HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1999/07/14
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, July 14, 1999
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CAWMOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
May 26, 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.
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 to public hearing to the regular
Planning Commission meeting of 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)
Staff presenting report: Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
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.
H :\HOME\PLAN N ING\DIANA \PCAG EN DA. DOC
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 26, 1999
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CAW MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Absent:
Chair Willett, Commissioners Castaneda, Ray, Thomas, and O'Neill
Commissioners Hall and Tarantino
Staff Present:
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
Leilani Hines, Community Development Specialist
Glenn Goggins, Assistant City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MSC (O'Neill/Thomas) (4-0-3-0) to approve minutes of April 14, 1999 as submitted. Motion
carried.
MSC (Castaneda/Ray) (4-0-2-1) to approve minutes of April 28, 1999 as submitted. Motion
carried with Commissioner O'Neill abstaining.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
No public input.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a 38 percent density bonus increase and a reduction
in the required parking for an 11 unit transitional housing
development, known as Trolley Trestle, located at 746 Ada Street to
be developed by South Bay Community Services.
Background: Leilani Hines, Community Development Specialist reported that the applicant,
South Bay Community Services, is requesting approval of a 38% density bonus and a reduction
in the parking requirements to facilitate the construction of an 11 unit affordable housing
development for young adults completing the County of San Diego Foster Care program. The
project is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area.
The site is strategically situated in an area that is served by public transportation, the Palomar
trolley stop, commercial centers, an elementary school, the County of San Diego Family
Resource Center and a proposed day care facility. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the site is
appropriate for transitional housing and is compatible with surrounding land uses.
Planning Commission Minutes
.2-
May 26,1999
On December 8, 1998, the City Council conditionally approved conveyance of this property for
the fair market value of the property ($167,600) to South Bay Community Services for this
project, but was conditioned based on their ability to obtain land use and environmental reviews
and approval, as well as a firm commitment from all of their funding resources. The project will
be owned and operated by SBCS, a non-profit organization.
The project contains 11 units, a common room, and 12 parking spaces, and the purpose of the
public hearing is to consider a 38% density bonus, going from 8 to 11 units, ten units which will
be occupied by very low income emancipated foster youth, and one unit will be occupied by
an on-site property manager. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the parking
requirements from 19 to 12 spaces (one parking space per unit plus one handicapped parking
space) .
Tentatively scheduled for June 8'h, the Redevelopment Agency and City Council will be
considering a request for financial assistance approving a loan to the applicant for $300,000 to
meet the remaining financing of the project.
State density bonus law states that if a developer decides to designate a portion of their units as
affordable to low or very low income households, that Cities have the responsibility of either
providing a minimum 25% density bonus and at least one additional incentive, or make a finding
that it is not required, or as an alternative provide financial incentives to the developer.
Staff feels that the applicant's requests are justified in that the proposed land use is compatible
with surrounding land uses, all of the units will be restricted to extremely low income, and it
meets the housing needs priority for the City.
The restrictive 55-year term of affordabiI ity exceeds the minimum 30 years under State law. The
reasoning for this is that typically many of the funding sources require a 52 to 55 year term of
affordability. The City's standard practice when financially participating in a project is to require
a 55-year term of affordability.
The security of the City and Agency investment is to execute a housing cooperation agreement
for the density bonus and incentives which acts as a regulatory instrument to ensure that these
units remain affordable for the specific period of time. A Disposition and Development
Agreement (DDA) will be executed for the City and Agency loans, which governs the
development and use of this project. The DDS would also incorporate the density bonus and
design plans and would address the conversion of these units to market rate family housing.
Because of the City's financial participation, it would always be required that this remains a low-
income project. It may be able to go to family housing rather than transitional housing, but it
would require approval by the City and the Agency and there would need to be a public hearing.
Commissioner Castaneda asked if any tax credit sales were involved with the project.
Ms. Hines stated that this project would be completely financed through the City Agency
participation, County of San Diego, HOME funds and State funds and there would be no tax
credits.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
May 26, 1999
Chair Willett asked if the City is imposing a performance bond in case the developer defaulted.
Glen Goggins stated that in past dealings with for-profit developers, the City has required a
performance bond for the larger multi-family projects to secure performance and typically tax
credits are sold.
Ms. Hines stated that a performance bond has not been required for this project because the
funding sources are firm commitments; they are loans and there will be no debt service on these
loans. If in the future it were to convert to a low-income family housing project, the City might
be able to receive residual receipts from the project. However, as a facility for a near homeless
youth population, the likelihood of receiving residual receipts is very unlikely.
At the end of the term of affordability, the loan will become due and payable. At that time, it
would be expected that it would convert to market-rate housing.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern and stated his reluctance in supporting a density bonus
and parking reduction, thereby creating a legal non-conforming use at the end of the 55-year term
of the loan.
Glen Goggins stated that the DDA and the Housing Cooperation Agreement would include a
provisions that would require appropriate permitting, approval and public hearing before any
conversion can be approved.
Commissioner O'Neill stated he would like to see language that would require it meet the current
standards for multi-family occupancy in terms of all life amenities.
Commissioner O'Neill asked for a breakdown on the occupancy.
Ms. Hines responded that the developer will address those requirements. However, the City's
standard agreement provides for a maximum allowance of two people per bedroom.
Commissioner Thomas stated that in his opinion the City's financial participation, in essence, is
a gift and questioned the appropriateness of the use of these funds for this particular project.
Public Hearing Opened 7:15
Chris Moxem, South Bay Community Services, responded to questions and addressed
Commissioner O'Neill's question by stating that the 1 bedroom unit will be for one adult with
the capability of having 1 small child. The 2 bedroom unit will be occupied by two same-sex
individuals (one person per bedroom).
Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern with the transitioning period extending beyond a two-
year limit, and asked what, if any, disincentives there are for not allowing a single parent with
one child from having another child thereby requiring that she be moved into a two-bedroom
unit.
Planning Commission Minutes
.4.
May 26, 1999
Mr. Moxem responded that each resident will have a case manager who will be working with
them to develop short and long-term goals. If a single parent were to have more than one child,
they would be moved to a two bedroom unit if one were available, otherwise SBCS would assist
them in finding living arrangements elsewhere.
Mr. Moxem further stated that SBCS's mission is to work with individuals towards self-sufficiency
and it would be defeating their mission to see people, such as those who will be residents of this
project, remain stagnant in their self-development and become permanent residents of this
faci I ity.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that his experience and observation has been that these types of
projects require high-maintenance and asked who is going to maintain the property to ensure
its safety and up-keep.
Mr. Moxen responded that they have solicited and are securing funding through private grants
and foundations for this very purpose.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that although he agrees with a number of Commissioner
O'Neill's comments, he reminded the Commission that the financial aspects of this project are
not within the Commission's purview and lies solely within the Redevelopment Agency and City
Council. The money that the City is intending to use for the project is Low and Moderate
Housing funds, which can only be used for this type of purpose.
Commissioner Castaneda asked how long ago did the City acquire this property.
Mr. Goggins responded that the property was purchased from a private property owner
approximately four years ago with the expectation that it would be developed into a community
serving purpose such as housing and/or child care facility.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that in his opinion the proposed land use is aligned with the
City's intent for this property. However, he expressed concern with not having a clear
requirement establishing a finite time period that residents are allowed to stay. It needs to be clear
that this is strictly transitional housing for a period not to exceed two years.
Commissioner Castaneda asked what, if any, requirements or restrictions would be imposed
under the development agreement with respect to changing the nature of occupancy, for
example, from transitional housing for post foster care children, to drug rehabilitation or other
"near homeless" population.
Ms. Hines responded that the language in the DDA states that they will be allowed to use this
property for transitional housing for post foster care children or other needed transitional housing
programs, which could include other near-homeless populations. A conversion to another use
would only be allowed if it could be demonstrated that the need no longer exists, or there are
no funding sources for this type of use. A conversion to family housing would require approval
from the City and would go through the public hearing process.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
May 26,1999
Commissioner Castaneda stated since bringing this project into fruition is a joint effort by various
jurisdictions because of the funding and land gift; who would be the owner of this project should
SBCS cease to exist.
Ms. Hines stated that the City would have a lien on the property for $167,000 and would be in
a first priority position.
Chair Willett stated that it was his understanding that the County conducts annual or bi-annual
reviews of transitional facilities similar to this, and recommended that the City request to receive
a copy of the report, if it does not al ready receive it.
Glenn Goggins stated that the typical Agency loans are structured with some prospect for
repayment out of project residual receipts. Whether or not there will be residual receipts
depends on whether the project has any income generating capacity and what the other funding
sources are. There is always a prospect of repayment on loans, which are secured by a Deed of
Trust, but there is no guarantee that the City will be repaid. The specifics of this project are
presently being worked out and finalized.
Although the financing of the project is not under the Planning Commission's jurisdiction, it will
be part of the overall packet that will be considered by the Redevelopment Agency when they
are asked to render the final commitment to the project.
