HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
June 4, 2019File ID: 19-0229
TITLE
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE
APPEAL BY SILVERGATEDEVELOPMENT, LLC AND ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION AND REPORTING PROGRAM IS-18-0001, AND
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DR17-0040 TO CONSTRUCT ONE FOUR-STORY
BUILDING AND SIX THREE-STORY BUILDINGS TOTALING 149,534 SQUARE FEET,
CONSISTING OF 170 APARTMENT UNITS INCLUDING NINE RENT RESTRICTED UNITS
FOR OCCUPANCY BY VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ON A 5.3 ACRES SITE
LOCATED SOUTH OF BONITA ROAD, BETWEEN BONITA GLEN DRIVE AND I-805,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution.
SUMMARY
On December 22, 2017, Silvergate Development, LLC (the “Applicant”)submitted a Design
Review application for approval of the above-referenced apartment project. The proposed
project is for the construction of six 3-story and one 4-story residential buildings with a total of
170 apartment units and 231 parking spaces on a 5.3-acres site (the “Project”). The Project
also includes the construction of landscaped areas, recreational facilities and open space
areas and facilities. Access is from Bonita Glen Drive and Vista Drive (see Locator Map,
Attachment 1). The Applicant has elected to utilize the provisions allowed byCalifornia
Government Code § 65915(“State Density Bonus Law”)and as codified in Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 19.90-Affordable Housing Incentives. Pursuant to State
Density Bonus Law and CVMC, the Applicant is requestinga waiverof the maximumbuilding
height and to utilize the reduced parkingstandards. As required by State Density Bonus
Law/CVMC, 5-percent of the units (nineunits) will be rent restricted for occupancy by very low-
income households.
On March 13, 2019,the Planning Commission considered the Project anda Motion to
approve. The Motion failed by a vote of 1 –Yes to 3 –No, thereby resulting in a Lost Motion.
As such, no action was taken on the Project. Subsequently, on March 22, 2019,the Applicant
Page|1
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 208 of 836
filed an Appealto the City Council citing the “Factual Error”and “Findings Not Supported”
provisionsof the Appeal Application; specifically alleging inaccurate statements by the public
regardingpublic safety concerns along Bonita Glen Drive, Peppertree Road and othernearby
roadways.
This item now presents the Project for City Council consideration and action. The approvals at
issue are Design Reviewand a proposed waiver ofanotherwise applicable height limitation as
allowed under State density bonus/affordable housing laws.Staff has identified four key items
for consideration: 1) the regulatoryframework; 2) Design Reviewconsistency; 3) the waiverof
maximum height requested pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law/CVMC; and 4)the
project’s environmental considerations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-18-0001 in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the results of
the Initial Study, the Director of Development Services has determined that the Project could
result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or
agreed to by the Applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Director of Development Serviceshas
caused the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-18-0001 and associated
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program(“MND”).This MND is presented for City
Council consideration and adoption.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
As discussed above, on March 13, 2019 the Planning Commission made a Motion toapprove
the Project. The Motion failed by a vote of 1 –Yes to 3 –No, thereby resulting in a Lost
Motion, and as such, no action was taken on the Project.
DISCUSSION
The City has received aDesign Review application for the construction of a total of 170
apartment units, withnineunitstobe rent restricted for occupancy by very low-income
householdsin accordance with State Density Bonus Law/CVMC,and 231 parking spaces on a
5.3-acres site.
The following discretionary actionisrequested for the proposed project:
Design Review Approval with a State Density BonusLaw Incentive
Comprehensive evaluation of the site plan, architectural and landscape design
components of the Project to determine consistency with development and CityCode
design standards.
Page|2
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 209 of 836
Waiver Request -A Waiver is requested of the maximum building height of 45 feet per
the Bonita Glen Specific Plan (“BGSP”) and R-3 zonein order to allow one of the project
buildings to be built up to 56 feet tall.The waiver is proposed as an incentive under
State Density Bonus Law. A waiver is a reduction or deviation from typical
zoning/development standards that would physically preclude the construction of a
qualified housing development at the density proposed (Cal Govt Code § 65915(e)).
Project Description
This 170-unit apartment development is comprised of six 3-story walk-up, garden-style buildings
(two 21-plex buildings, two 18-plex buildings, and two 13-plex buildings) and one 4-story,
elevator served podium-style building (66 units). The development includes 6 studio units, 122
one-bedroom units, and 42 two-bedroom units on approximately 5.3 acres. Total building area
for the proposed projectis approximately 149,913 square-feet.The proposed projectincludes a
total of 231 parking spaces: 101 coveredspaces and 130 uncovered spaces. The Project also
includes recreation areas including a pocket park, tot lot, swimming pool, clubhouse, and dog
run.
The Applicant has requested and qualifies for State Density Bonus provisions under California
Government Code § 65915andCVMC Chapter 19.90that promote affordable housing through
the use of density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions to development
standards, and/orreduced parking ratios. Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Lawand
CVMC Chapter 19.90, the Applicant will provide nine affordable rental units for very low
income households and therefore, is requesting a waiver from the BGSP maximum height of
30 feet with allowance for architectural projects at 45 feetand use of the specified parking
ratios.
Nine of the rental units (5% of the total 170 units) will be subject to rental and occupancy
restrictions for very low-income households at 50% of the area median income(AMI)for a
period of 55 years. The maximum annual income for a qualifying two person very low-income
household is $38,950 and $43,800 for a three-person household. The anticipated restricted
rental costs would range from $715 a month for a one-bedroom unit and $818 for a two-
bedroom unit.
Project Site Characteristics
The Project is located within the Bonita Glen Specific Plan (BGSP) Area just west of the 805
Freeway (I-805) and South of Bonita Road. The proposed project is located on 5.3 acres, over
six separate, contiguous parcels, including Assessor Parcel Numbers 570-131-11-00, 570-
140-40-00, 570-140-54-00, 570-140-48-00, 570-140-51-00, and public right-of-way to be
acquired from the City of Chula Vista (City) (Attachment 1, Locator Map).
As shown on Attachment 1, the site is within an urban portion of the City and in an area
generally surrounded by residential and commercial land uses. To the north is the La Quinta
Hotel, which contains 3-stories and 142 hotel rooms, a Denny’s restaurant, and Shell gas
Page|3
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 210 of 836
station, mini-mart and carwash. To the west and southwest are the approximately300-unit
Point Bonita Apartments. To the south, across from Bonita Glen Road, is a vacant residential
lot, and single-family dwellings are farther south of a relatively small (approximately 2-acre)
vacant parcel located to the south beyond Bonita Glen Drive. Single-family dwellings are
located across the private road to the east, with the I-805 farther east of the single-family
dwellings.
The project site has been previously disturbed and gradedand is currently vacant. The siteis
relatively flat, with overall gradual sloping east to west. Elevations range from approximately 45
feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northwestern portion up to approximately 91 feet amsl
in the south portion of the site.
The project site is currently bifurcated by an existing ephemeral stream, during and following
rain events. During dry months, the ephemeral stream acts as a dry streambed.The
ephemeral stream runs downhill from the southwest corner of the site to the northern boundary
of the site. Under the proposed project, the ephemeral stream would remain in a natural state
with re-graded and newly landscaped embankments. The proposed projectwould include two
pedestrian bridges over the improved ephemeral stream.
Buildings 1–6 are three stories with tuck-under parking at level 1 and dwelling units above at
levels 2 and 3. Buildings 1–6 are building code compliant non-elevator buildings with dwelling
units located at levels 2 and 3, which are accessible via exterior stairs. Building 7 is an
elevator served 4-story building with three stories of residential use over one story of partially
below-grade parking. Building 7 contains 66 dwelling units. The proposed buildings would
reach up to 56 feet in height, which istaller than what the BGSPand CVMC allows. However,
a waiver of development standards is requested under the provisions of State Density Bonus
Lawto allow for additional height as further described below.It should be noted that this taller
building, building7,is located at the lowest portion of the site.
Buildings 1 and 2 would each be 13,485 square-feet. Buildings 3 and 4 would each be 8,938
square-feet, and Buildings 5 and 6 would each be 14,799 square-feet. The largest building,
Building 7, would be 75,090 square-feet. Exterior finishes on both buildings would be warm
toned, consisting of gray/browns,dusty charcoal and off-whites, with natural cedar and red
colored accents.All exterior lighting would comply with the City’s Municipal Code and would
be shielded and directed downward.The proposed project includes landscaped areas, surface
parking, and amenities such as a children’s play area, pool, spa, and pool house for resident
use only, and a small park that will be open to the public.(see Attachment 5, Project Plans).
Land Use and Zoning
The table below shows the current, General Plan, and zoning designations for the subject Site
and the surrounding sites:
Current UseGeneral PlanBGSP (Zoning)
Page|4
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 211 of 836
Current UseGeneral PlanBGSP (Zoning)
SiteVacantCommercial RetailCentral Commercial (CCP)
NorthShell gas, mini-mart Commercial RetailCentral Commercial (CCP)
and carwash;
Denny’s
Restaurant; and La
Quinta Hotel
EastSingle FamilyResidential LowSingle family (RR)
(County of San
Diego)
SouthVacantCommercial RetailCentral Commercial (CCP)
WestApartments/CondosResidential HighApartment Residential (R-3)
Consistency with Development Standards
The proposed residential development has been evaluated using the BGSP’s development
regulations, standards, and design guidelines. It should be noted that, while the BGSP has its
own development standards and regulations, its regulations and standards derive from and are
consistent with the standards and regulations of CVMC Chapter19.28. Where the BGSP is
silent on a standard or regulation the CVMC shall apply. The Project utilizes the R-3 Zone
development standards for apartments.
Development StandardZoningProject Proposal
Building Height45 ft. Max.56 feet max.*
Building Setbacks
Front15 feet15 Feet
North Side5 feet10 Feet
South Side5 Feet10 Feet
Rear15 Feet15 Feet
Parking Required212 spaces231 spaces onsite*
Total Open Space
400 sf/unit –68,800 sf73,297 sf
Required
*Height and parking are in accordance with the provisions of Government Code § 65915 (e) and (p)
ANALYSIS:
Page|5
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 212 of 836
Staff has identified four key items for consideration: 1) the regulatory framework; 2) Design
Reviewconsistency; 3) the waiverrequested pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law/CVMC;
and 4) the Project’s environmental considerations.
1.Regulatory Framework In Reviewing the Project:
The proposed project requires adherence to the City of Chula Vista General Plan, Municipal
Code, BGSP, Design Guidelines and State Density Bonus Law. The City’s discretionary action
on the Project must be based upon its reasonable determination of compliance or non-
compliance with such written and objective standards and regulations. As stipulated in State
Law, receipt of a density bonus and/or other incentives, concessions or waivers under State
Density Bonus Law shall not constitute a basis for finding a project inconsistent with a
particular plan, policy, ordinance, orstandard. Project compliance is demonstrated in this
analysis section.
In addition, the entirety of the action must also be found to be consistent with the Housing
Accountability Act. Although the City Council retains discretion to act on the Project, that
discretion must be consistent with the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA” or “Act”)found at
California Government Code §65589.5. The HAA applies to all housing development projects,
whether affordable, market rate, or mixed use.
The HAA restricts a city’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing
developments that are consistent with objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design
review standards. The burden of proof is placed on the City to justify suchactionsbased upon
the following:
Written and specific findings that the project would have“the specific, adverse impacts”
defined as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on
objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as
they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” to public health and
safety as supported by a preponderance of the evidenceon the record; and
Such action is necessary to mitigatesuch specific and adverse impacts(Gov't Code §
65589.5(j)).
2.Design Review –Compliance with City standards
The Project requires the approval of a Design Review Permit (DR) pursuant to CVMCSection
19.14.582. The purpose of the Design Review Permit is to review grading, site design, and
landscaping improvements to ensure consistency with the City of Chula Vista Design Manual
and the BGSP.
As indicated previously in this report, the City Council adopted the BGSP to implement the
vision of a Mixed Use residential/commercial development at this location. The adopted BGSP
contains the required regulations and development standards to review and evaluate
Page|6
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 213 of 836
development projects for consistency with the vision and goal for the subject area. The
proposed apartment Project was reviewed and evaluated based on the BGSP’s and the R-3
regulations, development standards, the Government Code and Chula Vista Design
Guidelines.
Land Use Compatibility
The proposed project is consistent with the vision, objectives and policies of the General Plan
and the regulations of the BGSP. Apartments and condominiums are an allowed use. The
Project would develop an underutilized and unimproved site and provide additional residential
units in an area that is adjacent to commercial and apartment uses. The Project would
contribute to provide rental multi-family housing with an affordable componentto families that
would support the existing commercial base within the Bonita Glen area. The proposed project
is also consistent with the BGSP, CVMC R-3 development regulations, open space and
building setbacks. As shown in the table above, the Project meets all of the applicable
regulations and, in cases such as parking and usable open space, the Project exceeds the
minimum required.
In the case of the parking requirement, the Project is in conformance withthose parking ratios
as outlined within Government Code§ 65915 (p). As allowed for in Government Code §
65915 (e), the Applicant has requested a waiver of the height standardrelated to the three and
four-story building heightthat will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of
thedevelopment to include nine affordable units for very low-income households.
Site Planning and Building Placement/Orientation
The Project was analyzed based on the design guidelines established in the City’s Design
Manual. Following is a set of design standards applicable to the proposed project followed by
a statement indicating how the Project is consistent with those guidelines.
The arrangement of structures, parking and circulation areas, and open spaces should
recognize the particular characteristics of the site and should relate to the surrounding
built environment in pattern, function, scale, character and materials;
The scale of multiple family projects should be considered in the context of their
surroundings. Large projects should be broken up into groups of smaller structures and
taller structures should provide increased setbacks so as not to dominate and impose
on surrounding uses and the character of the neighborhood.
To the extent possible, each of the dwelling units should be individually recognizable.
This can be accomplished with the use of roof lines, setbacks, projections and balconies
which help articulate individual dwelling units or collection of units, and by the pattern
and rhythm of windows and doors.
The design was influenced by the irregular shape of the site and its topography; including the
restoration and enhancement of the existing ephemeral stream as a positive natural feature
Page|7
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 214 of 836
and improving pedestrian connections across and around the site for the benefit of both
existing and new residents. The overall building arrangement, parking, recreational and open
space areas, and landscaping creates a balanced mix of compact buildings with ample spatial
separation onsite that is complimentary with the surrounding commercial, multi-family
apartments and single family homes.
The Project’s single 4-story and six 3-story building structures with tucked-under parking and
living space interior and above are creatively and efficiently placed on the site to be oriented to
the interior and take full advantage of the site’s varied topography and open/natural spaces,
while creating a cohesive arrangement of buildings and uses on the site. The building
structures are evenly distributed along the site in a north and south orientation to the
curvilinear street. The main 4-story building with 66 units is located along the Bonita Glen
Drive street frontage to establish a clear presence on the street, while framing the main entry
driveway into the main building’s front entrance. The site plan concept is based on creating a
resort ambience by locating the pocket park, tot lot outdoor activity area with enhanced paving
parking as a focal point for the main entrance. The pool, spa and recreational building are
located between buildings six and seven, adjacent to the ephemeral stream channel that will
have two bridges crossing over it. The natural ephemeral stream which will remain
undeveloped will be restored and maintained for the passive enjoyment of the residents. The
Project residents will be able to view and enjoy the natural area from recreational activity and
landscaped areas, as well as from their balconies and windows. The pocket park and trail
through the property will be open to the public.
The Project has been designed to integrate and blend with the context, character, and scale of
the surrounding neighborhood. The Project will be a pedestrian friendly development intended
to connect with the street, surrounding commercial, and the rest of the neighborhood. All
interior-facing building elements are designed to support pedestrian traffic and provide the
residents within the Project as well as the public with the connectivity between the site and the
immediate community. One of the important features that will connect the Project internally
and externally is the pedestrian walkway located along the perimeter of the site connecting all
buildings with the street and beyond. The walkway will serve to provide residents with a clear
and safe path to be used for daily exercise around the site and neighborhood or simply to walk
from their place of residency to the street and/or the commercial areas in the vicinity.
Building Architecture
The architecture should consider the compatibility with surrounding character, including
harmonious building style, form, size, color, material and roofline. In developed areas,
the new project should meet or exceed the standards of quality which have been set by
surrounding development.
Heights and setbacks within the same building should be varied, and wall planes should
be staggered both horizontally and vertically in order to create pockets of light and
shadow and provide visual relief from monotonous, uninterrupted expanses of wall.
Colors and materials should be complementary to the chosen architectural style and
compatible with the character of surrounding development. Materials for multiple family
Page|8
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 215 of 836
projects should be durable and require low maintenance. They should be consistently
applied and work harmoniously with adjacent materials. Piecemeal embellishments and
frequent changes in materials should be avoided. Materials tend to appear substantial
and integral when material changes occur at changes in planes.
Colors and materials should be consistent with the chosen architectural style and
compatible with the character of surrounding development. Sensitive alteration of colors
and materials can produce diversity and enhance architectural form.
The architecture throughout the site is a modern adaptation of the familiar and regionally
appropriate Mission Style with warm white plaster walls, deep overhangs, colorful awnings,
crafted timber trellises and protective patio walls. Buildings are simple with bold articulation
varied rooflines. Lighted pathways will lead through colorful and drought tolerant gardens to
shared outdoor gathering spaces. The overall “feel” of the development is inspired by upscale
boutique hotels and resort living.
The proposed Spanish Mission architecture is scaled to be consistent with the surrounding
commercial and residential buildings. The apartment buildings will be varied with individual
patio entries and tuck under parking.The building’s fenestration allows thosepassing by to
see welcoming large windows and balconies. In addition, the buildings will feature articulated
walls, color variety, different finish textures and stepped facades to maintain proper scale with
its surroundings.
Private balconies and shared amenities onsite will provide many opportunities for passive and
active recreation. The Project is oriented internally with the exception of the main building 7
with its inviting entry on Bonita Glen Drive. The Project is consistent with the scale and style of
the adjacent commercial and apartments properties. The large residential windows and
balconies help to maintain the security concept of “eyes on the street.”
Unit Count/Building Height/Setbacks
Pursuant to CVMC 19.28.070 the residential unit mix of 6 studios, 122 one-bedroom and 42
two-bedroom unitsis within the allowable range based on the site acreage. The subject site is
5.3acres inarea. The 170-unit mix would require 5.1 acres, which is below the 5.3 acres of
the site. This unit countis permitted in the R-3zonebased on its consistency with the site
acreage.
The BGSP establishes a maximum building height of 38 feetand 50 feet for architectural
features. The BGSP further limits buildings within 100 feet of Vista Drive to a maximum30
feet and 45 feet height limit for architectural projections. The project presently includes two
buildings (Buildings 1 and 2 on the east) within 100 feet of Vista Drive. Although those
buildings are 34 feet high as measured from their respective lower floor slab –they are 30 feet
high as measured from the property line –which is significantly below the street elevation due
to the sloping grades. One building (Building 7on the west) is proposed at 56 feet and 4-
stories. In accordance with Government Code §65915(e), the Applicant has requested the
waiver in height as compliance with such development standard would have the effect of
Page|9
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 216 of 836
precluding the construction of the housing development with five percent of the units restricted
for occupancy and affordable to very low-income households.
In terms of building setbacks, the R-3 zone also provides for the minimum building setback
from property lines, as listed in the table above, namely 15 feet front and rear and 5 feet on
each side. The project buildings meet or exceed these setbacks.
Open Space
The BGSP requires the provision of usable open space that can be delivered in the form of
common and private space, and the Design Manual provides guidelines for the provision of
open space. The open space requirement within the CVMC is 400 square-feet of open space
for each residential unit. Based on the proposed 170units, the total amount of open space
required is68,000square-feet. The CVMC also specifies criteria for which the proposed open
space must qualify. The space must be usable and must contain a minimum dimension of six
feet and be no less than 60 square-feet. In addition to common recreational facilities, private
patios and balconies qualify as open space. However, driveways and parking areas, as well
as some walkways and building entries, do not qualify as open space.
Regarding open space, the Design Manual states that:
Required common open space and recreation areas are expected to be centrally and
conveniently located for all of the residents. Private open spaces should be contiguous
to the units they serve and screened from public view.
The proposed project’s open space meets the requirements of the BGSP, the CVMC and the
guidelines of the Design Manual. The proposed project exceeds both the private and common
open space requirements. The Project proposes a total of approximately 73,297square-feet
of usable common open space that includes the passive park, tot lot, pool area, dog run, trail
with benches, pedestrian walkway, and other open space features around the site (see
Attachment 3, Conceptual Plans). Additional open space in the form of private balconies and
the passive natural drainage area were also counted toward the required open space.
Parking
The provision of very low income affordable units allows project parking to be calculated at a
rate of one space per 1-bedroom and two spaces per 2-bedrooms and above pursuant to
CVMC19.90.080 (H)andGovernment Code §65915(p). Based on the proposed number of
residential units with mix of 6 studios, 122 one and 42 two-bedrooms, the number of parking
spaces required for the Project is 212 spaces. The Project provides 223 onsite spaces for the
residents and an additional 16 visitor spaces in the form of tuck under carports, podium and
open parking areas.Because the proposed number of parking spaces for the Project exceeds
the applicable City standard, the Project meets City’s parking requirements.
3.Waivers and Incentives–State Density Bonus Law/CVMC Chapter 19.90
Page|10
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 217 of 836
Affordable Housing Incentives
State Density Bonus Lawrequires that cities provide certain incentives to developers of
affordable housing projects that meet defined levels of affordability.Cities are required to
provide an increase in allowable density to those qualifying projects (Cal Govt Code § 65915
(b)).In addition to these density increases, developers must also be afforded the opportunity
to apply for other development incentives or concessions (Cal Govt Code § 65915(d)), the
number of which is dependent on the amount of affordable units provided and their level of
affordability,waivers or reduction of developments standards (Cal Govt Code § 65915(e)), and
reduced parking ratios (Cal Govt Code § 65915(p)).
To facilitate and materially assist the housing industry in providing adequate and affordable
shelter for all economic segments of the community and to provide a balance of housing
opportunities for very low income, low income and senior households, the City adopted CVMC
Chapter 19.90 –Affordable Housing Incentives, consistent with State Density Bonus Law.
Should an applicant agree to construct housing units to be restricted for occupancy by very-low
and low-income households as set forth in CVMC 19.90.040, upon the request of the
applicant, the City shall make incentives and waivers available, in accordance with CVMC
19.90.050, and parking ratios in accordance with CVMC 19.90.080 (H).
Pursuant to CVMC Chapter 19.90, with the provision of nine (9) very low-income affordable
units or five percent of the 170 total dwelling units, the Project qualifies as an affordable
housing residential development. Therefore, the Project is entitled to certain benefits,
including a density bonus, one development incentive, waivers and reductions in development
standards, and specified parking ratios.
Density Bonus
By including five percent of the base units for very low-income households, the Project is
entitled to a 20 percent housing density increase under the provisions of CVMC 19.90.040 (B)
andGovernment Code § 65915(f)(2). However, the Applicant is not requesting a density
bonus to achieve the affordability level for the nine very low-income units. Per Govt Code
Section 65915 (f) and CVMC Section 19.90.040 (E), the Applicant can request less than,
including no density increase, and still receiveall other incentives, concessions, waivers,and
parking.
Incentives
By including five percent of the base units for very low-income households, the Project is
entitled to one development incentive under the provisions of CVMC Chapter 19.90. However,
the Applicant is not requesting a development incentive to achieve the affordability level for the
nine very low-income units.
Waivers/Reductions in Development Standards
Page|11
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 218 of 836
By including five percent of the base units for very low-income households, the Applicant may
request waivers or reductions of development standards in accordance with CVMC 19.90.080
(F)andGovernment Code §65915(e)in addition to any requested incentives or concessions
as described above.
In order to facilitate the proposed development at the density allowed under the BGSP,State
DensityBonus Law, and CVMC, the Project is requesting a waiver of the building height in
order to physically constructthe development allowed under the law. The Applicant is
requesting a waiver from the BGSP maximum height of 30 feet with allowance for architectural
projects at 45 feet. The R-3 Zone allows a maximum height of 45 feet and three and one-half
stories. The project proposes six 3-story buildings at a height of 34 feet and one 4-story
building at a height of 56 feet. As mentioned on page 8 and 9 of this report, a building height
of 56 feet would be below the grade along Bonita Glen Drive and, as such,would not be
prominent. Staff has determined the requested waiver is consistent with the intent of the
State’s Density Bonus Law, specifically Government Code §65915(e) andCVMC19.90.080
(F), which requires the City to not apply such development standards that would physically
preclude the construction of a housing development providing five percent of the units as
restricted for occupancy and affordable to very low income householdsat the density
proposed.
No evidence has been identified to demonstrate that the granting of the requested waiver
would have an adverse impact to health, safety or physicalenvironment that cannot be feasibly
mitigated. Furthermore, the proposed waiver will not impact any historic property and would
not be contrary to any state or federal law.
Waiver Findings
State Density Bonus Law requires local agencies to grant the wavier requests unless one or
more of the followingfindingscan be made to deny any waiver of development standardbased
on substantial evidence:
The waiver or reduction would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and
safety as defined in Government Code §65589.5, the physical environment, including
environmentally sensitive lands, or on any real property that is listed in the California
Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact; or,
The incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.
If the findings above cannot be made, the waiver must be granted.
To ensure compliance with CVMC Chapter 19.90andState Density Bonus Law,as a condition
of approval of the Project, the Applicant will be required to execute and record an Affordable
Housing Regulatory Agreement prior to the issuance of a building permit. Such Agreement will
set forth the terms and conditions for the requiredincome and rent restrictions for nine units
reserved for very low-income households for a minimum compliance period of 55 years and
shall be recorded as a covenant on the property. Such restrictions willbind all subsequent
Page|12
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 219 of 836
owners so that the commitment remains in force regardless of ownership. Compliance with
these restrictions willbe subject annually to regulatory audit and certification, with an annual
monitoring fee to be paid to the City.
4.Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pursuant to the CEQA InitialStudy (IS-18-0001)conducted, theProject could result in
significant effects on the environment regarding Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, and
Biology. However, revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the Applicant as presented
in theMitigated Negative Declaration(MND)would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a
point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The MND IS-18-0001 and Mitigation,
Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) werecirculated for public review from December
17, 2018 through January 13, 2019. Approximately 15 comment letters were received. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15204, the City has independently
evaluated the comments and prepared written responses describing the disposition of any
significant environmental issues raised.The Response to Comments (RTC’s), MND and
MMRP are included as Attachments 8-10.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Two public meetings were held to inform the public about the proposed project and receive
public input—the first on September 5, 2018 and the second on October 17, 2018. Residents
expressed concern about the proposed project, primarily impacts to traffic and parking along
Bonita Glen Drive.In response to written correspondence and comments from the public
meeting, the following project features were revised and/or established:
The proposed project would install a sidewalk and street lights along the frontage of
Bonita Glen Drive.
The proposed project would include eightadditional parking spaces, for a total of 231 parking
spaces.
The Unnamed Road cul-de-sac at the end of Vista Drive will be acquired by the
Applicant and maintained as a private road, and the segment of Vista Drive north of
Bonita Glen Drive and south of the Unnamed Road cul-de-sac will be brought to
appropriate County of San Diego standards.
The proposed park would be open to the public, however privately maintained by the
Applicant.
The Traffic Impact Analysis was revised to include additional roadways, in
response to concerns of traffic along Hilltop Drive and Pepper Tree Road.
Staff prepared a response to the issues raised by the residents. The response matrix is
attached (see Attachment 2).
Page|13
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 220 of 836
Conclusion
The Project, as proposed,is consistent with the vision and requirements of the City’s General
Plan, BGSP, R-3 Zone, the Guidelines of the City’s Design Manualand State Density Bonus
Law/CVMC. The requested waiver of height pursuant to State Density Bonus Law can be
justified based upon the physical characteristics of the site, considered in light of the density
allowed pursuant to the law. Any potential impacts identified in the CEQA Initial Study (IS-18-
0001) have been reduced through revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the
Applicant as presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to a point where no
significant effects would occur. For purposes of the HAA,based upon thepreponderance of
the Administrative record,no “specific, adverse impacts” to public health and safetyhave been
determined that would necessitate the denial of the Project or a reduction in density to mitigate
such impacts.
The Project will providenew investment,modern housing facilities and site improvements that
will contribute to the revitalizationand enhancement ofthe site and the neighborhood.Itwill
provide new rentalmulti-family housing with an affordable component that will improve the
housing mix,expandresidential opportunitiesand contribute to business activity in this part of
the City. The proposed project is well planned, incorporating the principals of Smart Growth
such as compact design, pedestrian-oriented amenities, located near transit, and resource
conservation. TheProject’s pedestrian orientation and location near the 705 MTS route along
Bonita Road will provide convenient access for residents to nearby public transportation.
