HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1998/08/26
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday. August 26. 1998
Council Chambers
Public Servjces Buildjng
276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commjssion on any
subject matter within the Commjssion's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ElR-97-03; Draft Subsequent Envjronmentallmpact Report
for Otay Ranch SPA One West
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ElR-97-04; Consideration of comments on the EastLake
Trails/Greens Replanning Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (SElR)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of September 9, 1998
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula
Vista
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who may require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service to request such accommodation at leastforty-eighr hours in advance for
rru!etings and five days in advance for scheduled services and acrivities. Please contact Diana Argas
for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (fDD) (619)
585-5647. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
August 24, 1998
TO:
Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning and Buildin~ '9
Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review coordinat~~
VIA:
FROM:
In accordance with the staff reports for the Otay Ranch SPA I West
and the EastLake Trails project EIR's scheduled before you on
August 26, 1998, attached you will find a copy of the minutes from
the Resource Conservation Commission meeting of August 17, 1998.
If you have any questions, please call me at 691-5104.
Attachment
2.1 98 ~;f*~1 R. Michael Mc Bride 619-702-067,~':..... p.2
~~, \\. ;' l:J ~.<.
~\l~~~~~ ~~'... ~4;~"
, ":',.-:'~~,..",' .DRAFT MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING I
, \_. . . .
~ Resourc.e Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
'+"
:~~;,
6:30 P.M.
~onday, August 17, 1998
Conference Room #1
Public Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL; ~eeting was called to order at 6:38 P.M. by Chair
Yamada. City Staff Envirorunental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Present were:
Commissioners Bull, Fisher, Marquez, and Yamada, and staff member Rick Rosier. Commissioner
Burrascano was absent; no vote taken to excuse her from meeting at this time. Commissioner
Thomas arrived late at 6:45 P.M. Also present were representatives for the Vanguard Self
Storage, Otay Ranch and Eastlake Trails.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes from the meeting of July 13, 1998 were not approved due
to lack of quorum from that meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
NEW BUSINESS:
The agenda items were taken out of order so that a quorum with Commissioner Bull would be
present for items #3 and 4.
Item #4 - Review of Negative Declaration IS-99-01, Vanguard Self Storage:
Doug Reid presented an overview of the negative declaration. There was a question on page 2
regarding the wording with the facility averaging "one customer per month." It was clarified by
the project representative that there would be an average of one customer visit to their own unit
per month and that was only part ofthe project traffic generation. Commissioner Fisher was
concerned about lighting facing away from the Sweetwater River so as not to disturb animals
moving through the corridors. It was explained that the freeway is raised and serves as a buffer
between the project site and the River. Further, penormance standards with regard to glare from
the lights must be complied with.
[Commissjoner Thomas arrived at 6:45 P.M.]
After a brief discussion, it was MSUC (BulllFisher) to recommend approval of Negative
Declaration 1S-99-01; vote - 5-0, motion carried.
Item #3 - Negative Declaration 18-98-19, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:
Gary Williams was the representative for the Church. Doug Reid presented a brief overview of
the project. The zoning for thc church site was confirmed to be correct. The small open space on
the comer of the lot js owned by Otay Water and will be left as open space. An evaluation of the
Rancho Del Rey Parkway already has a potential to put stop signs at the comer On Huerta Street
to mitigate the traffic impact at the project site. A study was also done to relocate the entrance of
the parking lot.
Hue:; .2.1 98 03: 24p
R. Michael Mc Br-ide
619-702-0673
p_3
Resource Conservation Commission
Page 2
It was MSUC (BuUlThomas) to recommend approval ofthe Negative Declaration IS-98-19 as
adequate; vote 5-0, motion carried.
A second motion was made (Thomas&1arquez); vote MSUC 5-0, to add the following comments
with regard to the Negative Dec1aration IS-98-19:
a. to minimize night lighting and direct it away from open spaces so animals could freely
move across connecting corridors;
b. that hydroseeding be done with non-invasive species and be managed carefully;
c. a request that the Safety Commission look into installing a stop sign at the
intersection of the project site for traffic control.
Commissioner Bull was excused from the meeting at 7:00 P.M. due to a conflict of interest on
Item #1 Dtay Ranch and Item #2 Eastlake Trails.
Item #1 - EIR-97-03 - Otay Ranch:
Doug Reid stated that the project is currently in the 45-day review stage on the State level and is
scheduled for a hearing before the Planning Commission on August 26, 1998. He presented a
summary of the project to the RCC, pointing out some of the significant changes in each Village
as follows:
Village 1 - is amended to increase allowable single family vs. multi-family units;
Village 2 - moves the new high school (approximately 50 acres) and relocates the
community park (approximately 25 acres) to Village 2 West;
Village 6 - reduces density in the Village core;
Village 7 - allows additional residential homes in the same location to replace the high
school which is now moving to Village 2;
Village 15/16 - areas of development are deleted and replaced with more open space.
Bruce McIntyre of Terry, McIntyre & Associates answered questions on the Significant Land Use
Impacts. He noted that the biggest incompatibility issue was moving the proposed high school
and park adjacent to the Dtay Landfill. Commissioner Thomas asked whether the County had
done new and updated studies on toxic fumes from the Landfill and how they would affect the
adjacent sites. Levels outside of the 1000-foot buffer area were reported to be below the
threshold of significant impact.
Traffic - There were no significant impacts on traffic in modifying the Village areas. A light rail
station and park and ride facility will be located in the Village 1 core. The GDP lists specific
traffic information upon build-out and will also be delineated on the Final Map. Specific studies
done on the cumulative impacts at Dtay Lakes Road and Paseo Valley Road were found to be
significant and non-mitigable without SR-125.
Biology - SPA 1 Amendment Area will lose open space but will jncrease about 90 acres overall.
It is noted that Poggi and Telegraph Canyons were not considered as part of the project or
ownership or application in this report.
Au~ 2) 98 03:24p
R. Mieh....1 Me Brid..
619-702-0673
p.4
Resource Conservation Commission
Page 3
Village 15 and 16 would delete 256 acres of development area and Village I and 2 will gain 236
acres. Restoration for maritime succulent scrub will be done around the grading period. June
Collins of Dudek Associates added that the project currently being reviewed is the beginning of
implementation of the overall MSCP. The total increase of the project development area is
approximately 313 acres. About 347 acres of development would be committed to open space in
addition to the overall 11,375 acres of the project.
Commissioner Thomas requested that the repon include other surrounding areas as it is imponant
as the RCC reviews the document. With regard to questions on drainage, the entire drainage
system of Poggi Canyon is currently analyzed as part of the Olympjc Training Center.
Landform Visuals - Steep slopes on Otay Ranch as a whole will not exceed the encroachment of
83%. Any steeper slope grading may impact this project specifically but will not exceed the limits
projectwide. The specific plans are also identified in a separate report on the Otay scenic
roadways.
Cultural - It was reported that some other residential areas are lost but it was not a significant
impact.
Air Quality - no significant impacts.
Noise - The light rail will not present any cumulative noise impact to residential areas.
After staff consultation, the following proposals were included in the project alternatives:
a. Move proposed high school out of the land adjacent toOtay Landfill to Village 2, which is
mostly residential.
b. All but five acres of parkland adjacent to the landfill be returned to Village 7 to make it
more centTally located.
c. Move more community purpose facility back to Village l.
d. New industrial in quadrant adjacent to the Dtay LandftIJ be buffered by open space. A cap
is placed on the number of traffic trips to the proposed industrial areas.
Comments and questions by the RCC included the following:
Commissioner Thomas asked whether a study on the effusion of methane gas was done on the
Dtay Landfill site. An analysis was redone this past year and a separate EIR is also being done.
Commissioner Thomas also asked about paleontological findings and whether they go to the
Natural History Museum. Any findings are cUITently preserved. Archeological sites were
identified in the original study. Thomas would like those studies reviewed again.
Commission Fisher had great concern with the lack of biological open space, especially the stretch
located along Olympic Parkway, the adjacent Sunbow project and the industrial quadrant located
next to the LandfilL Other major biological concerns included the following: Records ofthe whip
tail were not brought forward from previous studies. There are no connective lands which leaves
-..............,...
~. Mieha~l Me Brid~
619-702-0673
Resource Conservation Commission
Page 4
the original reserves to preserve corridors of habitats. The mitigation does not adequately replace
acreage lost ITom grading on sensitive lands, Grasshopper sparrow was not covered by the
MSCP, Other sensitive species such as the burrowing owls, badgers and cactus wrens would be
forced from their natural habitat by the project which now becomes a regionalJy significant
problem. The project does not preserve adequate lands for these habitants and does not clearly
indicate the significant and non-mitigabJe impacts. He also felt that the MSS restoration was not
adequately addressed. With regard to the cactus wrens, it was noted that criteria was met within
the MSCP Study Area but not within Otay Ranch. Commissioner Fisher strongly noted that he
disagrees with the conclusion of the document.
Commissioner Thomas reiterated the necessity of overlay maps which indicate watersheds, land
uses, development, migration pathways, etc.
Commissioner Marquez expressed her concem over the interior protocol surveys on avian
corridors. June Collins explained that the avian corridors did not exist but should be created. The
study would look at serving more the total corridor to include Wolf, Poggi, Telegraph and Rice
Canyons. Ms. Marquez noted 1] pairs of gnatcatchers were shown on the map but it was unclear
whether these were in addition to those already found. The maps should adequately reflect its
findings.
It was clarified mixed chapparel and coastal sage scrub is located south of Otay Lakes Road,
With regard to the achnatherum population, the conclusion of the study shows no thornmint on
SPA 1.
