserves prior to approval of any grading permit adjacent to the OS-I, OS-3, OS-6, and 08-7
planning areas (these conditions incorporated into the Tentative Map).
. Graded areas along roadways shall be hydroseeded with native plant species consistent with
surrounding natural vegetation. This would help to minimize erosion and runoff, as well as
improve the area aesthetically by making it visually compatible with adjacent natural areas.
As part of this effort, a revegetation plan shall be developed with the help of a revegetation
specialist with experience in coastal sage scrub and similar habitats. The revegetation plan
shall be prepared by the applicant and a qualified biologist.
. The use of non-invasive plants in landscaping areas adjacent to open space will be required
for all areas outside of actual lot boundaries. The final species list will be reviewed by a
biologist to verify that invasive species are not incorporated. Additionally, homeowners will
be encouraged to use non-invasive species in their landscaping adjacent to open space.
Iceplant shall not be used in lieu of fire-resistant native revegetation due to associated slope
failures and the invasive nature of the species.
. Grading activities within 200 feet of areas of identified coastal California gnatcatcher pairs,
or their associated coastal sage scrub habitat, shall not be conducted during the breeding or
nesting season (March 1 through August 15). This will also help in avoiding the breeding
season of many other species of birds. The applicant will adhere to all applicable
requirements offederal and state codes (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CDFG Code
3503.5). Grading activities shall be supervised by a qualified biologist.
Findings of Fact
-13-
5'7
Draft 3
September I, 1999
. Site preparation activities, especially staging area operations and maintenance rows for heavy
machinery, shall be restricted to areas not being placed in open space. Carelessness on the
part of equipment operators can result in the destruction of areas that have been designated
for preservation. Areas adjacent to open space shall be fenced prior to initiation of
construction activities. A debris fence shall be installed prior to excavation in areas where
grading is up-slope of sensitive biological habitats. These recommendations should be
incorporated into a construction monitoring plan approved by the City of Chula Vista.
. All new and proposed parking lots and developed areas in and adjacent to the natural open
space must not drain directly into the open space. All developed and paved areas must
prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, and other
elements that might degrade or harm the natural environment or ecosystem processes within
the open space. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural
detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. These systems should be
maintained approximately once a year, or as often as needed, to ensure proper functioning.
Maintenance should include dredging out sediments if needed, removing exotic plant
materials, and adding chemical-neutralizing compounds (e.g., clay compounds) when
necessary and appropriate.
. Recreational uses that use chemicals, potentially toxic or impactive to wildlife, sensitive
species, habitat, or water quality will incorporate methods on their site to reduce impacts
caused by the application and/or drainage of such materials into the open space. Such
methods should include drainage/detention basins, swales, or holding areas with non-
invasive grasses or wetland-type native vegetation to filter out the toxic materials, and should
be maintained on a regular basis. Where applicable, this requirement should be incorporated
into leases on publicly-owned property.
. Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the open space should be directed away from the
open space. Where necessary, development should provide adequate shielding with non-
invasive plant materials (preferably native), berrning, and/or other methods to protect the
open space and sensitive species from night lighting.
. A mitigation plan for impacts to onsite drainages will be prepared to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Review Coordinator to mitigate up to 1.5 acres of jurisdictional drainages.
The mitigation plan will be implemented prior to or concurrent with impacts to USACOE
and CDFG jurisdictional resources.
. The applicant will also be required to prepare a Management Plan for the Otay tarplant
preserves prior to approval of any map adjacent to the OS-I, OS-3, OS-6, and OS-7 planning
areas.
Findings of Fact
-14-
s-g-
Draft 3
September I, ] 999
B. Transportation
Significant Effect
No project-specific impacts on transportation would result during the phasing of project buildout as
long as improvements to the circulation network are completed. Significant project-related"interim
impacts could still result, however, if planned improvements to the circulation system are not
constructed as demand is created (Draft SEIR, pp. 3.3-13 to 3.3-15, 3.4-53 to 3.4-63). The City of
Chula Vista has such a plan in place pursuant to the City's Growth Management Ordinance. In
contrast, the County of San Diego does not have a financing and phasing plan to ensure that
infrastructure improvements to the circulation system are constructed concurrent with need.
Accordingly, project-related impacts on County roadways and intersections could be significant on
an interim basis in the absence of infrastructure improvements within the jurisdiction of and under
the control of the County.
The same is true of freeway impacts under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. The San Miguel Ranch
project exceeds the CMP threshold of contributing more than 2,400 daily trips to a freeway segment,
which is considered a significant impact. All freeway impacts are considered to be significant and
unmitigable as project-related mitigation measures cannot alleviate impacts. For the buildout with
SR-125 condition, almost all freeway segments impacts are found to be significant and unmitigable
as City-imposed, project-related mitigation measures cannot provide adequate mitigation to return
traffic operations to acceptable levels of service.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project
impact to below a level of significance. AB described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations;
however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures
A deficiency plan will be prepared by Caltrans, with input from the City to rectify freeway impacts.
If a funding mechanism is established between the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego
for cumulative traffic impacts, the applicant will be required to pay its proportionate share
contribution for project-related impacts.
Findings of Fact
-15-
~
Draft 3
September I, 1999
C. Air Quality
Significant Effect
PMIO emissions would exceed the threshold 'of significance for the first year of construction activities
and would be considered significant.
Motor vehicle emissions would be the primary source of pollutants resulting from implementation
of the proposed project. The proposed project is estimated to generate 29,284 daily trips, which are
equivalent to approximately 201,633 vehicle miles per day (VMD). Estimated daily emissions
associated with project-generated VMDs would exceed the thresholds of significance for all criteria
pollutants with the exception ofPMIO' As a result, the proposed project would create a significant
impact on air quality.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project
impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations;
however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures
To reduce short-term pollutant emissions during the construction phase, the following mitigation
measures shall be incorporated into the SPA Plan:
. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for
emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction.
. Disturbed areas shall be hydro seeded, landscaped, or developed as soon as possible and as
directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
. Trucks hauling fill material shall be covered.
. A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces.
. To control dust raised by grading activities, the graded area shall be watered twice a day.
Other mitigation measures shall be considered and implemented upon City approval. Such
measures may include, but are not limited to, phasing grading so relatively smaller areas are
exposed and revegetating graded areas as rapidly as possible.
Findings of Fact
-16-
(po
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
F. Noise
Significant Effect
Significant noise levels would occur at residences adjacent to Mt. Miguel Road and East H Street.
finding
Pursuantto Section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final SEIR.
Mitigation Measures
. To reduce noise levels at sensitive receptor locations, particularly residences within the
project site, to acceptable levels, a noise wall along the following locations shall be installed:
Eastern boundary of Neighborhood D along Mt. Miguel Road;
Northern boundary of Neighborhood G along Mt. Miguel Road;
Southwestern/southern boundary of Neighborhood H along Mt. Miguel Road;
Southern boundary of Neighborhood f along Mt. Miguel Road;
Northern boundary of Neighborhood A along East H Street; and
Noise wall also needed adjacent to Neighborhoods B and C along Mt. Miguel Road.
The noise wall shall be erected along the rear property lines of the locations identified above, shall
have a maximum height of six feet, and shall be of solid masonry construction with a material weight
of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and which would not allow any air space along their entire
length. This noise wall would serve as a sound attenuation barrier to reduce exterior noise along Mt.
Miguel Road and East H Street by 15 dBA.