Based on the description and evaluation of the Project and the conclusions above, staff
recommends that the Council approve the proposed Project subject to the conditions
contained in the resolution.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Councilmembers and has found no
property holdings within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this
action. Consequently, this item does not present a disqualifying real property-related financial
conflict of interest under California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(7) or (8), for
purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §87100, et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of
any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
The City’s Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality,
Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The
Project implements the Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure
Neighborhoods, and Connected Community Strategic goals because the Project represents an
investment in the construction of new residential unitsand all its infrastructure that is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan and the development
Page|14
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 221 of 836
standards of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code in a manner that ensures public health
and safety of the community. The development andprovision of quality housingand housing
for lowerincome families addresses the City’s Connected Communitygoals as it provides
housing to meet residents’ needs and priorities.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
All costs associated with processing the Project, including the Appeal, are borne by the
Applicant, resulting in no net impact to the General Fund or Development Services Fund. The
Appellant paid the required filing fee for the Appeal. Costs associated with the processing of
future implementing permits, will also be recovered by permit and processing fees.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact to the City as a result of this action.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Locator Map
2.Issues Response Matrix to resident’s concerns
3.SupportLetters to Planning Commission
4.Additional Letters to Planning Commission
5.Memorandum to Planning Commission from Silvergate Development
6.Planning Commission Minutes
7.Appeal from Silvergate, LLC
8.Mitigated Negative Declaration
9.Response To Comments
10.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
11.Project Plans
Staff Contact:Stan Donn, SeniorPlanner
Page|15
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 222 of 836
1. Project Name: Bonita Glen Project
2. Project Location: Bonita Glen Dr, Chula Vista
California 91910
3. 570-131-11-00, 570-140-40-00, 570-
140-54-00, 570-140-48-00, 570-140-
51-00
4. Project Applicant: Silvergate Development
4980 North Harbor Drive, Suite 203
San Diego, California 92106
Contact: Thomas Edmunds
619.625.1260
5. Date Of Draft Document: December 17, 2018
The proposed Bonita Glen Project (proposed project) is located within the Bonita Glen Specific
Plan Area just west of the 805 Freeway (I-805) and South of Bonita Road. The proposed project
is located on 5.3 acres, over six separate, contiguous parcels, including Assessor Parcel Numbers
570-131-11-00, 570-140-40-00, 570-140-54-00, 570-140-48-00, 570-140-51-00, and public
right-of-way to be acquired from the City of Chula Vista (City) and on the U.S. Geological
Survey 7.5-minute National City Quadrangle in Section 35 in Township 17 South and Range 2
West (Figure 1, Project Location).
As shown on Figure 1, the site is within an urban portion of the City and in an area located
directly between existing residential homes to the west, I-805 and residential to the east,
commercial to the north, and a relatively small (approximately 2-acre) vacant parcel located to
the south beyond Bonita Glen Drive.
The project site has been previously disturbed and graded. The present site is vacant and relatively
flat, with overall gradual sloping east to west. Elevations range from approximately 45 feet above
mean sea level (amsl) in the northwestern portion up to approximately 91 feet amsl in the south
portion of the site. An ephemeral stream runs through the project site, during and following rain
1
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 223 of 836
events. During dry months, the ephemeral stream acts as a dry streambed. Surface flows under
existing conditions drain toward the southern end of the site.
The project site is generally surrounded by residential and commercial land uses. To the north is
La Quinta Hotel, which contains 3 stories and 142 hotel rooms. To the west and southwest are the
Point Bonita Apartments. To the south, across from Bonita Glen Road, is a vacant residential lot,
and single-family dwellings are farther south of the vacant lot. Single-family dwellings are
bounded the project site to the east, with the I-805 farther east of the single-family dwellings.
As shown on Figure 2, Project Site Plan, the project is a 170-unit apartment development within six
three-story garden-style buildings (two 21-plex buildings, two 18-plex buildings, and two 13-plex
buildings) and one four-story, podium-style building (66 units). The development would consist of
6 studio units, 122 1-bedroom units, and 42 2-bedroom units on approximately 5.3 acres. Total
building area for the proposed project is approximately 149,913 square-feet. The proposed project
includes and total of 231 parking spaces: 101 covered spaces and 130 uncovered spaces. The project
also includes recreation areas including a swimming pool, clubhouse, and dog run.
The proposed project uses State Density Bonus provisions that promote affordable housing
through the use of density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions to development
standards, and parking ratios in accordance with Section 65915 of the Government Code and
Chapter 19.90 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The proposed project provides 9 affordable
dwelling units (5%) restricted for 55 years to lower income households (50% of the area median
income) in a recorded restrictive covenant.
The proposed project site is currently bifurcated by an existing ephemeral stream. The ephemeral
stream runs south from the northwest corner of the site to the southern boundary of the site. Under
the proposed project, the ephemeral stream would remain in a natural state with graded
embankments to the east and west of the existing ephemeral stream. As shown on Figure 2, the
proposed project would include two pedestrian bridges over the ephemeral stream.
Buildings 16 are three stories with dwelling units and tuck-under parking at level 1 and dwelling units
above at levels 2 and 3. Buildings 16 are non-elevator buildings, and dwelling units at levels 2 and 3
are accessible through stairs. Building 7 is three stories of residential use over one story of parking and
contains 66 dwelling units. The proposed buildings would reach up to 56 feet in height, which is taller
than what the Specific Plan allows. However, a waiver of development standards would be obtained
through the state density bonus law to allow for additional height.
2
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 224 of 836
Buildings 1 and 2 would each be 13,485 square-feet. Buildings 3 and 4 would each be 8,938 square-
feet, and Buildings 5 and 6 would each be 14,799 square-feet. The largest building, Building 7,
would be 75,090 square-feet. Exterior finishes on both buildings would be earth toned, consisting of
browns, tans, and reds, as shown on Figure 3a and 3b, Exterior Building Materials. All exterior
Code and would be shielded and directed
downward. The proposed project includes landscaped areas, surface parking, and amenities such as
and pool house for resident use only, and a small park that will be
open to the public.
Two public meetings were held to inform the public about the proposed project and receive public
inputthe first on September 5, 2018 and the second on October 17, 2018. In response to written
correspondence and comments from the public meeting, the following project features were
revised and/or established:
The proposed project would install a sidewalk and street lights along the frontage of Bonita
Glen Drive.
The proposed project would include 8 additional parking spaces, for a total of 231 parking spaces.
The Unnamed Road cul-de-sac at the end of Vista Drive will be acquired by the Applicant
and maintained as a private road, and the segment of Vista Drive north of Bonita Glen
Drive and south of the Unnamed Road cul-de-sac will be brought to appropriate County of
San Diego standards.
The proposed park would be open to the public, however privately maintained by the Applicant.
The Traffic Impact Analysis was revised to include additional roadways, in response
to concerns of traffic along Hilltop Drive and Pepper Tree Road.
The proposed project would include connections to existing utility infrastructure located along
Bonita Glen Road and Vista Drive. The proposed project proposes multiple waterline connections
to existing pipelines beneath Bonita Glen Road, along the western boundary of the site. Additional
pipeline connections are proposed along the north boundary of the site, to existing pipelines beneath
Vista Drive. As previously stated, the existing ephemeral stream, would continue to collect surface
water following development. Other stormwater will be managed by using biofiltration basin-type
drainage management areas. The basins would be located in the northwestern area of the property.
3
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 225 of 836
The proposed project would include catch basins throughout the site to contain on-site runoff. Trash
enclosures would be dispersed throughout the site.
The main site access is proposed to include the Unnamed Road cul-de-sac at the end of Vista
Drive, which will be acquired by the Applicant and maintained as a private road by the Applicant.
The segment of Vista Drive north of Bonita Glen Dr. and south of the Unnamed Road cul-de-sac
will be brought to appropriate County of San Diego standards. (Chen Ryan 2018a). The proposed
project would ensure acceptable sight distance is provided to potential driveway locations along
Vista Road and Bonita Glen Road, as shown on Figure 2, Project Site Plan. The project driveways
would be designed consistent with City standards and would have sufficient storage for traffic
northbound along Vista Drive to alert drivers that there is no exit. The on-site circulation would
connect with the existing access to Bonita Glen Drive and Bonita Road.
The proposed project area will include the Unnamed Road cul-de-sac at the end of Vista Drive,
which will be acquired by the Applicant and maintained as a private road by the Applicant. The
segment of Vista Drive north of Bonita Glen Dr. and south of the Unnamed Road cul-de-sac will
be brought to appropriate County of San Diego standards. Additionally, a sidewalk and street
lights will be installed along the frontage of Bonita Glen Drive.
Bonus, which allows reduced minimum parking requirements with affordable housing projects.
Table 1, Parking Quantities displays the number of on-site parking spaces in which the Proposed
Project is required to supply based on state law.
Table 1
Parking Quantities
4
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 226 of 836
As shown in Table 1, the project would be required to provide a total of 212 parking spaces. Based
on this assessment there would be a parking demand of 1.25 spaces per unit. However, as
mentioned earlier in this memorandum, the proposed project would provide a total of 231 parking
spaces, which would allow for a demand of 1.36 spaces per unit or 1.09 spaces per bedroom.
Additionally, there are approximately 97 on-street spaces located on Bonita Glen Drive South of
(Chen Ryan 2018b). On-street spaces on Bonita Glen Drive
would accommodate any overflow parking from the proposed project, under a worst-case scenario.
Therefore, even under the most impacted condition of similar multi-family complexes, the parking
provided on-site by the proposed project, as well as the excess parking on Bonita Glen Drive, will
be sufficient to accommodate the proposed p (Chen Ryan 2018b).
The proposed project would provide 73,297 square-feet of open space, including a 3,630 square-
foot park (open to the public) in the northwestern corner of the site, as well a
area directly south of the park open to the public. The proposed project would include amenities
dog run and pool house for resident use only. The pool area
would be centrally located with an amenity building and tables. West of the pool area, there would
be a 1420-square-foot outdoor dining plaza for residents and guests to use. As shown on Figure 4,
Open Space and Recreation Areas, there would be a community trail running through the site
totaling 3,969 square-feet. The City of Chula Vista requires 400 square feet of open space per unit
(400 square feet x 170 units = 68,000 square feet). Therefore, the proposed project would provide
more open space than what is required by the City.
The proposed project would include 98,640 square-feet of new planting, including turf and riparian
areas. As depicted on Figure 5, Landscape Plan, the types of plantings are categorized as entry and
residential planting, courtyard and pool planting, park and edge planting, urban garden and
orchard, and slope plantingnative grassland.
For analysis and modeling, it is anticipated that construction would last approximately 19 months,
reaching completion by late-2020. The construction equipment mix and estimated hours of
equipment operation per day of the proposed project are shown in Table 2. For this analysis, it was
assumed that heavy construction equipment would be used 5 days a week (22 days per month)
during project construction. In addition to construction equipment operation, emissions from
worker trips, hauling (i.e., dump trucks) and vendor trucks (i.e., delivery trucks) were estimated.
5
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 227 of 836
Construction of the proposed project would grade a total area of 209,000 square-feet. This would
include 10,800 cubic yards of cut and 10,500 cubic yards of fill, for a net export of 300 cubic yards.
Haul truck trips were assumed to be required during the grading, which would require
approximately 500 haul truck trips in total. The total area graded for the proposed project was
estimated at 7.5 acres. Vendor trucks transporting concrete, steel, and other building materials were
assumed during the building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases. Additional
details regarding construction assumptions are provided in the modeling output provided in the
modeling output within the AQ/GHG Technical Report (Dudek 2018a).
Table 2
Construction Scenario Assumptions
The proposed project would include 170 residential units with patios and balconies, parking, and
recreation areas including a swimming pool, clubhouse, and park. The proposed 170 units would
house approximately 486 residents, based on the 2013 City Housing 2.86
person per renter-occupied household. In developed conditions, the ephemeral stream is to remain
in a natural state with graded embankments to the east and west of the delineated existing stream
while leaving the stream in its natural existing condition.
6
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 228 of 836
The proposed project is governed by the Bonita Glen Specific Plan (Specific Plan; City of Chula
Vista 1977), which includes the development of residential-retail-commercial projects, over 8.74
acres of land. An Environmental Impact Report was adopted for the Bonita Glen Specific Plan
(EIR 77-2) on April 20, 1977. The site is currently designated under the Specific Plan as
Commercial Retail; however, as stated in the Specific Plan, apartments and condominiums, when
consistent with the adopted conceptual plan, and when approved under the project plan process
and procedure, pursuant to Section 2.6, are permitted within the project area of the Bonita Glen
Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also states that the Planning Commission, upon the
recommendation of the Zoning Administrator, may adjust said standards and regulations upon
finding that said adjustment will not adversely affect the nature, character, design, order, amenity
or intent of the proposed project or Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was amended in November
1984, which allows a height limit of 38 feet and 50-foot architectural features. A 30-foot height
limit was applied to structures located within 100 feet of Vista Drive.
Because the proposed project would exceed the current maximum permitted height of 30 38
feet, a waiver of development standards would be obtained through the state density bonus law
to allow for additional height. As such, the proposed project would not require a rezone or
Specific Plan Amendment.
The Specific Plan is based on special standards and generalized site utilization plans and is
designed to promote innovative and imaginative project planning. The text of the specific plan
provides land use, bulk, height, setback, urban design, parking, landscaping, and sign control
standards and regulations. According to the Specific Plan, the project site is currently designated
as Commercial Retail in the City General Plan, but has been zoned as Central Commercial Zone
(CCD) under the zoning plans of the City and County of San Diego (County) General Plan. As
stated in the Specific Plan, this zone is oriented toward retail commercial and compatible uses that
are characterized by a strong emphasis upon qualitative community design. The CCD uses are
those suited to the East Chula Vista-Bonita area and are the foundation of the Specific Plan.
On July 17, 2018, a Notice of Initial Study was issued. On December 17, 2018, a Notice of
Intent was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project
site, as well as to other interested parties. The public review period shall end on January 16,
2019.
7
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 229 of 836
An Initial Study conducted by the City determined that the proposed project may have potential
significant environmental impacts; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
project to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. This MND has been prepared in
accordance with Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Air Quality
Consistent with SDAPCD guidance, mitigation measures were evaluated to identify ways to ensure that
residents of the proposed project would not be exposed
significance thresholds and to ensure that impacts related to community risk and hazards from placement
of sensitive receptors proximate to major sources of air pollution would be less than significant.
The following mitigation measures, identified in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Analysis Technical Report, would reduce the significant impacts associated with cancer risk levels
below the SDAPCD thresholds:
MM-AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant or its successor shall
require the installation of high-efficiency return air filters on all heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning (HVAC) systems serving the project. This requirement shall
ral plan. The air filtration system shall reduce at
least 90% of particulate matter emissions, such as can be achieved with a Minimum
Efficiency Reporting Value 13 (MERV 13) air filtration system installed on return
vents in residential units. The property management for the project shall maintain
the air filtration system on any HVAC system installed for the specified residential
project.
MM-AQ-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant or its successor
shall locate air intake vents on the residential buildings such that they do not
face the 805 freeway and are as far from 805 freeway as practicable. This
MM-AQ-3 Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, a City-approved, ASHRAE
certified specialist shall verify the implementation of the installation of high-efficiency
air filtration systems on return vents to reduce ambient particulate matter
concentrations prior to occupancy of the residential units. On-going maintenance of the
8
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 230 of 836
installed filtration systems shall be the responsibility of the applicant or its successor.
The City may enforce that the systems are
recommendations for the life of the project.
Biology
As stated in the Initial Study, a Biological Technical Report (BTR) was prepared for the proposed
project, which states direct permanent impacts to approximately 4.35 acres of Tier III, non-native
grassland (Dudek 2018b). Implementation of MM-BIO-1 will reduce these impacts to a level
below significant.
MM- BIO-1 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading
and construction permits, the applicant shall mitigate direct impacts to 4.35 acres of
non-native grassland pursuant to the City of Chula Vista (City) Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan). The applicant shall
secure mitigation credits within a City-approved Conservation Bank or other approved
location offering mitigation credits consistent with the ratios specified in Table 5-3 of
the Subarea Plan. The applicant is required to provide the City with verification of
mitigation credit purchase prior to issuance of any land development permits.
If mitigation credits are not purchased, the applicant must prepare a habitat
mitigation and monitoring plan to the satisfaction of the City. The plan shall
include, at a minimum, an implementation plan to provide the required mitigation
acreages of non-native grassland, a maintenance and monitoring program, an
estimated completion time, performance standards, and any relevant contingency
measures. The applicant shall also be required to implement the habitat mitigation
and monitoring plan subject to the oversight of the City.
As stated in the Initial Study, there is some potential for California horned lark to nest in the non-
native grassland on site; impacts to nesting birds and their young could occur. Implementation of
MM-BIO-2 will reduce impacts to nesting birds to below significant.
MM-BIO-2 To avoid any direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds, construction activities should
occur outside of the breeding season (February 15 to August 31). If construction
activity is scheduled during the general bird nesting season, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting bird
species within the proposed work areas. The pre-construction survey shall be
conducted within 4 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities. The
applicant shall submit the results of the pre-construction survey to City staff for review
9
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 231 of 836
and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected,
ines and
applicable state and federal law (e.g., appropriate follow-up surveys, monitoring
schedules, construction and noise barriers/buffers) shall be prepared and shall include
proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs or
disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval and shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City. The City Resident Engineer and/or project biologist shall verify
and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place
prior to and/or during construction. If nesting birds are not detected during the pre-
construction survey, no further mitigation is required.
As stated in the Initial Study, slivers of the single vegetation community, non-native grassland, are
adjacent to the project footprint and may be subject to short-term indirect impacts. Indirect impacts
(accidental encroachment) into vegetation communities listed as Tier I through Tier III beyond the
proposed work areas is considered significant. Implementation of MM-BIO-3 will reduce these
impacts to a level below significant. Additionally, indirect impacts to adjacent jurisdictional waters
of the United States/state/City are considered significant. Implementation of MM-BIO-3 will
reduce these impacts to a level below significant.
MM- BIO-3 To avoid any unexpected impacts (i.e., encroachment) into vegetation and/or
jurisdictional waters, the project contractors will delineate (in coordination with the
project biologist) all approved access paths and construction work areas. The limits
of work, including the designated footpath access, will be delineated with flagging
or fencing as appropriate and will be installed prior to work activities. A pre-
construction meeting shall be held between all contractors and the qualified project
biologist and during this meeting, the biologist will educate the contractors on
sensitive biological resources (including non-wetland waters of the United
States/state) and project avoidance measures. All project site personnel shall
provide written acknowledgment of having received avoidance training. This
training shall include information on the location of the approved access paths and
work areas, the necessity of preventing damage and impacts to sensitive biological
resources, and discussion of work practices that will accomplish such. Lastly, the
project biologist will conduct weekly monitoring to ensure that the appropriate
avoidance measures are implemented.
If unauthorized impacts occur outside of the approved project boundary, the
contractor shall notify the City Resident Engineer and project biologist
immediately. The project biologist shall evaluate the additional impacts to
10
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 232 of 836
determine the size of the impact and the vegetation communities, land covers,
and/or jurisdictional resources impacted. The footprint of the impact shall be
recorded with a GPS, and the project biologist will report the impacts to City staff
and the appropriate permitting agencies (where appropriate) for approval of the
impact record and to establish any necessary follow-up mitigation measures. These
measures may include additional mitigation credits purchased within a City-
approved Conservation Bank or other approved location offering mitigation credits
consistent with the ratios specified in Table 5-3 of the Subarea Plan.
Any unauthorized impacts to jurisdictional waters/wetlands would require reporting to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City as well as development of a
Waters/Wetlands Restoration Plan to restore pre-impact conditions as directed by the
agencies. The Revegetation Plan and/or Waters/Wetlands Restoration Plan shall
include a description of the suitability of the restoration area, planting and irrigation
plan, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and performance standards that
ensures that the intended restoration is achieved. The plans and associated monitoring
reports shall be submitted to City staff.
Cultural Resources
As stated in the Initial Study, the proposed project may unexpectedly encounter previously
unknown cultural resources during excavation of the proposed project. Due to the low potential
for cultural resources in the APE, no further studies are recommended, including construction
monitoring (Dudek 2018c). Implementation of MM-CUL-1 will reduce the potential for impacts
to archaeological resources to less than significant.
MM-CUL-1 In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are unearthed during project
excavation, all project construction activities within 200 feet of the discovery shall
cease. The prime contractor shall immediately notify the City of Chula Vista (City).
Upon notification of the discovery, the City shall retain a qualified archaeologist who
alification Standards to assess the
potential significance of the discovery and propose appropriate mitigation per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Work within 200 feet of the discovery shall not continue until the
qualified archaeologist has completed the assessment of the discovery.
As stated in the Initial Study, sedimentary deposits have the potential to yield scientifically
significant vertebrate fossils (Dudek 2018d). As such, a paleontological resources mitigation
program is recommended, and would be implemented in accordance with MM-CUL-2.
11
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 233 of 836
MM-CUL-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall provide written
confirmation to the City that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry
out an appropriate mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an
individual with an MS or PhD in paleontology or geology who is familiar with
paleontological procedures and techniques). A pre-grade meeting shall be held
among the paleontologist and the grading and excavation contractors.
A paleontological monitor shall be on site at all times during the original cutting of
previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (i.e., San
Diego Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. (A paleontological monitor is
defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil
materials.) The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist. The monitor shall be on site on at least a half-time basis during the
original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of moderately sensitive geologic
formations (e.g., Lindavista Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
The monitor shall be on site during the original cutting of previously undisturbed
sediments of moderate and high sensitivity geologic formations (e.g., Lindavista
Formation and San Diego Formation, respectively) to inspect cuts for contained
fossils. Monitoring is not required during excavation into low resource sensitivity
geologic formations (e.g., young alluvial flood-plain deposits).
In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low, or moderately sensitive
formations, the applicant shall increase the per-day field monitoring time.
Conversely, if fossils are not discovered, the monitoring, at the discretion of the
City's Deputy City Manager/Development Services Director or its designee,
shall be reduced. A paleontological monitor is not needed during grading of
rocks with no resource sensitivity.
When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall
recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period
of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete whale skeleton) may
require an extended salvage time. In these instances, the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt
grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the
potential for the recovery of small fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth, it
may be necessary in certain instances and at the discretion of the paleontological
monitor to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.
12
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 234 of 836
Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps
shall be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such as
the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summary report shall be
completed. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphy
exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
Noise
As stated in the Initial Study, construction noise levels would be higher than existing ambient
daytime noise levels and could result in annoyance at neighboring noise-sensitive uses (Dudek
2018e). Implementation of mitigation measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2 would reduce
construction noise substantially. Therefore, temporary construction-related noise impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
MM-NOI-1 Construction activities shall take place during the permitted time and day per
Section 17.24.040.C.8 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. The
applicant shall ensure that construction activities of the proposed project are
prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., MondayFriday, and
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday. This
condition shall be listed on the proposed project
the City Development Services Department.
MM-NOI-2 The City of Chula Vista (City) shall require the applicant to adhere to the following
measures as a condition of approving the grading permit:
The project contractor shall, to the extent feasible, schedule construction
activities to avoid the simultaneous operation of construction equipment so as
to minimize noise levels resulting from operating several pieces of high noise
level emitting equipment.
All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers. Enforcement shall be accomplished by
random field inspections by applicant personnel during construction activities,
to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department.
Construction noise-reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment,
construction of a temporary noise barrier, maximizing the distance between
construction equipment staging areas and adjacent residences, and use of electric
air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used
where feasible.
13
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 235 of 836
During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such
that emitted noise is directed away from or shielded from sensitive receptors.
Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job
superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow
surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent if necessary. In the
event the City receives a complaint, appropriate corrective actions shall be
implemented and a report of the action provided to the reporting party.
As stated in the Initial Study, the future noise levels would range up to 74 dBA CNEL, generally
from the 3rd levels of Buildings 1, 2, and 3, with the northeastern side of Building 2 reaching the
highest of 74 dBA. With implementation of MM-NOI-3, the resultant noise level would meet the
state and City interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL, and impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
MM-NOI-3 Prior to issuance of any building permit, construction plans shall be reviewed by a
qualified noise consultant for conformance with City standards. In order to ensure that
interior noise levels of the habitable rooms are 45 dBA CNEL or less, the applicant
shall use windows and exterior doors with the Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings
shown in Table NOI-1 or higher. For example, the windows and exterior doors of
Building 2 shall have STC ratings of 29 or higher.
The proposed residential units will require mechanical ventilation systems or air
conditioning systems in order to ensure that windows and doors can remain closed
while maintaining a comfortable environment. With the required mitigation, the
resulting interior noise levels will be less than the noise standard, and the noise
impact will be less than significant.
Table NOI-1
Minimum Window and Exterior Door Noise Attenuation Ratings
14
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 236 of 836
-source noise standard (45
dBA Leq nighttime) at the single-family residential uses to the east and south and at the
multifamily residential uses to the west. Implementation of MM-NOI-4 would reduce noise
impacts from HVAC equipment to a less-than-significant level.
MM-NOI-4 To ensure that HVAC and other outdoor mechanical equipment would not exceed the
-source noise standards (55 dBA daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.),
45 dBA nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), for single-family residential; 60 dBA
daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), 50 dBA nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), for
multifamily residential), the applicant shall incorporate the following measures:
1. No HVAC or other mechanical equipment shall be installed with a combined
sound power level exceeding 79 dBA or a sound pressure level (i.e., noise level)
of 44 dBA at a distance of 75 feet. Prior to issuance of building permits,
construction plans shall be reviewed by a qualified noise consultant for
conformance with City standards.
2. If equipment exceeding the specification in MM-NOI-5(1) is used, such
equipment shall be shielded from adjacent residential land uses by mechanical
shrouds, building parapet walls, or provision of acoustical enclosures such that
the combined sound power level does not exceed 79 dBA, resulting in a noise
level of 44 dBA or less at a distance of 75 feet.
15
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 237 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 238 of 836
Chen Ryan. 2018a. Traffic Impact Analysis. Bonita Glen. November 2018.
Chen Ryan. 2018b. Memorandum. Bonita Glen Drive Parking Study Chula Vista, CA.
September 2018.
City of Chula Vista. 1977. Bonita Glen Specific Plan.
Dudek. 2018a. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report for the
Bonita Glen Project Chula Vista, California. December 2018.
Dudek. 2018b. Biological Resources Report for Bonita Glen Drive Project. July 2018.
Dudek. 2018c. Negative Cultural Resources Survey Letter Report for the Bonita Glen
Development Project, City of Chula Vista, California. February 2018.
Dudek. 2018d. Memorandum. Paleontological Resources Review Bonita Glen Drive Project.
January 2018.
Dudek. 2018e. Acoustical Assessment Report for the Bonita Glen Drive Project in Chula Vista
Final. August 2018.
17
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 239 of 836
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
18
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 240 of 836
Page 241 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
20
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 242 of 836
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 253 of 836
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Proponent Name, Address, and Contact: Silvergate Development
4960 North Harbor Drive, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92106
Contact: Thomas Edmunds
619.625.1260
2. Lead Agency Name, Address, and Contact: City of Chula Vista
Public Works Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
3. Name of Proposal: Bonita Glen Project
4. Date of Checklist: December 17, 2018
5. Case No. TBD
6. General Plan Designation: Commercial Retail
7. Zoning Designation: CCP, Bonita Glen Specific Plan
8. Project Description:
PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The proposed Bonita Glen Project (proposed project) is located within the Bonita Glen Specific
Plan Area just west of the 805 Freeway (I-805) and South of Bonita Road. The proposed project
is located on 5.3 acres, over five separate, contiguous parcels, including Assessor Parcel
Numbers 570-131-11-00, 570-140-40-00, 570-140-54-00, 570-140-48-00, and 570-140-51-00
and on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute National City Quadrangle in Section in Township
17 South and Range 2 West (Figure 1, Project Location).
As shown on Figure 1, the site is within an urban portion of the City of Chula Vista (City) and in
an area located directly between existing residential homes to the west, I-805 and residential to
the east, commercial to the north, and a relatively small (approximately 2-acre) vacant parcel
located to the south beyond Bonita Glen Drive.
The project site has been previously disturbed and graded. The present site is vacant and
relatively flat, with overall gradual sloping east to west. Elevations range from approximately 45
1
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 254 of 836
feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northwestern portion up to approximately 91 feet amsl in
the south portion of the site. An ephemeral stream runs through the project site. Surface flows
under existing conditions drain toward the southern end of the site. The existing project lacks
visual quality, as it is characterized by disturbed vegetation with trash and several large
pieces/piles of broken concrete debris observed on site.
Land Use and Zoning
The proposed project is governed by the Bonita Glen Specific Plan (Specific Plan; City of Chula
Vista 1977a), which includes the development of residential-retail-commercial projects, over
8.74 acres of land. That Specific Plan was analyzed by Environmental Impact Report 77-2,
adopted April 20, 1977. The site is currently designated under the Specific Plan as Commercial
Retail; however, as stated in the Specific Plan, apartments and condominiums, when consistent
with the adopted conceptual plan, and when approved under the project plan process and
procedure, pursuant to Section 2.6, are permitted within the project area of the Bonita Glen
Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also states that the Planning Commission, upon the
recommendation of the Zoning Administrator, may adjust said standards and regulations upon
finding that said adjustment will not adversely affect the nature, character, design, order, amenity
or intent of the proposed project or Specific Plan. The height limit applied to the project site is 38
feet beyond 100 feet from Vista Drive, and 30 feet within 100 feet of Vista Drive. Because a
portion of the proposed project would exceed the current maximum permitted height of 30 feet
within 100 feet of Vista Drive, a waiver of development standards would be obtained through the
state density bonus law to allow for additional height. Because of the density bonus law
provisions, the proposed project would not require a rezone or Specific Plan Amendment.
The Specific Plan is based on special standards and generalized site utilization plans and is
designed to promote innovative and imaginative project planning. The text of the specific plan
provides land use, bulk, height, setback, urban design, parking, landscaping, and sign control
standards and regulations. According to the Specific Plan, the project site is currently designated
as Commercial Retail in the City General Plan, but has been zoned as Central Commercial Zone
(CCD) under the zoning plans of the City and County of San Diego (County) General Plan. As
stated in the Specific Plan, this zone is oriented toward retail commercial and compatible uses,
which are characterized by a strong emphasis upon qualitative community design. The CCD uses
are those suited to the East Chula Vista-Bonita area and are the foundation of the Specific Plan.
Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is generally surrounded by residential and commercial land uses. To the north is
La Quinta Hotel, which contains 3 stories and 142 hotel rooms. To the west and southwest are
2
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 255 of 836
the Point Bonita Apartments. To the south, across from Bonita Glen Road, is a vacant residential
lot, and single-family dwellings are farther south of the vacant lot. Single-family dwellings are
bounded the project site to the east, with the I-805 farther east of the single-family dwellings.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Comments:
(a) Less-Than-Significant Impact.
is considered a scenic roadway from I-805 to Sweetwater Road. This portion of Bonita
Road is on the opposite side of the I-805 as the proposed project site. In addition, East H
Street is considered a scenic roadway from the I-805 to Mount Miguel Road. According
to the Bonita Glen Specific Plan (City of Chula Vista 1977a) the portion of Bonita Road
just north of the project site, is designated as a gateway in the Scenic Route Element of
the General Plan. However, the existing General Plan does not identify Bonita Road as a
primary or secondary gateway (City of Chula Vista 2005a). Any development on the site
would be reviewed in relationship to the goal of enhancing this entryway to the City.
3
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 256 of 836
Today, La Quinta Inn San Diego Chula Vista is located directly south of Bonita Road and
is three stories in height. The La Quinta Inn would block the majority of views of the
proposed project from Bonita Road.
The Specific Plan states that the Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of the
Zoning Administrator, may adjust said standards and regulations upon finding that said
adjustment will not adversely affect the nature, character, design, order, amenity or intent of
the proposed project or Specific Plan. Because the proposed project would exceed the current
maximum permitted height of 30 38 feet, a waiver of development standards would be
obtained through the state density bonus law to allow for additional height. As such, the
proposed project would not require a rezone or Specific Plan Amendment.
There are no scenic vistas on the project site, and the project site is not visible from this
portion of Bonita Road or East H Street. The proposed residential development would be
visually consistent with surrounding land uses, as the surrounding area is nearly
completely built out with residential communities, commercial, and roadway
infrastructure. There are no designated scenic vistas on or surrounding the project site;
therefore, the proposed project would not result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Impacts would be less than significant.
(b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The closest state highway to the project site is I-805.
This highway is not a designated state scenic highway per the Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) State Scenic Highway Program. Therefore, the proposed project would not
damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and no impact would occur.
(c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is characterized as
substantially disturbed, undeveloped, and bifurcated by an existing natural stream. The
site was previously graded, therefore it is relatively flat, with overall gradual sloping east
to west. Elevations range from approximately 45 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the
northwestern portion up to approximately 91 feet amsl in the south portion of the site.
There is a concrete brow ditch in the northern portion of the property that appears to be
associated with the parking lot of the La Quinta Inn located immediately north of the site.
Trash and litter has been observed throughout the site, during field surveys, along with
several large pieces/piles of broken concrete debris in the western portion of the site. No
structures exist on the property other than two corrugated-steel-pipe culverts associated
with an ephemeral drainage.
As previously discussed, the project site is generally surrounded by residential and
commercial land uses. To the north is La Quinta Inn, which is three stories high with 142
4
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 257 of 836
hotel rooms. To the west and southwest are the Point Bonita Apartments. To the south,
across from Bonita Glen Road, is a previously disturbed, undeveloped residential lot, and
single-family dwellings farther south of the vacant lot. Single-family dwellings are bound
the project site to the east, with I-805 farther east of the single-family dwellings.
Construction of the proposed project would introduce the potential use of heavy
machinery, such as large trucks, cranes, bulldozers, and other equipment needed for
grading and construction activities. The presence of this equipment and the grading
and construction activities associated with the proposed project would alter the visual
character and quality of the site during construction, and would be visible from
surrounding areas. However, the visual alteration as a result of project construction
would be short-term and temporary in nature, and the proposed project would adhere
to all applicable City regulations related to building and construction. Therefore,
construction-related impacts are determined to be less than significant.
The proposed project would include the development of six three-story, garden-style
buildings (two 21-plex buildings, two 18-plex buildings, and two 13-plex buildings) and
one four-story podium-style building (66 units). Building elevations would not exceed 56
feet above grade as shown in Figure 6a, Buildings 16 Elevations, and Figure 56,
Building 7 Elevations. The proposed project design would allow for development of
wood framed residential units (Type V-A) atop a reinforced concrete podium (Type 1-A).
The proposed building facades would consist of vinyl frame windows, fabric awnings on
painted metal frames, sand finish stucco, and French doors at all unit entries. Balconies
-
finished metal siding and cement fiber horizontal siding, French doors, and fabric
awnings over balconies with composite railings (Figures 6a and 6b). The proposed
structure would be similar in scale and height to the existing surrounding developments.
Exterior finishes would generally use earth-tones colors, which would not substantially
contrast with the surround visual character. All buildings would be setback 25 feet from
Bonita Glen Drive and 100 feet along the eastern boundary of the site from Vista Drive.
There will be a 10-foot interior side yard setback along the north boundary of the site,
where the project boundary abuts the La Quinta Hotel to the north. The existing
ephemeral stream would continue to collect surface water following development. Other
stormwater will be managed by using biofiltration basin-type drainage management areas
in the northwestern area of the property. New trees and other landscaping would be
planted around the proposed structures providing visual relief and softening. The
proposed landscape, architectural design, and building scale would be consistent with the
5
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 258 of 836
existing visual character of the site and surrounding area. Thus, impacts related to visual
character or quality would be less than significant.
(d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Surrounding land uses include residential and
commercial uses, and a disturbed undeveloped lot to the south of Bonita Glen Drive. This site
has previously been planned for development, under the Specific Plan. Therefore, there
would be no direct impact with regard to substantial light and glare. The proposed project
would be in confor, Section
19.66.100, which state that multifamily developments shall ensure that building unit entries,
parking areas, walkways and common areas should be appropriately lit with fixtures to
complement project architecture, and that all exterior lighting shall be selective and shielded
to confine light within the site and prevent glare onto adjacent properties or streets. Lighting
fixtures would be shielded downward and away from adjacent residential land uses. The
proposed project would not include large walls or expanses of glass or other highly reflective
materials. Conformance with applicable City standards would ensure that impacts due to
lighting and glare would be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES.
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to
6
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 259 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Comments:
(a) No Impact. The project site is vacant, has been previously graded, and is currently
designated as Commercial Retail. Under the California Department of Conservation
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site is designated as urban
and built-up land (DOC 2016). Additionally, the project site is not designated under a
City or County Agricultural Zone (City of Chula Vista 2005b). Implementation of the
proposed project would not convert any existing farmland to a non-agriculture use;
therefore, no impacts to farmland would occur as a result of the proposed project.
7
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 260 of 836
(b) No Impact. As stated above, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is
not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Additionally, there is no existing or designated
agricultural land uses in the surrounding area. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
(c) No Impact.
any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for
management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and
Public Resources Code, Section 12220(g)). Timberland i
land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as
experimental forestland, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of
trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products,
Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting
timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in
The project site has been previously graded, and is currently designated as
Commercial Retail. The surrounding area is almost entirely built out, and there are no
designated forest land, timberland, or timberland production zones within the project
site vicinity. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in conflict with
existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland
production. Therefore, no impacts would result.
(d) No Impact. As discussed above, the project site has been previously graded, and
no designated forest land exists on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to forest
land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use would occur as a result of the
proposed project.
(e) No Impact. As described within the response to the previous thresholds, no
portion of the project site is located within or adjacent to existing Prime, Unique, or
Important agricultural areas, and project implementation would not result in the
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Additionally, no portion of the project
site is located within or adjacent to forest land, timberland, or a Timberland
Production Zone, and project implementation would not result in the conversion of
forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
8
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 261 of 836
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less-Than-
Significant with Significant No Impact
Issues:
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
III. AIR QUALITY.
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may
be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Comments:
An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report (AQ/GHG Technical
Report) prepared by Dudek for the proposed project (Dudek 2018a). A Health Risk Assessment
(HRA) was performed to determine the risk to Project residents from the 805 freeway, which is
approximately 276 feet from the eastern boundary of the site. The analysis contained in this section
is based on the findings of an HRA and AQ/GHG Technical Report (Dudek 2018a).
9
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 262 of 836
(a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(SDAPCD) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for
developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the
ambient air quality standards in the basin. Impacts were evaluated for their significance
based on the mass daily criteria air pollutant thresholds of significance.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in housing to the area.
The number of the units is projected to grow from 79,255 in 2012 to 89,176 in
2020, 101,188 in 2035, and 108,273 in 2050 (SANDAG 2015). The SANDAG projections
assume an annual increase of 1,240 units between 2012 and 2020, 801 units between 2020
and 2035, and 472 units between 2035 and 2050. The proposed project will bring the 170
units into operation in 2021. The additional 170 units are within the projected annual increase
of 801 housing units per year. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with
SANDAG projections.
While the SDAPCD and City do not provide guidance regarding the analysis of impacts
Significance and Report and Format and Content Requirements Air Quality does discuss
conformance with the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) (County of San Diego 2007).
The guidance indicates that if a project, in conjunction with other projects, contributes to
proposed project would not be in conflict with the RAQS (County of San Diego 2007). As
previously discussed, the proposed project would not contribute to growth in the region that
is not already accounted for. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant.
(b) Less-Than-Significant Impact.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the
local airshed caused by soil disturbance, fugitive dust emissions, and combustion pollutants
from on-site construction equipment and from off-site employee vehicles and haul trucks.
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of
activity, the specific type of operation, and for dust, the prevailing weather conditions.
The proposed project would generate construction-related air pollutant emissions from
construction activities such as the following: entrained dust, off-road equipment, vehicle
emissions, and architectural coatings. Entrained dust results from the exposure of earth
surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil, resulting in coarse
10
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 263 of 836
particulate matter (PM;particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter)
10
and fine particulate matter (PM;particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in
2.5
diameter) emissions. The proposed project is subject to SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust
Control. This rule requires that the proposed project take steps to restrict visible
emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit
fugitive dust (PM and PM)that may be generated during grading and construction
102.5
activities. To account for dust control measures in the calculations, it was assumed that
the active sites would be watered at least twice daily.
Exhaust from internal combustion engines used by construction off-road equipment and
on-road vehicles would result in emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO), volatile organic
x
compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO), PM, and PM. The
x102.5
application of asphalt and architectural coatings, would also produce VOC emissions.
Table 3 shows the estimated maximum daily construction emissions associated with
construction of the proposed project without mitigation. Complete details of the
emissions calculations are provided in AQ/GHG Technical Report (Dudek 2018a).
Table 3
Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
As shown in Table 3, daily construction emissions would not exceed the significance
thresholds for any criteria air pollutant. Therefore, impacts during construction would be
less than significant.
11
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 264 of 836
Operational Emissions
Operations of the proposed project would generate VOC, NO, CO, SO, PM, and PM
xx102.5
emissions from mobile and stationary sources, including vehicular traffic and area
sources (water heating and landscaping).
Table 4 presents the maximum daily emissions associated with the operation of the
proposed project. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions
results from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).
As shown in Table 4, the combined daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions
recommended operational thresholds for VOCs, NO, CO,
x
SO, PM, and PM. Impacts associated with project-generated operational criteria air
x102.5
pollutant emissions would be less than significant.
Table 4
Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
(c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The
nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development,
and the SDAPCD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air
quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level thresholds of significance
emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. The SDAB is a
nonattainment area for O3 under the NAAQS and CAAQS. Projects that emit these
pollutants or their precursors (i.e., VOCs and NOx for O3) potentially contribute to poor
air quality. However, a project would only be considered to have a significant cumulative
12
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 265 of 836
total emissions. Projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth
anticipated by local plans would be consistent with the SIP and RAQS and would not be
considered to result in cumulatively considerable impacts from operational emissions.
As stated previously, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing
zoning and land use designation for the site and would not result in significant
regional growth that is not accounted for within the RAQS. As a result, the proposed
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional O3
concentrations or other criteria pollutant emissions. Cumulative impacts would be less
than significant during operation.
(d) Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Air quality varies as
a direct function of the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and
topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Air quality
problems arise when the rate of pollutant emissions exceeds the rate of dispersion.
Reduced visibility, eye irritation, and adverse health impacts upon those persons termed
area. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others,
depending on the population groups and the activities involved. People most likely to be
affected by air pollution, as identified by CARB, include children, the elderly, athletes,
and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. As such, sensitive
receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities,
long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement
homes. The closest off-site sensitive receptors to the proposed project are residences
adjacent to the western and eastern property boundaries. The proposed project would also
introduce new on-site sensitive receptors to the area.
Health Impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants
Chula Vista 2005a), the siting of new sensitive receivers within 500 feet of highways
resulting from development or redevelopment projects shall require the preparation of an
HRA as part of the CEQA review of the proposed project. The proposed project is less
than 300 feet from the 805 freeway and, thus, is subject to this requirement. The duration
of exposure from the 805 freeway was assumed to be 24 hours per day, 365 days per
week over 9, 30, and 70 years. The HRA methodology was further described in the
AQ/GHG Technical Report (Dudek 2018a). The results of the HRA for TAC emissions
from the 805 freeway on future residents are summarized in Table 5.
13
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 266 of 836
Table 5
Roadway Health Risk Assessment Results Unmitigated
The results of the operational HRA demonstrate that the TAC exposure from roadway
emissions generated by the 805 freeway would result in cancer risk on site above the 10 in 1
million threshold. Therefore, TAC emissions from roadway emissions generate by the 805
freeway may result in a potentially significant impact and mitigation is required.
Implementing Mitigation Measures (MM) MM-AQ-1, MM-AQ-2, and MM-AQ-3 would
reduce the maximum cancer risks below the SDAPCD significance thresholds. Therefore,
TAC emissions from the 805 freeway would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
Health Impacts of Carbon Monoxide
To verify that the proposed project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO
standard, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO hotspots was conducted. A traffic
impact analysis evaluated the level of service (LOS) (i.e., increased congestion) impacts
at intersections affected by the proposed project (Appendix B). The potential for CO
hotspots was evaluated based on the results of the traffic report. As the City does not
hotspot screening guidance was followed to determine if the proposed project would
require a site-specific hotspot analysis. The County recommends that a quantitative
analysis of CO hotspots be performed for intersections operating at or below a LOS of
-hour trips exceeding 3,000 trips. The proposed project
analysis determined that there would be no intersections that would operate at a LOS E or
lower with the proposed project (Appendix B). Therefore, a quantitative analysis is not
required for the proposed project. In addition, because of continued improvement in
vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the
14
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 267 of 836
potential for CO hotspots in the SDAB is steadily decreasing. Background CO levels in
the area, are less than 20% of the 1- and 8-hour CAAQS and would be expected to
improve further due to reductions in motor vehicle emissions. Based on these
considerations, project operation would result in a less-than-significant impact to air
quality with regard to potential CO hotspots.
would not contribute to significant health effects associated with this pollutant.
Health Impact of Other Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions that
for any criteria air pollutants. Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and NO are precursors to O, for which the SDAB is designated as
x3
nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The health effects associated
with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. The VOC and NO
x
emissions associated with project construction and operations could minimally contribute
to regional O concentrations and the associated health impacts. Additionally, it is not
3
expected that the proposed pional NOx emissions would result in
exceedances of the NO2 standards or contribute to the associated health effects. Based on
the preceding considerations, health impacts associated with criteria air pollutants would
be considered less than significant.
(e) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Odors are the form of air pollution that is most
obvious to the general public and can present problems for both the source and surrounding
community. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying
and cause concern. Odors would be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment
exhaust emissions during construction of the proposed project. Potential odors produced
during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from
tailpipes of construction equipment, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement
application. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur at
magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impacts
associated with odors during construction would be less than significant.
Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses,
wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries,
landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (SCAQMD 1993). The proposed project does not
include any of the land uses typically associated with odor complaints. Therefore, project
operations would result in an odor impact that would be less than significant.
15
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 268 of 836
Mitigation:
Consistent with SDAPCD guidance, mitigation measures were evaluated to identify
ways to ensure that residents of the proposed project would not be exposed to health
ure that impacts
related to community risk and hazards from placement of sensitive receptors
proximate to major sources of air pollution would be less than significant.
The following mitigation measures would reduce the significant impacts associated
with cancer risk levels below the SDAPCD thresholds:
MM-AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant or its successor
shall require the installation of high-efficiency return air filters on all
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems serving the
project.
The air filtration system shall reduce at least 90% of particulate matter
emissions, such as can be achieved with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting
Value 13 (MERV 13) air filtration system installed on return vents in
residential units. The property management for the project shall maintain the
air filtration system on any HVAC system installed for the specified
residential units in accordance with the m
the life of the project.
MM-AQ-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant or its successor
shall locate air intake vents on the residential buildings such that they do not
face the 805 freeway and are as far from 805 freeway as practicable. This
MM-AQ-3 Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, a City-approved,
ASHRAE certified specialist shall verify the implementation of the installation
of high-efficiency air filtration systems on return vents to reduce ambient
particulate matter concentrations prior to occupancy of the residential units.
On-going maintenance of the installed filtration systems shall be the
responsibility of the applicant or its successor. The City may enforce that the
life of the project.
16
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 269 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
17
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 270 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
Comments:
A Biological Technical Report (BTR) was prepared for the proposed project by Dudek in July
2018 (Dudek 2018b). The analysis contained in this section is based on the findings of the BTR.
(a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Non-native grassland covers nearly the entire project site and is dominated by wild oat (Avena
fatua), slender oat (Avena barbata), cheeseweed mallow (Malva parviflora), and ripgut brome
(Bromus diandrus). There is a small strip of ornamental plantings consisting mostly of
eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.). Table 6 provides the existing land covers of the project site.
The developed area is a paved road along the northern side of the project site. Impacts to these
types of land covers do not require mitigation.
Table 6
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Due to the predominance of non-native vegetation and site disturbance characteristics, the
site has limited potential to provide habitat to support special-status wildlife species. As
18
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 271 of 836
presented in Table 7, one special-status wildlife species is determined to have a moderate
potential to occur on site: California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia).
Table 7
Special-Status Wildlife Potentially Occurring on Site
All other special-status wildlife species analyzed were determined to have low potential
for occurrence or are not expected on site.
Direct
The proposed project will result in direct permanent impacts to approximately 4.35 acres
of non-native grassland. Non-native grassland is a Tier III vegetation community per the
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) and, therefore, is considered
special status. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM)-BIO-1 will reduce these
impacts to a level below significant. Indirect impacts (accidental encroachment) into
vegetation communities listed as Tier I through Tier III beyond the proposed work areas
is considered significant. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 will reduce these impacts to a
level below significant.
No special-status plant species were observed on site during the reconnaissance surveys.
In addition, no special-status plants were identified as having a moderate or high potential
to occur on site (Dudek 2018b). Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to impact
special-status plants.
No special-status wildlife species were observed during the reconnaissance survey or
during the jurisdictional delineation. As shown on Figure 7, Hydrologic Setting,
jurisdictional resources are located north of the site, on the opposite side of I-805. One
special-status species has potential to occur within the non-native grassland in the project
area. Adult individual California horned lark (state-listed watch list species, MSCP not
19
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 272 of 836
covered) is very mobile and would not likely be directly impacted by construction crews.
However, because there is some potential for this species to nest in the non-native
grassland on site, impacts to nesting birds and their young could occur. If construction
occurs during the general bird breeding season (February 15 through August 31), direct
impacts to nesting birds could occur. Implementation of MM-BIO-2 will reduce impacts to
nesting birds to below significant.
Indirect
Only slivers of the single vegetation community, non-native grassland, are adjacent to the
project footprint and may be subject to short-term indirect impacts. Indirect impacts
(accidental encroachment) into vegetation communities listed as Tier I through Tier III
beyond the proposed work areas is considered significant. Implementation of MM-BIO-3
will reduce these impacts to a level below significant.
No special-status plants were observed or have a moderate to high potential to occur on the
project site. The proposed project is not expected to directly or indirectly impact special-
status plant species, because none were observed and none have a moderate or high
potential to occur.
Most of the indirect impacts to vegetation communities noted previously can also affect
special-status wildlife. In addition, wildlife may be indirectly affected in the short term
and long term by noise and lighting, which can disrupt normal activities and subject
wildlife to higher predation risks. Breeding birds can be affected by short-term
construction-related noise, which can result in the disruption of foraging, nesting, and
reproductive activities. Indirect impacts from construction-related noise may occur on
nesting birds if construction occurs during the breeding season. Implementation of MM-
BIO-2 will reduce impacts to nesting birds to below significant.
(b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As outlined above, impacts to
non-native grassland vegetation communities are considered significant under the
Subarea Plan and would require mitigation. Vegetation communities considered sensitive
under the Subarea Plan are those listed as Tier I through Tier III, rare to common
uplands, respectively, as well as wetlands. The proposed project would result in direct
permanent impacts to approximately 4.35 acres of non-native grassland. The proposed
project work areas occur within Tier III vegetation; these communities are expected to be
directly impacted, since project activities will result in soil disturbance. Therefore, project
impacts to non-native grassland (Tier III) are considered significant and require
mitigation. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-3 would reduce these impacts
20
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 273 of 836
to a level below significance. Impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
(c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Results of the delineation
conducted in April 2017 and conclusions based on the site meeting conducted with RWQCB
in June 2017 (Dudek 2018b) indicate that there is a jurisdictional feature on site where a
portion is considered a water of the United States, state, and City under joint regulation by
ACOE, RWQCB, CDFW, and the City. Additionally, a portion is considered a water of the
state regulated by RWQCB only, under the Porter-Cologne Act (Figure 8, Biological and
Jurisdictional Resources). No areas within the property were found to support all three
parameters that would define wetland features (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
wetland hydrology). Jurisdictional acreages are provided in Table 8.
Table 8
Jurisdictional Areas
The proposed project was designed to avoid all direct impacts to both non-wetland waters
of the United States regulated by ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW and non-wetland waters
of the state regulated by RWQCB only on site. The jurisdictional waters on the project
site will be completely avoided and a minimum 5-foot buffer established on either side of
the drainage/swale during grading, which is outside of a 10-year storm event. The
potential short-term indirect impacts to vegetation communities described previously also
apply to on-site jurisdictional waters.
Potential edge effects to the jurisdictional waters of the United States and state identified
in the study area are not anticipated because BMPs will be incorporated into the proposed
project work area to eliminate any indirect impacts (e.g., dust, erosion, runoff) to
jurisdictional waters. The proposed project is designed to avoid long-term indirect
impacts. Specifically, post-construction runoff will be collected on site through area drain
systems with catch basins within the landscaping and through curb inlets for all surface
runoff within the parking and street areas. The site will be graded to allow for a
combination of ribbon gutters, curb and gutter, swales, and a network of high points and
21
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 274 of 836
low points that direct the surface runoff toward the inlets and catch basins, avoiding
indirect impacts to the jurisdictional waters. The site design locates the development and
infrastructure above the existing grade of the drainage swale in order to avoid 100-year
flood events. While there is a minimum of a 5-foot buffer established for the
drainage/swale, the final design build out results in a wider buffer, ranging from at least
9.5 feet to 11.5 feet in worst-case scenarios. Direct impacts to jurisdictional waters of the
United States/state/City are not expected with implementation of the proposed project.
Indirect impacts to adjacent jurisdictional waters of the United States/state/City are
considered significant. Implementation of MM-BIO-3 will reduce these impacts to a
level below significant. Impacts to federally protected wetlands would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
(d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect
large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the immigration and
emigration of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute to population viability in the
following ways: (1) they allow the continual exchange of genes between populations,
which helps maintain genetic diversity; (2) they provide access to adjacent habitat areas,
representing additional territory for foraging and mating; (3) they allow for a greater
-(4) they
provide routes for recolonization of habitat lands following local population extinctions
or habitat recovery from ecological catastrophes, such as fires.
Habitat linkages are patches of native habitat that function to join two substantially larger
patches of habitat. They serve as connections between distinct habitat patches and help
reduce the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation. Although individual animals may not
move through a habitat linkage, the linkage does represent a potential route for gene flow
and long-term dispersal. Habitat linkages may serve both as habitat and as avenues of
gene flow for small animals, such as reptiles and amphibians. Habitat linkages may be
-
The project site is disturbed, lacks connectivity to any natural undeveloped areas, and is
isolated by the surrounding existing development. There are no native habitats on site and
the non-native grassland is heavily disturbed in character. The entire site is non-native
grassland, which can provide suitable habitat for some reptile and small mammal species;
however, given the spatial context of the site and the characteristics mentioned
previously, the project site does not serve as a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage; thus,
impacts are determined to be less than significant.
22
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 275 of 836
(e) Less-Than-Significant Impact.The proposed project site is located within the Bonita
Glen Specific Plan and as such has not been identified as a strategic preserve area within the
City nor is it located within a designated conservation area; therefore, the proposed project
would not impact Specific Plan. Additionally, the
-05) only establishes policies for the
preservation of City street trees. Implementation of the proposed project would not affect the
removal of any trees considered street trees within the City, and, therefore, would not conflict
with a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Implementation of the proposed project would
not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts
are determined to be less than significant.
(f) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is not
located within a MSCP Reserve/Conservation Area, as shown on Figure 9, City of Chula
Vista MSCP Reserve/Conservation Area. The proposed project design is consistent with
the Subarea Plan through specific adherence to mitigation/conveyance requirements for
Development Projects Outside of Covered Projects as defined in the Subarea Plan. As
stated above, the proposed project site is located within the Development Area of the City
Planning Component as identified in the Subarea Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). As
such, the project has not been identified as a strategic preserve area within the City nor is
it located within a designated conservation area; therefore, the proposed project would
not impact the goals and objectives of the Subarea Plan.
However, the proposed project would impact approximately 4.35 acres of non-native
grassland (Tier III). Implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-3 would reduce
potential impacts to a level below significant. Furthermore, Wetlands protection must be
provided throughout the subarea and an evaluation of wetlands avoidance and
minimization is required. If impacts are unavoidable, no net loss of wetlands must be
achieved through compensatory mitigation as prescribed by the Subarea Plan Table 5-6.
As stated previously, the proposed project would not avoid all City wetlands. Impacts are
determined to be less than significant with MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-3 incorporated.
Mitigation: The mitigation measures outlined below are required to offset significant direct and
indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, breeding birds, and jurisdictional
resources. These mitigation measures would reduce identified and potential significant impacts
to a less than significant level.
23
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 276 of 836
MM- BIO-1 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing,
grading and construction permits, the applicant shall mitigate direct impacts to
4.35 acres of non-native grassland pursuant to the City of Chula Vista (City)
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan).
The applicant shall secure mitigation credits within a City-approved
Conservation Bank or other approved location offering mitigation credits
consistent with the ratios specified in Table 5-3 of the Subarea Plan. The
applicant is required to provide the City with verification of mitigation credit
purchase prior to issuance of any land development permits.
If mitigation credits are not purchased, the applicant must prepare a habitat
mitigation and monitoring plan to the satisfaction of the City. The plan shall
include, at a minimum, an implementation plan to provide the required
mitigation acreages of non-native grassland, a maintenance and monitoring
program, an estimated completion time, performance standards, and any
relevant contingency measures. The applicant shall also be required to
implement the habitat mitigation and monitoring plan subject to the oversight
of the City.
MM-BIO-2 To avoid any direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds, construction activities
should occur outside of the breeding season (February 15 to August 31). If
construction activity is scheduled during the general bird nesting season, a
qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the
presence or absence of nesting bird species within the proposed work areas. The
pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 4 calendar days prior to the
start of construction activities. The applicant shall submit the results of the pre-
construction survey to City staff for review and approval prior to initiating any
construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation
plan i
federal law (e.g., appropriate follow-up surveys, monitoring schedules,
construction and noise barriers/buffers) shall be prepared and shall include
proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs or
disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall
be submitted to the City for review and approval and shall be implemented to
the satisfaction of the City. The City Resident Engineer and/or project biologist
shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation
plan are in place prior to and/or during construction. If nesting birds are not
detected during the pre-construction survey, no further mitigation is required.
24
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 277 of 836
MM- BIO-3 To avoid any unexpected impacts (i.e., encroachment) into vegetation and/or
jurisdictional waters, the project contractors will delineate (in coordination with
the project biologist) all approved access paths and construction work areas. The
limits of work, including the designated footpath access, will be delineated with
flagging or fencing as appropriate and will be installed prior to work activities. A
pre-construction meeting shall be held between all contractors and the qualified
project biologist and during this meeting, the biologist will educate the contractors
on sensitive biological resources (including non-wetland waters of the United
States/state) and project avoidance measures. All project site personnel shall
provide written acknowledgment of having received avoidance training. This
training shall include information on the location of the approved access paths and
work areas, the necessity of preventing damage and impacts to sensitive
biological resources, and discussion of work practices that will accomplish such.
Lastly, the project biologist will conduct weekly monitoring to ensure that the
appropriate avoidance measures are implemented.
If unauthorized impacts occur outside of the approved project boundary, the
contractor shall notify the City Resident Engineer and project biologist immediately.
The project biologist shall evaluate the additional impacts to determine the size of the
impact and the vegetation communities, land covers, and/or jurisdictional resources
impacted. The footprint of the impact shall be recorded with a GPS, and the project
biologist will report the impacts to City staff and the appropriate permitting agencies
(where appropriate) for approval of the impact record and to establish any necessary
follow-up mitigation measures. These measures may include additional mitigation
credits purchased within a City-approved Conservation Bank or other approved
location offering mitigation credits consistent with the ratios specified in Table 5-3 of
the Subarea Plan.
Any unauthorized impacts to jurisdictional waters/wetlands would require reporting
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City as well as development of a
Waters/Wetlands Restoration Plan to restore pre-impact conditions as directed by the
agencies. The Revegetation Plan and/or Waters/Wetlands Restoration Plan shall
include a description of the suitability of the restoration area, planting and irrigation
plan, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and performance standards that
ensures that the intended restoration is achieved. The plans and associated monitoring
reports shall be submitted to City staff.
25
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 278 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Comments:
A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Letter was prepared for the proposed project by Dudek in
February 2018 (Dudek 2018c). A Paleontological Resources Review Memorandum was prepared
for the proposed project by Dudek in January 2018, by a senior paleontologist (Dudek 2018d).