Commissioner Ray asked if any of the developers in the eastern territory were approached to ask
them to fund this program and receive credits for their units of affordable housing.
Ms. Hines responded that they did not approach any developer to receive credits for their
inclusionary housing. She further stated that the City's obligation is not only to provide for
affordable housing through the inclusionary housing requirement, but to go beyond the
inclusionary housing requirement to meet the City's larger affordable housing goals. The City
actively looks for other projects that may not necessarily fit the inclusionary housing program,
but do meet our other affordable housing goals.
Mr. Goggins also commented that the intent of the inclusionary housing requirements is to
develop affordable housing within the development and not to look to other areas of the City to
provide for such housing so that a balance of housing for all economic groups is provided
throughout the City.
Public Hearing Closed 8:30.
MSC (O'Neill/Castaneda) (5-0-2-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the Second Addendum
to Negative Declaration 15-93-07B and adopt resolution recommending that the City Council
and Redevelopment Agency approve the requested 38 percent increase in density and
deviations from the parking requirements based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained in the draft City Council and Agency resolution, and include the following
recommendations:
1. That at such time a change in use is approved or at the end of the 55-year term, the project
would have to meet the then current zoning standards or receive approval of a variance
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6 -
May 26, 1999
from such standards.
2. That there be a time-certain, not to exceed two years, that a resident may live on premises,
except in limited circumstances as deemed appropriate by SBCS.
3. That staff be able to review and approve an operating plan and regulations for residents;
and
4. That any variation in use during the 55 year period from that of transitional post foster care
program children would require approval by the Planning Commission and a public
hearing.
5. That the City receive on an annual basis or when published a report from the County of San
Diego Children Services Bureau regarding an evaluation of programs and services provided
by the Project and any follow up of former foster care youths residing or having resided
at Project.
Motion carried.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
The Commission expressed a desire to have a workshop on affordable housing.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:45 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1999.
Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 1
Meeting Date: 07/14/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCS 98-06; Tentative Subdivision Map subdividing Village
One West of Otay Ranch, Sectional Planning Area (SPA One), into 783 lots.
- Applicant: The Otay Ranch Company.
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to subdivide Village One West into 783 lots on 294.3 acres
ofland west of Pas eo Ranchero in Otay Ranch, Sectional Planning Area One Plan (SPA One). The
application proposes 693 single-family residential lots, a 5-acre neighborhood park, a to-acre
elementary school site, right-of-way reserved for the future MTDB LRT Trolley System, and open
space uses.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and determined that it is in
substantial conformance with the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR 90-01, SPA Plan, EIR 95-01,
Subsequent EIR-97-03 and other related environmental documents, and that the subdivision project
would not result in any new environmental effects that were not previously identified, nor would the
proposed subdivision result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental impacts
previously identified.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the Regular Planning Commission
meeting ofJuly 28,1999
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
~
Meeting Date: 07/14/99
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Draft ErR 97-02; Consideration of comments on the San
Miguel Ranch Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Third-Tier
Draft SEIR)
The public hearing on the San Miguel Ranch is intended to solicit comments from the Planning
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 Planning 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
Planning Commission public hearing.
ISSUES:
The following impacts were identified as significant and not mitigated to a level below
significant in the Draft SEIR:
. Biological Resources (Project and Cumulative)
. Landform and Visual Quality (Project)
. Transportation (Project and Cumulative)
. Air 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 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.
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) Comments
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 ErR" and a Third-Tier ErR, which means that it is tiered off
previously, certified ErRs. The GDP/Amended GDP ErR was prepared as a "Program" EIR.
Typically, in a tiering process, a "first tier ErR" 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 first 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
Item:
Page 3, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
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 500-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 of Chula 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.
Item:
Page 4, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
Biololdcal Resources/Proiect aud Cumulative
The previous EIR for the GDP/GPA 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 cactus 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 that 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 ofa 2 I-acre Otay
tarplant preserve within the South Parcel;
. No net loss of wetland habitat as required by CDPG 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 non-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 Quino 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:
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 minimize 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 I 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, containing significant
populations ofOtay 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 fulfillment ofthe 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
Item:
Page 6, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
significant, unmitigable 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 Quality
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 southemmost 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 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 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 ofthe 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 incorporated into the
project design, which could avoid the impacts to landform alteration and visual quality.
Transportation
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
Item:
Page 7, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
- 1-805: SR-54 to East 'H' Street
The mitigation for the same is the development of a Cal- Trans deficiency plan for SR-54 and
1-805.
. 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: 1-805 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 RoadlSR-54 WB Ramps.
For the Year 2005 without SR-125, the significant cumulative impacts include the
following:
. Significant cumulative impacts to freeways:
- SR-54: 1-805 to Woodman Street
- SR-54: Briarwood Road to Paradise Valley Road
- SR-54: Jamacha Road to Ildica Street
- 1-805: SR-54 to Telegraph Canyon Road
Mitigation requirements 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 Avenide 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
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 Impacts include:
. Significant Cumulative Impacts 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 1-805.
For Year 2010 (Project Buildout) With SR-125
. Significant Project Related Impacts and Cumulative Impacts will occur to Freeways:
- SR-54: 1-805 to Woodman Street
- SR-54: SR-125 to Ildica Street
- 1-805: 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 1-805 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 ofOtay Lakes Road between SR-125 and Eastlake Parkway to eight lanes.
Full Southbay Buildout
Project related significant impacts and significant cumulative impacts are as follows:
. Freeways
- SR-54: 1-805 to Ildica
- SR-125: SR-54 to Olympic Parkway
1-805: SR-54 to East 'H' Street
. Significant Cumulative Impacts to Arterial roadways include:
- Proctor Valley Road: San Miguel Road to Mt. Miguel Road
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 Parkway.
Mitigation requirements - Certain roadway segments are forecasted to require 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 Quality
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 day.
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 approval 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.
Sewal!e
. 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.
Item:
Page 10, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
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.
Emereencv Medical Services
Provision of a second access road to the North Parcel if the North Parcel is annexed to meet
the response time.
Schools
The developer has indicated a willingness to satisfY the requirements of the School Districts.
Developers letters 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 California
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 manner inconsistent with the exclusive rnethods
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 Proj ect
Under this alternative, the San Miguel Ranch would remain in its existing undeveloped
condition. As 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 II, Meeting Date: 07/14/99
the commitments to permanent preservation of significant natural open 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 Alternative
Under this alternative, the project area would be developed under the County's land use
jurisdiction. Under the Existing County Land Use Alternative, 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 reserve/conservation 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 current 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 comment letters have been received to date. These are attached. They are from LAFCO
and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. (Attachments 4 and 5)
~c~'"""'" \
SAN MIGUEL RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN (SPA)
CITIZENS REVIEW GROUP
MEETING NO. 10 (June 17, 1999)
MINUTES
Ed Batchelder called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.!Il.
PRESENT: Members: Uwe Wemer, Ron Speyer, Ray Ymzon, Warren Oakland, GeOljean Jenson,
Phil Gaughan and Allison Rolfe
ABSENT: Members: Barbara Gilman; Alternates: Toni Ingrassia, Ernie Schnepf, Joanne
Malcolm, and Judy Tieber.
STAFF: Ed Batchelder, Jlarbara Reid, Ricbard Zumwalt - Planning and Building Department,
Frank Rivera - Engineering Department
GUESTS: Ann Gunter - Lightfoot Planning Group, Skip Harry - Trimark, Betty DehOlley - 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
unanimousJy 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 rneeting.
2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT'S DRAFT SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
Barbara Reid presented an overview of the framework of the Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (DSEIR) including the following information. There have been two prior EIRs for this
project .The dates of certification of 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 environmental 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 ErR is a disclosure
document. 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.
~_.__._..,._---'
SMR-SPA-CRG Minutes
2
June 17. 1999
Betty Dehoney, the City's EIR consultant, presented a Swnmary of Impacts on a Project Specific and
Cumulative basis. She explained the difference between a "project specific impact" and a
"cumulative impact".
Ouestions 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 repJace existing owner's fencing adjacent to
Jonel Way properties?
Staff will ensure that the developer constructs any required fencing.
Ann Gunter, representing Trimark, does not know if the project will be affecting any existing
fences yet
Ed Batchelder indicated that as a basic requirement, existing fences will remain unless the
owner's desire replacement through negotiation with the project applicant.
. Is traffic data outdated?
No. March 1998 BRW study was determined to be acceptable for SEIR 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 Analysis shows minor net fiscal loss to City in the long run as a result of this
project.
Distances between properties with horses in the County and the proposed development
Alison asked if property owners in the Jonel Way area who keep horses on their property within 200
feet of the project site will be required to move the location of their horses? She also stated that a
project in the Cannel Mountain Ranch area of San Diego was redesigned to allow for existing horses
to remain.
Barbara Reid responded 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 Works suggested that the
County Health Department be contacted about this matter.
SMR-SPA-CRG Minutes
3
June 17. 1999
Traffic Impact from Schools
Phil stated he felt the EIR did not address the problem of excess traffic around the 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
ITom 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 a future meeting to discuss the
issue.