E. Public Services and Utilities-Schools
Significant Effect
Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to school facilities.
Impact fees that the affected school districts could levy against the proposed project under current
state law are widely recognized as inadequate to meet the needs of the school districts. Because
current state law prohibits the City of Chula Vista from imposing additional or other mitigation
measures for project-related impacts on schools, the impact is considered significant and not fully
mitigable.
Findings of Fact
-]7-
(q(
Draft 3
September ], 1999
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project
impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations;
however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will partially reduce project related impacts
to below a level of significance:
Funding for the school shall be in compliance with state law in effect at the time of building permits.
F. Cultural Resources
Sil!Ilificant Effect
Development of the proposed project would result in a significant impact to cultural resources from
direct and indirect impacts. Based on the proposed project, five of the ten archaeological sites in the
proposed project site that have been identified as unique would be directly impacted by development
activities, including excavation, grading and construction. The remaining live unique sites, and a
portion of a sixth site, would be preserved within open space areas. Additionally, indirect impacts
to cultural resources would have the potential to occur at all of the sites as a result of the increase
in population associated with occupation of the residential development. These new residents would
use the open space areas. One of the proposed elements of the project would be the construction of
trails. These trails may pass over or near several archaeological sites that may be considered unique,
thus creating a situation in which the site may be subjected to disturbance from pedestrian or
equestrian traffic and relic hunting. This would also be considered a significant impact to cultural
resources.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final SEIR.
Mitigation Measures
. A data recovery program shall be established for the four archaeological sites, which would
be directly impacted by excavation and grading activities. These sites include 501-4529,
501-4580,501-12066, and 05112084N. The data recovery program shall include a detailed
procedure for collection of information from the surface and subsurface artifact deposits
Findings of Fact
-18-
&J....
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
within the framework of an approved research design. The data recovery program shall also
establish procedures to be followed should a previously undiscovered site be located during
project development. The research design must be submitted to the City of Chula Vista for
approval prior to the initiation of any mitigation programs.
. The six unique sites that will not be directly impacted but may be indirectly impacted shall
be protected within easements to mitigate potential indirect impacts. Sites requiring
preservation include: SDI-4529, SDI-4525, SDI-8657 (part), SDI-8658, SDI-12063, and
SDI-12,064. Any trails that may be planned to pass through the archaeology site will be
reviewed by an archaeologist to determine potential impacts and mitigations.
. A qualified archaeologist shall monitor the site during excavation and grading of the project
as well as during any project-related off-site utility improvements to ensure that any
significant deposits, artifacts, or human remains not identified during the evaluation phase
may be analyzed prior to the destruction of the archaeological sites. Any previously
undiscovered sites will require evaluation in accordance with the approved data recovery
program.
. In the event that any new or previously undetected portions of an archaeological site are
encountered during the grading of the project orrelated improvements, the grading shall be
diverted by the monitoring archaeologist to allow the site to be evaluated for uniqueness. If
the site is found to be unique, grading impacts would be considered significant and must be
mitigated to below a level of significance through either a data recovery program, as
described above, or preservation.
. Wherever feasible parks, green space, or other open space will be planned to provide
protection for unique archaeological sites. Unique sites within these open space areas that
are located proximal to a pedestrian and/or equestrian trail will be preserved through capping
or covering with a layer of soil. Any capping or landscaping within the archaeological
preserve must be reviewed by the Project Archaeologist and the City will ensure that sites
will not be impacted by these actions.
G. Paleontological Resources
Significant Effect
Impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities cut into geological formations
and destroy the buried fossil remains. The project area is underlain by a variety of formations, some
which are known to contain fossils in the surrounding area (Proctor Valley/EastlakeIBonita). Based
on a review of the concept plan, it appears that extensive development would occur in those areas
underlain by formations, which have a moderate to high potential to contain paleontological
resources, including the Otay and Sweetwater formations. These formations occur in the Horseshoe
Findings of Fact
-19-
(Pj
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
Bend and Gobblers Knob area. Mass excavation in these formations would result in significant
impacts to paleontological resources.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project, which will avoid the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final SEIR.
Mitigation Measures
To mitigate or minimize potential impacts to paleontological resources to below a level of
significance, the following measures shall be implemented during project grading.
. Prior to issuance of development permits, the project applicant shall present a letter to the
City of Chula Vista indicating that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out
an appropriate mitigation program (a qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with
an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures
and techniques).
. A qualified paleontologist shall be at any pre-grade meetings to consult with grading and
excavation contractors. At this time the units (mudstone and gritstone) of the Sweetwater
formation should be located for use by the paleontologist.
. A paleontologist monitor shall be onsite at all times during the original cutting of previously
undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive formations (i.e., Otay and Sweetwater-mudstone
portion only) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite on at least a half-time basis during the original
cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of moderately sensitive formations (i.e., debris
flow deposits and Sweetwater-gritstone portion only) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
. A paleontological monitor shall periodically inspect original cuts in deposits with an
unknown resource sensitivity (i.e., streamlquatemary deposits).
. In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low or moderately sensitive formations
it may be necessary to increase the per day field monitoring time. Conversely, iffossils are
not being found then the monitoring should be reduced.
. A paleontological monitor is not needed during grading of rocks with no resource sensitivity
(i.e., Santiago Peak V oJcanics-meta-voJcanic portion).
Findings of Fact
-20-
(Pf
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection
and salvage of fossil material. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction
of a qualified paleontologist.
. When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover
them. In most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However,
some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended
salvage time. In these instances the paleontologist (or monitor) shall be allowed to
temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely
manner. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil remains such as isolated
mammal teeth, it may be necessary, in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing operation
at the site.
. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program
shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted and cataloged.
. Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall then
be deposited (with the owners permission) in a scientific institution with paleontological
collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
. A fmal summary report shall be completed which outlines the results of the mitigation
program. This report should include discussion of the methods used, stratigraphic section
exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
IX. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connections with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects"
(public Resources Code Section 21082.2b). Several development proposals have been submitted
for consideration or have been recently approved by the City of Chula Vista in proximity to San
Miguel Ranch. These current or probable future development proposals would affect many of the
same natural resources and public infrastructure as San Miguel Ranch. Several potentially
significant cumulative impacts are associated with development of San Miguel Ranch in conjunction
with these surrounding development projects.
The proposed project along with other related projects will result in the following cumulative
environmental effects: Biological Resources, Transportation, Air Quality, Noise, and Schools.
The cumulative impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided. As described in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has detennined that these cumulative impacts have
been reduced to an acceptable level when balanced against specific overriding considerations. The
sections below define each of the cumulative impact issues and proved the reasons why they are
significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures adopted to substantially lessen or avoid them,
Findings of Fact
-21-
&S-
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
or the reasons why proposed mitigation measures are infeasible due to specific, economic, social,
or other considerations.
A. Biological Resources
Significant Effect
Wetlands. Significant cumulative impacts would occur to 1.5 acres of wetland habitat loss, and
impacts to two sensitive species: San Diego marsh elder and spiny rush.
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. The SPA Plan would result in the elimination of a total of 137.3 acres
of coastal sage scrub. This loss is cumulatively significant because of the sensitive species located
in these areas.
Several thousand coast barrel cactus individuals on-site would be impacted. Califomia adolphia is
also abundant on the project site, with the two largest populations occurring in the eastern portion
ofthe South Parcel. Both of these populations would be impacted. In addition, small populations
ofMunz's sage would be impacted in the southem portions near the property boundary. All of these
impacts are considered cumulatively significant.