The analysis contained in this section is based on the findings in Appendices D and E.
(a) No Impact. The project site is currently vacant with the no structures present on the
property. The site has been previously graded and disturbed. No other structures exist on
site, and no impact to historical resources would occur.
(b)Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As part of the Phase I Cultural
Resource Survey, a records search of the project area and a 1-mile radius around the
proposed project was conducted by Dudek staff at the California Historic Resources
Inventory System (CHRIS) South Coast Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State
University. These records indicate that three previous studies have intersected at least a
portion of the project area. All three of these previous studies consist of broader
26
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 279 of 836
overviews or historic inventories of the general vicinity and did not specifically identify
the current project APE within the studies. No previously recorded cultural resources
were identified within the project APE during the archival records search. The current
intensive pedestrian field survey was conducted by Dudek on October 15, 2017. No
artifacts or features were identified during this survey. Due to the low potential for
cultural resources in the APE, no further studies are recommended, including
construction monitoring (Dudek 2018c). Although unlikely due to the existing graded and
disturbed nature of the project site, the proposed project may unexpectedly encounter
previously unknown cultural resources during excavation of the proposed project. In the
occurrence an archaeological resource is found during construction activities,
implementation of MM-CUL-1 will reduce the potential for impacts to such resources to
less than significant. With implementation of the archaeological monitoring program,
potential impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant.
(c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is mapped as
Quaternary very old paralic deposits, undivided, which are roughly correlative with the
Lindavista Formation, and the San Diego Formation (approximately 3 to 1.5 million
years old) is mapped at the eastern most extent of the project area and presumably
underlies the Lindavista Formation at depth within the project area (Dudek 2018d). The
records search results received from the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM)
on January 5, 2018, the San Diego Formation has a high potential to yield paleontological
resources, the Lindavista Formation has a moderate potential to yield paleontological
resources (i.e., moderate resource importance), whereas younger alluvial flood-plain
deposits have a low potential to yield paleontological resources. The museum records
search results letter indicates that paleontological localities are documented nearby from
the same geological units that occur beneath portions of the project site, specifically, the
San Diego Formation. As such, these sedimentary deposits have the potential to yield
scientifically significant vertebrate fossils. A paleontological resources mitigation
program is recommended for excavation within moderate to high sensitivity geological
units (e.g., Lindavista Formation and San Diego Formation, respectively) and should be
implemented in accordance with MM-CUL-2. Excavation within lower sensitivity units
(e.g., Holocene age alluvial flood-plain deposits) does not require mitigation.
Implementation of MM-CUL-2 would reduce the potential for impacts to paleontological
resources to less than significant.
(d) Less Than Significant. The project site is not currently used as a cemetery and is not
otherwise known to contain human remains. However, it is possible that human remains
may be found during project excavation and grading activities. Should any human
remains be encountered during ground-disturbing activities, the proposed project would
27
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 280 of 836
comply with the California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5. As required by
California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur in
areas that could contain human remains until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code,
Section 5097.98. The requirements of California Public Resources Code, Section
5097.98, state that the County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the
human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the County Coroner will notify the
Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage
Commission will then determine and notify a most likely descendant. The most likely
descendant shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and
may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and
items associated with Native American burials. Compliance with existing regulations for
proper protocol of inadvertent discovery of human remains would ensure that impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation:
MM-CUL-1 In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are unearthed during project
excavation, all project construction activities within 200 feet of the discovery shall
cease. The prime contractor shall immediately notify the City of Chula Vista (City).
Upon notification of the discovery, the City shall retain a qualified archaeologist who
potential significance of the discovery and propose appropriate mitigation per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Work within 200 feet of the discovery shall not continue
until the qualified archaeologist has completed the assessment of the discovery.
MM-CUL-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall provide written
confirmation to the City that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry
out an appropriate mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an
individual with an MS or PhD in paleontology or geology who is familiar with
paleontological procedures and techniques). A pre-grade meeting shall be held
among the paleontologist and the grading and excavation contractors.
A paleontological monitor shall be on site at all times during the original cutting
of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (i.e.,
San Diego Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. (A paleontological
monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and
salvage of fossil materials.) The paleontological monitor shall work under the
28
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 281 of 836
direction of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall be on site on at least a
half-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of
moderately sensitive geologic formations (e.g., Lindavista Formation) to inspect
cuts for contained fossils.
The monitor shall be on site during the original cutting of previously undisturbed
sediments of moderate and high sensitivity geologic formations (e.g., Lindavista
Formation and San Diego Formation, respectively) to inspect cuts for contained
fossils. Monitoring is not required during excavation into low resource sensitivity
geologic formations (e.g., young alluvial flood-plain deposits).
In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low, or moderately
sensitive formations, the applicant shall increase the per-day field monitoring
time. Conversely, if fossils are not discovered, the monitoring, at the
discretion of the City's Deputy City Manager/Development Services Director
or its designee, shall be reduced. A paleontological monitor is not needed
during grading of rocks with no resource sensitivity.
When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall
recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period
of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete whale skeleton)
may require an extended salvage time. In these instances, the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt
grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the
potential for the recovery of small fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth, it
may be necessary in certain instances and at the discretion of the paleontological
monitor to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.
Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps
shall be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such
as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summary report shall be
completed. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphy
exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
29
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 282 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
30
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 283 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Comments:
A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Study was prepared for the proposed
project by NOVA in December 2017, which provides a review of soil and geologic-related hazards
common to the project region. Additionally, a Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) was
prepared for the proposed project by Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering in June 2018. The
analysis contained in this section is based on the findings in these referenced documents.
(i) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. The nearest known active faults are faults within
the Rose Canyon fault system, located 3 miles west of the site (NOVA 2017). The
nearest mapped fault is the Sweetwater Fault, a quaternary fault assumed to be inactive
(NOVA 2017). Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for
surface rupture at the site is considered low. Shallow ground rupture due to shaking
from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a
possibility at any site (NOVA 2017). The proposed project would be constructed in
accordance with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions, California Building
Code (CBC), and standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of
California. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to impacts
related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. Impacts would be less than significant.
(ii) Less-Than-Significant Impact.No active earthquake faults are identified as occurring
on or directly adjacent to the project site, and the project site is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo fault zone (NOVA 2017). Additionally, the site-specific report prepared
concluded that possible ground shaking or acceleration on site would be similar to the
Southern California region as a whole, and effects would be minimized through
compliance with the CBC. Therefore, through adherence with CBC requirements,
impacts resulting from seismic related ground shaking would be less than significant.
31
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 284 of 836
(iii) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a process in which strong
ground shaking causes saturated soils to lose their strength and behave as a fluid.
Ground failure associated with liquefaction can result in severe damage to
structures. The geologic conditions for increased susceptibility to liquefaction are
shallow groundwater (less than 60 feet in depth), cohensionless soils of looser
consistency, and strong ground shaking. The stiff/dense and geologically older
subsurface units at this site have no potential for liquefaction (NOVA 2017).
Additionally, the City General Plan, the proposed project site is not located within
a liquefaction hazard area (City of Chula Vista 2005a, Figure 9-7). As previously
stated, all construction associated with the proposed project would comply with
the CBC and with City building requirements. Thus, impacts associated with
liquefaction would be less than significant.
(iv) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not located within a
landslide hazard area as indicated in the City General Plan (City of Chula Vista
2005a, Figure 9-7). As concluded in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and
Infiltration Study, no known active faults cross the site and that the natural slope that
the site is located on has a very low susceptibility for landslides. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
(b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Ground surfaces will be exposed during construction.
Construction projects that involve the disturbance of 1 or more acres of soil are required to
obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board General Permit for
Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General
Permit). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a
stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which contains standard construction BMPs
intended to prevent the off-site discharge of soil or construction materials in stormwater.
With implementation of the SWPPP, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil is considered less than significant.
The proposed impervious areas include sidewalks, buildings, patios, a pool area,
courtyards, and surface parking. In order to mitigate the impervious area, the proposed
project proposes three biofiltration basins that are projected to treat 84% of the runoff.
The other 16% will drain naturally into the stream in the middle of the site (Latitude 33
Planning and Engineering 2018a). In developed conditions, the existing ephemeral stream
would remain in a natural state with graded embankments to the east and west of the
delineated existing stream while leaving the stream in its natural existing condition. The
embankments of the ephemeral stream would include embankment stability, such as
vegetating the embankments to reduce erosion. As discussed the SWQMP, no new slopes
32
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 285 of 836
are planned as part of the future site development. The site is rimmed by ascending slopes
to the south and east. Retaining walls are proposed throughout the site for adaptation of
the development to the existing slopes. Therefore, the potential for substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant.
(c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to responses VI(a)(iii) and VI(a)(iv). No active
earthquake faults are identified as occurring on or directly adjacent to the project site.
The nearest known active fault is within the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located
approximately 3 miles west from the project site (Dudek 2018d). Additionally, as
indicated on Figure 9-7, Geologic Hazards Map, in the City General Plan, the proposed
project site is not located within an area of high liquefaction potential or within a
landslide hazard area (City of Chula Vista 2005a). Impacts would be less than significant.
(d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to
undergo significant volume changes (shrinking or swelling) due to variations in moisture
content¸ the magnitude of which is related to both clay content and plasticity index.
According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Study, the
geologic units encountered at this site include alluvium and Very Old Paralic deposits,
which are shallow marine and nonmarine terrace deposits of Pleistocene age. These
deposits typically consist of consolidated, light brown to reddish brown, clean to silty,
medium- to coarse-grained sand and gravels with localized interbeds of clayey sand and
sandy clay. The encountered soils are expected to possess a low expansion potential
(NOVA 2017). Therefore, with adherence to the CBC, the potential for impacts
associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.
(e) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the need for a
septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. No impact would result.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
33
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 286 of 836
Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases
Dudek prepared an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report for
the proposed project in July 2018. The analysis contained in this section is based on the findings
of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment.
Comments:
(a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would
result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with use of off-road
construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and
worker vehicles. Table 9 shows the estimated annual GHG construction emissions
associated with the proposed project, as well as the amortized construction emissions
over a 30-
Table 9
Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions
Total construction emissions for the proposed project are estimated to be 437 MT COE.
2
Estimated amortized project-generated construction emissions would be approximately 15
MT COE. However, because there is no separate GHG threshold for construction emissions
2
alone, the evaluation of significance is included in the operational analysis below.
Operational Emissions
Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions through motor vehicle
trips to and from the project site; landscape maintenance equipment operation; energy use
(natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the proposed project); solid waste
34
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 287 of 836
1
disposal; and generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, and
distribution and wastewater treatment. The estimated operational (Year 2021) project-
generated GHG emissions from area sources, energy use, motor vehicles, solid waste
generation, and water usage and wastewater generation are shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions
As shown in Table 10, estimated annual project-generated GHG emissions in 2021 would
be approximately 915 MT COE per year as a result of project operations. Estimated
2
annual project-generated emissions in 2021 from area, energy, mobile, solid waste, and
water/wastewater sources and amortized project construction emissions would be
approximately 930 MT COE per year. Using the estimated operational emissions of 930
2
MT CO2E and service population of 548, the proposed project would have a GHG
efficiency metric of 1.70 MT CO2E per SP.
The latest version of the City Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted on September 26,
2017, by the City Council and provides updated goals, policies, actions, and the latest
city-wide inventory and projections. The CAP contains goals of 6 MT CO2E per person
by 2030 and 2 MT CO2E per person by 2050. A quantitative analysis using a City-
specific efficiency metric threshold for a post-2020 year (i.e., 2021) was developed. The
efficiency metric calculated for 2021 is 1.78 MT COE per SP. This efficiency metric is
2
lower than the significance threshold of 1.78 MT COE per person, which is based on the
2
CAP goal to reduce GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
1
Electricity services would be provided by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE) (SDGE 2018).
35
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 288 of 836
(b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. This section discusses the proposed
Consistency with the CAP
CAP is not considered a qualified GHG reduction plan in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5, as it has not been adopted in a public process
following environmental review. Consistency analysis
CAP for the preparation of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
Technical Report (Dudek 2018). However, the consistency analysis was performed for
informational purposes only and will not be used to determine significance. The proposed
project includes several design features that will help reduce its GHG emissions in line
he proposed project would be consistent with the applicable
Regarding consistency proposed project would
include site design elements and project design features developed to support the policy
objectives of the RTP and SB 375. The convenient availability of walking and bicycling
trails and parks that are accessible for use by residents will serve to reduce VMT. Finally,
because the proposed project is an infill project, it would have inherently fewer VMT
than a project located at the outskirts of a city.
As further analyzed in the AQ/GHG Technical Report, the proposed project is consistent with
all applicable Regional Plan Policy Objectives or Strategies. One of the key achievements
projected for the Regional Plan is for nearly three-quarters of multifamily housing to be built on
redevelopment or infill sites. The proposed project would be consistent with that goal as it is
developing on an infill site. In summary, the proposed project promotes a pedestrian experience
for the proposed p-vehicular travel, consistent
with SB . Impacts would be less than significant.
The Scoping Plan, approved by CARB on December 12, 2008, provides a framework for
emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies to
adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs. As such, the Scoping Plan is not
directly applicable to specific projects. Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several
state regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. Most
of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy usage, high-GWP GHGs in
36
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 289 of 836
consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid, electric, and more fuel-
efficient vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., low-carbon fuel standard), among others. To the
extent that these regulations are applicable to the proposed project, its inhabitants, or uses, the
proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations adopted in furtherance of the
Scoping Plan. Finally, the SDAPCD has not adopted GHG reduction measures that would
apply to the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Therefore, this impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
37
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 290 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed project by
Construction Testing and Engineering Inc. in May 2016. The analysis contained in this section is
based on the findings of the Phase I ESA.
(a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. A variety of hazardous substances and wastes would
be stored, used, and generated during construction of the proposed project. These would
include fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oils, and storage containers
and applicators containing such materials. Accidental spills, leaks, fires, explosions or
pressure releases involving hazardous materials represent a potential threat to human
38
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 291 of 836
health and the environment if not properly treated. Adherence to the construction
specifications and applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding hazardous
materials and hazardous waste, including disposal, would ensure that construction of the
proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Impacts related to hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.
The operational phase of the proposed project primarily involves residential dwelling
with associated landscape and facility maintenance; none of the proposed land uses are
typically considered hazardous to the public. Hazardous materials would then be limited
to private use of commercially available cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and
fertilizers, and various other commercially available substances. Construction and
operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with relevant federal,
state, and local health and safety laws, which are intended to minimize health risk to the
public associated with hazardous materials. Additionally, it can expected that the
proposed project would be required to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), which will contain construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
handling of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. As indicated in the Phase I ESA, the site was used
for agricultural purposes from 1949 until 1970. Aerial photographs also show that fill soil
was placed on site and roughly graded between 1970 and 1979. During this time, organic
chlorine pesticides (OCPs) were used in agricultural settings. Since that time, the former
near surface natural ground was disturbed and removed. As such, near surface soils
potentially containing OCPs are no longer likely to be present or present a potential
environmental concern (Construction Testing and Engineering Inc. 2016).
A standard American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM) search was performed for
the site and did not provide listing for the project site. The Environmental Data Resources
(EDR) Report indicated the gas station adjacent to the northwest corner of the site at 100
Bonita Road had release petroleum hydrocarbon constituents from an underground
storage tank in 2003 (Construction Testing and Engineering Inc. 2016). However,
according to the Corrective Action Plan cited via the State Water Resources Control
,
property line of the project site, and the 100 Bonita Road site was adequately remediated.
Random inert construction debris such as concrete curbs were noted throughout the site.
Concrete washout materials, two rusted pails and a few tires were also observed. These
objects and materials are not likely to be an environmental concern, due to the local and
inert nature (Construction Testing and Engineering Inc. 2016).
39
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 292 of 836
A variety of hazardous substances and wastes would be stored, used, and generated
during construction of the proposed project. Accidental spills, leaks, fires, explosions,
or pressure releases involving hazardous materials represent a potential threat to human
health and the environment if not properly treated. If construction activities encounter
underground contamination, the contractor would be required to implement Section
803, Encountering or Releasing Hazardous Substances or Petroleum Products, of the
City of San Diego Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, which is
included in all construction documents and would ensure the proper handling and
disposal of any contaminated soils in accordance with all applicable local, state, and
federal regulations. Compliance with these requirements would minimize the risk to the
public and the environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(c) No Impact. The proposed project is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school. The closest schools to the proposed project site are Rosebank
Elementary School (0.5 miles) and Bonita Learning Academy (0.6 miles). As such, the
proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school, and no impact would occur.
(d) No Impact. Refer to response VIII(b). The ASTM search and EDR Report did not
provide listing for the project site. The project site was found on a list of hazardous
materials sites; however, according to the Corrective Action Plan cited through the
website, the soil underlying the
service station did not cross the property line of the project site, and the 100 Bonita
Road site was adequately remediated, and no further action was required (Construction
Testing and Engineering Inc. 2016). No registered hazardous sites occur on site, and no
impact would occur.
(e) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The closest airport to the project site is the Brown
Field Municipal Airport, which is approximately 6.3 miles to the south. However, the
rport
operations would not result in any significant impacts to the proposed project (San
Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2010).
(f) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
(g) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or
40
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 293 of 836
evacuation plan. During construction activities, construction equipment staging areas
would be restricted to on-site locations. All construction within public roadways would
General Plan, the nearest evacuation routes are Bonita Road and I-805, located just
north and east of the project site respectively (City of Chula Vista 2005a). Therefore,
impacts to emergency response and/or evacuation plans would be less than significant.
(h) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Wildland fires present a significant threat in the
City. Areas in the City that are particularly susceptible to these fires, are designated
Wildland Fire Hazard Map. Very High Hazard areas within the City are located south
of the eastern portion of the Lower Otay Reservoir and south of Otay Lakes Road
(City of Chula Vista 2005a). The proposed project is located in an area designated as
area of Chula Vista, and it is unlikely wildland fires would affect the project site.
Therefore, impacts from wildland fires at the site due to the proposed project would
be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND
WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Result in an increase in pollutant
discharges to receiving waters
(including impaired water bodies
pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list), result in significant
alteration of receiving water quality
during or following construction, or
violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
41
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 294 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? Result in a
potentially significant adverse impact on
groundwater quality?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river,
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site, or place structures within a
100-year flood hazard area which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
e) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
42
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 295 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Comments:
Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering prepared a Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm
Water Quality Management Plan and a Preliminary Drainage Study for the proposed project
(Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018a; Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018b).
Additionally a Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis was prepared for the Bonita Glen Creek, by
REC Consultants in January 2018, and revised in June 2018 (REC Consultants 2018). These
reports are used to support the analysis included below.
(a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. An ephemeral stream, also referred to as Bonita
Glen Creek, runs through the middle of the project site. Surface flows under existing
conditions drain toward the southern end of the site. Drainage that comes from the
eastern part of the site, flows from the streets to an existing catch basin, which
ultimately flows down to a concrete ditch and outlets into the above said stream (REC
Consultants 2018). All of the flow then outlets as untreated runoff to point of
compliance. The proposed project proposes to reroute the existing drainage into
treatable areas, biofiltration basins, and outlet through an existing storm drain on the
western side of the project site.
Construction projects that involve the disturbance of one or more acres of soil are
required to obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Construction
General Permit. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading,
and disturbances to ground surfaces, such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction
General Permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP
would contain a site map that depicts the location of stockpiles, staging areas, and the
type and location of BMPs such as silt fencing, sandbag berms, and general good
housekeeping methods intended to prevent the off-site discharge of soil or construction
materials in stormwater. Stormwater quality measures required by the Chula Vista
Municipal Code would be implemented during construction phases of the proposed
project (NOVA 2017).
43
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 296 of 836
Additionally, a SWQMP was prepared for the proposed project. The purpose of the
SWQMP is to ensure consistency with the Priority Development Project (PDP)
requirements of the City BMP Design Manual, which is based on the requirements of the
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9-2013-0001 (MS4
Permit). The SWQMP states that the proposed project would implement Source Control
BMPs such as ain
(Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018).
The proposed impervious areas include sidewalks, buildings, patios, a pool area,
courtyards, and surface parking. Compared to existing conditions, an increase in
runoff would be experienced due to the increased imperviousness of the site. This
volume will be detained via surface ponding and rock storage layers located in the
proposed biofiltration basins. Outlet control will be provided in the biofiltration
Glen Drive. In developed conditions, the existing ephemeral stream would remain in a
natural state with graded embankments to the east and west of the delineated existing
ephemeral stream while leaving the stream in its natural existing condition. The
embankments of the ephemeral stream would include embankment stability, such as
vegetating the embankments to reduce erosion. No new slopes are planned as part of
the future site development (Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018a). The site is
rimmed by ascending slopes to the south and east. Retaining walls are proposed
throughout the site for adaptation of the development to the existing slopes.
Therefore, with implementation of the SWQMP, the proposed project would not result
in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters, and impacts would be less
than significant.
(b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. As shown on Figure 7, the proposed project site is
located within the Lower Sweetwater Hydrologic Area, within the La Nacion Subarea. As
stated in the Bonita Glen Specific Plan EIR (1977b), soils reports prepared for projects in
the area of the proposed project have indicated that groundwater levels are around 20 feet
below grade. The proposed project would not involve permanent pumping of
groundwater, as no development or operational phase of the proposed project would
require the direct use of groundwater supplies. With site development, runoff is expected
to increase. However, as previously stated, the increase in runoff volume will be detained
via surface ponding and rock storage layers located in the proposed biofiltration basins.
The proposed development would direct runoff in multiple directions and eventually
44
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 297 of 836
discharge into the existing drainage system. The proposed project density would not
substantially alter the percolation patterns on the site once construction is complete.
Impacts due to the proposed project would be less than significant.
(c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project requires the
preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that would describe the methods used to
minimize soil erosion on the site during construction, such as berms of gravel bags, and
securing filter fabric on stock piles of construction materials with gravel bags or rocks.
The methods used during construction would minimize erosion.
The Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis demonstrated that the proposed ephemeral
streambed within the proposed project can safely convey the 2- and 10-year design peak
flow without overtopping or exceeding the allowed width buffer (Latitude 33 Planning
and Engineering 2018a). Once constructed, on-site peak flows would be collected
through
infrastructure along Bonita Glen Drive. Proposed biofiltration basins would collect runoff
from the undeveloped areas connecting to the proposed storm drain system (downstream
of the basin). Runoff from the site would be conveyed via the internal on-site storm drain
toward the southern boundary of the proposed project. The proposed project footprint
generates a footprint of approximately 47% impervious area. In order to mitigate the
impervious area, the proposed project proposes three biofiltration basins that are
projected to treat 84% of the runoff. The other 16% will drain naturally into the stream in
the middle of the site (Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018a). There would be
no proposed hydromodification due to runoff discharging at the Sweetwater River
through existing conveyances (Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018b).
Additionally, increasing the stream banks would attenuate these peak flows below the
existing condition amounts, and would also offset the increase by detaining runoff to
acceptable amounts. Thus, through implementation of the proposed detention basins, and
compliance with the SWQMP, the proposed project would not result in substantial
erosion or siltation on or off site. Impacts would be less than significant.
(d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. According to FEMA Flood Map 06073C1914G, the
northwestern portion of the site contains areas in either a special flood hazard area titled Zone
AE, or in other areas of flood hazards, with 0.2% annual chance flood hazard. Zone AE areas
-year
floodplain. The ephemeral stream located within the proposed project area is determined to
have a 100-year peak flow rate of 51 cubic feet per second (cfs)(REC Consultants 2018).
45
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 298 of 836
Based on the calculations contained in the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Technical
Memo, under proposed project conditions, the 10-year storm stays within the boundaries of
the stream and five-foot buffer on either side (REC Consultants 2018). Based on the
calculations contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Study, it
is anticipated that the proposed project would result in an increase in peak flow for the 50-
year and 100-year storm frequencies. This volume will be detained through surface ponding
and rock storage layers located in the proposed biofiltration basins. Outlet control would be
infrastructure along Bonita Glen Drive. The existing 33-inch public storm drain has a full
- (Latitude 33 Planning and
Engineering 2018a). Water detention are proposed in the 100-year floodplain will not affect
the floodplain. In existing conditions, the floodplain area consists of dirt and shrubs, and
during storm events, all runoff is directed into the existing ephemeral stream without any
storage/outlet control. To minimize the increase in 100-year flood flows within the existing
ephemeral stream, the stream banks will be graded up to create a larger open channel capable
of handling the required flows. Increasing the stream banks would attenuate these peak flows
below the existing condition amounts and would also offset the increase by detaining runoff
to acceptable amounts. Increasing the stream banks would be designed so that surface flow
would not overtop the banks and flood onto the adjacent developments. Additionally, the
downstream existing 33-inch RCP public storm drain will be able to handle the mitigated 100
year flowrate of 55.11 cfs. Impacts would be less than significant.
(e) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 4.4 miles
southwest of the Sweetwater Dam, and located adjacent to an area identified as potential
dam inundation effects (City of Chula Vista 2005a, Figure 9-8). However, as discussed in
response IX(d), volume will be detained via surface ponding and rock storage layers
located in the proposed biofiltration basins. Outlet control would be provided in the
in infrastructure along
-stream banks would attenuate
these peak flows below the existing condition amounts, and would also offset the increase
RCP public storm drain will be able to handle the mitigated 100 year flowrate of 55.11
cfs. Therefore, the proposed stormwater retention system and the existing public storm
drain will be able to handle excess surface flows resulting from failure of the Sweetwater
Dam. Impacts would be less than significant.
46
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 299 of 836
(f) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to responses IX(a), IX(c), and IX(d).
Compared to existing conditions, an increase in runoff would be experienced due to the
increased imperviousness of the site once constructed. Excess runoff volume will be
detained through surface ponding and rock storage layers located in the proposed
biofiltration basins. Outlet control would be provided in the biofiltration basins and
Stormwater quality measures required by the Chula Vista Municipal Code would be
implemented during construction phases of the proposed project. The SWPPP would
contain a site map that depicts the location of stockpiles, staging areas, and the type and
location of BMPs such as silt fencing, sandbag berms, and general good housekeeping
methods intended to prevent the off-site discharge of soil or construction materials in
stormwater. As such, the proposed project would not result in an increase in pollutant
discharges to receiving waters. The proposed project would not create or contribute
runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
47
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 300 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Comments:
(a) No Impact. The proposed project would involve the construction of a 170-unit
apartment development located on a currently undeveloped portion of the Bonita Glen
Specific Plan. Further, the project site is located on previously graded and disturbed land.
All project construction would take place on site, and would not divide the surrounding
community. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community;
no impact would occur.
(b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The site is currently designated under the Chula
Vista General Plan as Bonita Glen Specific Plan. Under the Specific Plan, the project site
is designated as Commercial Retail. As stated in the Specific Plan, apartments and
condominiums, when consistent with the adopted conceptual plan, and when approved
under the project plan process and procedure, pursuant to Section 2.6 of the Specific
Plan, are permitted within the project area of the Bonita Glen Specific Plan. The proposed
project would use the State Density Bonus provisions that promote affordable housing
through the use of density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions to
development standards, and parking ratios in accordance with Section 65915 of the
Government Code and Chapter 19.90 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The proposed
project provides 17 affordable dwelling units (10%) restricted for 55 years to lower
income households (80% of the area median income) in a recorded restrictive covenant.
The Specific Plan also states that the Planning Commission, upon the recommendation
of the Zoning Administrator, may adjust said standards and regulations upon finding that
said adjustment will not adversely affect the nature, character, design, order, amenity or
intent of the proposed project or Specific Plan. Because the proposed project would
exceed the current maximum permitted height of 30 38 feet, a waiver of development
standards would be obtained through the state density bonus law to allow for additional
height. As such, the proposed project would not require a rezone or Specific Plan
Amendment. Considering the proposed project would comply with the General Plan and
permissible uses in the Specific Plan, and would successfully mitigate all environmental
impacts to levels below significance, impacts would be less than significant.
48
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 301 of 836
(c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section IV,
Biological Resources, the project site is within the Chula Vista MSCP. The proposed
project design is consistent with the Subarea Plan through specific adherence to
mitigation/conveyance requirements for Development Projects Outside of Covered
Projects as defined in the Subarea Plan. As stated above, the proposed project site is
located within the Development Area of the City Planning Component as identified in the
Subarea Plan and as such has not been identified as a strategic preserve area within the
City nor is it located within a designated conservation area; therefore, the proposed
project would not impact the goals and objectives of the Subarea Plan.
The proposed project design is consistent with the Subarea Plan through specific
adherence to mitigation/conveyance requirements for Development Projects Outside of
Covered Projects as defined in the Subarea Plan. As stated above, the proposed project
site is located within the Development Area of the City Planning Component as identified
in the Subarea Plan and, as such, has not been identified as a strategic preserve area
within the City nor is it located within a designated conservation area; therefore, the
proposed project would not impact the goals and objectives of the Subarea Plan.
However, the proposed project would impact approximately 4.35 acres of non-native
grassland (Tier III). Implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 would reduce
potential impacts to a level below significant. Impacts are determined to be less than
significant with MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 incorporated.
Mitigation: MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, as listed in Section IV.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
49
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 302 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
Comments:
(a) No Impact. Mineral resources in Chula Vista are described in the Environmental Element
source Zones (MRZs) are delineated in Figure 9-4,
MRZ-2 Area Map (City of Chula Vista 2005a). Mineral resources located within the City
include sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources, known collectively as construction
aggregate. Construction aggregate is a valued resource considering the reduction in
construction costs this resource provides, particularly for construction areas in proximity to
the aggregate (City of Chula Vista 2005a). The proposed project site is not located within an
MRZ or located on
General Plan. The nearest MRZ is the Otay Quarry, which is located approximately 3.9 miles
south of the project site. Additionally, the project site is not currently being used for mineral
resource extraction. Given these factors, the proposed project would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the
residents of the State. No impact would result.