Commissioner Yamada had concerns with the "borrowing on the future" approach. He felt that
different scenarios should be studied adequately to prepare for the future. He commented that
traffic moving east to west created a greater jmpact on 80S. It was explained that when SPA 1
was done, SR-125 was not considered so the direct impact would be on 805,
A motion was made (FisherlMarquez) that the ElR-97-03 - Otay Ranch is inadequate due to a
series of species inadequately analyzed or sufficiently mitigated; vote MSUC 4-0.
A second motion was made (ThomaslMarquez), vote MSUC 4-0, to recommend the following
with regard to Otay Ranch:
a. Study the metapopulation ranchwide and do a quantitative analysis of jndividual
species and habitats;
b. Study the cumulative impact of the effects oflosing Poggi Canyon with regard to
regional, biological, geological and paleontological concerns as it relates to other
connecting canyons;
c. Consider a local program for retaining paleontology and archeological resources;
d. Request the City review the "mortgaging the future" short-term policies and perform
an evaluation of different scenarios going out for future;
e. Conduct studies of the biological value of what's going to be developed vs. not
developed lands to make sure tradeoff js comparable;
f Note that historical sitings of sensitive species need to be shown where appropriate on
EIR maps.
p.5
,,,~ nlChael Mo Bride
619-702-0673
Resource Conservation Commission Page 5
Item #2 - EIR 97-04 - Eastlake Trails
Doug Reid introduced this item and staff and consultants were available for questions. Louis
Hernandez, the project manager, was also present.
Lee Sherwood explained the traffic study conducted with various scenarios. The direct impact
reports are found on pages 81-83 of the report He noted that the jmpact on Lane Avenue and
Otay Lakes Road is unmitigabJe and it would take building eight lanes to mitigate.
Biological resources had not changed considerably since the last stUdy. He explained that
mitigation to impacts on the wetlands in Salt Creek is at a 2: 1 ratio.
Ms. Marquez questioned whether the trolley extension would go through the project area; Mr.
Sherwood stated it would not.
Ms. Thomas asked about the storm drain outfall and whether hydrologic studies had been done.
It was explained that the design and volume runoifmeets the City's requirements. Maintenance
requirements of pesticjdes to meet required standards will be enforced and the use of recycled
(gray) water are being studied.
Mr. Fisher was concerned about agricuJturalland used to preserve sensitive species and wildlife,
particularly the habitat ofburTo\\-ing owls, badgers and jack rabbits. He noted that Salt Creek is a
wildlife corridor and that Eastlake is the only conduit of movement. He questioned how human
recreation affected movement jn those corridors. Mr. Fisher requested that there be minimum
lighting through the Park Other comments and concerns included the vegetation map was not
adequately reflected; it was unknown whether the seasonal ponds introduce exotic species;
hydrology concern and its impact downstream; enhance waterways through growth of willows
Ms. Marquez requested the report address approximately 100 feet outside of the perimeter of the
project that is effected biologically. Her concerns were with regard to water that the ratio needs
to be made more dear in its report; no mitigation is proposed for loss of agricultural lands;
questioned whether storm drainage went into riparian ]ands; questioned the erosion control from
upward first flush issues and how it affect the urban drainage system.
A motion was made by Thomas that the EIR report was adequate. No second; Thomas withdrew
her motion.
It was MSUC (Fisher/Marquez), vote 4-0, motion carried, to accept the ErR 97-04 East1ake
Trails with the following requirements:
a. surveys for sensitive species be done so it is consistent with the Subregional Plan;
b. study Salt Creek wildlife and movement to see the total impacts;
c. that the project consider first flush mechanism on drainage system;
d. create wetland or pond onsite so that exotic species' bio]ogical impact of pond does not
affect Salt Creek:;
e. planting of greens be considered with the flow downstream to Salt Creek natural areas of
Dtay Ranch as required by City conservation easement
-._....._"--~-~-_.__._-,,------------
-~--
p.6
--... .
.......... Uu~.c:::bp
~. MIchael Me Bridl!
619-702-0673
p.7
Resource Conservation Conunission
Page 6
STAFF REPORT: Doug Reid reported there might not be a meeting on August 31 and will
confinn that with the Commission. Next meetings are scheduled for September 14, October 5,
and October 19.
The Planning Department has been combined with Building and Housing to the Planning and
Building Department.
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Chair Yamada asked the RCC to consider a contribution to San
Diego Hospice or some other memorial in the name of Ken Lee. Donations will be accepted at the
next meeting.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS:
Commissioner Marquez asked that Doug Reid clarify Cindy Burrascano' s not being reappointed
to RCC by Mayor Horton. Mayor Horton was not aware it would create two vacancies so she
did allow Cindy to serve on the Commission at this time.
Commissioner Marquez had greal concern for the deliberate non-reappointment of Cindy
Burrascano who has the most historical knowledge of past projects, served faithfully for six years
as Chair or Vice Chair, has had limited absenteeism, and always came to the meetings prepared.
Her lack of reappojntment js an insult to all commissioners jn all commissions, especially in light
ofthe unfilled vacancy on the RCC since June 1997 and many other vacancies on this Commission
in previous years.
Commissioner Marquez requested a memo on the update of the MSCP. Doug stated that the
Subarea Plan was planned for consideration about the first of the year.
It is noted that RCC would need to re-elect a Vice Chair at the next meeting because Burrascano
was not reappointed.
Commissioner Fisher noted that there are two vacancies on the RCC because Cindy Burrascano
was not reappointed to fulfill her term as allowed by City ordinance. He requested an explanation
ITom Mayor Horton as to her decision not to reappoint Cindy. He also requested this item be put
on the next agenda.
Commission Thomas has been jmpressed with Cindy Burrascano's dedication to the RCC and
would like to see her back on the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Yamada at 10:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES
Barbara Taylor
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.: 1
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: EIR-97-03; Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report for Otay Ranch SPA One West
BACKGROUND:
On July 7, 1998, the Environmental Review Coordinator released for public review the Draft
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the SPA One West area and certain other
villages of the Otay Ranch. This EIR is subsequent to the Program ElR on the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan and SPA One EIR.
Letters of comment received as of the date of this staff report are from the Otay Water District,
City of San Diego Development Services, California Transportation Ventures, Inc. And
Endangered Habitat League (see attachments). This will result in minor changes in the Final EIR.
The last day that the State Clearinghouse will receive comments from State agencies is August 21,
1998.
The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) meet on August 17, 1998 and recommended that
the ElR not be certified based primarily on a different opinion (than that of the consultant who
prepared the ErR) regarding the biological impacts of the project.
Draft minutes of the RCC meeting will be available to the Planning Commission prior to the
public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Open the public hearing, take any testimony relevant to the EIR and close the public hearing.
Consideration of the Final Subsequent EIR, including Response to Comments, will be scheduled
at the time the project is considered.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project consists of a variety of land use actions intended to accomplish a variety of
goals; however, the basic elements of the project are proposed amendments to the Chula Vista
General Plan (GP) , General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) and Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One Plan.
The SPA One Plan amendment would expand the current boundaries of SPA One to include the
portions of Villages One and Two west of Paseo Ranchero. In addition to expanding the SPA
Page 2, Item No.: I
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
boundary, the amendment would reduce the overall density in the Village One core area, expand
the development area adjacent to Poggi Canyon, reduce multi-family dwelling units, increase
single-family dwelling units, reduce community purpose facilities acreage and reduce commercial
acreage within the Village One core area.
Otay Ranch MSCP Subarea Plan Agreement
One of the major factors leading to the proposed project was an agreement reached between the
landowners, California Department of Fish & Game and United States Fish & Wildlife Service
in 1995 relative to the Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). In this agreement, known as
the Otay Ranch MSCP Subarea Plan Agreement, all parties agreed to allow an expansion of the
proposed development area within the Otay Valley Parcel in exchange for placement of originally
proposed development areas, north and south of the Lower Otay Reservoir, into permanent open
space. The City of Chula Vista has incorporated the content of this agreement in its Draft MSCP
Subarea Plan; however, has not adopted the MSCP, its Subarea Plan or the Agreement.
Implementation of the development area changes contained in the Agreement requires revisions
to the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP as well as the County's Otay Ranch SRP.
More specifically, the Agreement allows area previously planned for open space within Villages
One, Two, Four, Nine, Ten and Eleven to be developed while development areas within Villages
Thirteen and Fifteen would be converted to open space. Approximately 347 acres of development
can be converted to open space while approximately 313 acres of previous open space would be
allowed to be developed. As the proposed project only includes Villages One, Two, Thirteen and
Fifteen, the focus of this EIR is on those areas. In addition to these development area changes,
the Agreement includes several other considerations including: reducing residential densities
within transit village cores from 18 to 14.5 dwellings per acre, elimination of restoration
requirements for Coastal Sage Scrub and elimination of the Sensitive Resource Study (SRS)
designations over Village Thirteen.
Otay Landfill Tax Sharing Agreement
Another event which precipitated the proposed project was a Landfill Agreement reached between
the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego. While this Agreement covered a number of
areas, one aspect had specific relevance to Villages One and Two. In the Agreement, the City
agreed to convert land use designations within 1,000 feet of the landfill from the adopted
residential designations to land use designations which would be more compatible with the landfill
operations. The County has indicated Open Space and Industrial are compatible land use
categories.
Page 3, Item No.: 1
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
Changed Conditions for Development
Several of the proposed land use changes are in response to changed development conditions. For
example, the proposal to convert the commercial designations in Village Dne to a mixed use
designation and redesign the internal road circulation is intended to create a better interface with
the Park P-l across the street and direct traffic toward the commercial area to assure its economic
viability. The relocation of the high school to Village Two is intended to respond to the School
District expectation that Village Seven, where it is presently located, will not be developed in time
to provide access to the high school when it is needed in the community.