Annual Grassland. The extensive loss of non-native grassland habitat is considered cumulatively
significant A total of 330 acres of annual grassland would be impacted by the proposed SPA Plan.
Surrounding grasslands are rapidly being developed or are proposed for development which leaves
remaining foraging habitat an important cumulative loss.
Wildlife. Significant impacts would occur due to the direct impacts to the habitat of various wildlife
species.
Other significant cumulative impacts to wildlife may also result from the project. Fragmentation of
wildlife habitat and increased impacts from pets, lighting, noise, and wild fires would reduce the
quality of the existing habitat for many large mammalian predators, birds of prey, and their prey
species. Movement corridors for wildlife identified in the northem sections of the project site would
be impacted by the placement of roads or by the removal of vegetation that may affect wildlife
movement. Once the predator-prey interactions are disrupted, the resulting quality of wildlife habitat
and existence is reduced.
Reptiles. The impacts to sensitive reptile species are considered cumulatively significant.
Birds. Approximately 11 to 12 pairs of gnatcatchers and 5 single males would be affected by the
development of the SPA Plan. This is considered cumulatively significant.
Only 200 pairs of coast cactus wren are known to remain in San Diego County. Of the 11 pairs on
and near the project site, 3 pairs would be eliminated as a result of the proposed development. This
is considered a significant cumulative impact.
Findings of Fact
-22-
~~
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
Five other sensitive upland bird species were detected on-site: loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, blue-
gray gnatcatcher, rufous-crowned sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. The displacement of these
species by development is considered cumulatively significant.
The project site, as reported from 1991 survey information, supports great horned owl, golden eagle,
red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, American kestrel, and black-shouldered kites. Cooper's
hawks are common in the vicinity, but apparently did not nest on the project site. Northern harriers
were also observed on-site. The habitat is attractive to a wide variety of raptors which indicates its
high quality for these birds. These impacts are considered cumulatively significant.
Mammals. Large carnivorous mammals, such as mountain lion, bobcat, and fox could be reduced
due to increases in human activity and loss of habitat. Reductions of habitat for this species are
considered cumulatively significant. Deer corridors in the northern portion of the site would be
significantly impacted by the proposed development.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project
impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations;
however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
B. Transportation
Sil!Ilificant Effect
Freeway Segments
As with interim Year 2010 conditions, almost all freeway segment impacts are found to be
significant and unmitigable because proposed improvements have not been identified that provide
adequate mitigation to return traffic operations to acceptable levels of service (Table 3). These
impacts are identified in this analysis in order to facilitate the transportation plannin.g efforts of
Caltrans and SANDAG and to indicate that the San Miguel Ranch Project Team remains committed
to participating in freeway deficiency planning under CMP guidelines. This long-range impact
identification process is a critical factor in developing strategies to improve the performance of the
regional transportation network as it relates to Southbay freeway operations. Upgrading 1-805 to a
ten-lane facility is a long-range mitigation need. The City ofChula Vista and the project applicant,
along with all other Southbay jurisdictions and land developers should participate in the multi-
agency study team approach to developing freeway deficiency plans.
Findings of Fact
-23-
&7
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
'"
....
CJ
'"
c..
5
....
.... '"
=....
'" =
CJ '"
= 5
.- '"
= ..
01).-
.- =
000'
"" ~'"
'!"i)~
.c.:: =
"'.... =
~.!~
= '"
e~
= .-
U~
"''0
= =
i:''''
'"
5
5
=
00
.... ,,;
r.8,Bu
s::: C':I ~
..=-
-"';\::
0.;>"
"'~ -
g B
,,""
'u~~
t.+::~~
""" .....
""coo
go tf3 .5
Q;):;;5
()~:-E
ClCIJ~
'"
~ "
..E .:::
{/) ctI ctS tu
.:: 15 'E ;;
""' .... QJ E
..g ~ E::s Q)
::s Q) U s:::
:-9 ~ t.~ 0
.t: .s .5 ::: ~ Z
S::=_o..c
o QJ :::s..... t\1
(,)u...c1:i""'
.... U r..,D Q)
o ..... (.)._ "t:I
QJ -~ .J:j"t;j
'0' ea to-i = c::
A::~.t:88
'"
"
;..
""
..
o
" I>::
" c
.t:J 0
CIJ '"
= Q) ~
""u
.g.t:J..c
o CIJ 0-
o .. ..
"..~ 50
;;>"" "
,g;:::Gj
I,f)B~
0.,.,0
00",-
~-~
.. I I,f)
""I>::~
LI(~tZ1
1>::.". ..
CIJ.,.,.,.,
, 0
1>::00
.tZ)~
'"
~
~
'"
'"
d::
o ~
- -
~t)6
,,",'~"t:I
t'jO:-=
'" .... =
;..~~
.,.,
"'-
>>- ..c
.5 ~.~
OCIJ'"
... c 0
~~~
.S ~ J:;
C"I>.
"'-'"
:-2"'0]
~ g.!!!
~~~
..c rn r~ ..:
'Vi 0-.....
tI)~"t:I Q)
o t\1 = =
~~C':I~
'"
'"
;..
'"
~
-
'"
..
~
.B
.,.,
N
-
~
CIJ
-i:i
..
~
'"
'"
-"",
.. ..
-;,]
S a
01>.
.
'"
'"
..
.~ ~
....""
'" ..
~~
::E i'J
~~~!j
""c 00 . 0
c ",-
ca 0 >'V':I
""-"0
"",..~oo
t/.}tr.lQ)1
E-cu-
....ucJ::"C
i'J E >> a
S~~V':I
QJ QJ o..c N u}
=i5.~""IQ)
o c..::J ~ =
z .5.5 as CIJ.!!!
t>
'"
"5'
....
I>.
'"
"
.::
tti~
---a
~ ~
"''' '"
QJ .... 00 s::
~ g.- . Zo
.....- s:::~
~ :s .9 ~
8...0 :i I-<
~ ti:9 ~
..... -.t:J.-
<<S S C ~
~ 1'; 8 8
~
oS
"''"
.- -
c.B
0...
QJ ',::: 0
c =
0-'"
z '.Ej
c
o
"
*
* '"
'" '"
s;..
z
'"
..
-]
E a
.t::~~
CIJ " "
ca'- b
.~ e-CIJ
::2 "'::C
.....--
00'"
- ..
I,f),g~
0.".0
00.,.,-
~I-q-
.. 1>::""
""CIJ'
.,., .. gj
:; ~ ~
QJt.f.I_VI
S ~~
z . CI'.J ~
'"
c
.9 rJ)
t) ~
~ ~
~ '"
]J:
>>
..
;g
:s:;
o 0
CIJ""
--
"'3'6
~~
(PI'
" '
.... "
.. ;> .
!l 2 .5 "'0 8
EE .~.~ ~ .Q : B .~
c::-"" en {/)
bD cu ctS ;;;;; c.E ~ Q) c.....
Q).:::"'3 rI'J c....;::: 0
"'..rJ)~E a:EE~~
.... _ .._:s._ t) 11)
~....t)~~8Q)~>
""" 0 0 0.- rI.) Q)
~-_CU~"""Q)I1)-
o""CSQ)c..I1).B-B~~
.... QJ :s E E c.. 11)..c...o
= 1;; ""0._ E co .... ..... co
.- C':I Vol c.> ..c C':I ~ c.. '"
-t!~=S8~2 Us::
Q) .... QJ ea Q,)'-'- (,) 0
u<8E.t:JI>::-=E~gz
'"
"
;..