(b) No Impact. See response X(a). The proposed project site is not designated as an
important mineral resource site, as indicated on Figure 9-
(City of Chula Vista 2005a). Therefore, no impact would result.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
50
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 303 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XII. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
51
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 304 of 836
Comments:
An Acoustical Assessment Report was prepared by Dudek for the proposed project in June 2018.
This report is used to support the analysis included below.
(a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Construction
The City Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code, Section 19.68) (City of Chula Vista 1985)
contains regulations restricting land userelated noise-generating activities and operations
to avoid noise nuisance in the community. These standards typically apply to stationary
sources such as noise from mechanical equipment (including mechanical ventilation and
air condition noise, and pool pump noise) or event noise, as opposed to traffic noise. The
property-line noise standards are presented in Table 11.
Table 11
City of Chula Vista Exterior Property-Line Noise Limits
The construction activities for the proposed project would include site preparation,
grading and trenching of the project site, building construction, and paving. Noise
impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a
function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, and
sensitivity of nearby land uses, as well as the timing and duration of the construction
activities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences as near as 75
feet, and the farthest would be approximately 780 feet. The nearest noise-sensitive
receivers are located approximately 240 feet away from the acoustic center of
construction activity (the idealized point from which the energy sum of all construction
activity noise near and far would be centered). Thus, the distance to the nearest
construction activities would be approximately 75 feet, but construction would typically
52
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 305 of 836
be approximately 240 feet or more away. Other residential land uses are also located
nearby to the southeast and east of the project site, and hotel uses are located to the north.
As shown in Table 12, at the nearest residences (to the west), noise levels would range
from approximately 76 to 81 dBA L when construction would take place at or near the
eq
project boundary. More typical construction noise levels at the residences to the east
would range from approximately 66 to 72 dBA L(Dudek 2018e).
eq
Table 12
Construction Noise Model Results Summary
The City regulates construction noise by restricting the allowable hours of construction.
stationary noise standards, provided that construction occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday.
Through adherence to the limitation of allowable construction times provided in the
Municipal Code, the construction-related noise levels would not exceed any standards.
However, construction noise levels would be higher than existing ambient daytime noise
levels and could result in annoyance at neighboring noise-sensitive uses (Dudek 2018e).
Implementation of mitigation measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2 would reduce
construction noise substantially. Therefore, temporary construction-related noise impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operation
The City General Plan Noise Element indicates that the maximum allowable noise level
for new residential developments is a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 65
decibels (dB) (Dudek 2018e). Proposed patios, balconies, and outdoor common-use areas
2
exterior noise level requirement. In addition, California Building Code (Part 2, Title 24,
California Code of Regulations) requires that the interior noise level not exceed 45 dB
CNEL for multifamily units.
2
Patios and balconies, as well as the common outdoor spaces such as the swimming pool area, upper-floor deck
at Building 7, play area, and dog run, are included in the
with City open space requirements.
53
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 306 of 836
Traffic Noise
Potential traffic noise impacts were modeled for both off-site and proposed future on-site
noise-sensitive receivers.
Off-Site Traffic Noises
To establish the compatibility of various land uses with exterior noise levels, the City has
adopted exterior land use-noise compatibility guidelines which include vehicular traffic
noise levels. Impacts are considered significant when they cause an increase of 3 dB from
existing noise levels or exceed the 65 dBA CNEL noise threshold. An increase or
decrease in noise level of 3 dB is generally considered to be barely perceptible by the
average human ear, while an increase or decrease of at least 5 dB is required before any
noticeable change in community response would be expected (Dudek 2018e). As shown
in Table 13, the maximum noise level increase would be 0 dB (i.e., less than 1 dB when
rounded to whole decibels). A change in noise level of 1 dB or less is not an audible
change, in the context of community noise, and is therefore less than significant.
Table 13
The slight decrease in noise level (-2 dB in the existing with project scenario and -1 dB in
the future with project scenario) at ST4 is due to the additional acoustical shielding
provided by the project to roadways (Bonita Road and the northerly exposure of I-805) to
54
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 307 of 836
the north and northeast. Based on these results, off-site traffic noise impacts would be
less than significant.
On-Site Traffic Noise
Residential land uses are typically the source of nuisance noise (e.g., car alarms, barking
dogs, excessive music, use of recreation areas such as pools) but are not typically
considered substantial sources of noise. Noise associated with residential land uses and
recreational areas (such as pools) is often intermittent. While spikes of noise may occur,
a 1-hour average. As previously stated, General Plan requires on-site outdoor
areas such as proposed patios, balconies, and outdoor common-use areas are considered
level requirement (City of Chula Vista 2005).
Representative noise model receivers were placed at the proposed pool area, and the results of
the noise analysis for traffic noise levels at proposed on-site receivers is provided in Table 14.
Table 14
On-Site Future (Year 2035) Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)
55
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 308 of 836
Table 14
On-Site Future (Year 2035) Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)
As shown in Table 14, the results of the noise modeling indicate that the noise levels at
receiver R3, which represents the proposed exterior pool / recreation area, would be
app
standard, and thus would be less than significant. Similarly, the noise levels at receivers R37
and R38, which represent the proposed play area and dog run, would be approximately 64
and 65 dBA CNEL, respectively. The noise level at R36, which represents the proposed deck
at Building 7, would be approximately 67 dBA CNEL. Because this proposed deck is not
65 dBA CNEL noise standard, and noise mitigation would not be required for this exterior
area. All balconies with modeled noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL, which would otherwise
56
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 309 of 836
requirement, and are, therefore, not subject to the noise standard. All other open space areas
have modeled traffic noise levels at or below the 65 dBA CNEL noise standard for exterior
uses. Because these areas are subject to the 65 dBA CNEL noise standard for exterior uses,
No mitigation is required for these receivers.
On-Site Interior Traffic Noise
The City and the State of California require that interior noise levels not exceed a CNEL
of 45 dBA within the habitable rooms of residences. The future noise levels would range
up to 74 dBA CNEL, generally from the 3rd levels of Buildings 1, 2, and 3, with the
northeastern side of Building 2 reaching the highest of 74 dBA. Thus, the unmitigated
interior noise level within the habitable rooms could exceed the 45 dBA CNEL noise
criterion. Exterior doors and windows achieving a Sound Transmission Class (STC)
rating of up to 29 dB (or a composite STC of up to 30 dB for exterior walls, doors, and
windows) will be required for units with the highest traffic noise exposures. With
implementation of MM-NOI-3, the resultant noise level would meet the state and City
interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL, and impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated. Therefore, it is not expected that nuisance noise typical of
residential land uses would exceed the thresholds of 65 dB CNEL. The proposed
considered substantial sources of noise.
On-Site Mechanical Noise
Implementation of the proposed project would result in changes to existing noise levels in the
project vicinity by developing new stationary sources of noise. Operational noise sources for
the proposed project include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment
and a pool mechanical equipment building. HVAC equipment would have the potential to
create significant noise impacts. Assuming a sound power level of 92 dBA, the noise
level at a distance of 75 feet from one HVAC unit would be approximately 57 dBA at the
nearest existing residential property. HVAC noise would have the potential to exceed the
-source noise standard (45 dBA Leq nighttime) at the single-family
residential uses to the east and south and at the multifamily residential uses to the west.
Noise impacts would be avoided; however, through the specification of quieter
mechanical equipment, shroud, enclosures, or building parapet walls (or a combination of
these). Implementation of MM-NOI-4 would reduce noise impacts from HVAC
equipment to a less-than-significant level.
57
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 310 of 836
(b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Operations of the proposed project would not have the
potential to generate long-term groundborne vibration or noise. Ground vibrations from
construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage structures or affect
activities that are not vibration-sensitive, although the vibrations may be felt by nearby
persons in close proximity and result in annoyance. The project construction activity would
not include the use of high vibration impact construction equipment such as pile driving.
Consequently, groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant.
(c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to response XII(a)
regarding operational noise. Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of
MM-NOI-3 and MM-NOI-4.
(d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in response
XII(a), the proposed project would have the potential to temporarily exceed ambient
noise levels during construction. Implementation of MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-4
would reduce these temporary noise impacts to a level below significance.
(e) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Brown Field Municipal Airport is located
approximately 6.3 miles to the south of the project site. The airport accommodates both
general aviation aircraft and military aircraft.
The proposed project site does not fall within the Airport Influence Area and the 60 dB
community noise equivalent level noise contour (San Diego County Airport Land Use
Commission 2010). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(f) No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip. No impacts would result.
Mitigation:
MM-NOI-1 Construction activities shall take place during the permitted time and day per
Section 17.24.040.C.8 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. The
applicant shall ensure that construction activities of the proposed project are
prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., MondayFriday, and
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday. This
condition shall be listed on the proposed project
of the City Development Services Department.
58
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 311 of 836
MM-NOI-2 The City of Chula Vista (City) shall require the applicant to adhere to the
following measures as a condition of approving the grading permit:
The project contractor shall, to the extent feasible, schedule construction
activities to avoid the simultaneous operation of construction equipment so as
to minimize noise levels resulting from operating several pieces of high noise
level emitting equipment.
All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers. Enforcement shall be accomplished by
random field inspections by applicant personnel during construction activities,
to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department.
Construction noise-reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment,
construction of a temporary noise barrier, maximizing the distance between
construction equipment staging areas and adjacent residences, and use of electric
air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be
used where feasible.
During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such
that emitted noise is directed away from or shielded from sensitive receptors.
Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job
superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow
surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent if necessary. In the
event the City receives a complaint, appropriate corrective actions shall be
implemented and a report of the action provided to the reporting party.
MM-NOI-3 Prior to issuance of any building permit, construction plans shall be reviewed by a
qualified noise consultant for conformance with City standards. In order to ensure
that interior noise levels of the habitable rooms are 45 dBA CNEL or less, the
applicant shall use windows and exterior doors with the Sound Transmission Class
(STC) ratings shown in Table NOI-1 or higher. For example, the windows and
exterior doors of Building 2 shall have STC ratings of 29 or higher.
The proposed residential units will require mechanical ventilation systems or air
conditioning systems in order to ensure that windows and doors can remain
closed while maintaining a comfortable environment. With the required
mitigation, the resulting interior noise levels will be less than the noise standard,
and the noise impact will be less than significant.
59
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 312 of 836
Table NOI-1
Minimum Window and Exterior Door Noise Attenuation Ratings
MM-NOI-4 To ensure that HVAC and other outdoor mechanical equipment would not exceed the
-source noise standards (55 dBA daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.),
45 dBA nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), for single-family residential; 60 dBA
daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), 50 dBA nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), for
multifamily residential), the applicant shall incorporate the following measures:
1. No HVAC or other mechanical equipment shall be installed with a combined
sound power level exceeding 79 dBA or a sound pressure level (i.e., noise
level) of 44 dBA at a distance of 75 feet. Prior to issuance of building permits,
construction plans shall be reviewed by a qualified noise consultant for
conformance with City standards.
2. If equipment exceeding the specification in MM-NOI-5(1) is used, such
equipment shall be shielded from adjacent residential land uses by mechanical
shrouds, building parapet walls, or provision of acoustical enclosures such that
the combined sound power level does not exceed 79 dBA, resulting in a noise
level of 44 dBA or less at a distance of 75 feet.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
60
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 313 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
indirectly (for example, through extension
of road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
(a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not indirectly induce
population growth as it does not include the extension of roadways or other
infrastructure. The proposed project would directly induce population growth to the area
through the development of 170 apartments. According to the 2013 City Housing
Element, renter-occupied households had an average of 2.86 person per household, in
2010. At a rate of 2.86 persons per household, the proposed project would introduce
approximately 486 people to the area (City of Chula Vista 2013)
Plan Housing Element identifies the need to maintain an inventory of both vacant and
redevelopable land in order to achieve its regional share goal as allocated in the Regional
Housing Needs Statement issued by the SANDAG. As discussed in the Chula Vista
Housing Element, between 2000 and 2010, the City experienced a 40% increase in
population. The numbers of households are growing just as fast as the population, with a
31% increase in the number of households from 2000 to 2010. The U.S. Census Bureau
reports 79,416 housing units in the City in 2010, an increase of 25% from 2000. Of the
79,416 housing units in the City, 2010 U.S. Census data shows 4.9% were vacant in
2010, and of the total vacant units, 39% were for rent. The Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA), prepared by SANDAG for the years 20102020, identified Chula
homes in this time span. While the 2013
Housing Element sites inventory for housing indicated that there was an overall inventory
planned and zoned for residential use, implementation of the proposed project would
assist the City in reaching their regional housing goal, in combination with the identified
housing inventory.
61
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 314 of 836
As the project site is currently underutilized as vacant land and is in conformance with
the Bonita Glen Specific Plan, the proposed project would aid the City in meeting its
housing needs for future and planned growth. On-site workers would likely come from
the local labor pool. As such, it is not anticipated that people would relocate into the City
as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would not construct new or
extend existing utilities, infrastructure, or roadways into an area not currently served by
such improvements. Thus, the proposed project would not indirectly induce population
growth. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts associated with population growth
inducement would occur.
(b) No Impact. The proposed project would not displace any existing housing since the
project site is currently vacant. No impacts would result.
(c) No Impact. The proposed project would not displace a substantial number of people
since the project site is currently vacant. No impacts would result.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any public services:
(i) Fire protection?
(ii) Police protection?
62
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 315 of 836
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less-Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(iii) Schools?
(iv) Parks?
(v) Other public facilities?
Comments:
(a)
(i) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site would be served by
the Chula Vista Fire Department, which has 9 fire stations and approximately 36
personnel, with approval of adding 12 firefighters in 2017 (City of Chula Vista
2017). The project site is within the service area of Fire Station 2, located at 80
East J Street, approximately 1 mile to the south. This station houses Engine 52,
which is staffed with three firefighters each day and contains rescue and
emergency medical equipment (City of Chula Vista 2018). The proposed project
would directly increase the service population resulting in an increase in demand
for fire protection services, which may affect maintenance of response times and
service ratios. However, the proposed project would redevelop an underutilized
site with in an area currently served by the Chula Vista Fire Department.
Additionally, the proposed project would be required to pay the development
impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. The proposed project would
not adversely affect existing levels of fire protection services or create a
significant new demand, and would not require the construction of a new or
expansion of an existing facility. Therefore, impacts associated with fire
protection would be less than significant.
(ii) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site would be served by
the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD), who currently employs approximately
123 sworn officers. The proposed project is located within beat 14 of the CVPD, and
1.2 miles east of the CVPD headquarters. The proposed project would directly
increase the service population resulting in an increase in demand for police
protection services, which may affect maintenance of response times and service
ratios. However, the proposed project would redevelop an underutilized site with in
an area currently served by the CVPD. Additionally, the proposed project would be
required to pay the development impact fees at the time of building permit issuance.
63
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 316 of 836
The proposed project would not adversely affect existing levels of police services or
create a significant new demand, and would not require the construction of a new or
expansion of an existing facility. Therefore, impacts associated with police protection
would be less than significant.
(iii) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would be located within
the boundaries of the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater
Union High School District. The project site is located within the attendance
boundary for Rosebank Elementary School (located 0.5 miles northwest), Hilltop
Middle School (located 1 mile south), Hilltop High School (located 0.5 miles south)
(Sweetwater Unified High School District 2018). The proposed project would
directly introduce a new student population within the service boundaries of the two
school districts. All residential development is required to pay school developer fees
to the appropriate district prior to issuance of building permits. The potential future
expansion of school facilities that may result from the use of such fees is not
reasonably foreseeable and beyond the scope of this MND. Additionally, per
California Government Code 65995, the payment of required school fees is
considered full and complete mitigation of impacts to school facilities. Therefore,
impacts to schools would be less than significant.
(iv) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The nearest existing parks are Terra Nova Park,
located approximately 0.8 miles east, and Norman Park, approximately 1 mile west
of the project site. The proposed project would directly introduce a new population to
the area, which would increase the demand for parks. The proposed project would be
required to pay the development impact fees at the time of building permit issuance.
Additionally, the proposed project would be providing recreational areas including a
swimming pool, clubhouse, and dog run. With proximity to neighborhood parks,
inclusion of on-site recreational facilities, and payment of impact fees, the proposed
project would not adversely affect the provision of park and recreational facilities,
and impacts would be less than significant.
(v) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would be required to
pay such fees that would provide funds to the City that may only be used for
funding the expansion of public facilities to serve new development. The potential
future expansion of public facilities that may result from the use of such fees is
not reasonably foreseeable and beyond the scope of this MND. With adherence to
the municipal code and payment of fees, the proposed project would have less-
than-significant impacts on other public facilities.
64
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 317 of 836
Mitigation: No mitigation measures required.
Less Than
Significant Less-
Potentially with Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XV. RECREATION.
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Comments:
(a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would contribute a direct
permanent increase to the population of the City and increase the demand for recreational
areas. Therefore, the proposed project would likely increase the use of existing parks and
recreational trails. The proposed park would be open to the public, however, maintained by
the Applicant. As discussed in response XIV(a)(iv), the proposed project would include
including a swimming pool, clubhouse, and dog run, and would pay required development
impact fees for the provision of public services, including parks and recreational facilities.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(b) No Impact. The proposed project does not include or require the expansion of
recreational facilities. No impact would occur.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
65
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 318 of 836
Less Than
Significant Less-
Potentially with Than-
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues:
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards
and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
66
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 319 of 836
Less Than
Significant Less-
Potentially with Than-
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues:
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
Comments:
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by Chen Ryan in November 2018. The analysis
contained in this section is based on the findings of the TIA.
(a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Specific Plan states that implementation of the
Specific Plan would result in generation of approximately 6,600 daily trips. As indicated
in Table 15, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 1,020 daily trips, including 82
(16 in/66 out) AM peak hour trips and 92 (64 in/28 out) PM peak hour trips, significantly
fewer than were anticipated under the adopted Specific Plan.
Table 15
Proposed Project Trip Generation
As shown on Figure 10, Project Traffic Study Areas, multiple roadway segments and
intersections were studied under different conditions. The segment of Vista Drive
between the Unnamed Cul-de-Sac and Bonita Glen Road, currently provides access to
three single family dwelling units, which generate 10 trips per day for a total of 30
daily trips on the roadway. This segment does not serve any cumulative or cut-
through traffic and is projected to operate well below its design capacity (Chen Ryan
2018a). The Project Study Area contains roadways under both the City of Chula Vista
and the County of San Diego jurisdictions. As shown in Table 16, 17, and 18, under
Existing Plus Project Conditions, all study segments and intersections are projected to
operate at acceptable LOS C or better during AM and PM peak hours, under Existing
67
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 320 of 836
Plus Project Conditions.
criteria, the proposed project would not result in a significant project-related impact.
Table 16
Roadway Segment Level of Service Existing Plus Project Conditions (City of Chula Vista)
Table 17
Roadway Segment Level of Service Existing Plus Project Conditions
(County of San Diego)
68
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 321 of 836
Table 18
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Existing Plus Project Conditions
As shown in Table 19 and 20, under Year 2035 Plus Project Conditions, all study
segments are forecasted to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Year 2035 Base
Conditions, with the exception of Bonita Road, between I-805 SB ramps and I-805 NB
ramps, which would operate at LOS E.
Table 19
Roadway Segment Level of Service Year 2035 Base Plus Project Conditions (City of
Chula Vista)
69
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 322 of 836
Table 20
Roadway Segment Level of Service Year 2035 Base Plus Project Conditions
(County of San Diego)
would not be associated with a significant project-related impact because the
intersections on both ends of the roadway segment operate at LOS D or better.
As shown in Table 21, all study area intersections are forecasted to operate at acceptable
LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under Year 2035 Base Conditions.
Table 21
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Year 2035 Base Plus Project Conditions
In conclusion, the addition of proposed project traffic would not result in a significant
impact to any study segment or intersection. The proposed project would be consistent
with the Regional Plan prepared by SANDAG, which is a land use and transportation
planning document that discusses land use policy at a very general level. Further, the plan
70
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 323 of 836
mostly incorporates the land use policies of local jurisdictions and focuses on
transportation infrastructure and management programs to support those policies. As a
result, no directly applicable policies were identified that pertain to the proposed project
because the proposed project would not interfere with the policies or project identified in
the Regional Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Regional
Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
(b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to response XVI(a). The proposed project would
not substantially contribute to the average daily traffic of the adjacent roadway network.
-of-
service standards and travel demand measures. Impacts would be less than significant.
(c) No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Brown Field Municipal
Airport, located approximately 6.3 miles to the south. Furthermore, the proposed project
would be constructed in accordance with all building requirements and would be similar
in elevation as the surrounding businesses and residences. The proposed project would
not have any features that could disrupt existing air traffic patterns. Additionally, the site
is not located within the Airport Influence Area (San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority 2010). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a change in air
traffic patterns, and no impact would occur.
(d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not involve any design
features or incompatible uses that would increase hazards within the project area. The main
access point to and from the project site would be provided via the Unnamed Road cul-de-sac,
a private road at the terminus of Vista Drive, with two smaller access points along Bonita Glen
Road (Chen Ryan 2018b). These access points have been designed to be consistent with the
pedestrians. Access would be adequate for wide turning radii of large vehicles entering and
exiting the site, such as storage trailers, RVs, and vehicles towing boats. For these reasons, the
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to design hazards or
incompatible uses.
(e) Less-Than-Significant Impact. During construction activities, construction
equipment staging areas would be restricted to on-site locations. All construction within
public roadways would not impede access or movement of emergency vehicles. As
are Bonita Road and I-
805, located just north and east of the project site respectively (City of Chula Vista
2005a). The proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,020 daily trips,
including 82 (16-in/66-out) AM peak hour trips and 92 (64-in/28-out) PM peak hour trips
71
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 324 of 836
(Chen Ryan 2018a). As such, traffic generated by the proposed project would not be
substantial and would not impact emergency access in the area. The main site access is
proposed via a private road (Unnamed Cul-del-Sac Road) at the terminus of Vista Drive
(which will serve as the access for 104 of the units), with two smaller access points along
Bonita Glen Road (which will serve as the access for the remaining 66 units). The
proposed project would be required to comply with Fire Department requirements and
standards to ensure that adequate access is provided. The proposed project would not
involve the permanent closure of any surface streets that would increase the response
time for emergency services. The proposed project will comply with all fire codes, and
emergency access will be maintained by foot and by truck. Therefore, impacts to
emergency access would be less than significant.
(f) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not affect planned
alternative transportation routes or modes or conflict with adopted policies, plans, and
programs supporting alternative transportation. Implementation of the proposed project
would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Less-
Potentially Significant
Than-
Significant with No Impact
Issues:
Significant
Impact Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
XVII. UTILITIES AND
SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
72
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 325 of 836
Less Than
Less-
Potentially Significant
Than-
Significant with No Impact
Issues:
Significant
Impact Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
to
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Comments:
(a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The City operates and maintains its own sanitary
collection system that connects to the Metro sewerage system for treatment and disposal.
Wastewater generated by in the Sweetwater Authority service area is sent to the Point
Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (PLWTP) or the South Bay Water Reclamation
Facility (SBWRF), where it is treated to secondary levels and discharged to the Pacific
Ocean or treated to tertiary levels at the SBWRF and used as recycled water (Sweetwater
Authority 2016). In accordance with current zoning and field observations and based off
the calculations found in the Sewer Capacity Analysis (Latitude 33 Planning and
Engineering 2018c), the proposed project would contribute an additional 0.02 cubic feet
73
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 326 of 836
per second (CFS) to the existing system for an increase of 0.9% of the total flow for the
study area. The existing sewer system is flowing less than half full, therefore the
additional flows generated by the proposed development will be serviced by an existing
sewer system with adequate capacity per City standards (Latitude 33 Planning and
Engineering 2018c). The proposed development will not increase the existing service
above the anticipated flows per the City of Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan. The
proposed project would not result in existing wastewater treatment plants to exceed their
permit requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
(b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the development of
170 residential units of the total housing goal of 12,861 more homes in the City before 2020.
As such, the proposed project would incrementally increase demand for water and would
produce wastewater. The proposed project would be serviced by the Sweetwater Authority,
which procures water from the following four sources: (1) deep freshwater wells in National
City, (2) local runoff in the Sweetwater River with subsequent at the Loveland Reservoir and
Sweetwater Reservoir, (3) San Diego Formation Wells in the lower Sweetwater River basin,
and (4) purchase of imported water delivered by the San Diego Water Authority and
Metropolitan Water District (Sweetwater Authority 2018). The proposed project would
include private connections to existing water and wastewater lines adjacent to the project site.
Improvements would be limited to extension or rerouting of pipes and sewer lines to the
project site. Sewer and water capacity fees would be due and collected at the issuance of
building permits. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities
that would cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.
(c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project includes new stormwater
drainage facilities, including multiple on-site biofiltration basins. The drainage system is
a portion of the proposed project, the environmental effects of which are analyzed
throughout this document. The development of the on-site drainage facilities would not
result in any additional impacts beyond those disclosed throughout this document.
Impacts would be less than significant.
(d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would be serviced by the
Sweetwater Authority. According to the Sweetwater Authority 2015 Urban Water
Management Plan, water in this jurisdiction is projected to reach a potable water demand
of 6,773 acre feet per year (APY) for multifamily uses in 2020 (Sweetwater Authority
2016). The projected water demands are based on an assumed average water demand of
105 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) from 2020 to 2040, which is slightly higher than
its current level (91 GPCD). The proposed 170 residential units, which are estimated to
74
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 327 of 836
house up to 486 residents, would generate an insignificant portion of this demand for
potable water of 57 AFY, which is equivalent to 0.84% of the total potable water demand
for the Sweetwater Authority. The landscaped areas would not consist of water-intensive
plant species, and anticipated water demand would remain under 1% of the total demand.
As such, the proposed project would result in the expansion of water entitlements or
resources; impacts would be less than significant.
(e) Less-Than-Significant Impact. As previously stated in response XVII(a),
wastewater generated by in the Sweetwater Authority service area is sent to PLWTPor
SBWRF, where it is treated to secondary levels and discharged to the Pacific Ocean or
treated to tertiary levels at the SBWRF and used as recycled water (Sweetwater Authority
2016). At the regional level, the City is part of the Metropolitan Wastewater District. The
City has entered into an agreement with the City of San Diego and has purchased 19.843
MGD of capacity rights in the Metro Collection System. The City currently discharges
approximately 16.6 MGD into the Metro Interceptor (City of Chula Vista 2005b).
According to the City Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, multifamily units
generate 55 GDCP or 182 GPD per unit (based on 20092011 demands) (City of Chula
Vista 2014). Therefore, the proposed project would generate 30,940 GPD of wastewater,
The proposed project would include private connections to existing water and wastewater
lines adjacent to the project site. Improvements would be limited to extension or
rerouting of pipes and sewer lines to the project site. Sewer and water capacity fees
would be due and collected at the issuance of building permits. Therefore, the existing
wastewater facilities would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Impacts
would be less than significant.
(f) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The City has an exclusive agreement with Pacific
Waste Services for the removal, conveyance, and disposal of non-recyclable waste
through the year 2031. The proposed project site is anticipated to be served by the Otay
Landfill, which has a remaining capacity of approximately 21.1 million cubic yards
(CalRecycle 2016). According to California's Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle), based on current waste generation rates, the Otay Landfill has a
cease operation date of 2030. Should the Otay Landfill not accept waste at the time of
construction, the Sycamore Landfill would serve the proposed project. The Miramar
Landfill, located approximately 14 miles north of the project site may have capacity for
the proposed project. The Miramar Landfill has a remaining capacity of 87.7 million
cubic yards and is estimated to cease operation in 2030. Additionally, the Sycamore
Landfill locate approximately 14 miles northeast has a remaining capacity of 147.9
million cubic yards, with a ceased operation date of 2042 (CalRecycle 2017).
75
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 328 of 836
At this time, there is one proposed new landfill site in San Diego County with a 30-year
life expectancy: the Gregory Canyon site. Additionally, an area in East Otay Mesa has
been identified by the County as a tentative site (City of Chula Vista 2005b). Once
operational, solid waste generated by the proposed project would be limited to the waste
generated by the 170 residential units on site. Since there is sufficient capacity to
accommodate projected population at buildout of the General Plan, there is no significant
impact to integrated waste management services (City of Chula Vista 2005b). As such,
the Otay Landfill would have adequate permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed
(g) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Anticipated uses on the project site would not violate
any federal, state, or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste. Thus, impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant Less-
Potentially with Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XVIII. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the Citys
Threshold Standards?
a. Library
The City shall construct 60,000 gross
square feet (GSF) of additional library
space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total,
in the area east of Interstate 805 by
buildout. The construction of said
facilities shall be phased such that the
City will not fall below the city-wide
ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population.
Library facilities are to be adequately
equipped and staffed.
b. Police
i. Emergency Response: Properly
equipped and staffed police units shall
respond to 8%
76
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 329 of 836
Less Than
Significant Less-
Potentially with Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
emergency calls within seven (7)
minutes and maintain an average
emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
ii. Respond to 57%
urgent calls within seven (7)
minutes and maintain an average
calls of 7.5 minutes or less.
c. Fire and Emergency Medical
Emergency response: Properly equipped
and staffed fire and medical units shall
respond to calls throughout the City
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases
(measured annually).
d. Traffic
The Threshold Standards require that all
intersections must operate at a Level of
S
exception that Level of Service (LOS)
hours of the day at signalized
intersections. Signalized intersections
west of I-805 are not to operate at a
LOS below their 1991 LOS. No
intersec
during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway
ramps are exempted from this Standard.