Policy Changes to the Otay Ranch GDP
In the course of preparing the adopted SPA Dne Plan, several of the goals, objectives and policies
contained in the Otay Ranch GDP were found to be impractical or infeasible by City staff. As part
of the City's adoption of the SPA Dne Plan, the Dtay Ranch GDP was amended to revise the
statements. The proposal to amend the County's Dtay Ranch SRP is intended to implement these
revisions and restore consistency between the Land Use Plans as well as the goals, objectives and
polices of the GDP and SRP.
Village One West would be amended to increase allowable single-family development area,
identify an elementary school site and a neighborhood park site.
Village Two would be amended to increase developable area, re-orient residential away from the
Dtay Landfill, increase total residential units, create a high school site, relocate the community
park site and convert the original park site to residential uses.
Village Six would be amended to reduce the density within the village core area from 18 dus to
14.5.
Village Seven would be amended to substitute residential development for the high school site,
which would be moved to Village Two.
Village Thirteen and Fifteen would be amended to convert portions of the residential designations
to open space to implement the Dtay Ranch MSCP Subarea Plan Agreement.
The County's Dtay Ranch SRP would be revised to accommodate the land use designations
consistent with proposed revisions to the City's Dtay Ranch GDP for those acres occurring in the
County's unincorporated area. In addition, GDP text changes, which were previously approved
by the City, would be made in the County's Otay Ranch SRP to bring consistency to the two land
use plans.
Page 4, Item No.: 1
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
The City's General Plan would be amended to reflect the changes proposed to the City's Dtay
Ranch GDP.
The County's General Plan would be amended to reflect the changes which have been made or
are proposed to the County's Dtay Ranch SRP.
ENvmDNMENTAL ANALYSIS:
This EIR contains an environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated with implementjng
the proposed project. This EIR is prepared as a Second Tier EIR, as allowed under CEQA
Guidelines, and incorporates by reference information contained in the following two previous
EIRs which have addressed the subject property: 1) Program EIR for the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP); and 2) Second Tier EIR for the Otay Ranch
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan and Annexation.
The following table summarizes the direct significant environmental impacts and proposed
mitigation measures by major issues, as analyzed in Section 5.0 of this EIR. Please refer to that
section for the specific mitigatjon language.
Page 5, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
bnpact
Land Use (Direct and Cumulative)
The proposed relocation of the high school,
community park and community purpose
facilities to the southern portion of Village Two
West would not be compatible with the
adjoinlng Otay Landfill. Although not a public
safety hazard, air emissions, odors, noise and
visual impacts associated with landfIJ.l operations
would not be conducive to the activities
associated with the high school, community
park and community purpose facilities.
The relocation of the community purpose
facilities out of the Village One core area to
Village Two West would not confonn with the
Otay Ranch GDP goal to locate these facilities
in proximity to the village core and resident
populations they serve.
The proposed relocation of the 25-acre
community park facility from the east portion of
Village Two to Village Two West would not
locate the community park in a central location
to the surrounding residential land uses.
The proposed amendment to the roadway
system within the Village One core area would
eliminate an important connection to the core
area from the east.
Location of multi-family residential units in
Village Two West would not conform with the
Otay Ranch GDP/SRP policy to locate higher
density residential in proximity to the village
core where community services, commercial
land uses and the light rail transit station are
pedestrian-accessible.
The development of the SPA One Amendment
Area would have a cumulative land use impact
by contributing to the transformation of the
Otay Ranch area from open land to an
urbanized character.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are available to
reduce the land use compatibility impacts
related to the Otay Landfill operations or the
land use policy impacts associated with
proposed modifications to the village core
areas and the relocation of the community
park. A voidance of the landfill compatibility
impacts would only be possible with
implementation of the no development or
modified project alternatives.
Avoidance of the village core and
community park impacts would be
accomplished with the no project or
modified project alternatives.
No mitigation measures are available to
reduce the cumulative impact on the
conversion of open land to urbanized land.
Mitigation would only be achieved through
implementation of the no development
alternative.
I
08/26/98
Analysis of Significance
After Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Traffic/Circulation (Cumulative)
Traffic generated by the development within the
SPA One Amendment Area would have a
cumulatively significant impact by contributing
traffic to several road segments which would
operate at an unacceptable level of service even
without the project traffic. The impacted
roadways would vary with the year and the
status of SR-125.
In the year 2005, without SR-125, significant
impacts would occur on Otay Lakes Road
(between East 'H' Street and Telegraph Canyon
Road, and between Telegraph Canyon Road and
Rutgers Avenue), on Olympic Psrkway
(between 1-805 and Pasco Rancher) and on
Paseo Ranchero (between Telegraph Canyon
Road and East Palomsr Street). lmpacts to 1-805
would also be cumulatively significant. With
SR-125, in the year 2005, only Olympic
Parkway (between 1-805 and Brandywine
Avenue) and 1-805 would be impacted. In the
year 2010 and build out condition, with SR-
125, only I-80S would be impacted.
Page 6, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
Mitigation Measures
Cumulative impacts on all but 1-805 would
be mitigated by the construction of SR-125.
However, in the interim, improvements to
roadways and intersections wold be required
to mitigate cumulative impacts to surface
streets.
In the year 2005, without SR-125,
unacceptable level of service on Otay Lakes
Road between East 'R' Street and Telegraph
Canyon Road would be mitigated by
improving the road to a 6-1ane major street.
No measures exist to mitigate unacceptable
level of service on Otay Lakes Road
between Telegraph Canyon Road and
Rutgers Avenue. Improving Olympic
Parkway to a prime arterial would achieve
an acceptable level of service between 1-805
and East Palomar Street. Improving Paseo
Ranchero to a 4-lane major street would
result in acceptable level of service between
Telegraph Canyon Road and East Palomar
Street.
Additional lanes would be required to
mitigate cumulative impacts on 1-805.
Funding for these additional lanes would be
beyond the control of the applicant. As there
are no assurances that sufficient funds would
be raised, there is no guarantee that the
cumulative impact on 1-805 can be
mitigated.
1
08/26/98
Analysis of Significance
After Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Biological Resources (Direct and Cumulative)
Implementation of the proposed project would
result in significant direct impacts to sensitive
vegetation types as well as sensitive plant and
animal species. In addition, the proposed
expansion of development area within the SPA
One Amendment Area would increase the
amount of biological resources which would be
impacted in comparison with the adopted GDP
and SPA One Plans.
Removal of the SRS designation from portions
of Village Thirteen could have a significant
direct impact on biological resources.
Unrestricted development in these areas could
impact several sensitive habitats including vernal
pools (K6 and K8+), Coastal Sage Scrub and
Valley Needle grass.
The loss of sensitive biological resources would
have a cumulative impact by contributing to the
loss of these resources which is occurring
througbout Chula Vista and the County of San
Diego.
LandformNisual Quality (Direct and
Cumulative)
The proposed SPA One Amendment Area
development plans would result in grading over
a larger area of land than would occur under the
adopted SPA One and GDP plans. Essentially,
the entire area would be graded to create a
series of development terraces.
Development within the SPA One Amendment
Area would convert the subject property from
vacant, undeveloped land to urbanized resulting
in a direct as well as cumulative impact on
visual quality.
Page 7, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
Mitigation Measures
The GDP requires a number of actions
which would reduce direct and cumulative
project impacts.
Land within the Otay Ranch RMP Resource
Preserve would be placed in open space at a
ratio of 1.188 acres for each acre of
development area or payment of in-lieu-{)f-
conveyance fees.
Restoration of impacted Maritime Succulent
Sage Scrub is required to be assured.
Vernal pool restoration would be assured.
Construction noise impacts on Coastal Sage
Scrub and Maritime Succulent Sage Scrub
would uot exceed 60 dBA L.. between Mark
1 and August I, unless approved by the
resource agencies, to avoid impacting the
breeding season of sensitive birds.
Development impacting wetlands would
acquire permits from appropriate State and
Federal agencies to assure that adequate
compensation is achieved.
Development impacting Coastal Sage Scrub
would obtain necessary permits from State
and Federal agencies.
Conlour grading and landscaping required
by the GDP and SPA One plans would
reduce landform impacts but would not be
able to reduce the impacts to below a level
of significance. In addition, the change of
visual character on Villages One and Two
West from undeveloped, natural land 10
urbanized development would result in a
significant, unmitigable impact to the overall
visual character and views of the SPA One
Amendment Area. Mitigation would only be
achieved through the no development
alternative.
1
08/26/98
Analysis of Significance
After Mitigation
Less than significant
Significant
Impact
Cultural Resources (Cumulative)
The loss of two significant cultural resources on
the property would combine with the loss of
other important cultural resources which has
occurred in Chula Vista and the County of San
Diego.
Air Quality (Cumulative)
Future development of the property would
generate automobile emissions which would
have a cumulative impact on regional air quality
by contributing to the problems currently being
experienced within the San Diego Air Basin.
Public Safety (Direct a.d Cumulative)
Future development within the SPA One
Amendment Area could be exposed to public
safety risks related to past agricultural pesticide
use, the Otay Landftll and transport of
hazardous materials along major roadways.
In addition, the proposed deletion of a planned
roadway between the Village One core area and
Olympic Parkway would create a public safety
impact by eliminating an important access point
for emergency vehicles.
Page 8, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
Mitigation Measures
1
08/26/98
Analysis of Significance
After Mitigation
Implementation of the testing and salvage Significant
programs for the cultural resource sites on
the SPA One Amendment Area and other
developments obtains valuable research
information but the loss of resources in their
natural setting can not be fully mitigated.