'"
..
~
..
.... ",I>.
o ;> '"
t) oc ~
o ..-..~
] ~ ~t;
..; .s o~ ~
"'" "" > 0
= ~ =--
~ .e .g~
.. 02 "'0
:9"" 0 5i~
..... .. ~ 0 CIJ
"'.9.. _..
11) ~ "'0 V) "C
=_<<1 octl
<<I 11) 0 00 0
>=1>:: ~I>::
~o~~ tn
0..,. - ':"
--~;3"'t:1~~
o . b.O <<I V.J <<I
e-;,;;o::c-"
I>.::E""'I>::_>>
c "'..
~ ~o
.B
""
..
o
I>::
>>
~
'"
>
.
'"
~
.~ ~
....""
~ ..
<~
'"
c
o
Z
'"
c
o
Z
'"
0:
o
Z
.., '"
.,..'"
",00-
... -
<:4-
....
"
e
"
Q.
"
'"
,
-
,
t
~
~
~
:e;
."
t<:
....
<2
o
OS
-s.
>>
o
5"';
.- <:>
000
~~
-0-0
",,0
o os
OJ ~ aJ
> I 5
~~ Z
......'"
"
o
o
Z
"
o
o
Z
'"
"
:><
'"
"
:><
'"
.... -g ~
~ ~ g ~ ~
.!:> ~ 3 ." -g
'" " 0 ~.~ '"
5 !U U u~o
..... ~ ~ ~
S '" B -.;.a '"
] .......8 aJ 5 .~ ~
~~.... ~ u>-....
01Z)~ ~ .s5";'i
~....."" -;0 -o:g~
-...... '" ~.- '"
> .. " - i:I: ::0
~~~ u .-=ocO
o~~ ~aJs;;~
aJ-~ ~s:::~o""C
-.I 0 ,.J cO 00 0
~"I:;f"o """"~~IO
j!;~ ~ ~"'~:; ~
I !;/) ,cO ~ U ~ :: r:I) .;
~ .. C 0 - >-'- os i:I: C
"'V">~~~ .!:>~~
~ 0 5 ~
.~. u U~.
."
..
=
==
.-
...
=
o
U
'"
~
~
"
"
~
'"
>>
- os
.i:J ~
,,-0
1:: os
<~
..;
..
-
,Q
=
...
<:>
o
o
N
;;
~
....
.s ~ c.E
CI.I::::= =
c:t.8 m
Q)~ v"'E.
c 0_
~ "S = G'
>O~5v1
e ~ t:._ 0
0. - c.E .~ or;>
Es::....--
.- 0 Q) ~ '"0
'"0'- P. s::::
Q) "5 ~ 8- cO
~~ca_~
0. t .~ ~ "'?
o........-=: u ~
P::..5So",
"
c
o
Z
'"
"
:><
'"
.~
~
o
"
~
"
~
..5
*
"
c
o
Z
"
c
o
Z
"
c
o
Z
'"
"
:><
'"
"
:><
" ....
"t:I "'0 aJ.,S
>. cO .... cO ::s u
~ ~~.Q ~ ~e
ca s::::::t!3 5 0 >~
t)~ "t)~Q) 0 ~ - <.s
Q) Q)=CL> U ......... G:) (;;"0
J::i'~ J::: cO ~ 0 CI,) J::: ca
VJ~ OOl)OO .s ....... J;: ~.9
c.... "..<: 0 " -0 v, - ......
" ~ .~ "" ~ ~ " i:I: u"
~ "d_cO~ ""'" B "t:Io.~
o -.....V"> .... ~"~c
....... - OJ) I cO 2a B ..., 0
g"d OQ)~ ~ .5 ~~>CQ
~ g ....... "i) tI) = '0 . ='-
O~ ~E-o-i:i c3 ~ ] 00]
""""'0 ~-~ 0250
'" 0 os""~ ] ,,] ~8-.;~-o
~, ~ ...=lI("'O ..9 5..9 ~..c::p-;03 ~
;::. g ~ 0 .............. ... ~ .. "'......
- cO E CI'J 0 .......:1 cO -'"0 0.01-'04
j!;~-o~';'; ~-ou~g;] ~~.9::E ~
I t':S O~ctt t;.;ctS~=_I-'ot=::::=
P:::.::t 0 ~ 00 ..... 0 _ .- ......:I Q) ... Q,) .5 cO as
'" V"> ~ ",.2. ~ ~ ~ >- >>~o E- .- '" >-
~ ~ ~ S 6
eel.) 00.. U 0 . !:Q.
'"
~
~
"
"
~
'"
-~
.S ~
....-0
~~
V">
N
......
,
"'~
0'"
o~
N g
~-5
".-
:><~
~~
*
"
c
o
Z
"
c
o
Z
'"
"
:><
" 0
>~
'C -0
~ o~
o .sP:::
~ ;; ~
-0 c U
M ..g...c:
~ ~ ft
os i:I: 5b
'"E o..!!
- ~"
o I.r) ~ Q)
~ -0 <:> .. g
.. cO 00 "0 Q)
~o~~>
<~.;..;~<
"
c; = Q) II) ~
.!:> ~.!:>~!:\
C;j"'''Z:
c3u~~&!
"'.5
.i'Jo
.
~
",-0
>>"
-,,'"
os ,.. C
'C p..-
u"O ~
1:: " 0
<~-3.-
...
s;,
i:'
Q
0-
0-
0-
-
-:
L
'"
"'"
"
~
~
'"
N
,
-
"
~
'c-
"
~
'6
"
t;::
*
"
Q
o
Z
"
Q
o
Z
00
"
~
"C
"
=
=
.-
-
=
o
U
""
..
:c
=
Eo<
00
0.
E
~
""
Q
C;u='
.b ;::3 0
=5~
" >-
u<;::3
;o_~
~ccV")
p::{go
....,,00
"u 0
--",$
"'"0 "
~ '" "
" .9 .b
,,"""-'
~ "':I:i
t.f.) .~
Q-
o gj
.~~
"
g
"
~
00
Q
.9
-
"
"
00
....
B
..s
....
<E
Q
os
15-
~
e",
._ 0
"""
..:'
,,-
""""
o.g
..9....
"'"
t~
0,,-,
"
Q
o
Z
"
g
Z
"
Q
o
Z
00
"
><
"
Q
o
Z
""
'"
_ ;Z
~ Q
.b 0
"-' >>
d - ;
"'''u
.g~..c:
0"-' 0.
0"''''
"..~ !;b
~"'r:I~
0- "
.....~f-I
"'-0
0",-
~N..q-
..... _ '"
~~~
"'(r.f.)tf.)
p:: .. ..
cr.I~~ u
~~ 5
. "-' "-' z
00
~
~
"
J:
00
Q
00 0
;>..~
- '" "
.~ ~ v
I)"" ~
1:: '" "
<~:s
.,s
.~
'"
o
0",
NN
....-
'" ,
~p::
",,,-,
"
Q
o
Z
"
Q
o
Z
"
Q
o
Z
"
Q
o
Z
~
~
'"
-;;;
5
""
....
00 '"
>'''
"':>-
~S
~ (S
'::'C
-;;;0.
"tJ.
g IU'~
=' '0.$
'" ;::3 '"
"-".I:
~ ~ ~
i:- 0 ....