77
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 330 of 836
Less Than
Significant Less-
Potentially with Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
e) Parks and Recreation Areas
The Threshold Standard for Parks and
Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood
and community parkland with
appropriate facilities/1,000 population
east of I-805.
f) Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that
storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide
necessary improvements consistent with
the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards.
g) Sewer
The Threshold Standards require that
sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects
will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and
City Engineering Standards.
h) Water
The Threshold Standards require that
adequate storage, treatment, and
transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth and that
water quality standards are not jeopardized
during growth and construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate
in whatever water conservation or fee off-set
78
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 331 of 836
Less Than
Significant Less-
Potentially with Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
Comments:
Refer to discussions above.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Less Than
Significant Less-
Potentially with Than-
Issues:
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
79
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 332 of 836
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Comments:
(a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section
IV, Biological Resources, construction of the proposed project would potentially result
in significant impacts to biological resources. However, with incorporation of MM-
BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a
level below significance. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the
quality of the environment or impact fish or wildlife species or plant communities. As
discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, potential impacts regarding inadvertent
discovery of cultural and paleontological resources could occur during excavation.
However, implementation of MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2 would ensure that impacts
would be less than significant. Overall, impacts would be less than significant with the
incorporation of mitigation.
(b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As provided in the analysis
presented above, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics,
agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas
emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and
planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation,
transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Mitigation measures
recommended for biological resources, cultural resources, and noise would reduce impacts
to below a level of significance.
The proposed project would incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts for
projects occurring within the City. With mitigation, however, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in any residually significant impacts that could
contribute to a cumulative impact. In the absence of residually significant impacts, the
incremental accumulation of effects would not be cumulatively considerable and
would be less than significant.
(c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis above, it
has been determined that there would be no significant direct or indirect effect on human
beings with the incorporation of mitigation.
80
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 333 of 836
Mitigation: Refer to mitigation measures listed above.
XX PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES
Project mitigation measures are indicated above.
XXI AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have
mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below shall indicate the
proposed project be held in abeyance without approval.
_____ ________________________________________
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
_____ ________________________________________ _ _______
Signature of Authorized Representative of Date
_____ ________________________________________
Printed Name and Title of
\[Operator if different from Property Owner\]
_____ ________________________________________ ___ _____
Signature of Authorized Representative of Date
\[Operator if different from Property Owner\]
81
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 334 of 836
XXII ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project,
involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact or Less Than Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages.
Land Use and Planning Transportation/Traffic Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Geophysical Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Hydrology/Water Hazards and Hazardous Cultural Resources
Materials
Air Quality Noise Recreation
Threshold Standards Mandatory Findings of
Significance
82
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 335 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 336 of 836
XXIV REFERENCES
California Government Code, Sections 5110051155. Timberland.
California Public Resources Code, Sections 2100021177. California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), as amended.
California Public Resources Code, Sections 4511-Nejedly Forest Practice
Act of 1973.
CalRecycle. 2016. Facility/Site Summary Details: Otay Landfill. Accessed July 2018.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/37-AA-0010/Detail/.
CalRecycle. 2017. Facility/Site Summary Details: Miramar Landfill. Accessed October 2018.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/37-AA-0023/Detail/
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB). RareFind, Version 5.1.1 (Commercial Subscription). Sacramento,
California: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed July 2018.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp.
Chen Ryan. 2018a. Traffic Impact Analysis. Bonita Glen. November 2018.
Chen Ryan. 2018b. Memorandum. Bonita Glen Drive Parking Study Chula Vista, CA.
September 2018.
City of Chula Vista. 1977a. Bonita Glen Specific Plan.
City of Chula Vista. 1977b. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bonita Glen Specific
Plan. EIR-77-2. Issued by Environmental Review Committee March 17, 1977. Adopted
by Chula Vista Planning Commission April 20, 1977.
City of Chula Vista. 1985. Noise Ordinance, Municipal Code, Section 19.68.
City of Chula Vista. 2003. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Accessed July 2018.
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106.
City of Chula Vista. 2005a. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Accessed July 2018.
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/general-plan.
84
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 337 of 836
City of Chula Vista. 2005b. Chula Vista General Plan: Environmental Impact Report. Accessed
July 2018. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=11971.
City of Chula Vista. 2013. 20122020 Housing Element. Accessed July 2018.
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=5503.
City of Chula Vista. 2014. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. May 2014. Accessed July
2018. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/public-works/master-plans/
wastewater-master-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2017. Public Safety Staffing Report. Accessed July 2018.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=15604.
City of Chula Vista. 2018. Fire Department Stations and Locations. Accessed July 2018.
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/fire-department/stations-locations/fire-stations-map.
Construction Testing and Engineering Inc. 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. May 2016.
County of San Diego. 2007. Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report and Format
and Content Requirements Air Quality.
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder.
Accessed July 2018. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
Dudek. 2018a. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report for the
Bonita Glen Project Chula Vista, California. December 2018.
Dudek. 2018b. Biological Resources Report for Bonita Glen Drive Project. July 2018.
Dudek. 2018c. Negative Cultural Resources Survey Letter Report for the Bonita Glen
Development Project, City of Chula Vista, California. February 2018.
Dudek. 2018d. Memorandum. Paleontological Resources Review Bonita Glen Drive Project.
January 2018.
Dudek. 2018e. Acoustical Assessment Report for the Bonita Glen Drive Project in Chula Vista
Final. August 2018.
Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018a. Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water
Quality Management Plan. June 2018.
85
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 338 of 836
Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018b. Preliminary Drainage Study. Bonita Glen.
Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018c. Sewer Capacity Analysis. April 2018.
NOVA. 2017. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Study. December 2017.
REC Consultants. 2018. Technical Memorandum. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis for Bonita
Glen Creek. January 2018. Revised June 2018.
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2010. Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. Accessed July 2018. http://www.san.org/DesktopModules
/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=2982&langua
ge=en-US&PortalId=0&TabId=225.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2015. Section 4.13, Population and
Housing. In Final Environmental Impact Report for San Diego Regional Plan.
October 2015. Accessed July 2018. http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/EIR
_final/Section%204.13%20Population%20and%20Housing.pdf.
SCAQMD (San Diego Air Quality Management District). 1993. SCAQMD Air Quality
Analysis Handbook. Accessed July 2018. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-
compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook.
SDGE (San Diego Gas and Electric). Bonita Glen Apartments-Bonita Glen Rd. Chula
Vista, CA 91910. October 15, 2018.
Sweetwater Authority. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. Accessed
July 2018. https://www.sweetwater.org/DocumentCenter/View/84/2015-Urban-
Water-Management-Plan-PDF.
Accessed July 2018. https://www.sweetwater.org/
27/About-Us.
Sweetwater Unified High School District. 2018. School Attendance Boundaries. My School
Locator. Accessed July 2018. http://locator.decisioninsite.com/?StudyID=193578.
86
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 339 of 836
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
87
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 340 of 836
Page 341 of 836
R
V
O
N
U
H
T
A
R
V
E
BR
O
A
E
L
A
V
A
M
L
E
A
R
R
V
A
G
I
F
V
V
A
O
M
T
V
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
Date: 8/3/2018 - Last saved by: cbattle - Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\IS\\Figure 1 Project Location.mxd
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
89
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 342 of 836
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
F
A
I
R
54 S
W
EE
T
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
SWEETWATER -
Lower Sweetwater
- La Nacion
AT
IO
N
805
ARD
IT
BO
T
ST
SWEETWATER -
Lower Sweetwater
- Telegraph
Project Boundary
JurisdictionalWaters
Hydrologic Unit - Area
- Subarea
SOURCE: SANGIS 2017; USGS 2018
FIGURE 7
Hydrologic Setting
01,000500
Feet
Bonita Glen IS
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 357 of 836
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
105
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 358 of 836
Page 359 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
nal Resources.mxdDate: 8/3/2018 - Last saved by: cbattle - Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\IS\\Figure 8 Biological and Jurisdictio
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
107
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 360 of 836
F
A
I
R
54
S
W
EE
T
W
A
T
E
R
R
D
AT
IO
N
805
ARD
IT
BO
T
ST
City of Chula Vista
MSCP
Project Boundary
SOURCE: SANGIS 2017; City of Chula Vista 2017
FIGURE 9
City of Chula Vista MSCP Reserve/Conservation Area
01,000500
Feet
Bonita Glen IS
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 361 of 836
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
109
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 362 of 836
Path: Z:\\Projects\\j1027101\\MAPDOC\\DOCUMENT\\MND
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-1 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 365 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-2 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 366 of 836
Responses to Comments
RTC. Bonita Glen Response to Comments
RTC.1 Introduction
This chapter of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) includes a list of persons,
organizations, and public agencies that provided written comments on the MND during or after
the public review period, as well as a copy of the comments received by the City of Chula Vista
written comments. The MND for the proposed Bonita Glen Project (project) was prepared and
circulated for public review from December 17, 2018 through January 23, 2019. During that time,
the City received two agency comment letters, one organization comment letter, and 15 individual
comment letters. The comments have been assigned an alphanumeric label, and the individual
comments within each written comment letter are bracketed and numbered. For example,
Comment Letter A contains one comment that is numbered A-1.
onses to each comment of the MND represent a good-faith, reasoned effort to
address the environmental issues identified by the comment. Under the State California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City is not required to respond to all
comments on the MND, but only those comments that raise environmental issues. In accordance
with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15204, the City has independently evaluated the
comments and prepared the following written responses describing the disposition of any
significant environmental issues raised. CEQA does not require the City to conduct every test or
perform all research, study, or experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters.
Rather, CEQA requires the City to provide a good faith, reasoned analysis supported by factual
sciences consulted with and independently reviewed analysis responding to the MND comments
prepared by Dudek and other experts, each of whom has years of educational and field experience
in their field of environmental sciences; is familiar with the project and the environmental
conditions in the City; and is familiar with the federal, state, and local rules and regulations
(including C
provided in the responses to comments below are backed by substantial evidence. Likewise, the
City prepared and/or independently reviewed legal analysis supplementing the responses to the
MND comments.
Revisions to the text of the Draft MND were not required, since no new significant information
regarding the project or environmental setting was provided since the time of the Notice of
Availability.
February 2019 RTC-3 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 367 of 836
Responses to Comments
RTC.2 Response to Comments
The following section includes a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that provided
written comments on the MND during, or after, the public review period, as well as a copy of the
comments received by the City during (and after) the public review process for the MND and the
-1 provides a list of all written comments
received during the public comment period.
Table RTC-1
List of Commenters on the Mitigated Negative Declaration
IndividualDavid Butler
IndividualClaire Wachowiak
IndividualSusan Wachowiak
IndividualSuellen Butler
IndividualChristine Malone
FIndividualClaire Wachowiak
GIndividualKevin Malone
HIndividualSusan Wachowiak
IIndividualScott Olsen
JIndividualSusan Wachowiak
KIndividualKevin Malone
LIndividualJohn Salts
MIndividualHector Vanegas
NOrganizationSouthwest Regional Council of Carpenters
OIndividualScott Olsen
PIndividualGloria and Mark Ramsey
QAgencyEric Lardy
RAgencyScott Morgan
February 2019 RTC-4 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 368 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-5 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 369 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter A
David Butler
December 21, 2018
A-1 The commenter expresses their concern regarding general traffic in the local roadway
network, including narrow County of San Diego (County)-owned roads like Pepper
Tree Road, resulting from the proposed Bonita Glen Project (project). As discussed in
the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) referenced in the Draft MND, following discussions with the City of Chula Vista
(City), the following roadway segments were included in the TIA:
1. Bonita Road, between East Flower Street/Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive
2. Bonita Road, between Bonita Glen Drive and Interstate (I) 805 Southbound On-
/Off-Ramps
3. Bonita Road, between I-805 Southbound On-/Off-Ramps and I-805
Northbound On-/Off-Ramps
4. Bonita Glen Drive, between Bonita Road and Adrienne Drive
5. Vista Drive, between Adrienne Drive and Ola Court
6. Pepper Tree Road, between Jacaranda Drive and Vista Drive
Of the study roadway segments, Bonita Glen Drive, Vista Drive, and Pepper Tree Road
were analyzed using County standards. For the purposes of this analysis, the TIA
determines whether the proposed project would push the existing level of service (LOS)
over the acceptable LOS threshold for each roadway, which is established by the
County. Pepper Tree Road is classified as a Local Public Roadway under the County
standards, and the project contributes no more than 100 trips to that roadway. As
discussed in the Draft MND and the TIA referenced in the MND, all study segments
are forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) under all assessed
conditions, in regard to County roadway segments. Real or perceived existing roadway
hazards are not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as
long as the proposed project does not exacerbate the issue, and the project does not.
The County of San Diego General Plan Mobility Element and City of Chula Vista
General Plan Mobility Element classify roadways based on the number of lanes of the
roadway. These roadway classifications formed the basis of the TIA, therefore the City
February 2019 RTC-6 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 370 of 836
Responses to Comments
has taken the study roadway widths into account. Since the proposed project would not
result in a significant impact on these roadways, the CEQA requirements have been
met. The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
A-2 The commenter expresses their concern regarding parking insufficiencies along Bonita
Glen Drive. As referenced in the Draft MND, a technical memorandum was prepared
to document the current parking demand and determine whether the proposed project
would provide sufficient parking to accommodate its future residents. The
memorandum explains that State law requires the proposed project to provide a total of
212 parking spaces (one space/dwelling unit for the six studio and 122 one-bedroom
apartments, and two spaces/dwelling unit for the 42 two-bedroom apartments). The
proposed project exceeds these legal requirements, providing a total of 231 on-site
parking spaces. This allows for a demand of 1.36 spaces per unit, or 1.09 spaces per
bedroom. Based on observations performed at other properties within the area, and
taking into account the unit mix which at the proposed project is 75% studio and one-
bedroom units, the 231 spaces provided by the proposed project would be sufficient to
accommodate its parking demand on site.
The technical memorandum by the parking expert also looked at the existing on-street
parking, and found that there were 97 on-street parking spaces on Bonita Glen Drive south
of Bonita Road, and that the average occupancy at 10:00 p.m. on Bonita Glen Drive was
70 vehicles, which would leave approximately 27 available spaces on Bonita Glen Drive
to accommodate any worst-case overflow parking from the proposed project. The experts
in preparing the technical memorandum on parking looked at similar and surrounding
developments and found the maximum parking demand per unit at any time being 1.46
spaces for the Bonita Court property on Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 10 p.m. However, 73%
of the apartments at the Bonita Court development are two-bedroom units. The proposed
75% studio or one-bedroom is most similar to the Point Bonita project.
Transportation/Traffic threshold questions do not pertain to parking; however, the parking
technical memorandum was provided in response to public comments. As such, this issue
has been adequately addressed. The City is including the comment as part of the Final
MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the
proposed project. It is also worth noting that there is a bus stop directly across the street,
less than one-half mile from this infill project.
February 2019 RTC-7 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 371 of 836
Responses to Comments
A-3 The commenter restates claims already addressed in Response A-2 and does not raise
an environmental issue within the context of CEQA. The City acknowledges the
comment and notes that it expresses the opinions of the commenter and does not raise
an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the Draft MND.
The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
No further response is required or necessary.
February 2019 RTC-8 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 372 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-9 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 373 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-10 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 374 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter B
Claire Wachowiak
December 28, 2018
B-1The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) references the Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) prepared by Chen Ryan Associates in 2018 for the proposed Bonita
Glen Project (project). The TIA identifies intersections and roadway segments that
would be effected by the proposed project. Through discussion with City of Chula Vista
(City) staff, the study area was determined to include the following roadway segments:
1. Bonita Road, between East Flower Street/Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive
2. Bonita Road, between Bonita Glen Drive and Interstate (I) 805 Southbound On-
/Off-Ramps
3. Bonita Road, between I-805 Southbound On-/Off-Ramps and I-805
Northbound On-/Off-Ramps
4. Bonita Glen Drive, between Bonita Road and Adrienne Drive
5. Vista Drive, between Adrienne Drive and Ola Court
6. Pepper Tree Road, between Jacaranda Drive and Vista Drive
These segments were analyzed using County of San Diego (County) and City
standards, depending on which jurisdiction the roadway falls into. These roadway
segments were analyzed using estimated trip generation for the proposed project under
Existing Conditions, Existing plus Project Conditions, Future Year 2035 Base
Conditions, and Future Year 2035 Base plus Project Conditions. As further relayed in
the Initial Study, all study roadway segments are projected to operate at acceptable
levels under all future conditions. Therefore, based on the City and County significance
criteria, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on these roadway
segments. County Traffic Impact Guidelines require a proposed project to analyze the
traffic impacts on a given roadway if the proposed project is projected to add 25 or
more peak hour trips to the roadway. The TIA concluded that the proposed project
would not add enough trips to Adrienne Drive, Ola Court, or Jacaranda Drive to require
traffic impact analysis on these roadways. Therefore, they were not selected as study
roadways in the TIA. As such, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requirements have been met, and the comment has been adequately addressed. The City
February 2019 RTC-11 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 375 of 836
Responses to Comments
is including this comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by
the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
B2 The commenter expresses concern regarding the e
project traffic. As discussed in the TIA, the analysis of the study roadway segments uses
the City and County level of service (LOS) standards and thresholds to determine whether
the proposed project would have a negative impact on the roadways. Roadway segment
LOS standards and thresholds provide the basis for analysis of arterial roadway segment
performance. The analysis of roadway segment LOS is based on the functional
classification of the roadway, the maximum capacity, roadway geometrics, and existing
and forecast average daily traffic volumes. As discussed in Section 3.1, Existing Roadway
Network, of the TIA, the width of Bonita Glen varies between 30 and 40 feet; Bonita Road
is approximately 72 feet wide and widens to approximately 100 feet at the I-805
Southbound On-/Off-Ramp intersection; Vista Drive varies between 25 and 30 feet; and
Pepper Tree Road varies between 25 and 30 feet. Under existing roadway width conditions,
all study roadway segments are projected to operate at acceptable LOS under all future
conditions. Therefore, based on the City and County significance criteria, the proposed
project would not result in a significant project-related impact. The City is including this
comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the decision makers
prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
B-3Table 3.2 (County of San Diego) of the TIA classifies a segment of Bonita Glen Drive
from Bonita Road to Adrienne Drive as a Two-Lane Minor Collector, and a segment
Table is referencing segments of Bonita Glen Drive and Vista Drive that start or end at
Adrienne Drive, and is not classifying Adrienne Drive itself. The roads are correctly
referenced in the TIA. The comment does not raise any specific issue regarding the
analysis provided in the Draft MND; therefore, no more specific response can be
provided or is required. The City is including this comment as part of the Final MND
for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the
proposed project.
B-4The TIA did not look at the project traffic only from a general, regional level, but
evaluated it on a project-specific level. As discussed in Responses A-1 and B-1, through
discussion with City staff and based on well-founded City and County criteria as well
as professional standards, the study area was determined to include Bonita Glen Drive,
February 2019 RTC-12 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 376 of 836
Responses to Comments
Bonita Road, Vista Drive, and Pepper Tree Road. County Traffic Impact Guidelines
require a proposed project to analyze the traffic impact on a given roadway if the
proposed project is projected to add 25 or more peak hour trips to the roadway. The
TIA determined that the proposed project would not add enough trips to Adrienne
Drive, Ola Court, or Jacaranda Drive to require traffic impact analysis on these
roadways under the established criteria. The roadway width and configurations are
taken into account as part of the roadway classification by the City and/or County.
Based on applicable standards, Adrienne Drive, Ola Court and Jacaranda Drive do not
meet the threshold for inclusion as study roadways in the TIA.
B-5The project is consistent with the visions set forth in the ng
Chapter 4, as well as the Bonita Glen Specific Plan. With La Quinta Hotel to the north,
the Point Bonita Apartments and Townhomes to the west, and single-family homes to
the east, the project is consistent and harmonizes with the surrounding commercial land
uses, and variety of housing densities in the vicinity. As discussed in the proposed
acceptable LOS (D or better) under all assessed conditions for County roadway
segments. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the
referenced roadways according to the TIA, which was prepared by traffic experts using
established City and County criteria. Therefore, CEQA requirements have been met
and this issue has been adequately addressed. The City is including this comment as
part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a
final decision on the proposed project.
February 2019 RTC-13 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 377 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-14 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 378 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-15 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 379 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-16 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 380 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter C
Susan Wachowiak
January 7, 2019
C-1 The commenter restates information contained in the General Plan regarding the City
part of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for review and consideration
by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Bonita Glen Project
(project). No further response is required or necessary.
C-2 The commenter alleges that the proposed project is in conflict with Chapter 4 of the
Planning, of the Initial Study.
As explained in the Initial Study and as stated in the Bonita Glen Specific Plan (Specific
Plan), residential development is permitted on the project site, following the process
described therein. The proposed project has been designed to provide much-needed
housing while also respecting the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which
includes residential (including multi-family residential), and furthering the goals of the
General Plan (see Initial Study Section XIII, Population and Housing). The Specific
Plan envisions and allows adjustment to standards and regulations that are allowed by
the State Density Bonus rules and regulations. The proposed project would not require
a rezone or a Specific Plan Amendment. The proposed project complies with the
General Plan and the Specific Plan, and all environmental impacts would be mitigated
to less than significant. Therefore, this issue has been adequately addressed. The City
is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
February 2019 RTC-17 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 381 of 836
Responses to Comments
C-3 The commenter expresses their general opposition to the proposed project and its effect
adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the Draft MND. The MND has
concluded, based on expert studies and analysis, that the proposed project would not
have any significant impact on the environment. In addition, as noted in Response C-
2, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. The City is
including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project. No further response
is required or necessary.
February 2019 RTC-18 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 382 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-19 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 383 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-20 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 384 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-21 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 385 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-22 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 386 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter D
Suellen Butler
January 8, 2019
D-1 The commenter expresses their concern regarding street parking availability on Bonita
Glen Drive. The City of Chula Vista (City) Transportation/Traffic threshold questions
do not require analysis of parking; however, the City nonetheless had a parking
technical memorandum prepared and provided in response to public comments. As
referenced in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), that technical
memorandum was prepared to document the current parking demand and determine
whether the proposed Bonita Glen Project (project) will provide sufficient parking to
accommodate its future residents. As the memorandum explains, State law requires the
proposed project to provide a total of 212 parking spaces (one space/dwelling unit for
the six studio and 122 one-bedroom apartments, and two spaces/dwelling unit for the
42 two-bedroom apartments). The proposed project exceeds these legal requirements,
providing a total of 231 on-site parking spaces. This allows for a demand of 1.36 spaces
per unit, or 1.09 spaces per bedroom. Based on observations performed at other
properties within the area, and taking into account the unit mix which at the proposed
project is 75% studio and one-bedroom units, the 231 spaces provided by the proposed
project would be sufficient to accommodate its parking demand on site.
The technical memorandum by the parking expert also looked at the existing on-street
parking, and found that there were 97 on-street parking spaces on Bonita Glen Drive
south of Bonita Road, and that the average occupancy at 10:00 p.m. on Bonita Glen
Drive was 70 vehicles, which would leave approximately 27 available spaces on Bonita
Glen Drive to accommodate any worst-case overflow parking from the proposed
project. The experts in preparing the technical memorandum on parking looked at
similar and surrounding developments and found the maximum parking demand per
unit at any time being 1.46 spaces for the Bonita Court property on Sunday, April 15,
2018 at 10 p.m. However, 73% of the apartments at the Bonita Court development are
two--bedroom is
most similar to the Point Bonita project. Point Bonita generates a maximum parking
demand of 1.1
do not pertain to parking; however, the parking technical memorandum was provided
in response to public comments. As such, this issue has been adequately addressed. The
February 2019 RTC-23 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 387 of 836
Responses to Comments
City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration
by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project. It is also worth
noting that there is a bus stop directly across the street, less than one-half mile from
this infill project.
D2 The commenter expresses their concern regarding existing physical road conditions on
Bonita Glen Drive. Bonita Glen Drive wa
Program (CIP) Project STL0435, which identified a number of City streets to be
rehabilitated. The City is currently in the process of selecting contractors and
established at a later date. In addition, the proposed project would pay development
impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. Existing potholes are not subject to
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as long as the proposed project
does not exacerbate the issue, and the proposed project would not result in a significant
impact on Bonita Glen Drive. Therefore, CEQA requirements have been met. The City
is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
D-3 The commenter expresses their concern regarding the increase in traffic as a result of
the proposed project. The comment is specifically concerned with freeway on- and off-
ramps and the on-street parking capacity on Vista Drive. As shown in Section XVI,
Transportation/Traffic, of the Initial Study, the following on- and off-ramps were
analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis:
Interstate (I) 805 Southbound (SB) On-/Off-Ramps at Bonita Road
I-805 Northbound (NB) On-/Off-Ramps at Bonita Road
In addition, the following roadway segments were analyzed under the Traffic
Impact Analysis:
Bonita Road, between Bonita Glen Drive and I-805 SB On-/Off-Ramps
Bonita Road, between I-805 SB On-/Off-Ramps and I-805 NB On-/Off-Ramps
The I-805 and Bonita Road intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level
of service (LOS) during the AM and PM peak hours under all analyzed conditions.
Additionally, the roadway segments analyzed at the I-805 On-/Off-Ramps are
forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) under all analyzed conditions.
February 2019 RTC-24 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 388 of 836
Responses to Comments
As a result, there would not be any significant backup on the off-ramp as a result of
the project.
The concern regarding on-street parking was evaluated in the technical memorandum
referenced in the Initial Study. The commenter may be erroneously referring to Bonita
Glen Drive, not Vista Drive, as since the attached photo of street parking is of Bonita
Glen Drive. Please see Response A-2 and Response D-1 regarding parking, and note
that the parking technical memorandum prepared in response to public concerns
regarding on-street parking capacity on Bonita Glen Drive found that there would be
adequate parking even in a worst-case scenario. The memorandum explains that State
law requires the proposed project to provide a total of 212 parking spaces (one
space/dwelling unit for the six studio and 122 one-bedroom apartments, and two
spaces/dwelling unit for the 42 two-bedroom apartments). The proposed project
exceeds these legal requirements, providing a total of 231 on-site parking spaces. This
allows for a demand of 1.36 spaces per unit, or 1.09 spaces per bedroom. Based on
observations performed at other properties within the area, and taking into account the
unit mix which at the proposed project is 75% studio and one-bedroom units, the 231
spaces provided by the proposed project would be sufficient to accommodate its
questions do not require an analysis of parking, a parking technical memorandum was
provided for the proposed project in response to public comments. In addition, please
note that the Bonita Glen Specific Plan in place on this property since the 1970s
assumed higher traffic volumes than would be generated by the proposed project
response to public comments. As such, this issue has been adequately addressed.
The commenter also expresses their general opposition to the proposed project, and does
not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the Draft
MND. The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
D-4 The photo of Bonita Glen Drive is referenced earlier in the comment letter. Please refer
to Responses A-2 and D-1 regarding on-street parking on Bonita Glen Drive.
February 2019 RTC-25 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 389 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-26 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 390 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-27 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 391 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-28 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 392 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-29 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 393 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-30 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 394 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-31 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 395 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-32 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 396 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter E
Christine Malone
January 12, 2019
E-1The commenter expresses their general opposition to the proposed Bonita Glen Project
(project), and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or
analysis of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The City of Chula Vista
(City) is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration
by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
E-2The City acknowledges the comment, which does not raise an issue related to the
adequacy of any specific section or analysis; therefore, no more specific response
can be provided or is required. Note, however, that the project area includes a mix
of uses, including commercial and multi-family, and that the Bonita Glen Specific
Plan also allows a mix of uses, including multi-family, on the project site. See
Response C-2 regarding consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan. The
City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed
project. No further response is required or necessary.
E-3The City acknowledges the comment, which does not raise an issue related to the
adequacy of any specific section or analysis. The commenter speculates about how
much pride apartment dwellers take in their home, which is not a topic covered
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). See Responses A-2 and
D-1 regarding parking.
The potential traffic impacts from the proposed project are addressed in the Draft MND
c Impact Analysis (TIA). The roadway segments of
Bonita Glen Drive, Vista Drive, and Pepper Tree Road are County of San Diego (County)
roads and thus were analyzed using County standards. For the purposes of this analysis,
the TIA determines whether the proposed project would push the existing level of service
(LOS) over the acceptable LOS threshold for each roadway analyzed, which is established
by the County. As discussed in the Draft MND and the TIA, all study segments are
forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) under all assessed conditions. For
traffic, see also Responses A-1, B-1, B-2, B-4, B-5, and D-3. Since the proposed project
would not result in a significant impact on these roadways and would provide an adequate
February 2019 RTC-33 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 397 of 836
Responses to Comments
number of parking spaces on site, CEQA requirements have been met. The City is
including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
E-4The commenter references attached photos of litter along Bonita Glen Road. Street
litter is not a topic covered under CEQA. Street litter is addressed through street
sweeping, which occurs on Bonita Glen Road the first Monday of every 2 months
(City of Chula Vista 2019). Moreover, as discussed in Responses A-2 and D-1, the
parking memorandum concludes that the anticipated parking demand for the project
would be met on site.
E-5The City acknowledges the comment and notes that it raises economic, social, or
political issues that do not relate to any physical effect on the environment. The City is
including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project. No further response
is required because the comment does not raise an environmental issue.
E-6The commenter expresses their general opposition to the proposed project and support
for a storage unit as a preferred alternative. The comment does not raise an issue related
to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the Draft MND. The City is
including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
E-7See Response C-
well as Section X, Land use and Planning, of the Initial Study.
February 2019 RTC-34 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 398 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-35 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 399 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-36 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 400 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-37 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 401 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-38 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 402 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-39 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 403 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-40 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 404 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-41 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 405 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-42 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 406 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-43 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 407 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-44 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 408 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-45 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 409 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-46 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 410 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-47 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 411 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-48 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 412 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-49 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 413 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-50 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 414 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-51 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 415 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-52 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 416 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter F
Claire Wachowiak
January 13, 2019
F-1 The City of Chula Vista (City) acknowledges the comment as an introduction to
comments that follow. This comment is included in the Final Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final
decision on the proposed Bonita Glen Project (project). The Initial Study (IS), MND
and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) are accurate in regards to the referenced roads. See
Response B-4 regarding Adrienne Drive, Ola Court and Pepper Tree Road.