Mitigation would only be achieved by the
no development alternative or a redesign of
the project to avoid the two significant sites.
No project-specific mitigation is available to
mitigate the cumulative impact of project
traffic on the San Diego Air Basin.
However. the transit-oriented development
within SPA One and the City's CO2
Reduction Plan would help reduce local
emissions. Implementation of the Regional
Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) by local
governments throughout the air basin would
also reduce impacts, but implementation of
the RAQS is beyond the control of
individual development. Mitigation would
only be achieved through the no
development alternative.
Implementation of the Emergency Response
Plan for SPA Oue would identify
appropriate emergency response routes and
any other emergency medical facilities
needed 10 deal with porential public safety
risks such as transport or storage of
hazardous materials. However, it would not
compensate for the loss of the connection
between Olympic Parkway and the Village
One core area.
Soil and groundwater testing would be
conducted within the Ranch Operations
Center to determine the need for remedial
actions to eliminate potential pesticide
contamination from past agricultural
activities.
Potential buyers of property near the landfIll
would be notified of the presence of the
IandfiU.
Significant
Significant
Page 9, Item No.: 1
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in Section 10.0 of this EIR in terms of their
ability to meet the primary objectives of the proposed project and eliminate or further reduce its
significant environmental effects. Based on these two parameters, the following alternatives are
considered: 1) No Project: No Development, 2) No Project: Development Under Adopted Plans,
and 3) Modified Project. The modified project consists of three versions identified as A, B and
C. Versions B and C include variations upon specific elements of the Version A. The following
sections and tables summarize the direct environmental effects of the proposed project as
compared to these alternatives. These alternatives are summarized below:
No Project: No Development
This alternative assumes that the area within the SPA One Amendment Area would not be
developed, while the balance of the SPA One area would be developed in accordance with the
adopted SPA One Plan. The SPA One Amendment Area would continue to be used for limited
agriculture.
In addition, the no development alternative would eliminate the proposed amendments to land use
designations and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP and the General Plans of the City of Chula
Vista and County of San Diego.
No Project: Development Under Adopted Land Use Plans
Under this alternative, the proposed SPA and GDP/SRP Amendments would not be approved and
the property would be developed in accordance with the existing Otay Ranch GDP/SRP and
approved SPA One Plan.
With respect to SPA One, the boundary, development area and allowed uses for SPA One would
remain as currently approved. The village core density would remain 18 dwellings per acre. The
community purpose facilities would continue to be concentrated in the core, the commercial area
south of the park would remain as is and the street system would not be modified. The
development area along the Olympic Parkway would not be expanded.
Land uses within Villages One West, Two West, Two, Six, Seven, Thirteen and Fifteen would
be in accordance with the land use bubbles shown on the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. Most notably,
the high school site would remain in Village Seven, and the community park would remain in its
present location in Village Two. The portions of Village Thirteen and Fifteen proposed to be
converted to open space would remain designated for residential development.
Page 10, Item No.: I
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
Modified Project
The City and the project applicant have worked together to generate three different but related
modified project alternatives referred to as A, B and C. The primary focus of the modified project
alternatives is to achieve four primary goals: I) restore more community purpose facilities to the
Village One core area, 2) maintain key roadways in the village core area, 3) reduce the size of
the community park near Sunbow, and 4) move the high school away from the Otay Landfill.
Alternative A
The portion of Village One within the proposed SPA One Amendment Area would be
reconfigured. The community purpose facilities areas would increase by providing 6 acres in the
village core, and the overall area devoted to community purpose facilities would increase. The
acreage devoted to commercial would increase. The total number of residential units would
increase.
The high school site and all but 5 acres of the proposed community park would be eliminated from
Village Two West. The amount of acreage devoted to community purpose facilities would be
reduced. The community purpose facility area would also be moved away from the landfill
boundary. The proposed multi-family development would be eliminated and replaced with two
single-family neighborhood areas. The remaining 5 acres of park would be located on the western
boundary to augment future park area within the adjacent Sunbow development.
A Special Study Area (SSA) designation would be applied to the area of Village Two West which
shares a boundary with the Otay Landfill. The SSA designation would be a holding designation
until a suitable use for the area can be determined.
Village Two would be revised to accommodate the high school site relocated from Village Two
West. A school site would be created south of Olympic Parkway between Paseo Ranchero and La
Media Road. The community park site in Village Two would be retained by decrease by 5 acres.
Alternative B
The uses in Villages One, One West and Two would be identical to Alternative A. The major
difference between Alternative A and B would occur in Village Two West. In Alternative B, the
SSA designation would be replaced with an Industrial designation.
Alternative C
While Alternative C would be similar to Alternative A and B, there are several aspects of the
development within Village One and Village Two West which would be different. Although the
Page 11, Item No.: I
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
land use areas and intensities are the same in Village One, Alternative C include two circulation
features which are unique to this alternative. The roadway connecting Village One core with
Olympic Parkway, which is a part of the adopted SPA One Plan but would be eliminated by the
proposed project, would be included in Alternative C. In addition, a roadway would be created
to link the mixed use area with the residential areas to the east in order to provide an alternative
route for automobile and pedestrian access to the village core, as required by the GDP.
The second major difference related to Alternative C occurs in Village Two West. Alternative C
would designate the majority of the development area for industrial. All of the residential uses
would be eliminated. Community purpose facilities would be retained but would be reduced. The
community purpose facilities would be located within the industrial area rather than the residential
areas as proposed in Alternative A and B.
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY OR UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
Section 5.0 of this EIR addresses all of the environmental issues associated with implementing the
Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP amendments. Most of the issues discussed in this ElR are
not expected to be of substantial controversy or be associated with unresolved issues. However,
based on comments received during the Notice of Preparation period and conditions unique to the
Otay Ranch area, public and agency concerns are expected to be focused on several issues.
Concern for the proximity of the proposed high school to the Otay Landfill has been expressed
by the Sweetwater Union High School District. The City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego
are also concerned about the potential adverse impacts of the landfill operations on the community
park and community purpose facilities which are proposed adjacent to the landfill. Continued land
use conflicts would be contrary to the basic terms of the Otay Landfill Tax Sharing Agreement
between the City and the County.
The City is concerned about several of the proposed changes to the Village One core area
including the proposal to move the majority of the community purpose facilities out of the core
area and alter the internal road design.
While the proposal to exchange designated open space in Village One and Two for designated
residential areas in Village Thirteen and Fifteen may be of concern to special interest groups, the
proposal is part of an agreement worked out between the applicant and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service.
These issues are discussed in detail in Section 5.0 and 10.0.
Page 12, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
Land Use Comparison of Modified Project A.lternatives
Modified Alternative
Village SPA/GDP Land Use Designationl Proposed A B C
Neighbol'"hood Area Project
One Parks
P-I II.! 11.6 11.6 11.6
P-2 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9
P-J 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2
P-4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
P-12 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Total Parks 21.7 AC 22.3 AC 22.3 AC 22.3 AC
O.e .1 Schools
S-I 10.0 10.3 10.3 10.3
Total Schools 10.OAC 10.3AC 10.3 AC 10.3 AC
O.e I Commercial
I C-I 5.0 8.1 8.1 8.1
Total Commercial 5.0AC 8.IAC 8.IAC 8.IAC
Village One We.t Single-Family
R-47 108 N/A N/A N/A
R-48 100 N/A N/A N/A
R-49 108 - 86 86 86
R-50 100 91 91 91
R-SI 174 83 83 83
R-52 157 96 96 96
R-S3 118 129 129 129
R-54 146 103 103 103
R-55 N/A 95 95 95
R-56 N/A 91 91 91
Total Single-Family 803 DU 771 DU 771 DU 771 DU
Village One West I Parks
P-13 5.0 5.4 5.4 5.4
Total Parks 5.0AC 5.4AC 5.4AC 5.4AC
Village On. West I Schools
5-3 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Total School. 10.0 AC 10.0 AC 10.0AC 10.0 AC
Village Two West Sialle-Family
R-57 N/A 169 169 N/A
R-58 N/A 129 129 N/A
Suhtatal Single-Family N/ADU 298 DU 298 DU N/A
Village Two West I Multi-Family
R-S3 338 N/A N/A N/A
Suhtotal Multi.Family 338 DU N/A N/A N/A
Total Resid..tial 338 DU N/A N/A N/A
Page 13, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
Land Use Comparison of Modified Project Alternatives (Continued)
Modified Alternative
Village SP A/GDP Land Use Designatio.1 Proposed A B C
Neighborhood Area Project
Village Two 'Vest I Community Purpose Facilities
I CPF-8 25.0 5.8 5.8 5.2
I CPF-9 N/A 5.7 5.7 .5.1
Total Community Purpose Facilities 25.0 AC 11.5AC 11.5 AC 10.3 AC
Village Two West I Schools
I HS 50.0 N/A !'I/A N/A
Total Schools 50.0 AC N/A N/A N/A
Village Two West I Parks
P-14- 25,0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Total Parks 25.0 A C 5.0AC 5.0AC 5.0AC
Village Two West Industrial
I-I N/A N/A 28.7 28.7
1-2 N/A N/A 17.0 17.0
1-3 N/A N/A 5.0 5.0
1-4 N/A N/A N/A 24.0
1-5 N/A N/A N/A 21.2
Total Industrial N/A N/A 50.7 AC 95.9 AC
Village Two West Special Study Area
SSA.I N/A 28.7 N/A N/A
SSA-2 N/A 17.0 N/A N/A
SSA.3 N/A 5.0 N/A N/A
Total Special Service Area N/A 50.7 AC N/A N/A
Village Two I Single-Family
N/A 1,244 999 999 999
Total Single-Family 1,:44 DU 999 DU 999 DU 999 DU
Village Two I Community Park
N/A N/A 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Commu.ity Park N/A 20.0 AC 20.0 Ac 20.0 AC
Village Two I School
HS N/A 50.0 50.0 50.0
Total High School N/A 50.0 AC 50.0 AC 50.0 AC
DUz dwelling unit
AC= acre
N/Cz no change
N/Az not applicable
<::
..