Barbara Reid responded that site-specific traffic patterns could not be analyzed in the ElR without
a site plan, and that the School District would do their own Environmental Analysis of the site.
Traffic
. Ray Yrnzon indicated that the EIR should conclude that traffic impacts will be significant. He
felt that to find otherwise would be incorrect.
Drainage
. Was the 100-year flood used as a model to study flooding?
-- Yes.
. Are the detention basins just going to prolong the duration 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 rainfall .
that is longer or larger than anticipated?
-- The standard used for the drainage study is the 100-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 lOO-year flood and how it is modeled (lOO-year flood
runoff co-efficient).
3. REVISED MEETING CALENDAR
Ed Batchelder reviewed the revised meeting calendar (6/11/99) distributed tonight. The calendar
reflects remaining 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 members additional
-~--_.__.-
~_u..~_..__~
SMR-SPA-CRG Minutes
4
June 17. 1999
time to complete their review of the EIR document and an opportunity to summarize their comments
which will be presented to the Planning Commission. 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.m. 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
Planning and Building Department
(k061799minutes)
f'-'\;\:x~~(\""\- "9
4~ Trin1ark
, "Pacific Homes~ L.p.
-.-.--,.---
July 6, 1999
Mr. Andrew Campbell
Assistant Superintendent of Planning and Facilities
Sweetwater Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Re: San Miguel Ranch
Dear Mr. Campbell:
We have had the opportunity subsequent to our meeting on June 23, 1999 to review the
mitigation agreements that you have entered into with other developers in the Sweetwater Union
High School District ("District".) While we desire that the District follow procedures as outlined
in SB 50 relative to pursuing available local, State and federal funds, we also realize the value to
the San Miguel Ranch project of a well funded District which will provide a quality education to
the children within the District.
As such, we have made the decision to pursue with you a mitigation agreement and CFD which
will provide full mitigation for our school impacts. Our willingness to enter into a rnitigation
agreement IS dependent on the District's affirmative support of our project and assurances that we
are treated on parity with other agreements.
Please give me a call with any questions regarding this letter and to set up a meeting to begin
discussions on the agreement.
;::reIY,
stepM: .~
Division President
Cc: George Krempl
Dennis O'Neil, Esq.
85 Argonaut, SUlle 205, AlIso Vle)O, California 92656 949.4651655 FAX 949.465.1660
M4pc~\ ~
4~ Trilnark
~ Pacific Homes, LP.
~
,
July 6. 1999
Mr. Lowell Billings, Ed.D.
Assistant Superintendent for Business Services and Support
Chula Vista Elementary School District
84 East "J" S tree!
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: San Miguel Ranch
Dear Mr. Billings:
We have had the opportunity to review the mitigation agreements that you have entered into with
other developers in the Chula Vista Elementary School District ("District".) WhiJe we desire that
the District follow procedures as outlined in SB 50 relative to pursuing available local, State and
federal funds, we also realize the value to the San Miguel Ranch project of a well funded District
whIch will provide a quality education to the children within the District.
As such. we have made the decision to pursue with you a mitigation agreement and CFD which
will provide full mitigation for our school impacts. Our willingness to enter into a mitigation
agreement is dependent on the District's affirmative support of our project and assurances that we
are treated on panty with other agreements.
Please give me a call with any questions regarding this Jetter and to set up a meeting to begin
discussions on the agreement.
Since e]y,
~
Cc: George Krempl
Dennis O'Neil, Esq.
85 Argonaut, Suite 2('5, Aliso VieJo, California 92656 949.465.1655 FAX 949.465.1660
P.14/15
-:;
.. JUi:.' 06 '99' 0n7PM'hD/C~- ENGINEERS
CSULA VIST^ ENGI~rNG
I
III 014
JUL 02 '99 02: 10PM
~~~(\'\ ~
-
[lA[FCCO
1500 Pacific: Highway' Room ~2
Sal'l Diego, CA 92101 . (611i1) 531-0400
Wob5ite: www.sdlafcg.cam
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
Chairman
Bill Ham
C"""'y e...rd of
S\IPIINI&onI
VIce Chairwoman
Julian.. NJgllllrd
CouncilmernDer, '
CII, or c.~.1Iad
Membenl
Dianne J_
County Baa'" of
$"",,"''"'"''
P.1Iy D..is
c.""ciIr'nemIw,
City atChula ~
Harty IAalhIa
CCllUlCflmeltlDer.
ell)' or 581'1 Diego
Dr. LJ/U8n M. Cftil4&
Helbc Water DIsII\ct
RDneldW.WootIon
VIola FIre ........ctfon DiSlrIcI:
And_ L. Vand.....n
Publ"'...._
Alternate Members
Greg eo.
coun!)' Board at
SU_'SG<S
Mal)' Tera... $eaaom
Mo)'or.
ell)' at ~on G""",
JItO" V.IJI"
Coundlmarnber ,
City at Ssn Dlegg
BIId Pocl<lln9!on
South Bay Irrltlalio" DloUlcl
Guy W. Wlftlon III
Public Member
E:JtBI:UtiV& Dmc:er
foIi<IIoe'D.OIi
counsel
JolIn J. San..ne
,":,c=.:'-"""" -r-ry
r::',', :. ..
~ . " . ,:. :,. ,
June.25,1999
';i~1 2 .. '" ,
IJ\JU U !-Q:~'~
Barbara Reid
Environmental Projects Manager
Planning Department
City of Chu/a Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
rl.....ni.ci '''~I';)~
SUBJECT: Draft Sub$equent Environmental Impact Report - San
Miguel Ranch
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Subsequent
Environmel1tal Impact Report (SEIR) for the San Miguel Ranch. We
offer the following 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 section further states
that, if the North Parcel is selected for annexation, the scope and
responsibility of public:; services required in. the North Parcel would
require resolLdion. In addition, Section 4.4 of the SEIR indicates that
potential impacts related to public servir;es and land use could result if
the North Parcel is included in an anl1exation. 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 aI/Impacts associated with annexing
the NoM Parcel.
Although the annexation of the North Parcel is discussed in the
Alternatives Section, the only justification provided is that the City would
attain conservation credits if ttte area were annexed. In our November
12. 1998 comments on the Screen check SEIR, we requested additional
discussion of why open-space ten1tory should be annexed to the City.
Please be reminded that, 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 bOl.lndary needs to be discu$sed in the San Miguel
Ranch SEIR.
OJI,Us"tDQ rZtJ, U.!":'/IC. ...111 H10 .A'Q1 1:..,,,
JUL 06 '99 01:56PM P&D/CTE ENGINEERS
BDAIID DF !DUCATIDIII
~..-
_0_
PA,1:"RICK.A. .JaPD
IIBRftI.\ J. r.AI'JI:Z
.-."B, IIIIl'r'B
SUPER.IIYIIIIDIIIIY
UBIA S. CiILIILD.
CllUU VISTA ENGINEERING
I
P. 12/15 ltJ 012
JlIL 02 '99 B2: 10PM
CRVLA VISTA ELEMENTARY
~~~ j)
SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EASr . T srREJ:'I' . C8VLA VISTA, CArD'OBNIA 91910 . 619 .26-Il8OO
EACH CBlLD IS AN DQ)l\ID)UAL or OBBAT WOImI
June 24, 1999
Rt'''....,. .~.,
i,i:1 ~ .::'/;.:;,: ':1 ' "_
,-,.. '-"','k:~!1 .J.-:.'.
'JUN 2 0 ;r:::-:~
" r.. ...~....
,." Aj'~~i' ',', .
W'1.w ~:J'~;'ijU
Ms. Barbara Reid
Environmental Projects Manager
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan
Draft SEIR (Third Tier EIR)
EIR-91-o2JFB-OS3JDQ 421
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the San Miguel
Ranch Draft SEIR 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
expect 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 2296 Mackenzie Creek
Road. will open on a single-track year-round schedule in July.
The District is in agreement with the locatio'n of the school site. With our site
adjacent to a neighborhood park, we jointly create needed open space 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 District, 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 will notify appropriate parties at
that time. . -
.
<~.
P.15/15 IgJ 015
Jut.. 02 '99 02: 10PM
.
- .. .jLiC-06. :99 1,14001:as8PM P&D/cfE ENGINEERS
CllULA VI STA ENGIbmERIJlTG
)
,
Barbara Reid
June 25, 1999
Page Two
Also. while the Otay Water District Golf Course would establish contiguity between the
North and South Parcels, the Nort/'l Parcel Annexation Alternative should contain a
dlscussiol1 of why the intervening San Diego Gas and Electric: (SDG&E) property should
not be included in the annexation proposal. Exclusion Qf ttte SDG&E property would
leave a peninsula of unil1c:orporated territory almost surrounded by the City. Since
LAFCO is prohibited from creating unincorporated islands utlless specific: findings are
adopted, exdusion 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 abolte comments, please c:;ontact
me at (619) 5:31-5400.