C'CS 0 Q
00 -"
~ g E
" 00 0.
0.... 0
5 >.-
S CIS ~
"O.!oo8
E]~
OVi:S
~~~
00 ' 0
.... ~ c.
S (/) S
..= .,g .s
~:::.~
:g .s ::
=--
I-<~ g .E
~ > U
" " e
~ jj "
0", _
::t.5 ~
o .. II)
't:: ~.5
C'CS t8 ~
5 e:.=
U 0'-
oo,c "
.~ ~ tf!
.;3 ..;3
I-< ~ =
" 0
~~~
=-,.,:;
;::30"t::
"0';;0
.EN=
~ "";' e
o.et: 't::
8t1"JE
.- =
].s ';
.E1;~
1;; bOtE
'" =
,,'a "tJ
~ Q) g
t8 ~ =
~t.s
"'<::: 00
00 '" 00
5 II) e
..= .~ :g
~ ~ as
~~.s
.B~"O
.E ~ 11)
"0 - go
~~u
UJ..2 >
'E~.g
e~~
bO<>--
" " 00
tJ) 0 E
>.""
'" os
~ ~ ;
"'g3Q..
:: ~ ~
- .... =
'" 00 "
t 5 bO
1;'''' .]3
'" " =
* : 8
.. .B etI
~.!3~
o-gg
Z ",N
<Ii
"
~
o
'"
00
:;s
00
~
o
,.,:;
00
....
o
<>-
"
,,:;
fti ~
.~ e
.E "
g E;
f-<i5.
.~ 8
00'-
>.v)
--;8
~N
....
bO'"
.~ ~
.B '"
~ ~
jj =
'" ~
d'.,g
.8 U}
-; .~
.~ c
'g~
e ~
.- ....
g.E
".5
.:: .~
:=..s::::
~;::::
00 0
S-c
'" e
,,:; "
~ >
~ I:
~e-
, .-
,,:; "
",.;3
'0 .
3 e
,,:;<2
"
"tJ ....
g~
~ .
'" 00
.... =
co .8
t.-o:<;:::
0-0
= =
.2 8
"!)o
"0
~~
- ....
.S ~
"s:>-
"
0i.;3
.;3 ~
00-0
~ Ei
"':;-0
00 "
.~ ""g
~g
~.~
os
" =
.;3 "
" e
== ~
,.,:; 0
~ ....
* S-
* .-
"'"
q;,
E
Q
0.
0.
0.
-
--:
'-
'"
""
E
~
&
C')
-d
~
"
os
<>-
.5
>.
0;
.:::
Oi
1
"
"
....
os
.S
....
'"
=
"
"
00
Oi
.;3
....
<2
00
~
'"
<S
-0
B
~
,
....
,
"s
.....
o
-;;;
~
00
B
'"
"
'i3
.5
~
-=
o
"
13
'"
S-
-
"
'"
"
I+:i
'a
bO
i:jj
"
.:::
Oi
1
u
"
.;3
.5
-
"
Ii;
'<;>
t'o
."
-;:;
."
t.t:
'00
"
~
70
Year 2010 with SR-125
The following discussion summarizes the significant and unmitigable residual impacts under year
2010 Conditions for each network component.
Freeway Segments
The San Miguel Ranch project exceeds the CMP threshold of contributing more than 2,400 daily
trips to a freeway segment, which is considered a significant impact. All freeway impacts are
considered to be significant and unmitigable as project-related mitigation measures cannot alleviate
impacts. The San Miguel Ranch Project Applicant should participate in the multi-agency study team
approach to freeway deficiency planning and contribute a "fair share" contribution to mitigate
impacts. Project-related traffic was found to range from 1.5 to 2.3 percent on SR-54 from 1-805 to
Ildica Street and from 1.7 to 6.7 percent on SR-125 from SR-54 to Lonestar Road as a percentage
of total freeway ADT. Because there is currently no mechanism for the implementation of this
program, the impacts are considered unmitigable at the project level.
Arterial Roadwav Seements
No significant project-related impacts to roadways were found based on the level of significance
criteria. In addition, no Study Area segments have been identified as having impacts unrelated to
the project and being unmitigated under Year 20 I 0 with Proposed Project conditions. This assumes
that all arterials are improved in accordance with their General Plan designation; however, because
the County of San Diego does not have a financing and phasing plan for their circulation
improvements, these impacts may be significant and unmitigable during interim conditions. Due
to the uncertainty of the timing of these improvements, the impacts are considered significant in the
cumulative condition.
Buildout with SR-125
The following discussion summarizes residual impacts found under Full Southbay Buildout
Conditions for each network component.
Freeway Segments
As with Interim Year 2010 conditions, almost all freeway segments impacts are found to be
significant and unmitigable as project-related mitigation measures cannot provide adequate
mitigation to return traffic operations to acceptable levels of service. These impacts are identified
in this analysis to facilitate the transportation planning efforts of Caltrans and SANDAG and to
indicate that the San Miguel Ranch Project Team remains committed to participating in freeway
deficiency planning under CMP guidelines. This long-range impact identification process is a
critical factor in developing strategies to improve the performance of the regional transportation
network as it relates to Southbay freeway operations. As previously stated, upgrading 1-805 to a
10-lane facility is a long-range mitigation need. The City of Chula Vista and the project applicant,
Findings of Fact
-27-
,/
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
along with all other Southbay jurisdictions and land developers, should participate in the multi-
agency study team approach to developing freeway deficiency plans. As previously indicated,
because there is no mechanism in place to implement this program, the impacts are identified as
unmitigable.
Arterial Roadwav Sel!:ments
The majority of Study Area arterial segments are forecast to be able to facilitate the anticipated
Buildout traffic volumes. The previous section, however, outlined cumulative mitigation measures
for certain Study Area segments which are forecast to perform at LOS C or worse at the Buildout
timeframe. The proposed mitigation would successfully improve levels of service to within
acceptable levels, thereby leaving no significant and unmitigable impacts identified for roadway
segments under Full Southbay Buildout Conditions. As previously stated, the County of San Diego
does not have a phasing or fmancing program for their circulation network. Due to the uncertainty
of the timing of the improvements, interim conditions may be significant. Therefore, impacts are
considered significant in the cumulative condition.
Finding
Pursuant to Section 1509l(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project
impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures
Below is a summary of freeway conditions and mitigation strategies under Year 2010 conditions.
Many of these mitigation measures have not been planned, _designed, funded or agreed to by agencies
responsible for their improvements.
. SR-54. This facility is built to its ultimate eight-lane cross-section (six lanes + two HOV
lanes) by this timeframe. Future Year 2010 levels of service on SR-54 from 1-805 to Ildica
Street are projected to range from LOS E to F(2). Possible mitigations, however, include
TSM or TDM improvements that would maximize flow on this eight-lane facility. These
improvements include the implementation of ramp metering.
. SR-125. Under tollway operation, this six-lane facility is expected to operate at acceptable
levels of service (LOS C or better) under Year 2010 conditions.
. I-80S. Mitigation strategies for this facility include developing a deficiency plan that
evaluates the concept of widening this freeway from its current 8-lane cross section to
10 lanes.
Findings of Fact
-28-
7J...
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
Southbay BuiIdout
For the Southbay buildout scenario, improvements to the freeways will be necessary. SR-125 and
1-805 may be required to be expanded to 10 lanes. These facilities are the responsibility of Caltrans.