F-2 The commenter expresses their general concern regarding parking on Bonita Glen
Drive and driving on Vista Road. The comment indicates that comments regarding this
issue are included in the letter. Please see Responses A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, and F-12
regarding parking. No further response is required.
F-3 The comment references attached photos for context in following comments. The City
is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
F-4 The commenter has misinterpreted the road classifications provided in the Tables of
the IS and the TIA. Please see Response B-3. Those classifications do not refer to
Adrienne Drive.
F-5 Please refer to Responses B-3 and F-4. The TIA, IS and MND were not referring to
Adrienne Drive. Based on established standards and criteria, as discussed in the TIA,
the proposed project would not add enough trips to Adrienne Drive to impact that
roadway. Since the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on
Adrienne Drive, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements have
been met. The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
F-6 The purpose of Figure 10, Project Study Traffic Areas, in the IS is to illustrate what
roadways were analyzed in the TIA. The roadways shown in blue are study roadway
segments that were assessed in the TIA, and the numbered intersections represent the
intersections along Bonita Road assessed in the TIA. The comment indicates that
Figure 10 erroneously labels part of Vista Drive as Bonita Glen Drive. The commenter
February 2019 RTC-53 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 417 of 836
Responses to Comments
is correct in that the name of the road changes from Bonita Glen to Vista Drive when
it extends south past Adrienne Drive. Although Figure 10 does not show the change in
name on that roadway segment south of the Vista Drive and Bonita Glen Drive
intersection as Vista Drive, the purpose of the figure was not compromised. The
segment of Vista Drive from Bonita Glen Drive to Adrienne Drive was analyzed under
the TIA, and no significant impacts to roadway segments or intersections were
identified. As such, no revision to the Draft MND is required.
F-7 As discussed in the TIA referenced in the Draft MND, Pepper Tree Road is classified
as a Local Public Roadway with no on-street parking, based on roadway classifications
established by the County of San Diego (County). The classification is not something
st be based
on already established classifications set by the appropriate jurisdiction. Roadway
capacities and level-of-service (LOS) thresholds in the City were derived from the
roadway designation, over which the City has no control. The comment does not raise
an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the Draft MND.
The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
No further response is required or necessary.
F-8 As discussed in the TIA referenced in the MND, the purpose of the TIA is to determine
whether the project would push the existing LOS over the acceptable LOS threshold
for each roadway analyzed, which for County roadways is established by the County.
Pepper Tree Road is classified by the County as a Local Public Roadway under the
County standards. As discussed in the Draft MND and the TIA referenced in the MND,
all study segments are forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) under
all assessed conditions on all County roadway segments. Moreover, the project adds
very little traffic to Pepper Tree Road. Existing roadway hazards are not subject to
CEQA review as long as the proposed project does not exacerbate the issue. Since the
proposed project would not result in a significant impact on these roadways, the CEQA
requirements have been met. The City is including the comment as part of the Final
MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on
the proposed project.
February 2019 RTC-54 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 418 of 836
Responses to Comments
F-9 The commenter has misunderstood the references in Table 3.2, Roadway Segment Level
of Service Existing Conditions (County of San Diego), of the TIA, which classifies a
segment of Vista Drive (not Ola Court) as a Local Public Roadway. As discussed in
Response B-3, Table 3.2 (County of San Diego) of the TIA classifies a segment of Vista
Drive from Adrienne Drive to Ola
referencing a segment of Vista Drive that ends at Ola Court, and is not classifying Ola
Court itself. The roads are correctly referenced in the TIA. Ola Court was not a roadway
required to be further analyzed under the TIA. Adrienne Drive and Ola Court are included
in Table 3.2 to identify where the studied segment of Vista Drive begins and ends. The
comment does not raise any specific issue regarding the analysis provided in the Draft
MND; therefore, no more specific response can be provided or is required. The City is
including this comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
F-10 The commenter expresses their concern regarding parking insufficiencies along Bonita
threshold questions do not require analysis of parking, a parking technical
memorandum was provided for the proposed project in response to public comments.
That technical memorandum was prepared to document the current parking demand
and determine whether the proposed project would provide sufficient parking to
accommodate future residents. See also Responses A-2 and D-1. As noted there, the
technical parking memorandum found that the 231 spaces provided by the proposed
project would be sufficient to accommodate parking demand on site. As such, this issue
has been adequately addressed. In addition, in response to public comments
Code Compliance is investigating whether the nearby apartment complex is complying
with its permits regarding parking for its residents, and also is processing changes to
The City is
including this comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
F-11 The commenter expresses their concern about the existing conditions of parked cars on
Bonita Glen Drive. The City allows public parking on public streets, and Bonita Glen
is a public street. As discussed in Responses A-2 and D-1, the proposed project would
be able to meet its parking demand on site, and even in a worse-case scenario overflow
parking would be accommodated on Bonita Glen. A major transit stop is located across
the street from the proposed infill project, further reducing the need for residents of the
February 2019 RTC-55 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 419 of 836
Responses to Comments
project to drive and park. The parking supply was determined to be appropriate for the
proposed use, and exceeds the legally required number of spaces. In addition, as
discussed in the Draft MND and TIA, all study segments are forecasted to operate at
an acceptable LOS under all assessed conditions. The decision to allow public parking
on public streets is a City-wide issue not related to the proposed project, and the project
has been designed to accommodate its reasonably anticipated parking demand on site.
Existing roadway hazards are not subject to CEQA review as long as the proposed
project does not exacerbate an existing issue. Since the proposed project would not
result in a significant impact on these roadways, and would provide an adequate
number of parking spaces on site, CEQA requirements have been met. The City is
including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
F-12 The commenter expresses their concern regarding the width of Vista Drive. As
discussed in in the Draft MND and TIA, all study segments are forecasted to operate at
an acceptable LOS (D or better) under all assessed conditions, in regard to City and
County roadway segments. Existing roadway hazards are not subject to CEQA review
as long as the proposed project does not exacerbate the issue. Since the proposed project
would not result in a significant impact on these roadways and would provide an
adequate number of parking spaces on site, the CEQA requirements have been met.
The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
F-13 The comment misunderstands the road classification references in the TIA, IS and
MND, as discussed in Responses B-3 and F-4. The road classification references are
correct in the project studies. To the extent that the comment does not agree with the
City and County street classifications themselves, those are City and County standard
classifications not specific to the proposed project. The TIA prepared for the project
accurately used the correct street classifications as they have been established by the
City and County. The City acknowledges the comment and notes that it expresses the
opinions of the commenter and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any
specific section or analysis of the Draft MND. The City is including the comment as
part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a
final decision on the proposed project. No further response is required or necessary.
February 2019 RTC-56 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 420 of 836
Responses to Comments
F-14 The City acknowledges the comment and notes that it expresses opposition to the
proposed project and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific
section or analysis of the Draft MND. The City is including the comment as part of the
Final MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final
decision on the proposed project. No further response is required or necessary.
F-15 Please refer to Responses F-4 through F-6.
F-16 Please refer to Responses F-4 through F-6.
F-17 Please refer to Responses F-10 and F-11.
F-18 Please refer to Responses F-10 and F-11.
F-19 Please refer to Responses F-10 and F-11.
F-20 Please refer to Response F-9.
F-21 Please refer to Responses F-7 and F-8.
F-22 Please refer to Responses F-7 and F-8.
F-23 Please refer to Responses F-7 and F-8.
F-24 Please refer to Responses F-7 and F-8.
F-25 Please refer to Responses F-7 and F-8.
F-26 Please refer to Response F-12.
F-27 Please refer to Response F-12.
F-28 Please refer to Response F-12.
F-29 Please refer to Response F-12.
February 2019 RTC-57 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 421 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-58 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 422 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-59 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 423 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-60 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 424 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter G
Kevin Malone
January 13, 2019
G-1 The commenter expresses their general opposition to the proposed Bonita Glen
Project (project), and speculates about the need for an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) due to the age of a prior EIR. The City of Chula Vista (City) is not relying on
the previously prepared EIR, but, rather, prepared an Initial Study (IS) to evaluate
whether or not an EIR was required. The IS determined, based on proper analysis
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that no EIR was required.
analysis undertaken by the IS, which used current baseline conditions. The
commenter also expresses general concern regarding unspecified noise, air
pollution, and runoff water and flooding from Interstate (I) 805, which they believe
have changed since 1984. Again, the City used current baseline data to evaluate the
from 1984. Also, CEQA does not require that the effects of environmental
California
Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District). In
addition, as referenced in the Draft Mitigation Negative Declaration (MND), the
noise report prepared for the proposed project, which studied current conditions,
concluded that the proposed project would not exacerbate traffic noise from I-805.
A health risk assessment was performed to determine the risk to project residents
from I-805. The results of the health risk assessment show that the cancer risk on
site from emissions from I-805 would exceed the San Diego Air Pollution Control
impact. However, with mitigation, the cancer risk would be reduced to below the
San Diego Air Pollution Contro
therefore have a less-than-significant impact. Lastly, as discussed in the IS, the
proposed project would include biofiltration basins that would direct runoff in
multiple directions and eventually discharge into the existing drainage system. The
proposed project density would not substantially alter the percolation patterns on
the site once construction is complete. Therefore, the issues discussed in the
comment were addressed in the Draft MND.
February 2019 RTC-61 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 425 of 836
Responses to Comments
G-2 Please refer to Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS. A hydrologic and
hydraulic analysis was prepared for Bonita Glen Creek, which demonstrated that the
proposed ephemeral streambed within the proposed project can safely convey the 2-
and 10-year design peak flow without overtopping or exceeding the allowed width
buffer (Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018a). Once constructed, on-site peak
flows would be collected through the biofiltration basins and would discharge directly
into the City storm drain infrastructure along Bonita Glen Drive. Outlet control would
storm drain infrastructure along Bonita Glen Drive. The existing 33-inch public storm
drain has a full f-
slope of 2.1% (Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018a). Water detention proposed
in the 100-year floodplain will not affect the floodplain. In existing conditions, the
floodplain area consists of dirt and shrubs, and during storm events, all runoff is
directed into the existing ephemeral stream without any storage/outlet control.
Additionally, as stated in the Preliminary Drainage Study, placing the infiltration basins
in the 100-year floodplain will not affect the floodplain. Therefore, although the project
site is within a floodplain, the project would not exacerbate any existing hazard
associated with the floodplain.
G-3 The City acknowledges the comment and notes that it expresses the opinions of the
commenter and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section
or analysis of the Draft MND. The City is including the comment as part of the Final
MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on
the proposed project. No further response is required or necessary.
G-4 The density bonus law was enacted by the State to address the lack of adequate supply of
affordable housing in California. The commenter expresses a general concern regarding
quality of life and property values if new housing is built in their neighborhood. Traffic
and congestion from the proposed project were addressed in Section XVI, Transportation/
Traffic, of the IS. As discussed in the IS, all study area intersections are forecasted to
operate at acceptable level of service (D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours under
all analyzed conditions. In conclusion, the addition of proposed project traffic would not
result in a significant impact to any study segment or intersection. The other issues
discussed in the comment raise economic, social, or political issues that are not related to
a physical effect on the environment. The City is including the comment as part of the Final
February 2019 RTC-62 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 426 of 836
Responses to Comments
MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the
proposed project. No further response is required.
G-5 The commenter expresses their concern regarding the ability of the public to park along
public streets such as Bonita Glen, which the commenter believes creates a hazardous
roadway condition. The allowance of parking along the street is not associated with the
project. See also Response F-11. Existing roadway hazards are not subject to CEQA
review as long as the proposed project does not exacerbate the issue. Since the proposed
project would not result in a significant impact on any of these roadways and would
provide an adequate number of parking spaces on site, the CEQA requirements have
been met. See Responses A-2, D-1, F-10 and F-11 regarding parking along Bonita
Glen. The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
G-6 See Responses A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, and G-
transportation/traffic threshold questions do not require analysis of parking, a parking
technical memorandum was prepared for the proposed project in response to public
comments. That technical memorandum, referenced in the IS, explains that state law
requires the proposed project to provide 212 parking spaces (one space per dwelling
unit for the six studio and 122 one-bedroom apartments, and two spaces per dwelling
unit for the 42 two-bedroom apartments). The proposed project exceeds these legal
requirements, providing a total of 231 on-site parking spaces. This allows for a demand
of 1.36 spaces per unit, or 1.09 spaces per bedroom. Based on observations performed
at other properties within the area, and taking into account the unit mix which at the
proposed project is 75% studio and one-bedroom units, the 231 spaces provided by the
proposed project would be sufficient to accommodate its parking demand on site. Even
of parking, a parking technical memorandum was provided for the proposed project in
response to public comments. The parking technical memorandum surveyed Bonita
Glen and confirmed that should the worst-case situation arise, there would be more
than enough spaces along the street in which to park. CEQA does not consider even a
parking deficit, by itself, to be an impact on the environment, and here the proposed
project does not have a deficit but is in compliance with the parking legally required.
While secondary impacts from a parking deficit should be analyzed to determine if
there may be adverse environmental effects arising from it, here there is not a parking
deficit, and yet the City nonetheless analyzed whether there would be any secondary
February 2019 RTC-63 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 427 of 836
Responses to Comments
impacts from a worst-case scenario requiring parking on the street, and found that there
were none As such, this issue has been adequately addressed.
G-7 The commenter suggests the project property be purchased by the City and developed
as a park or a commercial storage facility. Because the proposed project would not
result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, project alternatives
were not required to be analyzed. In addition, note that the Bonita Glen Specific Plan
(Specific Plan) has long planned for even more density on the site than is proposed by
the project, and open space or park use would not be consistent with the Specific Plan.
Developing the site as a park or commercial storage facility also would fail to help the
City address its housing shortage, particularly its supply of affordable housing. The
comment does not raise any specific issue regarding the analysis provided in the Draft
MND; therefore, no more specific response can be provided or is required. The City is
including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
G-8 The commenter claims that there are errors in the Notice of Intent figure. The figure
was included in the Notice of Intent only to give the reader context for the location of
the proposed project, which it did. The figure identifies Pepper Tree Road in the correct
vicinity, even though the parcel map does not specifically show a street. As such, the
purpose of the figure was not compromised and no revisions are necessary.
The commenter also believes that the IS classifies Adrienne Drive as both a Two-Lane
Minor Collector and a Local Public Roadway. See Responses B-3 and F-2 regarding
the misunderstanding.
G-9 The City acknowledges the comment and notes that it expresses the opinions of the
commenter and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section
or analysis of the Draft MND. The Draft MND concludes that the project would not
have a significant impact on the environment. The City is including the comment as
part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a
final decision on the proposed project. No further response is required or necessary.
G-10 Please refer to Responses A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, G-5, and G-6.
February 2019 RTC-64 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 428 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-65 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 429 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-66 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 430 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-67 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 431 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-68 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 432 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter H
Susan Wachowiak
January 14, 2019
H-1 The commenter expresses a general concern regarding increased traffic and congestion.
Traffic and congestion were addressed in Section XVI, Transportation/Traffic, of the Initial
Study (IS). As discussed in the IS, all study area intersections are forecasted to operate at
an acceptable level of service (LOS) (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours
under all analyzed conditions. In conclusion, the addition of traffic associated with the
proposed Bonita Glen Project (project) would not result in a significant impact to any study
segment or intersection. See also Responses A-1 and B-2.
H-2 The commenter expresses concern regarding general traffic in the local roadway
network, and specifically with regard to the analysis of impacts to County of San Diego
(County) roads. The commenter believes that the reports inaccurately classify certain
roads; that apparently is based on a misinterpretation of the classifications provided in
Tables 16 and 17 of the IS. Table 16 provides classifications and LOS for roadways
within the City of Chula Vista (City), whereas Table 17 provides classifications and
LOS for roadways within the County. The classifications column in Tables 16 and 17
relate to the roadway indicated in the first column; i.e., Bonita Glen Drive is classified
as a Two-Lane Minor Collector and Vista Drive is classified as a Local Public Roadway
under County standards (Table 17). The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
correctly classifies and identifies the roadways. Also, as discussed in the IS and in the
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) referenced in the Draft MND, all study segments are
forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) under all assessed conditions,
in regard to County roadway segments. See also Responses B-3 and F-4. Therefore,
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements have been met.
H-3 The commenter expresses concern regarding general traffic in the local roadway
network and believes that Pepper Tree Road was inaccurately classified in Section XVI,
Transportation/Traffic, of the IS per City standards. However, Pepper Tree Road is a
County road and therefore is not classified under City standards. Also, please note that
-zoning information relates to land use and is not a classification of
roadways. Pepper Tree is classified as a Local Public Roadway under the County
standards, as noted in Table 17 of the IS. For the purposes of this analysis, the TIA
determines whether the proposed project would push the existing LOS over the LOS
February 2019 RTC-69 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 433 of 836
Responses to Comments
threshold that the County has established for each roadway analyzed. As a Local Public
Roadway, Pepper Tree Road has a capacity of 4,500 trips per day. Implementation of
the proposed project with existing traffic would result in a total of 2,640 trips (average
daily traffic), com
which has an average daily traffic of 2,538. Thus, Pepper Tree Road would remain
under capacity and is forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) under all
assessed conditions,
The TIA does address potential impacts from Vista, noting that 104 of the 170 total
dwelling units will access the site via Vista Drive, north of Bonita Glen Road. This
segment of Vista Drive, between the Unnamed Cul-de-Sac and Bonita Glen Road, is
currently constructed as a non-Mobility Element Local Public Roadway within the
County of San Diego. The roadway currently provides access to three single-family
dwelling units, which generate 10 trips per day for a total of 30 daily trips on the
roadway. The roadway does not connect to any other roadways (other than the
Unnamed Cul-de-Sac and Bonita Glen Road); therefore, there is minimal to no cut-
through or cumulative traffic on the roadway. The proposed project is anticipated to
add 624 additional daily trips to the roadway (104 units × 6 trips per multi-family unit),
resulting in a total of 654 total trips along the roadway under proposed project
Roadway, which is 4,500 trips per day. Since the segment of Vista Drive between the
Unnamed Cul-de-Sac and Bonita Glen Road does not serve any cumulative or cut-
through traffic and is projected to operate well below its design capacity with the
implementation of the proposed project, the segment is not anticipated to be impacted
by the proposed project under any scenario; therefore, no further analysis is required.
H-4 The comment indicates that Table 16 of the IS erroneously refers to a portion of Vista
Drive as Bonita Glen Drive. The commenter is correct in that Vista Drive extends north
past Adrienne Drive. However, although mislabeled in the report, this segment was
properly analyzed in the TIA, and this discrepancy does not change the outcome of any
significance determination made in the Draft IS or the MND. See also Response F-6.
The comment erroneously believes that the IS classifies Adrienne Drive as a Two-Lane
Non-Circulation street. That is not the case. Table 16 of the IS classifies Bonita Glen
Drive as Two-Lane Non-Circulation Element. Adrienne Drive is included in Table 16
February 2019 RTC-70 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 434 of 836
Responses to Comments
only to identify where the studied segment of Bonita Glen Drive ends. Adrienne Drive
was not a roadway required to be further analyzed under the TIA. See also Responses
B-3, B-4, and F-4 regarding Adrienne Drive. Lastly, the figure included in the Notice
of Intent was to show the project location. The figure identifies Pepper Tree Road in
the correct vicinity, even though the parcel map does not specifically show a street. The
comment does not raise any specific issue regarding the analysis provided in the Draft
MND; therefore, no more specific response can be provided or is required.
H-5
proposed project would not result in a significant impact to any study segment or
intersection. Further, all study segments are forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS
(D or better) under all assessed conditions, in regard to County roadway segments. The
County of San Diego General Plan Mobility Element and City of Chula Vista General
Plan Mobility Element classify roadways based on the number of lanes of the roadway.
These roadway classifications formed the basis of the TIA, therefore the City has taken
the study roadway widths into account. Therefore, current roadway conditions would
be sufficient to meet the increased capacity demand resulting from the proposed
project. The proposed project would include roadway improvements to the Vista Drive
segment between the Unnamed Cul-de-Sac and Bonita Glen Road as project features.
H-6 The commenter restates claims already addressed in Responses H-2 and H-3. The roads
are correctly classified. See Responses B-3, F-4, and H-4. As such, the comment has
been adequately addressed; no further response is necessary.
H-7 The commenter expresses concern that the project would need to extend roadways or other
infrastructure that is not taken into account in the population and housing section of the
MND because of an alleged misidentification of the roadways. That is not the case. The
roadways in the IS were correctly classified according to applicable City and County
standards, and no road extensions are required as a result of the proposed project. See
Responses B-3, F-4, and H-4 on the issue of road classification. As addressed in Response
H-4, a portion of Vista Drive was erroneously referred to as Bonita Glen Drive. However,
this segment was analyzed in the TIA and this discrepancy does not change the outcome
of any significance determination made in the Draft IS or the MND. Therefore,
transportation/traffic has been adequately addressed, and roadway improvements would
not be required to accommodate the proposed project. As a result, no roadway extensions
February 2019 RTC-71 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 435 of 836
Responses to Comments
would be required due to the project, and no change to the conclusions of the population
and housing section would be required.
Additionally, the commenter restates concerns already addressed in Response H-3 with
regard to unanalyzed roadways. As such, the comment has been adequately addressed;
no further response is necessary.
Finally, the commenter expresses their concern regarding parking insufficiencies
resulting from what the comment believes to be inaccuracies regarding road
classifications. The roads were accurately classified, and for this and other reasons
discussed in Responses A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, G-5, and G-6 regarding parking, the
project would not have a significant impact to parking.
H-8 The commenter expresses concerns with potential impacts to intersections in the project
vicinity, and specifically the East Flower Street/Bonita Road/E Street intersection and
the Interstate 805 Southbound and Northbound On-/Off-Ramps on Bonita Road. The
TIA identifies intersections that would be effected by the proposed project, and the
intersections of concern were all analyzed. All study intersections, including the East
Flower Street/Bonita Road/E Street intersection, are shown to operate at an acceptable
LOS during the AM and PM peak hours under all analyzed conditions. Additionally,
the roadway segments analyzed at the Interstate 805 On-/Off-Ramps are forecasted to
operate at an acceptable LOS under all analyzed conditions. Further, existing
intersection and roadway hazards are not subject to CEQA review as long as the
proposed project does not exacerbate the issue. Since the proposed project would not
result in a significant impact on these intersections and roadways, the CEQA
requirements have been met.
February 2019 RTC-72 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 436 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-73 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 437 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-74 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 438 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter I
Scott Olsen
January 14, 2019
I-1 The City of Chula Vista (City) acknowledges the comment and notes that it expresses
the opinions of the commenter and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of
any specific section or analysis of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). In
addition, note that the proposed Bonita Glen Project (project) is consistent with the
Bonita Glen Specific Plan. The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND
for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the
proposed project. No further response is required or necessary.
I-2 As discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis referenced in the Draft MND, the traffic
experts have concluded after analysis based on professional standards that all study
segments are forecasted to operate at an acceptable level of service (D or better) under
all assessed conditions, on both the City and the County of San Diego roadway
segments. Since the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on these
roadways and would provide an adequate number of parking spaces on site, the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements have been met. For more
on traffic see Responses A-1, B-2, B-4, and D-3, among others; for more on parking
see Responses A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, G-5, and G-6.
I-3 The commenter expresses their concern regarding parking insufficiencies resulting
from implementation of the proposed project. As discussed in Responses A-2, D-1, F-
10, F-11, G-5, and G-6, a technical memorandum was prepared even though not
concerns about existing parking along Bonita
Glen. The parking memorandum explains that State law requires the proposed project
to provide a total of 212 parking spaces (one space/dwelling unit for the six studio and
122 one-bedroom apartments, and two spaces/dwelling unit for the 42 two-bedroom
apartments). The proposed project exceeds these legal requirements, providing a total
of 231 on-site parking spaces. This allows for a demand of 1.36 spaces per unit, or 1.09
spaces per bedroom. Based on observations performed at other properties within the
area, and taking into account the unit mix which at the proposed project is 75% studio
and one-bedroom units, the 231 spaces provided by the proposed project would be
sufficient to accommodate its parking demand on site.
February 2019 RTC-75 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 439 of 836
Responses to Comments
I-4 The City acknowledges the comment and notes that it expresses the opinions of the
commenter and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section
or analysis of the Draft MND. The City is including the comment as part of the Final
MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on
the proposed project. No further response is required or necessary.
February 2019 RTC-76 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 440 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-77 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 441 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-78 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 442 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-79 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 443 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-80 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 444 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter J
Susan Wachowiak
January 15, 2019
J-1 The commenter believes there is a discrepancy in the roadway classifications, and that
Vista Drive should be classified as Residential or Rural Residential instead of their
current classification of Local Public Roads. However, the County has classified
Pepper Tree Road and Vista Drive as Local Public Roadways with a capacity of 4,500
daily trips. The County General Plan Mobility Element (Chapter 4) does not include
a-. As such, no further
response can be provided regarding concerns for inconsistencies within the County
General Plan Mobility Element. Any change of road classification would need to be
processed through the County and is separate from the proposed Bonita Glen Project
(project). The Initial Study (IS), Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must use current classifications for their analysis.
J-2 Adrienne Road is
the IS accurately classifies a segment of Bonita Glen Drive that begins at Adrienne
Drive as Two-Lane Non-Circulation Element. The commenter may have
misinterpreted Table 16 as identifying Adrienne Drive as this classification. Adrienne
Drive was included in Table 16 to identify where the studied segment of Bonita Glen
Drive ends. Adrienne Drive was not a roadway required to be analyzed under the TIA.
The County Traffic Impact Guidelines require a proposed project to analyze the traffic
impact to a given roadway if the proposed project is projected to add 25 or more peak
hour trips to the roadway. The TIA found that the proposed project would not add
enough trips to Adrienne Drive to require traffic impact analysis on this roadway. See
also Responses B-3, F-4 and H-
references to road classifications. The comment does not raise any specific issue
regarding the analysis provided in the Draft MND; therefore, no more specific response
can be provided or is required.
J-3 Please refer to Response J-1. The IS, MND, and TIA used the correct road
classifications. The roads are currently under capacity and have adequate capacity to
handle the anticipated project traffic.
February 2019 RTC-81 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 445 of 836
Responses to Comments
J-4 Please refer to Response J-1. The IS and MND used the correct road classifications.
J-5 This comment is a copy of Comment Letter H. As such, this comment has been adequately
addressed under Response to Comment Letter H; no further response is necessary.
February 2019 RTC-82 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 446 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-83 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 447 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-84 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 448 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter K
Kevin Malone
January 15, 2019
K-1 The commenter raises concerns about the increase in water usage as a result of the proposed
Bonita Glen Project (project). As discussed in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems,
of the Initial Study, the proposed project would be serviced by the Sweetwater Authority.
According to Sweetwater Authority records, water levels in production wells near National
City have remained stable since about 1950. In addition, the Sweetwater Valley
Groundwater Basin has not been identified in the California Department of Water
Resources Bulletin 118 as in overdraft condition (Sweetwater Authority 2018). Sweetwater
Authority receives a portion of its water from the Metropolitan Water District, whose
supplies consist of Colorado River and State Water Project water from the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Bay Delta. The Sweetwater Authority purchases approximately 21% of
ries. The Sweetwater Authority has 20
storage tanks that represent approximately 43.5 million gallons of treated water throughout
its system, including a major buried reservoir with a capacity of 18 million gallons. The
system has 23 pumping stations, with a total pumping capacity of approximately 36,000
gallons per minute from all distribution pumping sources. According to the Sweetwater
reach a potable water demand of 6,773 acre-feet per year for multi-family uses in 2020
(Sweetwater Authority 2016). The Sweetwater Authority has potable water available to
meet that demand.
The projected water demands are based on an assumed average water demand of 105
gallons per capita per day from 2020 to 2040, which is slightly higher than its current
level (91 gallons per capita per day). The proposed 170 residential units, which are
estimated to house up to 486 residents, would generate an insignificant portion of this
demand for potable water of 57 acre-feet per year, which is equivalent to 0.84% of the
total potable water demand for the Sweetwater Authority. The landscaped areas would
not consist of water-intensive plant species, and anticipated water demand would
remain less than 1% of the total demand for the Sweetwater Authority. As a result,
impacts would be less than significant.
February 2019 RTC-85 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 449 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-86 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 450 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-87 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 451 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-88 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 452 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-89 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 453 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-90 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 454 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter L
John Salts
January 15, 2019
L-1The commenter expresses concerns with traffic and parking in the proposed Bonita
Glen Project (project) vicinity. As discussed in the Initial Study (IS) and the Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) referenced in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND),
all study segments are forecasted to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS)
(LOS D or better) under all assessed conditions, in regard to County of San Diego
roadway segments. Since the proposed project would not result in a significant impact
on these roadways and would provide an adequate number of parking spaces on site,
the MND concluded based on expert review and analysis that there would be no
significant impacts to either traffic or parking. For more on traffic, see Responses A-1,
B-2, B-4, and D-3. For more on parking see Responses A-2, D-1, F10, F-11, G-5 and
G-6. The traffic and parking issues has been adequately addressed in the IS, MND and
technical studies and memoranda. The City of Chula Vista (City) is including the
comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the decision makers
prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
L-2Please refer to Responses A-1, B-2, B-4, D-3 and L-1 regarding concerns about traffic
along the Bonita Glen/Vista Way/Pepper Tree Drive corridor.
L-3The City acknowledges the comment and notes that it raises economic, social, or
political issues that do not appear to relate to any physical effect on the environment.
The City also notes that the Bonita Glen Specific Plan, which has been in place for
decades, assumes development would result in more traffic than would be generated
by the project proposed. See Responses A-1, B-2, B-4 and D-3 regarding traffic, and
the fact that the project would not have any significant impact on traffic in the area.