Sincerely,
~ ~NVE
Local Governmen
JFC;hrri
JUL'06 '99 -0it57P~P&6~cTE'ENGINEERS
CHULA VISTA ENGINEERING
1
P. 13/15 ~ 013
1LiL "'2 '519 !32:1ePM
June 24, 1999
Ms. Barbara Field
Page 2 gf 2
The current rate of school fees for residential projects is $1.93 per square
foot. Our portion of the fee is $.85 per square foot. However, the mechanism
for funding the proposed school $Ite and the needed facilities is unclear. In
order to assure elemel1tary facilities will be available to serve children from
this project, parricipation in a Mello-Aoos Community Facilities Distric;t or an
alternative financing mechanism is necessary.
Recently I spoke to Steve Hester, President of Trimark, and the Company
remii.ins committed to necessary school mitigation. He emphasized the focus
on a master planned community for families.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any que$tions, please
give me a call.
Sincerely,
~~
Lowell Billings, .
Assistant Supenntel1dent
for Business Services & Support
LB:lh
~If?
---
~
..000OF
'WHUIA VISTA
Memorandum
Depa.rtn1en.t: of Planning an.d Building
Date:
July 9, 1999
To:
Planning Commissioners
From:
Barbara Reid, Environmental Project Manager
Subject:
San Miguel Ranch Citizen Review Group - Information and Additional
Comments on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for San
Miguel Ranch EIR 97-02
Letters of comment on the above cited document from the Chula Vista Elementary School District
and LAFCO were forwarded to you as part of your Agenda package for this evening's public
hearing on San Miguel Ranch DSEIR 97-02.
On Monday July 12, 1999 copies of two memos were delivered to your homes. One memo
introduced the fact that residents of the Estancia community (a residential community south of the
project) are against the proposed location of the school site. The second memo summarizes the
concerns of the San Miguel Ranch Citizens Advisory Group as expressed at their meeting of
Thursday, July 8, 1999.
Letters received subsequent to July 12, 1999 are attached. A list of the organizations and agencies
that have forwarded the attached letters follows:
. California Native Plant Society, July 14, 1999
. Sweetwater Authority, July 9,1999
. County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, July 9, 1999
. Department of Transportation, July 9, 1999
. Trimark Pacific Homes, L.P., July 12, 1999
. Sweetwater Union High School District, July 14, 1999
. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, July 14, 1999
We have also included for your information two letters that were received from the County of San
Diego, Public Works Department as part of the City/County interaction on transportation. ortation.
California Native Plant Societ;9.
San Diego Chapter P.O. Box 121390 San Diego, CA 92112
Ms. Barbara Reid
City ofChula Vista
276 Fouth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
July 14, 1999
Re: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report EIR 97-02, San Miguel Ranch
Dear Ms. Reid:
The San Diego Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has reviewed the
draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR 97-02) San Miguel Ranch Sectional
Planning Area Plan and Tentative Maps prepared by P&D Environmental. While a
General Development Plan can be approved with fmdings of significant impacts to a
species, the subsequent tiers of a document are suppose to attempt to minimize impacts to
species. 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. The California Native Plant Society and the Southwest Center
for Biological Diversity are in the process of filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for an arbitrary and caprious Biological Opinion on the species
associated with the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). While we
nnderstand the desire ofMSCP participants to create a viable preserve design and protect
water quality of our reservoirs, the viability of a listed species cannot be traded away
under the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts and ajeopardy decision should
have been issued for the species. The City of San Diego and the County of San Diego will
also be named in the legal action.
While we acknowledge a large portion of the property is not being developed
predominantly due to its location upslope from a reservoir, partial purchase and use as a
mitigation bank is compensating the property owner for their already constrained land.
Preservation of the Northern parcel does not mitigate for take ofOtay tarplant nor has
adequate avoidance or mitigation been proposed for the species in the Southern parcel. In
the tiering process, agencies can limit discussion of impacts previously disclosed but later
project analysis should be conducted for effects that are susceptible to substantial
reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project.
Page 3.3-9 of the draft document states that recent surveys conducted in 1998 identified
significantly more plants than previously identified. We could not find information within
the text or tables in the draft EIR that identifY where these plants are located, the
estimated number of plants of Otay tarplant that will be preserved, the estimated number
of plants that will be impacted. The information was located in a technical appendix on
pages 9-10 in a report titled, "Results of 1998 Otay Tarplant Surveys San Miguel Ranch
South Parcel". The calculation of preservation for the species suggest approximately 30%
of the species will be preserved. Sections 2052.1 and 2081 (b) of the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) require that mitigation measures be roughly
proportional to the impacts being caused by a project. That standard has not been
,(
Deaicated to the preservation of California native flora
@
acheived. Figure 2 in that report shows a 45,855,647 individual population in the impact
area. Is this a ten fold typo or are the calculations in the report incorrect greatly reducing
the apparent level of impact and importance of the area to the species?
Unlike the clay soils on the Southern parcel, the soils on the Northern parcel contain thin
clay lenses that are unlikely to support dense populations ofOtay tarplant. The
calculations for the northern parcel on page 10 overestimate the population density of
plants on those soils at least 6 fold. Please provide hard data for plant densities on thin
clay lenses before using what we consider an arbitrary calculation to inflate preserved
numbers.
It is our understanding that no "Overriding Considerations" are allowed to permit
avoidable or unmitigated impacts to listed species under CESA. Avoidance of a large
portion of the population to the west ofOS-6 could be incorporated into the project to
make the mitigation proportional to the impact. Has the Department of Fish and Game
demonstrated that the mitigation for the impact to Otay tarplant is proportional to the
impact and that the no jeopardy standard has been met under State law so that take
permits could be issued? To our knowledge, the City ofChula Vista does not have an
Implementing Agreement for MSCP nor have they processed a Subarea Plan for MSCP.
We note that Appendix J of Technical Appendices Volume I has a signed agreement
between "Wildlife Agencies" and Emerald Properties. Was a Biological Opinion for Otay
tarplant issued prior to signing of this agreement?
What types of impacts are associated with maintainance of storm drains in OS-6?
Page 3.3-11 states that the two largest populations of Cali fomi a adolphia will be impacted
on the eastern portion of the South Parcel. We could not locate these populations in
Figure 3.3-1. Where are the populations and will they be impacted? Since this species is
not a MSCP covered species, what mitigates the impact?
Page 3.3-11 also states that a large population of Palmer's grapplinghook will be
impacted. We could not locate this species in Figure 3.3-1. Where is it located? What
specific action mitigates the impact since this is also not a MSCP covered species?
We would strongly suggest the San Miguel Ranch project undergo a redesign to minimize
impacts to Hemizonia conjugens. CESA does not permit the level of impact proposed
with this project. Given the Level of Service in Table 3.40-20 (page 3.4-46 of the draft
EIR), a density reduction that preserves additional Otay tarplant seems reasonable on
many levels. If you have any questions about our concerns, please do not hesitate to
contact our Conservation Chair at 421-5767.
Sincerely,
~~
Cindy Burrascano
,2
.
co \ ~
:v. "'~
'<'''HOt''
uly 9, 1999
{
SWEETWATER AUTHOR' ry
505 GARRETT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 2328
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91912-2328
(619) 420-1413
FAX (619) 425-7469
http://www.sweetwater.org
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
,
_ ""\f'
..."'-~
~V'
""",'\0,;' - ,\'\
"',,<,, - < ,\
',," -'-~
~,,>>~~~.>J
GOVERNING BOARD
J.S. SKI WOLNIEWICZ, CHAIRMAN
MARGARET COOK WELSH, VICE CHAIR
JAMES. JIM' DOUD
SUE JARRETT
BUD POCKLlNGTON
GEORGE H. WATERS
CARY F. WRIGHT
WANDA AVERY
TREASURER
MARISA FARPdN.FRIEDMAN
SECRETARY
Attention:
Ms. Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager
Subject:
SAN MIGUEL RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SWA Gen. File: San Miguel Partners
Dear Ms. Reid:
Sweetwater Authority is a water purveyor in the South Bay area of San Diego County
serving 175,000 customers in the City of National City, the unincorporated community of
Bonita, and the western portion of the City of Chula Vista. The Authority operates
Sweetwater Reservoir and Loveland Reservoir to store water for its customers and
utilizes the Sweetwater River to transfer water from Loveland Reservoir to Sweetwater
Reservoir. The Authority also utilizes groundwater in the lower basin, below
Sweetwater Dam. Approximately four MGD will be produced at the recently completed
Demineralization Facility, northwest of the intersection of Interstate 805 and Route 54.
We would like to reiterate how pleased the Authority is that the entire North Parcel has
been set aside as an ecological reserve. This preserve will provide enduring protection
of the watershed adjacent to Sweetwater Reservoir with the additional benefit of
providing a connection to important wildlife habitat on Sweetwater Authority lands. The
approved General Development Plan shows approximately 14.5 acres of commercial
land uses within the South Parcel. We understand that the applicant has not
determined what the commercial uses will be. Since the South Parcel is located
approximately five miles east of the proposed Demineralization Plant, Sweetwater
Authority requests that the City of Chula Vista require the applicant to meet with us
should any service station or other use which could be deleterious to the groundwater
be proposed.