Arterial Roadwav Sel!:ments
Southbay Buildout
Mitigation for arterial roadways which are forecasted to experience unacceptable levels of service
under full Southbay Buildout conditions generally corresponds to additional carrying capacity. The
planning level analysis for Full Southbay Buildout conditions is intended to assist local jurisdictions
with the planning of potential improvements and allow sufficient time to gather funds.
The following critical roadway segments should be examined for the possibility of upgrading
classifications or providing other improvements based on forecasted average daily traffic volumes
in order to maintain an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better). This evaluation should include
a detailed analysis to ensure that sensitive community issues are taken into consideration.
San Miguel Road
San Miguel Road is recommended for upgrade to a three-lane collector with enhanced intersection
geometry under Full Southbay Buildout conditions. While a four-lane collector classification would
be appropriate based on forecasted volumes on this segment, a three-lane geometry with enhanced
intersection treatments would provide adequate traffic flow while reducing right-of-way
requirements. This classification is based on the volume of 15,800 ADT forecasted for San Miguel
Road under Full Southbay Buildout conditions. This upgrade may ultimately require a GP A to the
Sweetwater Community Plan. Since the Proposed Project is forecast to contribute only 0.7 percent
of daily traffic to this roadway segment, this segment is considered to have a cumulative impact
under this timeframe.
Proctor Valley Road
Proctor Valley Road between San Miguel Road and Mt. Miguel Road is recommended for upgrade
to a three-lane collector with enhanced intersection geometrics, including signalization of Mt.
Miguel Road/Proctor Valley Road (Intersection 21) under Full Southbay Buildout Conditions.
Similar to San Miguel Road, this segment is forecast to carry enough traffic (14,600 ADT) to
warrant a four-lane classification. However, a three-lane geometry with enhanced intersection
treatments would likely provide adequate flow while reducing right-of-way requirements. Since the
Proposed Project is forecast to contribute only 1.5 percent of daily traffic to this roadway segment,
this segment is considered to have a cumulative impact under this timeframe.
Findings of Fact
-29-
73
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
East H Street
East H Street between Hidden Vista Drive and 1-805 will remain a six-lane prime arterial under Full
Southbay Buildout conditions. Forecasted ADT volumes indicate the need for an eight-lane facility.
Geometric improvements to the interchange at 1-805 could improve levels of service also and
maintain acceptable operations without widening the segment. The right-of-way for an eight-lane
cross-section should be secured, however, to assure ability to maintain acceptable levels of service.
Otay Lakes Road
Otay Lakes Road between Eastlake Parkway and SR-125 Southbound Ramps will remain a six-lane
prime arterial under Full Southbay Buildout conditions. Forecasted ADT volumes indicate the need
for an eight-lane facility. Geometric improvements to the interchange at SR-125 could improve
levels of service also and maintain acceptable operations without widening the segment. The right-
of-way for an eight-lane cross-section should be secured, however, to assure ability to maintain
acceptable levels of service.
Due to cumulative and interim impacts to the County circulation network (i.e., circulation network
that may not be constructed concurrent with demand), the applicant will be required to implement
the following mitigation measure at building permit stage:
. If a funding mechanism is established between the City and County for cumulative traffic
impacts, the San Miguel Ranch project will be conditioned to pay their proportionate share
contribution.
Peak Hour Intersections
Year 2010 Conditions
Intersection 1 (Briarwood Road/SR-54 westbound ramps) is forecast to operate at unacceptable
LOS F during the AM peak hour under this scenario which is not required to be mitigated by this
project. A conceptual geometric design was provided to mitigate this impact.
A. Air Quality
Sil!Ilificant Effect
Motor vehicle emissions would be the primary source of pollutants resulting from implementation
of the proposed project. The proposed project is estimated to generate 29,284 daily trips, which are
equivalent to approximately 201,633 vehicle miles per day (VMD). Estimated daily emissions
associated with project-generated VMDs would exceed the thresholds of significance for all criteria
pollutants with the exception of PMIO' As a result, the proposed project would create a significant
impact on air quality.
Findings of Fact
-30-
7'1
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
finding
Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project
impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations;
however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation from the GDP/GPA have been incorporated into the project's Air Quality Improvement
Plan; however, there are no feasible mitigation measures are available at this time to reduce project
operation-related emissions.
B. Noise
Significant cumulative impacts (exceeding 65 dB or if over 65 dB, increase must be 3 dB or greater)
were identified at the following locations:
. Briarwood Road;
. Otay Lakes Road (East H Street);
. Sweetwater Road (Central Avenue to Briarwood);
. East H Street (Corral Canyon Road);
. East H Street (Eastlake Drive);
. East H Street (SR-125);
. Proctor Valley Road (Mt. Miguel Road and Lane Avenue);
. Otay Lakes Road (Eastlake Parkway); and
. Otay Lakes Road (Lane Avenue).
Finding
Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project
impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitie:ation Measures
There are no feasible mitigation measures for this project to implement.
Findings of Fact
-31-
7S-
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
C. Schools
Sil!Ilificant Effect
According to State law, the fees collectable from the project proponent would not be adequate to
fund the necessary improvements to the school system. Cumulative impacts to schools are
considered significant and unmitigable.
Finding
Pursuant to Section l5091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this project
impact to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will partially reduce impacts:
. Funding for the school shall be in compliance with state law in effect at the time of building
permits.
. X. FEASmn..ITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the Project will cause unavoidable significant environmental effects, as outlined above (see
Section IX), the city must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the
Project, as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could
avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental effects (Citizens for Ouality
Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727]; see also Pub.
Resources Code, g21002). Because it is a judgment call whether an alternative is environmentally
superior, these findings contrast and compare the alternatives analyzed in the FEIR with Project.
In general, in preparing and adopting fmdings, a lead agency need not necessarily address the
feasibility of both mitigation measures and enviromnentally superior alternatives when
contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the significant impacts can
be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the
agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally
superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the Project as mitigated
(Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47
Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83
Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal. Rptr. 842]; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990)
221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650)). Accordingly, for this Project, in adopting the findings
concerning project altematives, the City Council considers only those environmental impacts, that
Findings of Fact
-32-
7t;
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
for the finally-approved Project, are significant and cannot be avoided or substantially lessened
through mitigation.
The Project would have a significant, unavoidable adverse environmental impact with respect to the
following:
LandformNisual Quality (project)
The project has significant and unmitigated project level landform alteration and visual quality
impacts due to the extent of grading required.
Biological Resources (project and Cumulative)
Significant and unmitigated impacts at project and cumulative levels are associated with the loss of
sensitive biological habitats and several plant and animal species.
Transportation (project and Cumulative)
The project level significant and unmitigated impacts are associated with the increase number of
vehicles accessing the circulation system. Significant and unmitigated cumulative impacts are
associated with uncertainty of the timing of construction of infrastructure located in the County of
San Diego. Because this infrastructure may not be constructed at the time of demand, and the project
has no ability to construct the infrastructure, significant impacts may occur. Several freeways in the
vicinity have been determine not to be able to operate at acceptable levels in the future conditions.
Air Quality (project and Cumulative)
Project level construction and vehicular emissions will exceed thresholds of significance.
Noise (project and Cumulative)
Increased traffic levels result in significant noise levels within the project and cumulative on the
nearby circulation element.
Public Services and Utilities B Schools (project and Cumulative)
Due to inadequate funding, school facilities on a project and cumulative basis, will be significant
affected.