.~
o
...
"'"
'"
..
..
o
c.
o
...
"'"
..
::
....
o
-e r:
..
t!=
~ :g
- ..
.. ..
- -
5<
5-
1: ~
e "C'
- ...
~"'"
~::
c:i
..
...
c:
'c
...
<ii
....
o
I:
o
..
1:
..
c.
5
o
U
..
=";:
<-
..
.. =
U]
::E ::E
Z Z
VJ VJ
-
...
...
.~
o
...
"'"
'"
..
c:
'"
o
:<
~ ]
~ = ~
~ 'i :E
..
..
'"
::E ::E
Z Z
VJ VJ
==
CI::i :-_!
- ...
~~-S =
~ >,.,- ~
rn-=~-;;
.. = Q,I
<ij; '"
::E ::;
Z Z
VJ VJ
...
..
'" ..
.. = =
"U;:!.!!
~ C c.. :;
0.. '" Z
... 5 ..
.=. c. c. en
000
z:-",
~<
..
Q
::;
Z
VJ
::E
Z
VJ
::;
VJ
::E ::;
Z'Z
VJ VJ
::E
Z
VJ
::E
VJ
::E ::E
Z Z
VJ VJ
~. ::E. ~
VJ VJ VJ
::;
Z
VJ
::;
VJ
::;
Z
en
-
I:
..
<:: 5
.. c.
C""S: en cn tI) cn Cfj cn
c'::~:Z:ZZ:Z:Z:Z
o ..
z:Q
o
z:
"'-
..... .,.
;.!. ,..:::;
c. 0 Z
0'" en
c'::"'"
..
=
..
'"
-
;;;
-
I:
..
5
I:
o
...
.>
I:
~
~
..
.~
;;;
:;
~ 5
.. =
.~ ~
.- = c
y -; .9
~ E ca
- :I :;
p~ U u
- ~ ~
~
E
E
r-
"
..
::>
'"
I:
..
..J
::E
Z
en
..
..
::>
'"
I:
..
..J
::E
Z
en
::E
en
::E
:z
en
'"
~ I:
" ..
.~ '0
.- ~ ~
U "E 0
2! e -
is ~, .~
- - -;
.. .. =
8 8 C1
~ ...
= =
~ ~
a: a:
Oi
=
..
~'<>
"5 5 E'~
'00 '00 c.S-
o 0 ~ ='
'0 -0 "E
i:i5 i:i5 j e
::;
en
::E
VJ
::E
z
en
::;
VJ
::;
Z
en
::;
VJ
en
:z
::E
z
en
::E
VJ
~
"
..
.- 'i
v :;
~ e
is a
~ ~
..
"
'E' ~
" =
... 0
o ~
~ '"
~ "!
o
o ~
" =
o u
::;:
VJ
::;
VJ
::E
en
::;
en
en
:z
::E
en
::E
Z
en
::;
VJ
::E
:z
en
-
~
VJ
::;
z
VJ
::;
en
::;
z
VJ
::;
en
VJ
Z
en
:z
::E
:z
en
::E
en
..
"
...
...
=
<>
..
"
a:
."
"
..
-
'"
~
is
~
..
"
'"
...
=
<>
..
~
Oi
'"
';0 ";)
<> ..
- .-
Bta
6"';
" e
- =
~u
OJ
...
.a
=
u
::;
VJ
::;
VJ
::;
en
::E
VJ
en
:z
::E
VJ
~
..
.~
;;;
:;
e
=
u
~
..
"
~
=
<>
..
"
a:
E
.2
:;
...
.;:
""
<
Page 14, Item No.:
Meeting Date:
::;
en
::;
en
::;
en
::E
en
en
:z
::E
en
'"
a
~
...
~
is
--
.~
Oi
=
a
...
~
~~
- "
"'>
"".-
<> -
- ..
<>-
... =
." e
"'=
::t:u
::;
en
:::;
en
:::;
en
:::;
en
en
Z
::E
en
~
"
.~
;;;
~ :;
~ e
is a
~ ~
.~ .€
c; c;
= =
aa
... ...
:.( :.(
:::;
Z
en
:::;
VJ
::;
en
::E
Z
VJ
::;
VJ
::;
en
::E
:z
VJ
::; ::;
VJ en
::;
Z
en
::; ::E
VJ en
en
Z
VJ en
Z Z
::E
z
VJ
::E ::E
en VJ
~
"
.~
;;;
:;
e
.. =
~ ~
a
:5 _
." ...
" ~
:'U'Q
~ ~.~ -
f '>..5!
Q ii =
~ VJ "
.~ 8
::c."
= I:
... ..
"
..
.0
:z
't;
~
B
::;
VJ
::;
Z
VJ
::;
Z
VJ
::;
VJ
en
:z
::E
:z
VJ
....
.]!
..
VJ
.~
::c
=
...
"
:;;
~
" '"
:s :=
g:,E
:.a '0
E c
=:--0
B.& Ii
1::--
._ c e
c ~ ~
.!P~~
r/J.- .-
_ c c
Z~.2,D.~
"""
o;:)j~
z"''''
,:,
~
~
~
~
c-
o
.Q.
E
>.
o
""
c
~
~
~
~
v
~
o
v
C
o
"
'"
~
:>
c
o
v
!
"
.c
c
.g
t;
v
c
C
o
"
""
~
e
~
o
c
.~
=
u
.5
S
u
=
""
""
"
>;
.~
.5
:::;.
-=
..
-/)
,
....TIrnir.olf'd f(] (~(1I11I\1U/lil~ (~(',~l'i(:('
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD, SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 91977-7299
TELEPHONE: 670-2222, AREA CODE 619
August 4, 1998
w.o. 8644
Mr. Doug Reid
Envjronmental Section
Planning Department
City ofChula Vista
27G Fourth Avcnt~e
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject:
Draft Second Tier Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments
Dear Mr. Reid:
The Otay Water District (OWD) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on
the subject Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The OWD requests That
the following comments be addressed and incorporated into the Final ElR:
. Section 5.12 contains numerous references to the 1995 Subarea Master Plan (SAMP).
All these should refer to the approved 1998 SAMP.
. The 1998 SAMP will need to be amended to add the Village One West and VilJage
Two West areas and land use changes reflected in the amended SPA One project.
. Page 5.12-3 and 5.12-5 state that the area would be served by the 624 and 711
pressure zones. As stated in the SAMP, the entire project will be served by the 711
pressure zone oniy.
. The second bullet on page 5.12-6 refers to the planned 711 reservoir north of Salt
Creek Ranch as 9 MG. As stated elsewhere on the page, this will be an 8 MG
reservoIr.
. Page 5.12-6 discusses the replacement ofOWD's existing 16-inch and 18-inch
pipelines with larger lines. Please clarify that these lines will also be relocated
around the periphery of the village.
Mr. Doug Reid
August 4, 1998
Page 2
. The discussion on reclaimed water should state that the 680 recycled water storage
site will be located within the EastLake Greens project between Greens View Drive
and East Orange Avenue. Also, include in the SEIR that this site is to accommodate
all the needed reclaimed water facilities as identified on thjs site in the OWD Water
Resources Master Plan.
. Page 5.12-8 refers to the requirement of a Water Conservation Plan. The EIR itself
should include OWD's water conservation measures, available through Jan Tubiolo of
OWD at (619) 670-2290.
. Page 5.12-9 states, "...annexation is not necessary except into an improvement
djstrict( s)." Please specify that SPA One would need to be annexed jnto OWD's
jmprovement district Nos. 22 and 27 in order to obtain water and recycled water
servIce.
. The ElR should provide a summary of the phasing djscussion contained in Chapter 8
of the SAMP.
Please contact Mr. Terry Kreuiter, Public Service Counter, at (619) 670-2246 if you need
information regarding water facilities or service. If you have any questions regarding the
envjronmental comments, please call me at (619) 670-2293.
~
7~
Sincerely,
Michael F. Cole an, AICP
Environmental Specialist
MC:seh
cc: Barbara Reid, City of Chula Vista
Bruce Mcintyre, Lettjeri-McIntyre & Associates
Tim Stanton
Bart Mumford
Jim Peasley
Terry Kreuiter
David Charles
Jan Tubiolo
P:\WORKING\W08644\Otay Ranch Draft.doc
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION VENTURES, INC.
707 Broadway, Suite 1600
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 338 8385
Fax: (619) 338-8123
FAC-SIMILE TRANSMISSION
Date: August 12, 1998
Number of Pages: 2 (including cover)
To: Barbara Reid, City ofChula Vista
Cc: Charles Stoll, Caltrans
From: Robert Gariif
Subject:
Otay Ranch SPA 1 and GDP/SRP Amendments
Draft EIR
We are pleased to have the opportunjty to review and provide comments on the Draft EIR
for the Otay Ranch SPA 1 and GDP/SRP Amendments. Our comments relate only to the
Traffic/Circulation section and Technical Appendices.
EIR
1. Table 5.2-3 shows SR 125 is assumed to have 3 northbound and 3 southbound lanes
in 2005, 2010, and at buildout.
According to the widening schedule in the Interim Features Section of the SR125 South
Fjnal Project Report (July 1998), SR 125 will have 2 northbound and 2 Southbound lanes
through the Otay Ranch area until 2010, when the section from Telegraph Canyon Road
to East "H" St. Will be widened to 3 northbound and 3 southbound lanes. The section
from East "H" St. to SR 54 is expected to be widened to 2x3 lanes by 2010 and 2x41anes
by 2015.