With respect to surface drainage, the Authority requests review and comment to the
grading and drainage plans.
3
A Public Water Agency
Serving National City, Chula Vista and Surrounding Areas
~7 l~!1999 14:25
E.1S-E34-8928
LAND DEVELOPMENT
PAGE B:C
.
QCountp of ~an i)iego
D.aeCTO.
'''') ....IIS.
P.": ''''1 ;I......'
LOCa,110. COlat ...
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
cou.,.., IIIIIGliIIElal_a
f:ou.n atR'oRTa
f:OUIIIT'r _OAD co......o.e...
""111.'''' _."VICD
cou.n aUwwEYOR
FLOOD C.O.TJlOL
wAlTa..,... MAN.O....T
515' OVI!RLAND AVe, &".. DIEGO, cALlttoaNa.. _JUs....,
July 9,1999
Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Ms. Reid:
SAN MIGUEL RANCH - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The County of San Diego Department of Public Works has reviewed the draft
supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Miguel Ranch
development dated May 1999. The supplemental EIR states that the proposed project
will result In significant unavoidable traffic impacts.
Measures, however, should be taken to minimize these impacts. In order to minimize
the proposed project's near term traffic impacts on the unincorporated area, the
following items should be made conditions of development:
· Prior to development of the San Miguel Ranch, construction of SR-S4 from 1-805 to
SR-125 as a six-lane freeway with two HOV lanes must be completed. The SR-54
freeway improvements will aide in alleviating traffic congestion along east-west
routes in the Bonita area.
. Prior to development of the San Miguel Ranch, the following roadway facilities must
be in place.
a) SR-125 South between SR-54 (South Bay Parkway) and SR-905 as a four-
lane freeway\toll road with six interchanges. Without the SR-125 facility,
several County roadway segments will exhibit an inadequate level of service
by the Year 2005. These roadway segments include Bonita Road, Central
Avenue, and San Miguel Road. With the SR-125 facility, acceptable levels of
service are projected to be achieved on the aforementioned County
Circulation Element roads in the Year 2005 scenario.
b} Mount Miguel Road annexed by the City of Chula Vista and built as a four-
lane Collector road.
5
87/f3/1399 14:25
51~-594-8928
LAND DEVELOFMENT
PAGE 03
~.-- -_. --
Ms. Reid
- 2 -
July 9, 1999
.' I term cumulati"e
I d' cusses options to minimIZe ong
The supp'e,:"ed~1 EI.R a ~~uldl~e expanded to include the following:
impacts. This ISCusslon s
The discussion of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to upgrade the Circulation
. Element classification of 5an Miguel Road to a three-lane cbllector on ~he ~ounty .of
San Diego's Circulation Element should. be expanded to state that it will reqUIre
extensive traffic and environmental stuclles as well as approval of the Boa~. of
Supervisors. The County Board ~ Superviso~ has not yet taken a posit~on
regarding this potential GPA. The City of Chuta VISta should also evaluate. annexIng
San Miguel Road and/or assisting/coordi!1ating with the. ~ounty of S.an ~Iego on a
GPA to revise the classification of San Miguel Road. Fallshare contributions should
also be made towards the ultimate improvements to San Miguel Road.
. The City of Chula Vista should participate in a fair-share program to assist in the
funding of the future roadway improvements in the unincorporated area. DPW
continues to explore the proper mechanism to allow the City and County to
participate jointly in these road improvements to benefit both jurisdictions. As
indicated in the draft EIR, the Bonita area currently has several roadways operating
at inadequate levels of service and San Miguel Road (Bonita Road to Proctor Valley
Road) that will incur a significant direct impact from the proposed project in the Year
2005 scenario.
The County ~f San Die~o will continue to work together with the City of Chula Vista,
B~W, and ~rtmark ~aclfic Homes to ensure that the San Miguel Ranch development
will be co~slstent with the long-range transportation planning goals of the neighboring
communities and be an asset to the region.
If you have any questions conceming our comments, please call Bob Goralka at (858)
694-3728.
Very truly yours,
#4~
PHILIP J. GIURBINO, Deputy Director (Acting)
Department of Public Works
......
PJG:BG:jb
cc: Carole Melum, (A6)
John Snyder, DPW (0332)
Bob Christopher, DPW (0336)
Ralph Mutloz. DPW (0384)
MIL TRISAN MIGUEL AANCH
~
JUL-l;-~9~N 4:36 PM
CAL h"HS PUBLI C TRANS
FAX NO,
I
b d 688 4299
P. 2
~T^t~.qf 'i~Llf"f!Nlf>:::II!IelNQP. TA""",PCRT"",,,! ~IUI"U-"'N~ ""ENCY
OEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11
P. O. aox B540a
SAN DIEGO. CA 92186.5406
PHONE (619) 6118-6954
F)lX (619) 888-4299
"RAY OAVI'i..<iIW!IJ!>O
a
Ms. Mosie Boyd
Stale Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Boyd:
Crall Subseauent EIR for San Miouel Ranch - SCH960S1038
3snOH~NI~V31::> 31VlS
~~ : : ~ :r ~ M
1'.50.125 South
July 9. 1999
~
7(w.1'17~
Caltfans Olstrlet 1 1 comments are as follows:
. On page 2-'. third parsgraph, the DEIR indicates that Caltrans completed the
State Route 125 (SR-12S) South ProJea Repor'( In July 1998. It should read
May 1999. In the lIame paragraph, the "Horseshoe Bend" alignment should
be corrected to "Horseshoe Bend Modified" alignment. Also In this
paragraph, Proctor Valley Road will be an undercrosslng instead of an
overcrossing.
. The proposed San Miguel Ranch project would create $ignilic;ant traffiC
Impacts to existing portions of State Route S4 (SR-54). Interstate Route 805
(1-805) and future SR-125_ The San Miguel Ranch developer should
contribute a "fair share" toward the costs of traffic mitigation measures on SR-
54, SR-125, and 1-805.
. The SR-125 South Project does not include the construction of any noise
barriers for the San Miguel Ranch Development project. Any noise mitigation
will be the responsibility of the developer.
. Close coordination with Caltrans is encouraged during the San Miguel Ranoh
design process.
. Section 3-8. Parks. We are concerned with the location of the park shown in
Open Space-IS In relation to SR-125. Speeitically, we need to know whether
the highway wOUld be seen from the park.
. Sectlona 3-8, Trails. We appreciate the effort that the City of Chule Vista has
put into Goordinating the trail issues with us. We look forward to continued
coordination with the City regarding the trails along the Mt. Miguel Road
overcrosslng and the proctor Valley Road undercroS5ing.
7
VOo/Eoo.a E9EO#
gSnOH~NI1!lIg~~
S,OE EGE 9,6 9,:0, 666,.v,'~nr
, .
JUL-IH9~N 4:37 PM CALJAANS PUBLIC TRANS
I
FAX NO. bIg 688 4299
P. 3
Ms. Mosie Boyd
July 9, 1999
Pags Two
. Any work performed within Callrsns' right of way will require an encroachment
permit. Additionally, Callrans no longer maintal"9 both the metrIc and
Imperial unit versions of the Standard Plans. Specifications, Special
Prcwlsions and manuals. Therefore, all plans as well as encroachment permit
applications submitted to CaRrans must be stated in metric units. Information
regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting our Permits
Office at (619) 688-6158. Early coordination with our 8geflcy is strongly
advised for all encroachment permits.
Our contact person for SR-125 South is Laurie Berman, Project Manager, at (619)
688-3631.
Sincere lX, 1 _
M'-r-;~'
BIL.L FIGGE, Chief
Planning Sludles Branch
BF/LSlhg
g
VOO/VOO'd E9EO#
~snOH~NIlI\{~18
S10E EZE 916 91 :01 6661.;1'1nr
JUL 14 '99 02:21PM TRIMARK
P.2/2
;, Trimark
~ ,Pacific Homes, L.P.
July 12, 1999
Mr. Andrew Campbell
Assistant Superintendent of Planning and Facilities
Sweetwater Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Re; San Miguel Ranch
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Pl11'suant to 0111' phonc conversation today, it 0\11' intention to have an executed school mitigation
agreement in place between Trimark Pacific San Miguel, LLC and the Sweetwater Union High
School District prior to the City Council approval of the SPA for the above referenced project,
Please give me a call with any questions.
Sincerely,
~i~~
Division President
co: George Krempl
De=is O'Neil, Esq.
9
55 Argonaut, Suit. 205, Aliso VieJo, Ca!ifOl1C1la 9lG5G 949465.1655 FAX 9'\9.4651600
I
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
PLANNING AND FACILITIES
_.._~
July 14, ]999
~~:;a:s~el.+ZI~~ :~ h ,13~;,11+
~r\i:F\ 0. ~ \ ci Co. ., \J
PhQl1e # .,.