Proposed project alternatives considered must be ones which "could feasibly attain the basic
objectives of the Project." However, the Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives
"capable of eliminating" environmental effects even if these alternatives "would impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives" [CEQA Guidelines, 915126, subd. (d)].
Findings of Fact
-33-
77
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible," as it applies to the fmdings
requirement: "Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological
factors" [pub. Resources Code, 921061.1]." The CEQA Guidelines provide a broader definition of
"feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines, {1I5364 states "The-lack of
legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an altemative or mitigation measure may be as great
a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or technological factor."
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA, and thus is afforded a different meaning as
may be provided by Webster's Dictionary or any other sources.
Moreover, Public Resources Code Section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA
with regard to the feasibility of alternatives and states, in pertinent part, that,
"...no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur if the Project is
approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the
following fmdings:
(a)(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report."
The concept of "feasibility," therefore, as it applies to findings, involves a balancing of various
economic, enviromnental, social, legal, and technological factors (see Pub. Resources Code,
91061.1; CEQA Guidelines, 915364; Pub. Resources Code, 921081; see also City of Del Mar v.
City of San Diego (1992) 133 Cal.App.3rd 401, 414-417).
In City of Del Marv. City of San Diego (1992) 133 Cal.App.3d 401,415-417, the Court of Appeal
found that the City of San Diego had "...considered and reasonably rejected...[certain] project
alternatives... as infeasible in view of the social and economic realities in the region" @. At 417).
The court detennined that San Diego had attempted to accommodate the feasibility factors based
upon its growth management plan which included the proposed development project. Accordingly,
the court concluded:
"Assuming this accommodation is a reasonable one (citation omitted), San
Diego is entitled to rely on it in evaluating various project alternatives. The
cost-benefit analysis which led to the accommodation is of course subject to
review, but it need not be mechanically stated at each stage of the approval
process. In this sense, feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability'
to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the
Findings of Fact
-34-
1(
Draft 3
September I, 1999
relevant economic, environmental. social, and technological factors. We
accordingly conclude that San Diego did not abuse its discretion under
CEQA in rejecting various project altematives as infeasible."
ad. (emphasis added).)
These Findings contrast and compare the altematives where appropriate in order to demonstrate that
the selection of the finally-approved Project, while still resulting in significant environmental
impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and other benefits. In rejecting all of the
altematives, the decision-makers have exantined the finally-approved Project objectives and weighed
the ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The decision-makers believe that the
Project best meets the finally-approved Project objectives with the least environmental impact. The
objectives considered by the decision-makers are:
. Prepare a land use and facilities plan consistent with the approved amended GDP for San
Miguel Ranch.
. Provide a plan that is feasible and flexible to the changing housing "market" within the South
Bay region.
. Provide for the orderly development of the project to assure compatible development in the
surrounding community.
. Ensure efficient and timely provision for the phasing and financing of community facilities,
including roads, parks, schools, water/sewer facilities, and urban runoffi' flood control.
. Provide a plan that contributes significantly to the local, state, and federal conservation
efforts by conserving large areas of important biological habitat.
. Propose mitigation measures that: (I) reflect the more refmed nature of a SPA plan (as
opposed to a GDP); and (2) address impacts that were previously not considered significant
or which substantial new information reflects will be more significant than described in the
prior environmental impact report.
Consequently, the SPA Plan is based upon a statement of goals and objectives prepared by both the
project applicant and City staff during the preparation of the amendment to the GDP. These goals
and objectives were approved by the Chula Vista City Council upon adoption of the amended GDP
for San Miguel Ranch in December 1996. The SPA plan, tentative maps, and proposed mitigation
measures continue to achieve these goals and objectives by proposing additional mitigation measures
focused primarily on more defmed project plans, or in some cases, additional information.
Findings of Fact
-35-
77
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
The approved goals and objectives address four broad areas:
. Housing/Community CharacterlLand Use. The goals and objectives relating to housing,
community character, and land use address the character of the proposed development,
including housing types, community design, preservation of natural features, and
compatibility with adjoining land uses.
. Resource Conservation. The goals and objectives relating to resource conservation
establish a development plan that preserves or otherwise conserves sensitive habitat and
other natural resources and minimizes impacts to adjoining watersheds.
. CommunitylPublic Facilities. The goals and objectives relating to community and public
facilities address the creation of schools, parks, and other important public facilities and
services in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner.
. Circulation, Public Safety and Welfare. The goals and objectives relating to circulation,
public safety, and welfare respond to various regional and local traffic circulation needs,
including the proposed alignment ofSR-125, as well as police and fire protection.
The Final EIR for the project examined a broad range of alternatives to the project to determine
whether project objectives could be met while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the
project's significant, unavoidable impacts. To that end, and as set forth below, the City has properly
considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible" pursuant to CEQA.
Alternatives
The decision-makers have considered whether any of the project alternatives discussed in the SEIR
could substantially lessen or avoid the identified significant effects. As explained below, the
decision-makers conclude that none of the project altematives could both meet the objectives of the
project and lessen or avoid the identified significant effects.
No Project
The No Project alternative assumes that no development would occur on the project site. The project
site would remain in its current undeveloped condition. Because the project site would remain
undeveloped under the No Project alternative, all of the unmitigated impacts of the project as revised
would be avoided. However, the No Project alternative is considered infeasible for the following
reasons:
a. Inconsistent with City's General Plan. The Chula Vista General Plan designates that the
project site provide for a variety of Low, Low-Medium, Medium, and High Residential land
uses. The No Project alternative contemplates no development at the project site, and is not
consistent with the City's General Plan designation for the project site.
Findings of Fact
-36-
t[O
Draft 3
September I, 1999
In addition, the Eastern Territories Element of the City's General Plan contains objectives
which call for the creation of a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial,
and open space uses. This project would provide for a balanced community. The No Project
alternative, however, does not provide this benefit, as it does not contemplate development
of the project site for urban development, including residential school, park, commercial, and
open space uses.
b. Eliminates Fiscal Benefits to City. As vacant, undeveloped land, the project site generates
no revenue for the City of Chula Vista; however, the city incurs very few costs from the site
in its undeveloped condition. This fiscal situation would continue under the no project
alternative. However, the project would provide a potential source of revenue once buildout
is completed. The fiscal benefits would not be realized under the No Project alternative.
c. Inconsistent with Project Goals and Objectives. The No Project alternative would not
achieve the objectives of the project. For example, the objectives considered by the City,
which would not be realized under the No Project alternative include: (I) creation of a high-
quality master-planned residential development consistent with the GDP designation; (2)
provision ofa commercial/retail center, community park, and elementary school to serve the
needs of the project site; (3) implementation of regional and local circulation facilities by
providing for the extension of SR-125, the designation of San Miguel Road as a major four-
lane collector, and connection from East H Street to Bonita Road; (4) the implementation of
necessary public utilities and services to the area including water, sewage, police, fire,
emergency medical, parks, recreation, and open space; and (5) a linkage to schools, parks,
and shopping centers through the use of bicycle and pedestrian trails as an alternative to the
automobile.
County Land Use
The County Land Use alternative assumes that the project would be developed in accordance with
the existing requirements under the County of San Diego. This altemative was included because the
project site is currently within the unincorporated County jurisdiction. This alternative was evaluated
in earlier documentation and rejected by the decisions makers with the appropriate findings and
statement of overriding considerations. However, this alternative is infeasible for the following
reasons:
a. Inconsistent with City's General Plan. The Chula Vista General Plan provides for a
variety of Low, Low-Medium, Medium, and High Residential land uses. The County Land
Use Alternative contemplates approximately 255 units, and is not consistent with the City's
General Plan designation for the project site.