The SR 125 South Traffic Analysis Report (June 1996) also assumed that in 2015 the
lane configurations will be as described jn the above paragraph.
The section from SR 905 to Telegraph Canyon Road is not expected to be widened to 3
northbound and 3 southbound lanes until approximately 2022.
However, even with these changes, the LOS on SR 125 South in Table 5.2-3 would still
be D or better.
2. Orange Avenue js assumed to be built entirely from I-80S to Olympic Training Center
in all scenarios from 2005 irrespective of whether SR 125 is built or not. With SR125,
Orange Avenue may not be needed until around 2010, as long as LOS on Telegraph
Canyon Rd. is maintained in accordance with City standards..
Technical Appendices
1. Figures 7c, 7d, 7e, 8d, 9c, and 9d show a half diamond interchange at Eastlake
Parkway from year 2005 (Figure 7c, d, e), 2010 (Figure 9 c&d) and only at build-out.
Figure 8d. A half diamond at EastLake Parkway is not needed in 2005 or 2010. It
could be considered at build-out but would require a design exception because of
interchange spacing.
2. Table 15: same comments as number 1 in the EIR Section above.
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
"....,' ,', ):",
'r ".".."t, J
,,", f
.. ~ .: ;''''''' ':,~,;-
: 1.'..
. ? ~ I~~;.; ,I
August 12, 1998
>oJ, .
p, ,: i'- . ~~ _ ~'\l i' .{'
. . c. ... ~.._...
Douglas Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 92012
Dear Mr. Reid:
Subject:
Second Tier Draft ErR for Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP
Amendments
The City of San Diego has reviewed the transportation/circulation section of the subject
document and has the following comments:
1. The transportation/circulation section should include specific discussion of the
additional trips expected to be generated by the proposed project and discussion
of the trip distribution and trip assignment assumption. Similarly, this information
should be provided for alternatives A, Band C in the project alternatives section.
2. The transportation/circulation section of the EIR should include evaluation of
project impact on roadway segments and intersections in the City of San Diego.
The following roadway segments and intersections should be analyzed under all
scenarios (existing, year 2000 without SR 125, year 2005 without SR 125, year
2005 with SR 125, year 2010 with SR 125 and buildout with SR 125) using the
City of San Diego's significance thresholds:
INTERSE.CTIONS
. Otay Valley Road / Heritage Road
. Otay Mesa Road I Heritage Road
. Otay Mesa Road / La Media Road
..f~
'~
" /
" : ~';i' \
Development Services
Development Services Center. ] 222 First Avenue, l'i\S 501 . Son Diego, CA 92101.4155
~ \~
Page 2
ROADWAY SEGMENTS
. Otay Valley Road (Olympic Parkway to Otay Mesa Road)
. La Media Road (Birch Parkway to Otay Mesa Road including future river
crossing)
. Alta Road (Birch Parkway to Otay Mesa Road including future river
crossing)
. Otay Mesa Road (Otay Valley Road to La Media Road)
. Otay Mesa Road (La Media Road to SR-905)
. Otay Mesa Road (SR-905 to Alta Road)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions regarding the
above comments, please contact Ali Sabouri, Transportation Development Section,
at 236-6896.
Sincerely,
~JiO
Scott Vurbeff
Associate Planner
SAV/sav
cc: AIi Sabouri
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
',...,;'
Dedicated to Ecosystem Protection and Improved Land Use Planning
Dan Silver . Coordinator
8424.A Santa Monica Blvd., #592
Los Angeles, CA 90069-4267
TEL 323-654-1456 . FAX 323-654-1931
August 17, 1998
Doug Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
P.o. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 92012
RE: Draft Second Tier EIR for Otay Ranch SPA 1 and GDPISRP Amendments (ElR-97 -03,
FB-083, SCH #97091079)
Dear Mr. Reid:
The Endangered Habitats League (EHL) is an organization of Southern California
conservation groups and individuals dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use
planning, and collaborative conflict resolution. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
EHL participated in the original project approval some years ago, and wishes to remind the
Planning Commission and Council of the terms of thai approval. Pedestrian-oriented tmnsit
villages were an integral "selling point" of the project as a whole, and were used by the applicant to
justify the massive upzonings which were requestcd and subsequently granted. It was a "package
deal." Furthermore, at the time of project approval, housing densities near lransit stops were
considered at levels of 25 units/acre, in order to best support tmnsit. The final level of 18
units/acre was a significant downward compromise from the tmnsit perspective, and was deemed
the lowest possible density that would adequately support a transit system.
In this context, il is deeply disturbing that the applicant is now reneging on promises made
and is requesting a lowering of transit densities to 14.5 units/acre. This should be immediately
rejected by the City so that good faith is kept with the public and good planning is continued.
The proposed reduction to density levels not fully supportive of transit will have adverse
impacts to air quality, public services, land use, and traffic. The EIR musl fully analyze these
impacts and avoid causing them. If "infeasibility" is claimed, the City should not entertain such
bogus arguments, as the complete feasibility of densities of 18 units/acre in lransit villages was
determined at the time of previous approval. Did the applicant simply promise one thing, with the
intent of coming back to change it laler?
The proposed amendments also contradict several aspects of the Oct. 28, 1993 "Findings
of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration" made for the Otay Ranch project. For
example, with the density reductions proposed, and transil no longer adequately supported, it
could not be said that the project "creales a multi-modal transportation network," for such a
nelwork musl have sufficient ridership and proximily of cuslomers to be viable and cost-effective.
EHL is willing to support well-planned development to accommodate growth which
contributes to the long-tenn sustainability of the region. Transit is a critical element of such
sustainability, and functional transit villages requirc thc minimum densities of 18 units/acre
previously approved. To change them now would break commitments made and would abandon
the most positive clements of this huge conversion of agricultural and natural lands to urban uses.
Thank you very much for considering our views.
Sincerely,
.
.c2:.~
Dan Silver,
Coordinator
cc: Robert Leiter, Planning Director
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 2
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: ElR 97-04; Consideration of comments on the EastLake
Trails/Greens Replanning Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(SElR)
The public hearing on the EastLake Trails/Greens is intended to solicit comments ITom the Planning
Commission and the public on the Draft SElR. The DSElR began public review on July 24, 1998.
A 30-day shortened review period was granted by the State. City of Chula Vista procedures require
the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to receive public comments on the Draft SElR.
The DSElR public review period ends with the closing of the Planning Commission public hearing.
ISSUES:
The following impacts were identified as significant in the Draft SElR:
. Transportation/Traffic Cjrculation (Direct and Cumulative)
. Biological Resources (Direct)
. HydrologylDrainage (Direct)
. Landform Alteration/Visual Quality (Direct)
. Noise (Direct)
. Paleontology (Direct)
. Air Quality (Cumulative)
. Public Facilities
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing on the DSElR (ElR 97-04), close the
public hearing and ElR public review period and direct staff to prepare the Final ElR including:
Responses to the comment letters received to date and testimony at the public hearings, Findings of
Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Resource Conservation Commission (RCe) met on August 17, 1998 to review the DSElR. A
motion was made to recommend approval of the ElR subject to conditions. Those conditions are jn
the RCC minutes which will be available prior to the public hearing.
Page 2, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
DISCUSSION:
A. Background
This document is a "Subsequent EIR", which means that it is tiered off previously certified EIRs.
Both EastLake Trails and Greens have been previously addressed in several EIRs, including the
original Master EIR for EastLake (E1R 81-3), the Final EIR for EastLake Greens SPA and the
EastLake Trails prezone and annexation (EIR 86-4). Although the Trails was addressed in the
previous documents, specific impacts for the Trails were not adequately addressed because planning
for that portion of the project had not progressed to a stage where sufficient detail was available to
do a complete impact analysis. Therefore, although many issues have been addressed previously, an
SElR was required for this project for two reasons: 1) to determine if the previous environmental
review was still accurate in light of the more detailed plans that are now available; and 2) in order to
make a determination that the information contained in the previous documents was still timely and
to the extent that it was not, to update it.
B. Project Description
The DSEIR evaluates the impacts associated with the replanning ofEastLake Trails and EastLake
Greens. The Greens neighborhood, which has an adopted SPA, consists of 853.2 acres and contains
a wide range of residential densities totaling 2,738 dwelling units and other support services. The
EastLake Trails neighborhood, which does not have an adopted SPA, consists of322.2 acres and
contains residential land use designations for 1,260 dwelling units and a 15 acre commercial site.
In 1992, the EastLake and Baldwin Companjes completed a land exchange involving three parcels
known as the "Land Swap" parcels. As a result of this transaction, one ofthe "Land Swap" parcels
was added to the Otay Ranch GDP. The remaining two parcels are now proposed to be incorporated
into the EastLake Greens SPA and the EastLake II GDP. The two "Land Swap" parcels proposed
to be added at this time consist of 141.7 acres.
The purpose of the proposed planning program is to incorporate the "Land Swap" parcels into the
EastLake II GDP, EastLake Greens SPA and other associated documents; and to replan the land use
distribution and adopt a SPA plan, with associated regulatory documents for the Trails neighborhood.
Page 3, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
Discretionary approvals that will be necessary to complete the replanning process are:
1. An amendment to the Chula Vista General Plan.
2. Amendments to the EastLake II General Development Plan.
3. Amendment to the EastLake Greens SPA Plan to incorporate the "Land Swap" parcels jnto
the SPA Plan and amendment to the associated documents, including (a) EastLake II Planned
Community District Regulations, (b) EastLake Greens Air Quality Improvement Plan, (c)
EastLake Greens Water Conservation Plan, (d) EastLake Greens Public Facilities Financing
Plan, and (e) EastLake Greens Design Guidelines.