PhQne #
7(~~-lA1(\Y, ....I61I.t>/j I
Katy W,ight
Di,,,clo, of Plan"ih/(
City ofChula Vista
Planning Commission
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California
Dear Commissioners:
Be! Draf'Subsequent Environmentallnlpact Repo" 97-02 fo, San Miguel Ranch
We apprec.iate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
("Draft SEIR") prepared for the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative
Maps ("Project"). We havc notcd that some of the statistical information regarding school
facilities capacity and enrollment ar Sweetwater Union High School District (""District"), has
changed since the City of Chula Vista ("City") initially considered the Project in 1996. We have
provided current school facilities data to be included in the Draft SEIR. We also request that the
District's current information be incOfporated in the Public Facililies Finance Plan, the Sectional
Planning Area Plan, and any other documents prepared by the City for this Project.
As you know, the District's facilities are severely impacted, and we continue to be concerned
about the rate of growth, impacts of n~w residential development, and inadequacy of statutory
school fees. For the past several years, lhe developers of residential devdoprnc:nt projc:c:t.!i within
the City have elected to participate in a Mello-Roos Communities Facilities Districts ("CFD") in
order to ensure the timely construction and financing of school fac.ilities to accommodate students
generated from new development. This financing mechanisln/mitigation measure is consistent
with the Public Facilities Element and Growth Management Element of the City's General Plan.
Partially mitigated schools are inconsistent with the City's Growth Management Pfogram and
advefoely impact olher land nse elements such as traffic, noise, and air quality, as well as schools.
This should be noted in the Land Use Section ofthe Draft SEJR. (See Draft SEIR, p.3.7-2.)
We have had several pfOductive meetings with the Cil)' and the developer of the Projecl, Trimark
Pacific San Miguel, LLC ("Trimark"), to explore creative solutions to the District's school
facilities impacts, and to fonnulate a mutually beneficial mitigation plan. Trimark has agreed to
enter into a school facilities mitigation agreement with the District to form a CFD to finance and
mitigate sc:hool facilities impacts resulting from development of its Project. (See attached
correspondence frum Trimark.) We respectfully rc:quest the City incorporate into the Draft SEIR
and final conditions for the Project the condition of approval proposed by Trimark, set forth
II)
II J 0 FIfTH A VEN \JE . CHULA VISTA' CALI FORNI '" . 9191!
(619) 69H5SJ (619) 420~H9 (F"") ""right@sd~.kI2.o..u,
below, which provides for the execution of a mitigation agreement prior to the City's approval of
the SPA Plan for the Project and the formation of a CFD to finance school facilities necessary for
the Project.
In addition, we request the following changes be made in Section 3.7.6 of the Draft SEIR prior to
final certification to reflect the District's current facilities data and the mitigation measures
proposed by Trimark. (II "ppe,,,. $ee/ion 3.7.6 on pag',~ 3.7-12 IhT(Jugh 3.7-13 ha-e been
duplicated In Ih. Draft SElf(.)
Existing Setting
. The District is currently comprised of nine senior high schools, three junior high schools,
seven middle schools, one continuation high school and five adult schools.
. Total District enrollment based on current cnrollment data from the California Basic
Educational Data Systems ("CBEDS") is 33.060 students. The District's exisling school
building capacity for grades 7-12 based on "'lstiJlg stat. standards is 29,997. Thus, the District
has a deficit of approximately 3,063 spaces District-wide.
. Currently, the two schools that would serve the Project area are Bonita Vista Middle School
and Eastlake High School. The enrollment/capacity of these schools is as follows:
1998199 CURRENT
SCHOOL NAME PERMANENT ADJUSTED ENROLLMENT AVAILABLE
r:,tJ,P.A,C'JTV r:.AP..a..CJTV CBEDg C.AP.A<:'ITY
Bonita Vista Middle
1470 1620 1303 317
Eastlake High School
1680 2220 1819 401
. As indicated in our previous letter to the City dated March 5, 1999, incorporated herein by
this reference, both of these school sites have been significantly impacted by gro\\<1h in the
past couple years resulting in the addition of 9 relocatable classrooms at Bonita Vista
Middle School and 24 ..elocatable classrooms at Eastlake High School. There is no
available space at either school site to place additional relocatable classrooms to
accommodate new growth as the maximum capacity for expansion at both of these sites
has been reached. The current excess space at these schools wi 11 be used to accommodate
growth from other residential developments in the same geographical area as the Project.
Impact Analvsis
The District has contracted with Special District Financing & Administration to detennine the
current student generation rates for grades 7-12 for single-family detached, single-family attached
and multi-family attachel;i dwelling units. The District's current student generation rate. axe as
follows:
Single Family Detached
Grade Level
Studenl Yield
Ratio
0.12
Junior High (7-8)
High School (9-12)
0.22
TOTAl-
0.34
2
/1
Single Family AltatbedlMulti-Family Attached
Junior High (7-8)
Studenl Yield
Ratio
0.07
Grade L<v<!
High School (9-12)
0.14
TOTAL
0.21
. The nurober of students to be generated from the Project is 457 students (161 middle school
students and 296 high school students) as follows:
Single Family Detached
(See Land Use Summury Tablefor San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan Draft SEIR, p.l-II)
Grade Level Student Yield Number of Units Total
Ratio
Junior High (7-8) 0.12 1265 152
High School (9-12) 0.22 1265 278
TOTAL 0.34 1265 430
Siogle Family Attachedl Multi-Family Attached
(See Lattd Use Summary Table for San Miguel Ronch SPA Plan Draft SEIR, p.l-II)
Grade Level Student Yield Number of Units Total
Ratio
Junior High (7-8) 0.07 129 9
Higb School (9-12) 0.14 129 18
TOTAL 0.21 129 2'
. At the time of completion and build-out of the Project, the two District schools serving the
Projett will be beyond maximum capacity and severely impacted. Additional school fatUities
will be required to actommodate students generate from the Project.
. Under current law, the Project Applicant must pay the statutory school fees in affect at the
time building pennits are issued on a square foot basis for botb residential and tOmmertial
developments. The current statutory fee for the Dimict is $1.08 per square foot of residential
development and SO.17 per square foot of commercial development. (Chula Visla Elememary
School Distril;:l receives Ihe remaining parlion of Ihe ~'I"lulory fee,) The statutory school fees
provided to tbe District would only partially mitigate its school facilities impacts becAUse it
covers less than 25 percent of the tost necessary to provide school facilities.
Proposed ~til<Btion Measures
. Payment of statutory school fees will partially reduce Project related impacts, but not to below
a level of insignifitance.
. The Project Applicll1Jt has voluntarily agreed to the following condition of approval which will
fully mitigate the Project's impacts to a level of insignificance:
(~
)
OCT 3 0 ws
<Lmurly nf ~Ztl1 ~il'gn
STEPHEN ,HUNBERG
DlRE:TOR
(6'916~.22j2
FAX: (fi19 26&-0461
LOCATION :::;ODE SSC
October 2B. 199B
::~,~t:-' :'1;:'>11,:::;::1
caur~-' ....I:..;IJO~;~
COUIJ7" R(;';~, :';~JMMISStor~EF-,
TRAt,S:- ::O;:RVICES
COUt,-" SURVEY:);:
F:"O:X. :CII,TRO:.
WAST::WATEP I.1M~AGEM<:NT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
5555 OVERLAND AVE. SAN DIEGO, CALlFORNI.t.. 92i23-1295
Sarbara Reid
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Ms. Reid:
SAN MIGUEL RANCH - REVISED TRAFFIC MODEL
On September 21, 199B, the Department of Pubiic Works (DPW) responded to
the San Miguel Ranch traffic study. Subsequently, we met October B, 199B with
you, Chula Vista staff, and the developer to discuss our comments and concerns
itemized in our traffic study response.
One of the action items that resulted from .this joint meeting was to work with your
planning consultant (BRW) to resolve some of the issues .raised in our memo.
Our review of the San Miguel Ranch traffic study detected several County
roadways in the study area that were not coded according to the County's
Circulation Element Plan. The following table is an excerpt from the September
21, 1998 memo describing the discrepancies.
I ROADWAY
i
i
I
BONITA RD
CENTRAL AVE
1 CORRAL
(CANYON
I SAN MIGUEL RD
I
I
I MT. MIGUEL RD
I
I
I FROM-TO
I
I CENTRAL - SR54
I BONITA-CORRAL
I CANYON
I CENTRAL-CV
CITY LIMITS
BON ITA-
PROCTOR
VALLEY
SAN-MIGUEL
PROCTOR
VALLEY
I COUNTY C.E. PLAN
I
I
,
I MAJOR
I COLLECTOR
I COLLECTOR
LIGHT COLLECTOR
SOUTHBA Y BUILDOUT
MODEL
I COLLECTOR
I LIGHT COLLECTOR
I
I LIGHT COLLECTOR
COLLECTOR
I NON-CE
I
tV
COLLECTOR
V ::>nnted on recycted DaDe'
Ms. Reid
- 2-
October 28, 1998
It was our concern that these roadway misclassifications may have led to a
flawed traffic study analysis. Working with County staff, SANDAG modified the
coded road network to correct the specified inconsistencies, and reran the
buildout traffic model. The revised traffic forecast yielded nearly identical results
verifying that the San Miguel Ranch project has only a minimal impact on the
County transportation system. In addition, the revised traffic forecast did not alter
any of the levels of service assessments. The traffic study indicates that a
General Plan Amendment will not be needed. Based on this additional analysis,
it is the opinion of SANDAG and the Department of Public Works that the
conclusions from the original traffic study are valid and acceptable.