In addition, the Eastem Territories Element of the City's General Plan contains objectives
which call for the creation of a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial,
and open space uses. This project would provide for a balanced community. The County
Findings of Fact
-37-
y/
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
Land Use Alternative, however, does not provide this benefit, but provides limited
development of the project site.
b. Inconsistent with Project Goals and Objectives. The County Land Use Alternative would
not achieve the objectives of the project. For example, the objectives considered by the City,
which would not be realized under this alternative include: (1) creation of a high-quality
master-planned residential development consistent with the GDP designation; (2) provision
of a commercial/retail center, community park, and elementary school to serve the needs of
the project site; (3) implementation of regional and local circulation facilities by providing
for the e},.iension of SR-125, the designation of San Miguel Road as a major four-lane
collector, and connection from East H Street to Bonita Road; (4) the implementation of
necessary public utilities and services to the area including water, sewage, police, fire,
emergency medical, parks, recreation, and open space; and (5) a linkage to schools, parks,
and shopping centers through the use of bicycle and pedestrian trails as an altemative to the
automobile.
Reduced Grading Alternative
The Reduced Grading Alternative assumes that the project would be redesigned to avoid significant
landform alteration/visual quality impacts. This project would require a General Plan and GDP
amendments. This alternative was evaluated in earlier documentation and rejected by the decisions
makers with the appropriate fmdings and statement of overriding considerations. This alternative
is infeasible for the following reasons:
a. Infrastructure. This alternative would result in a substantial reduction in the number of
dwelling units that can be accommodated. As such, the project proponent is not able to
ffiance major infrastructure, such as Mount Miguel Road.
b. Off-site Mitigation Requirements. Although the extent of landform alteration would be
reduced, the extent of habitat disturbance was not anticipated to change substantially.
Therefore, the mitigation requirements for off-site preservation would be similar. The
previous property owner agreed to not develop the North Parcel as long development
potential was transferred to the South Parcel. Preservation of the North Parcel may not be
feasible if this alternative were selected. The magnitude of the impacts (including landform)
of this decision was disclosed to the Council and the public when the GDP was approved.
Findings and a Statement of Overriding Conditions were also adopted.
c. North Parcel Annexation. The City may annex the North Parcel; therefore, the EIR
addressed this option as an alternative.
XI. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On , at a properly-noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission of the City
of Chula Vista certified the Final Subsequent Enviromnentallmpact Report for San Miguel Ranch
Findings of Fact
-38-
f~
Draft 3
September I, 1999
General Development Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment, Resolution 96-XX,
recommending certification of the Final SEIR to the City Council (see City ofChula Vista Planning
Commission Resolution).
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Background
The CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide:
a. CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the
benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable.
b. Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which
are identified in the final EIR, but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall
state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other
information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a
fmding under Section I509l(a)(2) or (a)(3).
c. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be
included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of
Determination (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15093).
The Statement
The Project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in detail
in Section IX of these Findings of Fact (Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures):
. Noise (project Specific and Cumulative Impacts);
. Schools (project Specific and Cumulative Impacts);
. LandformNisual Quality (project Specific and Cumulative Impacts);
. Biological Resources (Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts);
. Transportation (Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts); and
. Air Quality (project Specific and Cumulative Impacts).
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in
some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts,
adoption of the measures will not fully avoid the impacts.
Findings of Fact
-39-
i.3
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
The City has examined a reasonable range of altematives to the Project. Based on this examination,
the City has detennined that none of these alternatives both (1) meets Project objectives; and (2) is
environmentally preferable to the finally approved Project.
As a result, to approve the Project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations"
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15093. This statement allows a lead agency to
cite a Project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the
occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided. The statement
explains why, in the agency's judgement, the Project's benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant
effects.
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIRs are
to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse" (public
Resources Code, Section 21068). The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse"
impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be addressed
(see Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190,206 [Cal.Rptr.377]). Decision-makers
benefit from information about Project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a
statement of overriding considerations (See CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093).
The City finds that the mitigation measures found in the CEQA fmdings, when implemented, avoid
or substantially lessen most of the significant effects identified in the Final SEIR. Certain significant
effects of the San Miguel Ranch project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible
mitigation measures. In approving the project, the City has balanced the benefits of the San Miguel
Ranch project against these unavoidable environmental effects. In this regard, the City finds that
all feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA findings, have been or will be implemented
with the project, and any significant remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable due to the
following substantial social, environmental and economic or other considerations, all of which are
based upon the facts set forth in the CEQA findings, Final SEIR and the record of the proceedings
for this proj ect.
Environmental Protection and Preservation
The Project would eliminate impacts to sensitive species in the north parcel and reduce impacts to
sensitive species in the south parcel to below a level of significance. The USFWS, the CDFG, and
Emerald Properties have entered into an agreement which indicates the dedication of 146 acres of
open space on the South Parcel (including a 21-acre Otay tarplant preserve) and 166 acres of the
North Parcel, as mitigation for total biological impacts as long as the north parcel is not developed,
but dedicated as a permanent ecological reserve and the City completes its Subarea Plan. The Points
of Agreement calls for a combination of acquisition and the establishment of a conservation bank
on the north parcel, in addition to the dedicating of 166 acres of mitigation land. The fee title to the
166-acre of mitigation land will be transferred to the CDFG or the USFWS (or to an organization
approved by them) following the City's authorization of the project based upon an approved MSCP
Subarea Plan for Chula Vista. Elimination of development in the north parcel will permanently
preserve 1,298 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 93 acres of mixed chaparral, 15 acres of dry
Findings of Fact
-40-
'(
Draft 3
September 1, 1999
marsh/wetland, and 90 acres of annual grassland. Dedication of the North Parcel as a permanent
ecological reserve will also protect important wildlife corridors.
High Quality Residential Development,
. Master planned community with Low, Low Medium, Medium, and High residential and
retaiJlcommercialland uses.
. Community facilities including an elementary school, community facility, neighborhood and
community parks, and trail system.
. Transportation and circulation facilities including SR-125, connection ofH Street to Bonita
Road, and the construction of San Miguel Road as a four-lane collector.
. Regional housing needs with a variety of residential densities and housing types.
Regional Housing Needs
The San Miguel Ranch GDP Project would help meet a projected long-term regional need for
housing by providing a variety of housing types and prices. Recent SANDAG housing capacity
studies indicate a significant shortfall of housing will occur in the Project area within the next
20 years. In recent years, the cost of housing compared to other uses has residential disproportionate
to the cost of other uses in the Project area (e.g., commercial, industrial), reflecting a shortfall in
residentially zoned land. The Project will help reduce the cost of housing by designating an adequate
supply of suitable land for residential development.
The San Miguel Ranch GDP provides a mixture of housing types in proximity to one another,
responding to needs of singles, families, students, and seniors. With a variety of single-family and
multi-family designations, a broad range of housing types and costs are anticipated. The
classification of a portion of the San Miguel Ranch housing product type as attached will assist in
providing more affordable housing, since it is recognized that the key contributing element of the
cost of housing is the price of land. This range of housing types and prices will promote
socioeconomic diversity, which the City finds both important and desirable.
For the foregoing reasons, the City finds that the Project's adverse, unavoidable environmental
impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits.
Findings of Fact
-41-
o~
Draft 3
September 1, 1999