4. New Sectional Planning Area plan and associated documents, including: (a) Planned
Community District Regulations, (b) Air Quality Improvement Plan, (c) Water Conservation
Plan, (d) Public Facilities Financing Plan, (e) Design Guidelines, (f) Affordable Housing
Program and changes, jf any, in the circulation system.
5. Development Agreement between the City ofChula Vista and The EastLake Company.
Modifications to the EastLake II Plan would consist of the following:
EastLake Greens
Changes in the EastLake Greens land use designations are restricted to the "Land Swap" parcels and
the southwest corner of the adopted SPA Plan adjacent to the southern "Land Swap" parcel (see
Figure 1). This southwestern corner is undeveloped and is separated ITom the part of EastLake
Greens where development has begun or is completed by the alignment of the Second San Diego
Aqueduct, marked by an Open Space designation in both the 6.3 acres adopted and proposed SPA
Plans. In that area, the proposed project would remove the "Future Urban" designation and expand
the "R-9" designation ITom 8.5 to 58.1 acres. The SPA target density for the R-9 designation is
proposed for an increase ITom 5.3 dulac to 11.5 dulac, yielding 750 units. Consequently, the total for
the EastLake Greens SPA would increase by 705 units, ITom 2,738 to 3,443.
Nonresidential land use changes between the adopted and proposed EastLake Greens SPA Plan
would include the removal of the "Future Urban" category, the addition of a "Freeway Commercial"
designation to 50.7 acres in the western part of the southern "Land Swap" parcel, and the addition
of the "Professional and Administrative" designation to 24.7 acres in the norther "Land Swap" parcel.
The area of the "Major Circulation" category would increase by 17.9 acres, and 5 acres would be
added to the OS-5 "Open Space" category. The OS-5 category would be an interim designation,
subject to a future SPA amendment for consistency with the General Plan.
Page 4, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
There are no changes proposed to the developed and developing areas ofEastLake Greens. The only
"change" is the addition of the "Land Swap" parcel to the EastLake Greens SPA.
The two "Land Swap" parcels consist of the following land uses:
. 24.7 acres of office
. 750 multi-family dwelling units
. 50.7 acre retail site.
EastLake Trails
No SPA Plan has been adopted for the EastLake Trials neighborhood, but the proposed SPA Plan
differs in some respects from the adopted EastLake II GDP. These changes consist of:
. Reconfiguration ofthe internal circulation system.
. Eliminating the "Retail" (C) designation in the northwest corner of the SPA.
. Eliminating two areas designated for "Public and Quasi-public" use (P/Q) in the northern and
central parts of the SPA and adding 4.5 acres of community purpose facility land use
designation.
. Adding an elementary school site in the west-central part of the SPA.
. Changing the configuration of the public park area in the Salt Creek drainage (P-l and P-2),
eliminating the central parks and recreation site, adding a private recreation site (P-3) adjacent
to the community park.
. Adding a "Future Urban" (FU-l) designation to areas east of Salt Creek, with further
planning of these areas to occur concurrent with similar-level planning for the adjoining
EastLake Vistas neighborhood in the EastLake III GDP.
. Adding 4.5 acres of community purpose facility land use designation (PQ).
For the purposes of this analysis, the EastLake Trails project consists of the following land uses.
. 1,120 single-family dwelling units
. 13 gross acres (10 net acre) elementary school
. 28.2 acres of passive park
. 24. 1 acres of active park.
Page 5, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
c. Analysis
Each issue identified in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was analyzed in the SEIR to determine if
it would have a significant impact on the environment. Direct project level and cumulative impacts
have been identified for the project. A cumulative impact is one in which the project contributes to
the impact along with all of the other projects reasonably being anticipated in the vicinity. If the
project results in a cumulative impact, it means that by itselfthis project would not have resulted in
a significant impact (effect). However, when it is considered with all of the other projects currently
anticipated, together they all result in a significant impact. Several cumulative impacts do not have
mitigation measures proposed (i.e., traffic impacts) because in some cases the cumulative impact is
beyond the control of anyone developer to mitigate. In those cases either regional solutions are
identified as mitigation measures, or the result is a significant unmitigated impact (i.e., impacts to
freeway segments).
Transportation/Traffic Circulation (Direct and Cumulative)
In the Year 2000, significant cumulative impacts would occur on East "H' Street between I-80S and
Terra Nova Drive and on Telegraph Canyon Road between I-80S and Paseo del Rey. Significant
cumulative impacts will occur at the East "ff' StreetlI-805 southbound ramps and Telegraph Canyon
Road/I-805 southbound ramps intersections. (please see Engineering Department comment memo
on the DSEIR regarding future improvements to East "ff' Street.) In addition, significant cumulatjve
impacts will occur on I-80S between East "ff' Street and Bonita Road.
Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant include the future construction of SR-
125, improving the section of Telegraph Canyon Road near I-80S to Prime Arterial standards,
providing a fourth eastbound through lane and a third northbound right-turn lane, as planned by the
City, at the East "H' Street and I-80S southbound ramps and extending Olympic Parkway eastward
to Paseo Ranchero.
In the Year 2005, without SR-125, significant cumulative impacts are calculated to occur on East
"H" Street between I-80S and Terra Nova Drive (beyond impacts identified in Year 2000 and
mitigated for), on Otay Lakes Road between East "ff' Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, and on
Olympic Parkway between I-80S and Paseo Ranchero. Significant cumulative impacts will occur at
the intersections of East "ff' StreetlI-805 southbound ramps and Telegraph Canyon Road/I-805
southbound ramps. There are also significant cumulative impacts to segments of! -805.
Mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less than significant include construction of SR-125
(which js scheduled) andlor improving Otay Lakes Road to six-lane Major street standards.
In the Year 2010, with SR-125, only one project direct traffic impact was identified. The model
indicates that in the Year 2010 (with SR-125), the intersection ofOtay Lakes Road and Lane Avenue
Page 6, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
will operate at Level of Service F during the AM and PM peak hours unless mitigated by providing
additional right- and left-hand turn lanes.
In addition, significant cumulative impacts would occur on Otay Lakes Road between SR-125 and
EastLake Parkway, on EastLake Parkway between Otay Lakes Road and Clubhouse Drive and on
Lane Avenue between Proctor Valley Road and Otay Lakes Road.
Mitigation of these impacts to a level of less than significant would be attained by the street
improvements outlined in the SEIR.
Finally, in the Buildout scenario significant cumulative impacts would occur on EastLake Parkway
between north of Otay Lakes Road and Clubhouse. No project specific impacts are identified at
Buildout.
For the years 2000, 2005, 2010 and Buildout significant cumulative impacts are identified for
segments ofI-805. The mitigation for these impacts is continued freeway planning efforts by CalTrans
and SANDAG to determine acceptable mitigation strategies for regional freeway system. These
impacts are all considered significant cumulative impacts. Freeway improvements are regional in
nature and beyond the control of either a single developer or the City. Therefore, impacts to freeways
are considered cumulatively significant and can not be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant.
Biological Resources
The majority of the project site has been used for agricultural purposes for the past several years. The
Salt Creek corridor runs north-south along the eastern boundary of the Trails. Construction and
grading associated with the proposed Salt Creek linear park and other land uses would directly impact
willow wetland and non-wetland jurisdictional waters within the northern portion of the Salt Creek
wetland area. This is a project specific direct impact. Mitigation for these impacts include the
enhancement and creation of riparian vegetation within the Salt Creek Corridor at a ratio of 1 : 1 with
approval of a mitigation plan by the City. Approval of the mitigation plan by the City of Chula Vista
would also be subject to a 1603 Stream bed alteration permit and the Section 404 permitting process.
Hydrology/Drainage
The proposed grading plan would alter existing runoff patterns by leveling hills and filling in on-site
drainages. It will cause an increase in the amount of runoff and would have potentially significant
impacts on downstream drainage facilities and water quality. The project area does contain an existing
detention basin in Salt Creek, north of Olympic Parkway at the southern end of the site. The use of
detention basins to control runoff discharge and the implementation of water quality mitigation
measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. The project does incorporate a second
Page 7, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
detention basin upstream of the existing basin within the Salt Creek corridor. Mitigation measures
include hydro seeding and landscaping cut/fill slopes, erosion control measures during grading, etc.
Landform Alteration/Visual Ouality
The project will result in a direct project specific significant impact on-site landform and visual
quality. The visual character will change ITom agricultural to planned community. The entire site will
be graded. In addition, cumulative night-sky illumination impacts would occur however, this impact
is not significant. Provisions within the SPA Plan Design Guidelines will reduce the landform
alteration and visual quality impacts to a level ofless than significant.
Noise
Based on the City's noise standards, significant noise impacts would occur as a result of vehicular
noise associated with adjacent roadways. Significant noise impacts to the Trails would be ITom
traffic along Otay Lakes Road, Hunte Parkway and Olympic Parkway. Although there is a potential
for noise impacts to portions of the northern "Land Swap" ITom future SR-125 the likelihood of this
occurring is substantially diminished because of the restrictions on building placement due to a
SDG&E high-tension power line easement that runs through the site. The southern "Land Swap"
parcel will have significant noise impacts ITom vehicular traffic on Olympic Parkway and EastLake
Parkway. Methods for noise reduction are recommended for the Trails and the Southern "Land
Swap" parcel such as barriers and berms as well as detailed acoustical studies prior to the issuance
of building permits. Acoustical studies are recommended for the norther "Land Swap" parcel when
detailed site plans are available to assure that any noise jmpacts are mitigated.