At the October 8, 1998 meeting, City of Chula Vista staff stated their jurisdiction
would be willing to participate in a fair-share program to assist with the funding of
future roadway improvements in the unincorporated area. DPW continues to
explore the proper mechanism to allow the City and County to jointly participate
in these road improvements to the benefrt of both jurisdictions
The remaining County concem related to the project being allowed to fully
buildout, if SR-125 were not completed. We understand the City will condition
the project to achieve full buildout only if SR-125 is constructed south of the SR-
54 freeway.
The County of San Diego, Department of Public Works greatly appreciates the
efforts of BRW, City of Chula Vista, SANDAG, and Trimark Pacific Homes in
addressing and resolving our concerns.
If you have any questions, please call Nick Ortiz at (619) 495-5488.
Very truly yours,
pt/fic-2-~'LJ rf--
ROBERT D. CHRISTOPHER, Public Works Manager
Department of Public Works
RDC:NO:jb
CIW\L TRISAN MIGUEL RANCH
15-
"Trimark Pacific Home, L.P. will execute a school mitigation allJ"eement
between Trimark Pacific San Miguel, LLC and the Sweetwater Union High
School District prior to the City Council approval of the SPA for the above
reference project."
Analvsi. or Sil!nificance
. The formation of a CfD, as agreed to by the Project Applicant, wHl reduce the school facilities
impacts to below a le'l'el of significance.
We request that Mitigation Measure Number 3.7-15 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
ProllJ"am be revised consistent with the condition of approval proposed by Trimark. provided
above. (Draft SEIR, pages 6-13.)
We appreciate the City's cc;mtinued effort to work with the District and the community to ensure
that adequate school facilities will be available to serve students generated from new residential
development projects, including San Miguel Ranch. We Jook forward to working with the City and
Trimark to provide positive results for our schools and our community.
Sincerely,
~w~
Katy Wright
Director of Planning
Enclosures
cc: George Krempl
Lysa Saltzman, BBK
13
4
~~~
~
~--=~~
~~~-
CllY OF
CHUIA VISfA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 12, 1999
Mr. Bob Christopher
Public Works Manager
Land Developmem
San Diego Coumy
Department of Public Works
5555 Overland Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123-1285
Re: Funding for Needed Circulation System Improvements in the Bonita-Sunnyside Area
Dear Mr. Christopher;
We have appreciated your and your staff's involvement in the traffic anaJysis for the San Miguel
Ranch SPA. At some of the meetings on this project, Chula Vista's collection of transportation
development impact fees was discussed. It was noted that the County of San Diego does not
presently have funds budgeted for needed improvements to certain County roadways in the Bonita-
Sunnyside area as identified by the project's traffic study. As I understand, these needed
improvements are consistent with the roadway's classification in the Sweetwater Community Plan
and are necessary as a result of cumulative traffic conditions. San Miguel Ranch's trip
comribution to these roadways is limited, and under application of the County's (and City's)
criteria was found to have no project-specific significance.
In discussing the need for funding County roadway improvements, you questioned whether the
City would be willing to consider contributing, on a proportionate "fair share" basis, some of its
development impact fee funds to the County for use on specific improvements identified in the
project's DSEIR to mitigate cumulative impacts.
As you may be aware, the funding of road improvements in the Bonita area has a long history.
In the early 1980's I sent a letter to the County Director of Public Works asking for the County
to participate in the City's Transportation Development Impact Fee (TransDIF) program. The
County had allowed quite a lot of development in this area with no offsite road requirements. A
good example is the Bonita Highlands development of over 600 homes, plus other subdivisions
accessing to Central Ave. We never received a response to that request.
When the City developed Bonita Long Canyon, near East H Street and south of Bonita Highlands,
the City agreed to widen Central Ave. between Corral Canyon and Frisbee to allow for a two way
left turn lane. In addition, the City's developer installed a traffic signal on Central at Corral
It
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910. (619) 691-S101
Mr. Bob Christopher
-2-
February 9, 1999
Canyon. This improvement was over a mile away from Bonita Long Canyon.
In 1987, the County voters passed Proposition A (Transnet) to provide transportation funding.
Each local governmental agency identified a list of projects for use of those funds. In the Bonita
area there were several road widening projects on the original transnet list. As I recall, these
included Bonita Road between Otay Lakes Road and San Miguel Road and widening of San
Miguel Road. In fact, the City and County entered into an agreement to build and share the
proportional COstS of Bonita Road between Otay Lakes Road and Central Avenue. Chula Vista
paid $45,000 to the County toward the cost of engineering. The County prepared the plans, and
when staff asked the Board of Supervisors for additional funds to widen the road, the Board,
(from the urging of the Sweetwater Planning Group) scrapped the project. If you check the Board
letter, when the Bonita projects were scrapped, I believe you'll find that most of the Transnet
funds went to projects outside the Bonita area. The County has built one bridge project (Central
Avenue), and is in the process of replacing the Bonita Road bridge with a Bridge grant from the
Federal Government.
Because of the County not participating in a TransDlF program 15 years ago, and because the
Board transferred most of the Transnet funds out of Bonita, the capacity of the roads in that area
have been, in some cases, exceeded. The County staff attempted to correct the situation by
requesting the City to condition the Otay Ranch to mitigate all the traffic problems in Bonita.
Because the Otay Ranch was several miles away, and the traffic impacts were minimal, it was
jointly agreed that it was not the responsibility of the Otay Ranch to do all of these improvements.
Even with this history, Chula Vista still recognizes the need for widening of certain roads in
Bonita to address cumulative conditions. We would be willing to consider participating in a joint .
program for a limited number of roads in which we have a significant impact and which would
be representative of our proportionate contribution to traffic on those roads. Once the SR-125
Tollway is constructed, and Sweetwater Road loses its access to SR-54, the traffic patterns in the
Bonita area will change. It will be necessary for the City and County to identify any
proportionate funding contributions, based on an agreed upon analysis of traffic volumes in the
furore. Since the people in Bonita have objected to widening streets in the past, we would need
to have assurance that any participation would get the roads built, and not have the construction
stopped at the last minute.
Sincerely,
'~/ff~~
Ii JOHN LIPPITT
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
cc: Barbara Reid
17
Mr. Bob Christopher
-3-
February 9, 1999
Ed Batchelder
Doug Reid
Bob Leiter
Jim Sandoval
Stephen Hester
Ann Gunter
v'.
H:/shared/engineer/county2..1tr
16'
~If?
-11-
-.""'" -
rnv OF
CHUIA VISfA
Depart:m.ent of Planning and Building
Date:
July 9, 1999
To:
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Ed Batchelder, Senior Planner~
From:
Subject:
San Miguel Ranch Elementary School Site-
Petitions from Estancia Residents
On July 6, 1999, Mr. Phil Gaughan submitted petitions from residents of the Estancia subclivision
objecting to the proposed location of the elementary school site within the San Miguel Ranch
project. The Estancia subdivision borders the south side of the San Miguel Ranch SPA area along
Proctor Valley Rd. Attached is a copy of Mr. Gaughan's cover letter, and a sample of the petition's
form. A complete set of signed petition originals is on file in the Planning and Building Department.
Petitions were received from 151 (91%) of the 165 homes in the Estancia subdivision.
Mr. Gaughan is a member of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Citizens Review Group (CRG) and
represents the Estancia neighborhood on the CRG. The CRG has been meeting approximately
monthly since May 1998, and Mr. Gaughan fIrst identified this issue in September, 1998. The
location of the school site in the SPA, and the access off Proctor Valley Rd., are both consistent with
the adopted GDP. Staff has worked with the applicant and the Chula Vista Elementary School
District to identify site planning considerations to respond the concerns, and required the applicant
to provide an access to the school site internal to the San Miguel Ranch project. The District has
recognized the necessity for specific site planning and on-site circualtion considerations, and they
have been cliscussed with Mr. Gaughan and the CRG. At its July 8, 1999, meeting the CRG
indicated that it did not desire to forward the Estancia resident's positions as a CRG concern or
recommendation, but rather for the resident's to proceed independently with the petitions.
Mr. Gaughan and his neighbors remain adamant in their request for the school site to be moved
within the San Miguel Ranch project so that no access is allowed from Proctor Valley Rd. They
have cited the negative, spill over traffic affects that have occurred in other neighborhoods in eastern
ChuJa Vista, and strongly expressed that they do not want similar occurances in their neighborhood.
They feel that moving the site is the only solution that will insulate their neighborhood from
potential, negative affects, and as a matter of record, desire that the Planning Commission be made
aware of their position as part of the project's EIR public hearings.
While this issue does not involve the type of traffic and circulation issues associated with EIR-level
analyses, staff is forwarding this information to you at this time as requested by Mr. Gaughan so that
Ie;
it will be part of the public record. It is likely that residents will attend your July 14, 1999, public
hearing on the project's Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) to speak on the
issue.
In staff's view, issues regarding location of the proposed elementary school site are more directly
associated with the land use considerations of the SPA Plan, and staff intends that they will be
addressed in the context of public hearings on the SPA Plan. SPA hearings are currently anticipated
for the Planning Commission in late August, and the Council in late September 1999.
For the present time, the Planning Commission should provide staff with any direction it desires at
the DSEIR hearing on July 14.
cc: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
Jim Sandoval, Asst. Director of Planning & Building
Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner
Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Barbara Reid, Environmental Projects Manager
Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner
Alex Al-agha, Senior Civil Engineer
Frank Rivera, Civil Engineer
Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney
(H:\HOME\PLANNINGIEDlSAN-MIG\PET -PC.MEM)
-2-
;).0
:'.<
To:
From:
Subject:
------- -
r RECEIVED
t. a -!JISSg
~.
. ~.
San Miguel Ranch SPA Citizen Review Group !itIi. PI ANNING!it
Chula Vista City Planning Staff; Senior Planner: Ed 1 a~,,1n,ru~ -.
Philip Gaughan, Estancia Resident and a member of the San
Miguel Ranch SPA Citizen Review Group.
San Miguel Ranch School Site
1. We the residence of the Estancia neighborhood find that the
. proposed location for a school, within thenewChula Vista
subdivision of San Miguel Ranch, will become an unacceptable
traffic and personnel safety risk as sited on the following petition.
We furtheLstate...the.-nee~ebfreetive-action;which will control
--------th~ unseen dangers, placed upori'usfrom this section of the San
Miguel Ranch project.
2. We request the. support of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Citizen
Review Group.
Thank Y u
02(
;A;th///
IbLJ
~-
,~"" RECEIVED
~ JUL - ? \~.;g
t"
V .
21~~ plANNING
Subject: Concerns for the new San Miguel Ranch School site
Conclusions from the neighborhood meeting held on the 26th of September:
1. We the residents of the Estancia neighborhood, which adjoins the
proposed San Miguel Ranch School site, believe that the increaSe in
traffic will have a negative impact on our ability to travel freely and
safely into, and out of our neighborhood.
2. Evidence indicates this traffic congestion will occur 30-minutes
prior to commencement of daily classes and 30-minutes before and
unti120-minutes after conclusion of daily cl&Sses. Other concerns
include:
. Traffic increase from after school activities.
. Traffic increase from weekend activities associated with
the new school grounds.
3. Residents of the Estancia neighborhood conclude that the school
should be placed inside the San Miguel Ranch neighborhood across
the street from the proposed neighborhood park. The recommended
relocation of the proposed school site will reroute traffic from
Proctor Valley road and onto the larger Mt. Miguel road. This
enables the increased traffic flow to be controlled for safe drop-off
or pick-up of children.
Name:
Address:
Signature:
CJ-.:L
~;J,f~
,-------~~
~---
Subject: Concerns for the new San Miguel Ranch School site
Conclusions from the neighborhood meeting held on the 26th of September:
1. We the residents of the Estancia neighborhood, which adjoins the
prQposed San Miguel RJ:Inch School site, believe that the increase in
traffic will have a negative impact on our ability to travel fteely and
safely into, and out of our neighborhood.
2. Evidence indicates this traffic congestion will occur 30-minutes
prior to commencement of daily classes and 30-minutes before and
until 20-minutes after conclusion of daily classes. Other concerns
include:
. Traffic increase :&om after school activities.
. Traffic increase :&om weekend activities associated with
the new school grounds.
3. Residents of the Estancia neighborhood conclude that the school
should be placed inside the San Miguel Ranch neighborhood across
the street from the proposed neighborhood park. The recommended
relocation of the proposed school site will reroute traffic from
Proctor Valley road and onto the larger Mt. Miguel road. This
enables the increased traffic flow to be controlled for safe drop-off
or pick-up of children.
Signature:
~H~!-- C41~j)~J
. ~S'-r'K.i V~ r-~es2 k.. ('-J-:
C;JU)2;)~ M. '7"/9. 'I<j
~ ~.
Name:
Address:
Wi/!;' RECEIVED
JUL-6:
PLANNING
JJ ~5
/,
SWEETWATER VALLEY CIVIC ASSOClATIOlll
P. O. Box 232
BONITA, CALIFORNIA 91908
July 14, 1999
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Dear Planning Commission,
The Sweetwater Valley Civic Association opposes the approval of the Draft SEIR
for San Miguel Ranch for the following reasons:
A. Transportation: Sec. 3A
1. Forecast of unacceptable LOS ofD or below forecasted at buildout on nine
roadway segments was minimized. It was rationalized that a 2% increase
was acceptable and consequently of no significant project related impact. - a
totally unacceptable assumption under already overburdened roadways.
. How do you compress 2 more ounces in a gallon container? How can
you add more vehicles on full roadways?
. How accurate is the forecast that the development shall only generate
2% to the already overburdened roadway segments?
. The Draft SEIR should include more up-to-date studies.
2. The subject of monitoring this transportation situation is not covered
Under Section 6, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, a very
serious oversight, considering the deteriorating conditions and its impact on
the region. The DSEIR should include this missing item in Section 6.
3. The Subject of SR-125 as a factor in determining the traffic and what
phases of the project could move forward is not covered under section 6
for Mitigation Monitoring purposes. Another serious oversight which
invites violations. The DSEIR should include this item with more than one
co-equal agency or better to monitor compliance.
4. Regulatory Requirements: Sec 3 A-I
. The City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Threshold Standards
have allowed several streets within the city to exceed its exception of
1
two hours per day at LOS D in many streets within the city The San
Miguel Ranch development will add considerable impact upon the
roadways listed in this section.
. Table 3.4-3 needs to be updated to current conditions (1997-98) Some
roads change LOS as soon as jurisdiction changes from the County. to
the City even though it is one and the same continuous road. Willow St.
to Otay Lakes Rd. on Bonita Rd. was omitted. The entire East H Street
is not currently at the LOS level as listed on above table.
. The DSEIR should be updated to reflect current conditions.
B. Air Quality Sec. 3.5
. There is no air quality plan for the City of Chula Vista
. APCD maintains a monitoring station in downtown Chula Vista. These
air quality readings are not representative of the air readings in Bonita,
past or present.
. Developments in Chula Vista have dramatically increased the traffic
traversing Bonita to other points in the Region from such developments.
. Bonita is consequently receiving an inordinate share of air pollution of
the non-attainment type (Ozone and PM-l 0) from this generated traffic.
None of these have been measmed for comparison purposes.
. A study of this impact should be made covering the periods prior to the
East Lake development to the present and the cumulative impact that the
San Miguel Ranch Project would contribute, and should be part of this
DSEIR.
C. Sewage Sec. 3.7.2
. During the July 8,1999 meeting, the CRG was informed that there were
some sagging problems on the sewage lines, which would be serving the
San Miguel Ranch Development. These problems are slated for
correction at some future date at an estimated cost of $100,000.00 for
Chula Vista. This estimate should be verified and adjusted for future
inflation. The total cost should be apportioned in proportion to the
actual cost and benefit, and clearly defined in the DSEIR.
D. Drainage Sec 3.7.9
. The DSEIR originally planned for three detention basins for the project.
It was subsequently corrected to two and one of these was relocated.
The impact of these changes could not be ascertained due to its fluidity.
2
· Bonita has become the victim of cumulative impact from inadequate
studies and poorly designed and maintained drainage from Chula Vista
developments.
. The downstream impact of drainage from the project development,
particularly at Central Creek area has not been provided. While the.
drJ!inJ!E~ flow from the detention basin will be a known number, the
amount and duration of the flow will nevertheless increase and will have
an adverse effect downstream. The DSEIR should report these studies
and mitigate the adverse impacts .
. Where the drainage pipe for the catch basin will drain, was not defmed.
The DSEIR should identify the route of the drainage stream and which
private property owners would be impacted.
E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sec.6.5
· Exclusively, the City of Chula Vista carries out every aspect of
Mitigation Monitoring for this project.
. This situation leaves the impression of the fox guarding the hen house.
. Much mitigation monitoring situations include impacts on the County as
well as State or Federal jurisdictions including roads, highways and
environmental impacts.
. The DSEIR Section 6, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
should be corrected to include other agencies with overlapping
jurisdiction on the column of Party Responsible for Monitoring.
Above is only a partial list of comments on the DSEIR for the San Miguel Ranch
development. This serves to summarize the inadequacy of the DSEIR and
consequently, our recommendation that the Project not proceed until the SDEIR
meets and reflects the required standards of completeness and accuracy.
G member)
Ernie Schnepf (CRG member, alternate)
1-
~