Cultural Resources/Paleontological Resources
Impacts to the identified significant archaeological sites and prehistorjc sites have been adequately
mitigated for based on previous EIRs. There is still the potential for paleontological resources which
could be discovered during the grading operations. Mitigation measures requiring monitoring by a
Paleontologist and collection and storage of any fossils founds have been included in the SEIR.
Air Ouality
The proposed project will result in a short-term project specific significant impact as a result of
grading and construction operations. Mitigation measures have been included in the SEIR for dust
control during these operations and the use oflow pollutant-emitting construction equipment. These
mitigation measures will reduce the short-term impact to less than significant 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-
attaimnent area, therefore, any incremental increase in pollution if considered a significant cumulative
Page 8, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
impact. The cumulative impact is a regional impact beyond the control of the project applicant and
can not be mitigated to a level less than significant.
Public Facilities
The project will result in an incremental increase in water consumption. The increase in water
demand has been planned for by the OWD. As long as water facility construction coincides with the
anticipated growth then no significant impacts would result with project development. An existing
12-inch water line crosses the EastLake Trails site to provide a water supply to the Olympic Training
Center. Grading operations within EastLake Trails would remove the existing 12-inch water line.
This represents a potentially significant impact if the line is removed prior to the completion of the
711 Zone water transmission mains within Hunte Parkway and Olympic Parkway. Mitigation
measures regarding improvements within the 711 Zone have been included in the SEIR
There are potentially significant sewer facility impacts because of the depth of the facilities proposed
for the "Land Swap" parcels. Development of the "Land Swap" parcels prior to the completion of
the Poggi Canyon trunk sewer would be a significant impact on the existing EastLake Parkway sewer
pump station. In addition, depending on the timing for the Salt Creek interceptor sewer, the Otay
Lakes Road pump station may also need to be expanded. Mitigation measures to ensure that
adequate sewer facilities are available have been included in the document.
The project will generate additional demand for schools. School facilities financing and mitigation
agreements with the affected school district and the project applicant would be required at the time
the tentative map is approved by the City Council.
The proposed project would provide adequate public park and recreation facilities for EastLake and
surrounding communities. No significant impact has been identified.
The Chula Vista Police Department currently does not meet the standard threshold for Priority One
and Priority Two calls. The incremental increase in calls for police service is considered a significant
impact. Likewise, if the underpass beneath Otay Lakes Road is used as a pedestrian trail leading to
the Salt Creek linear park, the potential for significant public safety impacts exists. Development fees
and other revenues to the City will be required for this project which will provide additional patrol
officers in the area. Long tenn planning for police facilities and personnel is currently on-going.
The Chula of Chula Vista Fire Department currently meet the standard threshold required for fire
protection. The Fire department would be able to provide adequate service to the area in the short-
term. An incremental increase in calls for fire service may result in a significant impact. The
proposed revised Fire Station Master Plan calls for the addition of three new fire stations within the
eastern territories and the relocation ofInterim Fire Station No.6 to the Trails. These measures will
reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
Page 9, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
Threshold Analysis
The City has adopted a Growth Management Ordinance that contains Quality of Life Threshold
Standards. These thresholds set levels of service or maintenance for II facilities and improvements,
and are used as the basis to determine the need for new or upgraded facilities to mitigate for impacts
of a new development. This section of the SEIR considers each one of the II services and determines
what, if any, improvements are needed as a result of this project. The proposed project meets the
thresholds standards.
Cumulative Impacts
The EIR provides a comprehensive examination of build out of EastLake Trails/Greens and other
major projects in the vicinity. When considered in conjunction with other development project in the
vicinity, the following are considered cumulative significant. Each of these issues and their mitigation
is addressed in one ofthe analysis sections discussed above.
. LandformNisual Quality
. TransportationlTraffic Circulation
. Noise
. Water services
. Sewer services
. Hydrology/Drainage
. Air Quality
. Cultural/Paleontological Resources
. Biological Resources
D. Alternatives
The following alternatives were analyzed:
1. No Project
Under this alternative, the EastLake Trails project site and the "Land Swap" parcels would remain
essential in its existing undeveloped condition.
2. Development Consistent with Adopted Plan
This alternative would implement the GDP and not proceed with the proposed amendments and
corresponding SPA Plan for the Trails.
Neither alternative is considered to be environmentally superior to the proposed project.
Page 10, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
E. Public Comments
All comments received from outside Public Agencies, City Departments and the applicant are
attached. Comments were received !Tom:
Otay Water District
San Diego County Archaeological Society
City of Chula Vista Public Works Department
Ail comments received on the Draft SEIR, both written and oral will be responded to in the
"Response to Comments" section of the Final SEIR adopted by the City Council.
Page 11, Item:
Meeting Date: 08/26/98
Development Plan
~~~
- ~
prO[EOBea
! Eastlake Trai/~
\
\
/
t(
.., S
if
E--" .... . ~
.... .~
\~,
. \ . ..]
\ E--"..... <~.
\ .> S
\ ~-I)/
. ..;;.
\ <'",J
\ "
. :1
\\
\i--
(H:\homc\planning'marilyn\eastlakeleir9704.tpt )
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE RESOURCES "-.;ENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Natural Community Conservation Planning
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
(619) 467-4251
FAX 467-4235
PETE WilSON. Governor
~
j"\
, ,
August 1 7, 1 998
Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi
City of Chula Vista
P!<:~ning [\p';',rt",r,.'
276 Fourth Street
Chula Vista, CA 91 91 0
Comments on the Eastlake Trails Replanning
Program Draft Supplemental EIR (SCH 92031049)
Dear Ms. Ponseggi:
The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the
above referenced document pursuant to our role as a Trustee Agency under Section
15386 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This project generally
proposes to prepar, the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) documents for a 322 acre
parcel and the inclusiun of two "land swap parcels" totaling about 126 acres, into the
Eastlake II GDP, Eastlake Greens SPA, and associated documents. We have identified
several issues that require clarification and possibly project changes to ensure that the
proposed habitat mitigation plan can be achieved. Upon resolution of these issues, the
Department would concur that the project and its proposed mitigation adequately
address environmentE!1 impacts that wil! resl!!t from implementing the project. Please
provide the Department with clarifying responses to the following issues prior to
certifying the project.
The City of Chula Vista needs to confirm that processing this project will not
preclude the preparation of its MSCP Subarea Plan. This site includes Salt Creek
drainage that adjoins committed preserve habitat lands within Salt Creek on the Otay
Ranch GDP.
The Supplemental EIR contains references to the land swap parcels as either
141.7 acres (page 24) or 125.6 acres (page 39). Please clarify which number is
correct.
Ms. Marilyn ponseggi
August 17, 1998
Page 2
Pages 28-33, including Figures 3-4 and 3-5, and Table 3-2, provide a listing of
the use allocations for the EastLake Trails property. That information, particularly
Table 3-2, suggests that only 5 acres of open space is available for natural habitat
restoration purposes. However, the document identifies impacts to 6 acres of
wetlands, and requires roughly a 2:1 ratio (11.32-12.92 acres) of mitigation for
wetlands (Table 4.3-3). Included in the mitigation component is 1.78 acres of open
water habitat. Open water habitat is not an appropriate substitute for wetland
vegetation, and should not be included as such in the table as a mitigation component
for wetland vegetation impacts.
In addition, a previous project that allowed construction of Olympic Parkway
across Salt Creek will impact 1.96 acres of Salt Creek wetlands and requires mitigation
within the EastLake Trails property. That project is required to create and restore 4.7
acres of wetlands. It is unclear from the allocated land uses (e.g., Table 3-2) how the
project adequately allocates sufficient area for all of the wetland vegetation mitigation
(4.7 acres plus 11.32 acres == 15.92 acres) to occur onsite. Also, the location of
these habitat restoration areas should be distinct from public use areas (active
parklands) to maintain and assure their function as viable habitat. Figure 4.3-2
illustrates a conceptual mitigation plan that depicts natural habitat (mitigation)
intermixed with recreational use areas. The Department does not concur that the
conceptual mitigation plan illustration is acceptable and requests to be involved in the
preparation of the final mitigation plan.
The ~(),:ume.'l provides a general description of the habitats that will be created
and restorea to miti::Jate for the impacts to willow wetland and stream course (Figure
4.3-2 and Table 4.3-3). Mitigation is proposed to create/restore at a ratio of
approximately 1 : 1 for willow wetland and substitute at approximately a 1: 1 ratio with
sycamore/cottonwood and oak woodland habitats. A wetland mitigation plan of a least
2: 1 is generally required by the Department, which requests that it be included in
preparation of the final wetland mitigation planning that is required as Mitigation
Condition 4.3.4-1 in the SEIR.
The Department concurs that it must be consulted by the applicant prior to
issuance of the grading permit so that a Streambed Alteration Agreement can be
applied for and obtained from the Department before any construction occurs within
the Salt Creek dra;w.ge (Mitigation Condition 4.3.4-2).
Mitigation for those wetland impacts should be set aside as natural open space,
and not be included into public amenity/use open space such as for recreational park
purposes. Please clarify how the natural open space mitigation areas will be assured
by the projects.
Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi
August 17, 1998
Page 3
Please contact the Department at the above address and phone number to
discuss our comments.
cc: Department of Fish and Game
Ron Rempel
Gail Presley
Sacramento
Terri Dickerson
Laguna Niguel
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sherry Barrett
Nancy Gilbe;t
Cc:rlsbad
eastlake.bt
Sincerely,
YJCUfiJ n ~{,V/~
r~
\^.'~!!~ar~~ E. Tipprts
Habitat Conservation Supervisor