The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
Additionally, the commenter restates issues addressed in Response L-1, so please refer
to that Response as well.
L-4Soil sample results were included in the Geotechnical Report referenced in the IS. The
Geotechnical Report stated that the project site is covered by a thin veneer of fill below
which lies naturally occurring dense/stiff sands and clays. The subsurface soil units are
February 2019 RTC-91 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 455 of 836
Responses to Comments
composed of alluvium underlain by silty and sandy soils of the Very Old Paralic
Formation. The report concluded that the site is suitable for development of the planned
structure on shallow foundations, provided that the geotechnical recommendations are
followed. The comment refers to the area of soil that has been designated as critical
coarse sediment yield area (CCYSA). To maintain sediment flows, a certain quota of
land in the CCYSA must be preserved, as determined through hydraulic modeling.
When neighbors asked for a sidewalk and street lights along Bonita Glen Drive, the
developer had a hydrologist determine if those improvements could be provided
without falling below the required threshold of CCYSA land. The hydrologist
determined that the CCYSA could be reduced by the area needed for the sidewalk and
street lights without going beneath the threshold. The developer then volunteered to
L-5Please refer to Responses A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, G-5, G-6, and L-1 regarding parking.
L-6Please refer to Responses A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, G-5, G-6, and L-1 regarding general
parking and roadway concerns. The parking memorandum explains that State law
requires the proposed project to provide a total of 212 parking spaces (one
space/dwelling unit for the six studio and 122 one-bedroom apartments, and two
spaces/dwelling unit for the 42 two-bedroom apartments). The proposed project
exceeds these legal requirements, providing a total of 231 on-site parking spaces. This
allows for a demand of 1.36 spaces per unit, or 1.09 spaces per bedroom. Based on
observations performed at other properties within the area, and taking into account the
unit mix which at the proposed project is 75% studio and one-bedroom units, the 231
spaces provided by the proposed project would be sufficient to accommodate its
parking demand on site. The public is allowed to park on the public roadway, and that
is unrelated to the project. The project does not have any significant impact to the
roadway from either traffic or parking. Existing roadway hazards are not subject to
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as long as the proposed project
does not exacerbate the issue. Since the proposed project would not result in a
significant impact on these roadways, the CEQA requirements have been met.
L-7Please refer to Responses A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, G-5, G-6 and L-1 regarding parking.
L-8The commenter expresses concerns with potential impacts to the East Flower Street/
Bonita Road/E Street intersection. As discussed in the IS and the TIA, all study
intersections, including the East Flower Street/Bonita Road/E Street intersection, were
February 2019 RTC-92 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 456 of 836
Responses to Comments
studied and found based on expert analysis using generally accepted industry standards
to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours under all analyzed
conditions, without the need for widening.
L-9The commenter expresses concerns with potential impacts to the roadway segments from
the East Flower Street/Bonita Road/E Street intersection to the Interstate 805 Southbound
and Northbound On-/Off-Ramps on Bonita Road. As discussed in the IS and the TIA, all
study roadways, including those mentioned above, were found based on study using
generally accepted industry standards to operate at an acceptable LOS under all analyzed
conditions. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on these
intersections and roadways. See also Response D-3 regarding Interstate 805 ramps.
L-10The comment expresses concerns with potential impacts along and to Pepper Tree
Road, based on an assumption that the project will generate traffic that will have
significant impacts to the intersection at Bonita Glen and E Street. The TIA
demonstrates that the project would not have a significant impact on the Bonita Glen/E
Street intersection, so would not cause vehicles to find alternate routes. To the extent
there would be vehicles on Pepper Tree Road, Pepper Tree Road was included as a
study roadway in the TIA. As mentioned, all study roadways, including Pepper Tree
Road, were found to operate at an acceptable LOS under all analyzed conditions. See
generally Responses A-1, B-1, B-4, B-5, D-3 and L-1 regarding traffic.
L-11The City acknowledges the comment as closing remarks to the comments that precede.
The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
No further response is required or necessary because the comment does not raise an
environmental issue.
L-12Please refer to Response L-1.
February 2019 RTC-93 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 457 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-94 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 458 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-95 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 459 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-96 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 460 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter M
Hector Vanegas
January 15, 2019
M-1 The City of Chula Vista (City) acknowledges the comment and notes that it expresses
the opinions of the commenter and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of
any specific section or analysis of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Bonita
Glen Project (project). No further response is required or necessary.
M-2 The commenter expresses concern about a change in land use. However, the project
would not involve a rezone or change in land use, since the Bonita Glen Specific Plan
allows multi-family residential use on this site, and no rezoning or re-designation of
the land is required as part of the proposed project. See also Response C-2. In addition,
the comment expresses concern about whether heavy-duty emergency vehicles could
access the site, because the commenter believes Bonita Glen Drive is narrow and
congested. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the project by a traffic
engineer using well-established County of San Diego (County) and City criteria and
professional standards concluded that the proposed project would not have a significant
impact on traffic, and the technical memorandum on parking found that there would be
no parking impact resulting from the project. See also Responses A-1, B-2, B-4, and
D-3 regarding traffic, and A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, G-5, and G-6, among others, regarding
parking. Also, as discussed in Section XIV, Public Services, of the Initial Study (IS),
the project site would be served by the Chula Vista Fire Department, which has nine
fire stations and approximately 39 personnel, with approval for an additional 12
firefighters (City of Chula Vista 2017). The project site is within the service area of
Fire Station 2, located at 80 East J Street, approximately 1 mile south of the project
site. The proposed project would redevelop an underutilized site that has been long-
planned for development with even more intensity than is proposed under the project.
Additionally, the proposed project would require payment of development impact fees
at the time of building permit issuance. The proposed project would not create
additional congestion on the roadway, and would not adversely affect existing levels
of fire protection services or create a significant new demand, and would not require
the construction of a new or expansion of an existing facility. The project would not
February 2019 RTC-97 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 461 of 836
Responses to Comments
impede access of heavy-duty emergency vehicles to the area. Therefore, impacts
associated with fire protection would be less than significant.
M-3 See Responses A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, G-5, G-6, and L-1 regarding parking.
M-4 The intersections of Bonita Road and the Interstate 805 On-/Off-Ramps were evaluated
as study intersections in the TIA, including existing conditions regarding the proximity
to an on and off ramp on Interstate 805 and the existing traffic signal system. As
discussed in the IS and the TIA, all study intersections are expected to operate at an
acceptable level of service (LOS) during the AM and PM peak hours under all analyzed
conditions. See also Responses D-3 and L-8.
M-5 Please refer to Response M-4 regarding evaluation of Interstate 805 On-/Off-Ramps.
M-6
River. Biological and hydrological resources were analyzed in the IS. As discussed in
Section IV, Biological Resources, of the IS, the proposed project site is located within
the Development Area of the City Planning Component as identified in the Subarea
Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003). While the project site is close to the Sweetwater River,
the project site is not a strategic preserve area within the City nor is it located within a
dense development since the 1970s.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS,
runoff from the site would be conveyed via the internal on-site storm drain toward the
southern boundary of the proposed project site. The proposed project footprint would
result in an approximately 47% impervious area. In order to mitigate the impervious
area, the proposed project would include three biofiltration basins that are projected to
treat 84% of the runoff. Stormwater quality measures required by the Chula Vista
Municipal Code would be implemented during construction phases of the proposed
project. As such, the proposed project would not result in an increase in pollutant
discharges to receiving waters.
M-7 The commenter expresses concern with the population increase that would stem from
implementation of the proposed project. As discussed in Section XIII, Population and
Housing, of the IS, the proposed project would directly induce population growth to
the area through the development of
February 2019 RTC-98 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 462 of 836
Responses to Comments
Element identifies the need to maintain an inventory of both vacant and redevelopable land
in order to achieve its regional share goal as allocated in the Regional Housing Needs
Statement issued by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). As discussed
in the Chula Vista Housing Element, between 2000 and 2010 the City experienced a 40%
increase in population. The number of households is growing nearly as fast as the
population, with a 31% increase in the number of households from 2000 to 2010. The U.S.
Census Bureau reports 79,416 housing units in the City in 2010, an increase of 25% from
2000. Of the 79,416 housing units in the City, 2010 U.S. Census data shows 4.9% were
vacant in 2010, and of the total vacant units, 39% were for rent. The Regional Housing
Needs Assessment prepared by SANDAG for the years 20102020 identified Chula
f 12,861 more homes in this time span. While the 2013
Housing Element site inventory for housing indicated that there was an overall inventory
planned and zoned for residential use, implementation of the proposed project would assist
the City in reaching their regional housing goal, in combination with the identified housing
inventory. Furthermore, as the project site is currently underutilized as vacant land and is
in conformance with the Bonita Glen Specific Plan, the proposed project would aid the
City in meeting its housing needs for future and planned growth. Thus, impacts associated
with population growth inducement would be less than significant.
M-8 The commenter expresses concern with the potential impacts to traffic conditions on E
Street and nearby arteries. E Street was not a roadway required to be analyzed under
the TIA, because the project would not generate enough traffic on that roadway to
trigger a need for analysis. The County Traffic Impact Guidelines require a proposed
project to analyze the traffic impact to a given roadway if the proposed project is
projected to add 25 or more peak hour trips to the roadway. The TIA concluded that
the proposed project would add fewer than 25 peak hour trips to E Street and thus did
not require a traffic impact analysis on E Street. With regard to other roadways in the
project vicinity, all study segments are forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS (D
or better) under all assessed conditions, in regard to County roadway segments. Since
the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on roadways and would
provide an adequate number of parking spaces on site, California Environmental
Quality Act requirements have been met with regard to traffic/transportation. See also
Responses A-1, B-2, B-4, and D-3 regarding traffic.
February 2019 RTC-99 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 463 of 836
Responses to Comments
M-9 The commenter expresses concern with the hydrology and flood conditions on the
project site. As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS, the
northwestern portion of the site contains areas in either a special flood hazard area titled
Zone AE, or in other areas of flood hazards, with 0.2% annual chance flood hazard,
according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Map 06073C1914G.
Zone AE areas have a 1% probability of flooding every year, which is also known as
-
area is determined to have a 100-year peak flow rate of 51 cubic feet per second (REC
Consultants 2018).
Based on the calculations contained in the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Technical Memo, under proposed project conditions, the 10-year storm stays within the
boundaries of the stream and a 5-foot buffer on either side (REC Consultants 2018).
Based on the calculations contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and
Infiltration Study, it is anticipated that the proposed project would result in an increase
in peak flow for the 50-year and 100-year storm frequencies. This volume would be
detained through surface ponding and rock storage layers located in the proposed
biofiltration basins. To minimize the increase in 100-year flood flows within the
existing ephemeral stream, the stream banks would be graded up to create a larger open
channel capable of handling the required flows. Increasing the stream banks would
attenuate these peak flows below the existing condition amounts and would also offset
the increase by detaining runoff to acceptable amounts. Additionally, the downstream
existing 33-inch reinforced-concrete pipe public storm drain would be able to handle
the mitigated 100-year flowrate of 55.11 cubic feet per second. Thus, impacts with
regard to flood hazards would be less than significant.
M-10 The commenter claims that the technical studies referenced in the Draft MND and the
IS were not provided to the public. The technical studies were in fact included with the
Draft MND and the IS in hardcopy format at the City of Chula Vista during the full 30-
day public review period. The technical studies were also digitally available upon
request. As such, the public had access to all technical studies referenced in the Draft
MND and the IS during the public review period.
M-11 The commenter expresses concern for the historic preservation of the area. As
discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of the IS, the project site is currently vacant
with no structures present on the property. The site has been previously graded and
February 2019 RTC-100 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 464 of 836
Responses to Comments
disturbed. No impact to historical resources would occur. In addition, the Bonita Glen
Specific Plan has planned for dense development of the property for decades. The City
is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
M-12 Please refer to Response M-7 regarding regional housing. The City acknowledges the
comment and notes that it expresses the opinions of the commenter and does not raise an
issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the Draft MND. The
City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by
the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project. No further response
is required because the comment does not raise an environmental issue.
M-13 Please refer to Response M-7 regarding the need for regional housing and Responses
C-2 and M-2 regarding the fact that no change in zoning is required for the project.
M-14 The City acknowledges the comment as closing remarks to the comments that precede.
The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
No further response is required or necessary because the comment does not raise an
environmental issue.
February 2019 RTC-101 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 465 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-102 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 466 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-103 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 467 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-104 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 468 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-105 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 469 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-106 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 470 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-107 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 471 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-108 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 472 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-109 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 473 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-110 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 474 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-111 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 475 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-112 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 476 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-113 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 477 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-114 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 478 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-115 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 479 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-116 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 480 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-117 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 481 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-118 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 482 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-119 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 483 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-120 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 484 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter N
Nicholas Whipps Wittwer Parkin LLP
on behalf of
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
January 15, 2019
N-1 The City of Chula Vista (City) acknowledges the comment as an introduction to
comments that follow. This comment is included in the Final Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final
decision on the proposed Bonita Glen Project (project). No further response is required
or necessary because the comment does not raise an environmental issue.
N-2 The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. This
comment is included in the Final MND for review and consideration by the decision
makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project. No further response is required
or necessary because the comment does not raise an environmental issue.
N-3 The City notes that the comment provides factual background information and does not
raise an environmental issue within the meaning of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The City will include the comment as part of the Final MND for
review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the
proposed project. No further response is required because the comment does not raise
an environmental issue.
N-4 The commenter claims the MND does not describe any discretionary approvals the
proposed project will require. The required contents for an MND are set forth in State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, and do not include a requirement to provide a list of
discretionary approvals. However, as noted on the Notice of Intent to Adopt Proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration IS18-0001, the proposed project is a permitted use by
the Bonita Glen Specific Plan and may be approved through processing a Design
Review Permit subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission of the City
of Chula Vista. In addition, the project would receive approvals from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
N-5 The MND sufficiently describes the baseline conditions for the project site. As
discussed in Section I, Aesthetics, of the Initial Study (IS), there are no scenic vistas
February 2019 RTC-121 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 485 of 836
Responses to Comments
on the project site. The proposed project site, long-planned for development, is
characterized as substantially disturbed, undeveloped, and bifurcated by an existing
natural stream. The site was previously graded, therefore it is relatively flat, with
overall gradual sloping east to west. Elevations range from approximately 45 feet above
mean sea level in the northwestern portion, up to approximately 91 feet above mean
sea level in the southern portion of the site. There is a concrete brow ditch in the
northern portion of the property that appears to be associated with the parking lot of
the La Quinta Inn located immediately north of the site. Trash and litter have been
observed throughout the site, during field surveys, along with several large pieces/piles
of broken concrete debris in the western portion of the site. No structures exist on the
property other than two corrugated-steel-pipe culverts associated with an ephemeral
drainage. Regarding the comme-
related aesthetic impacts, please refer to Response N-6, below.
N-6 As stated in Section I, Aesthetics, of the IS, the height limit applied to the project site
is 38 feet beyond 100 feet from Vista Drive, and 30 feet within 100 feet of Vista Drive.
Because a portion of the proposed project would exceed the current maximum
permitted height of 30 feet within 100 feet of Vista Drive, a waiver of development
standards would be obtained through the State Density Bonus Law to allow for
additional height. As the MND appropriately found, there are no aesthetic impacts that
would arise from the additional height proposed.
In addition, the Bonita Glen Specific Plan (Specific Plan) anticipates that changes and
refinements to its standards, regulations, and conceptual plan will be proposed by the
project developer, and specifically intends that its standards not be inflexible. The
Specific Plan also states that, he Planning Commission, upon the recommendation
of the Zoning Administrator, may adjust said standards and regulations upon finding
that said adjustment will not adversely affect the nature, character, design, order,
amenity, or intent of the proposed project or Specific Plan.
Regarding the assertion t
development on currently undeveloped land, any development on currently
undeveloped land changes the baseline aesthetics of a site; a change from an
undeveloped property to developed property does not in and of itself create a significant
aesthetic impact. The development must substantially damage scenic resources,
degrade the existing visual character of the site, or create a new source of substantial
February 2019 RTC-122 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 486 of 836
Responses to Comments
light or glare. Change in the status quo is most related to what was analyzed in Section
I(c). As stated in the IS, the proposed structure would be similar in scale and height to
the existing surrounding developments. Exterior finishes would generally use earth-
tones colors, which would not substantially contrast with the surround visual character.
All buildings would be setback 25 feet from Bonita Glen Drive and 100 feet along the
eastern boundary of the site from Vista Drive. Lighting fixtures would be shielded
downward and away from adjacent residential land uses. The proposed project would not
include large walls or expanses of glass or other highly reflective materials. As such,
impacts related to visual character/aesthetics would be less than significant.
Lastly, the proposed project site is not designated as a scenic overlay identified in the General
Plan, and Vista Drive has no scenic designation. Please refer to Response N-7 regarding the
visual quality under proposed conditions in comparison to the existing conditions.
N-7 As stated in the IS, the significance criteria used to identify visual impacts under
stated in Response N-5, the project sitelong planned for developmentis
characterized as previously graded, substantially disturbed, undeveloped, and
bifurcated by an existing natural stream. Trash and litter have been observed throughout
the site, during field surveys, along with several large pieces/piles of broken concrete
debris in the western portion of the site. The referenced surveys include the biological
surveys conducted by Dudek biologists on April 22, 2016, and April 21, 2017. The
project site is not within any scenic overlays by the City, nor identified to have scenic
developed according to the Specific Plan as a two-story mixed-use complex with
parking surrounding the building.
As discussed in Section I of the IS, the proposed project would result in six three-story
garden-style buildings and one four-story, podium-style building. The proposed project
design would allow for development of wood-framed residential units (Type V-A) atop
a reinforced concrete podium (Type 1-A). The proposed building façades would consist
of vinyl frame windows, fabric awnings on painted metal frames, sand finish stucco,
and French doors at all unit entries. Balconies would have a metal guardrail with a
-finished metal siding and cement
fiber horizontal siding, French doors, and fabric awnings over balconies with composite
February 2019 RTC-123 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 487 of 836
Responses to Comments
railings (see Figures 6a, Buildings 16 Elevations, and 6b, Building 7 Elevations, in
the IS). The proposed structure would be similar in scale and height to the existing
surrounding developments. Exterior finishes would generally use earth-tone colors,
which would not substantially contrast with the surround visual character. All buildings
would be set back 25 feet from Bonita Glen Drive and 100 feet along the eastern
boundary of the site from Vista Drive. There will be a 10-foot interior side yard setback
along the north boundary of the site, where the project boundary abuts the La Quinta
Hotel to the north. The proposed project shall be reviewed for consistency with the City
of Chula Vista Design Guidelines and findings shall be made by the City Planning
Commission with regard to consistency with City Design Guidelines. Conformance
untrue, as new trees and other landscaping would be planted around the proposed
structures to provide visual relief and softening. The proposed landscape, architectural
design, and building scale would be consistent with the existing visual character of the
site and surrounding area. As such, the proposed project would not substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The
nonetheless to note that the property already has been graded, and its development and
grading have been analyzed and anticipated since the adoption of the Environmental
Impact Report and Specific Plan in 1977. In sum, CEQA requirements have been
baseline project conditions and project impacts, and no further response is necessary.
N-8 As stated in the Project Description of the MND, construction would be temporary,
lasting approximately 19 months, with construction equipment being used five days a
week for no more than eight hours a day. As the MND explains, temporary construction
changes would not rise to the level of a change that would substantially degrade the
existing visual character. As discussed in Section I of the IS, construction of the
proposed project would introduce the potential use of heavy machinery, such as large
trucks, cranes, bulldozers, and other equipment needed for grading and construction
activities. The presence of this equipment and the grading and construction activities
associated with the proposed project would alter the visual character and quality of the
site during construction, and would be visible from surrounding areas, but would not
February 2019 RTC-124 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 488 of 836
Responses to Comments
project. The Tier III, non-native grasslands that will be graded, as has been anticipated
since adoption of the Specific Plan and its certified Environmental Impact Report in
1977, will be fully mitigated. Impacts to existing visual character resulting from
construction activities would not be considered substantial due to the relatively short-
term and temporary nature of construction. Therefore, the focus of this analysis pertains
to the long-term permanent physical changes anticipated to occur as a result of
implementation of the proposed project. The City regulations referred to in the
comment and the IS refers to the City Municipal Code Title 15 Building and
Construction, which requires land development activities to install fencing or
barricades where necessary to eliminate any hazards to the public. Consistent with City
standards, a construction fence would be installed during construction activities, which
would create a visual buffer from the construction activities. The fence itself will be
installed only temporarily, during construction, and there are no significant impacts
associated with temporary use of a construction fence used to shield views that
otherwise would be of an active construction site. As such, CEQA requirements have
been adequately addressed, and no further response is necessary.
N-9 As stated in Section I of the IS, and as discussed in Response N-7, the proposed
residential development would be visually consistent with surrounding land uses, as
the surrounding area is nearly completely built out with residential communities,
commercial land uses, and roadway infrastructure. As such, operational activities
would have a less-than-significant impact on visual resources. The CEQA requirements
for the aesthetics analysis have been met.
N-10 The comment reiterates previous comments and does not raise new or additional
environmental issues concerning the adequacy of the Draft MND. As discussed above,
potential for impacts to aesthetics consistent with CEQA. For that reason, the City
provides no further response to this comment.
N-11 As discussed in the MND, Dudek prepared an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Technical Report (AQ/GHG Report) that identified air pollution as a largely cumulative
impact. In analyzing cumulative impacts from a project, the analysis must specifically
the San Diego Air Basin is designated as nonattainment. As stated in the AQ/GHG
Report for the Bonita Glen Project, if the project does not exceed thresholds and is
determined to have less-than-significant project-specific impacts, it may still contribute
February 2019 RTC-125 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 489 of 836
Responses to Comments
to a significant cumulative impact on air quality if the emissions from the project, in
combination with the emissions from other proposed or reasonably foreseeable future
projects, are in excess of established thresholds. However, a project would only be
considered to have a significant cumulative impact if the project
accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative total emissions (i.e., it represents
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact for short-term construction
and long-term operations. As previously discussed, the project would not exceed
significance thresholds during construction or operation. Additionally, the project
would be consistent with the existing zoning and land use designation and the Specific
Plan for the site, would help the City meet its housing goals including for low-income
housing, and would not result in significant regional growth that is not accounted for
Element reiterates the
-income housing, and this project will
simply help avoid an even larger housing crisis. This project would still leave the City
637 homes short of the number of homes projected to be built in 2019 alone by the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The comment provides no evidence
proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
regional ozone concentrations or other criteria pollutant emissions. Cumulative impacts
would be less than significant during operation. Cumulative air quality impacts have
been accurately analyzed and portrayed in the MND. As a result, the project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional O concentrations or other
3
criteria pollutant emissions.
N-12 Please refer to Response N-11. As noted there, the method of analysis used in the
AQ/GHG Report took into considera-attainment status for certain
pollutants and considered not only project emissions but cumulative emissions as well.
As explained in the MND and the AQ/GHG Report, the Regional Air Quality Strategy
states that where a project, such as
growth projects for the City, it does not conflict with the Regional Air Quality Strategy,
a strategy that takes into account cumulative projects, and is also consistent with the
State Implementation Plan.
N-13 The air quality mitigation measures included in the MND were identified in the
AQ/GHG Report referenced in the MND. As stated in the AQ/GHG Report, the closest
February 2019 RTC-126 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 490 of 836
Responses to Comments
sensitive receptors to the proposed project are residences adjacent to the western and
eastern property boundaries. The Technical Study and MND studied and discussed
whether or not there were any significant impacts of the proposed project on the
environment, finding that there were not. Because the project does not have any
potentially significant air quality impacts on the environment, no mitigation measures
were required. The proposed project would, however, introduce new on-site sensitive
receptors to the area. Construction activities would not generate emissions in excess of
-specific mass daily thresholds; therefore, site-specific construction
impacts during construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. In
addition, diesel equipment would also be subject to the California Air Resources Board
Airborne Toxic Control Measures for in-use off-road diesel fleets, which would
minimize diesel particulate matter emissions. Therefore, the exposure of proximate
sensitive receptors to project-generated toxic air contaminant emissions and associated
health risk impacts would be less than significant. Health impacts associated with
exposure to nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen include respiratory irritation, which
may be experienced by nearby receptors during the periods of heaviest use of off-road
construction equipment. However, these operations would be relatively short term.
Additionally, off-road construction equipment would operate at various locations on
site and would not be concentrated in one portion of the site at any one time.
Construction of the proposed project would not require any stationary emission sources
that would create substantial, localized impacts associated with oxides of nitrogen.
Therefore, health impacts would be less than significant.
The measures directed at reducing potential impacts of the project on future residents
were required to be consistent with San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(SDAPCD) guidance. In accordance with that guidance, mitigation measures were
evaluated to identify ways to ensure that residents of the proposed project would not
be exposed to health risks that exceed SDAPCD significance thresholds, and to ensure
that impacts related to community risk and hazards from placement of sensitive
receptors proximate to major sources of air pollution would be less than significant.
Moreover, the purpose of the mitigation included in the MND is to reduce the
significant impacts associated with cancer risk levels below the SDAPCD thresholds.
As such, the air quality analysis included in the IS and technical report referenced in
the IS addresses impacts to both on- and off-
supported by the evidence in the record, including that found in the AQ/GHG Report.
February 2019 RTC-127 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 491 of 836
Responses to Comments
N-14 As stated in the biological technical report referenced in the IS, Dudek biologists
conducted biological surveys on April 22, 2016, and a second time on April 21, 2017.
Surveys were done during the appropriate flowering season for special-status species.
Any potentially sensitive biological resources were identified and mapped directly in
the field. Only one vegetation community was identified within the project site: non-
native grassland, which is considered a sensitive vegetation community; impacts to this
community require mitigation, which is addressed in MM-BIO-1 in the IS. As such,
the comment has been addressed, and no further response is required.
N-15 The comment refers to images of the proposed project and claims the project will alter
Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS. As stated in Section IX, in developed
conditions, the existing ephemeral stream would remain in a natural state with graded
embankments to the east and west of the delineated existing ephemeral stream. The
proposed project does not re-route the stream itself, but only proposes to reroute the
existing man-made drainage system so that it flows into treatable areas, biofiltration
basins, and outlet through an existing storm drain on the western side of the project
site, along Bonita Glen Drive. Proposed biofiltration basins would collect runoff from
the undeveloped areas connecting to the proposed storm drain system (downstream of
the basin). There would be no proposed hydromodification due to runoff discharging
at the Sweetwater River through existing conveyances (Latitude 33 Planning and
Engineering 2018b). Additionally, increasing the stream banks would attenuate these
peak flows below the existing condition amounts, and would also offset the increase by
detaining runoff to acceptable amounts. This is discussed in the MND and in the IS.
N-16 MM-CUL-2 states that a paleontological monitor shall be on site at all times during the
original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic
formations (i.e., San Diego Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. Then in the
following sentences, MM-CUL-2 states the monitor shall be on site on at least a half-
time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of
moderately sensitive geologic formations (e.g., Lindavista Formation) to inspect cuts
for contained fossils. Therefore, depending on the sensitivity of the geologic formation,
the paleontological monitor shall be on site for either a half-time or full-time basis for
original cutting. Revisions to this mitigation measure are not necessary as this comment
was taken out of context.
February 2019 RTC-128 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 492 of 836
Responses to Comments
N-17
Climate Action Plan (CAP) to determine that quantitative greenhouse gas emissions
are less than significant. As stated in the IS, Dudek prepared an AQ/GHG Report for
the proposed project in July 2018. As the AQ/GHG Report explains:
To develop an efficiency threshold that would satisfy the requirements of Center
for Biological Diversity vs. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and EO B-
30-
against a threshold based on local emission reduction goals and local population
1990 GHG emissions of 847,166 MT COE by the 1990 SP gives an efficiency
2
metric of 3.60 MT CO
2
able 16, the calculated
Project achieves the 2021 efficiency metric, it would not interfere with attainment
of the 2030 and 2050 statewide emission reduction targets, and therefore not
-term and long-
As such, the proposed project used an efficiency metric as the threshold of significance,
which considers the mid-term and long-
action plan. While the CAP is applicable and up-to-date, the City does not exclusively rely
antitative GHG emissions, but rather also developed the
efficiency metric. The efficiency metric is a valid threshold under CEQA.
N-18 The commenter claims that the technical studies referenced in the MND and IS were
never made available for public review. That is not accurate. The technical studies were
in fact included with the MND and IS in hard copy form at the City of Chula Vista
during the full 30-day public review period, available upon request both in hard copy
and digitally. As such, the public had access to all technical studies referenced in the
MND and IS during the public review period. See also Response M-10.
February 2019 RTC-129 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 493 of 836
Responses to Comments
N-19 Refer to Response N-17 regarding the validity of thresholds used in the IS, and refer to
Response N-18 for discussion on the availability of the technical studies referenced in
the IS and MND.
N-20 Refer to Response N-18 for discussion on the availability of the technical studies
referenced in the IS and MND. As stated in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,
prepared by Construction Testing and Engineering and referenced in the IS, no recognized
environmental conditions were noted to be present on the project site. Because no
recognized environmental conditions were revealed, there was no basis or reason to
conduct soil sampling. In addition, the subject site was not listed in the Environmental Data
Resources report and the report found no up-gradient groundwater or topographic gradient
properties that would provide a significant environmental concern to the proposed project
site. The Phase I investigated the current and past history and uses of the property, looking
at what was previously on the site, what past usage could have done, whether any usage
could potentially have contaminated the soil or groundwater underlying the site, etc. It was
an investigation to determine if there were any conditions that were indicative of releases
of petroleum or hazardous materials or chemicals at the site, now or in the past. If the
experts who conducted the Phase I report had determined there was a potential for hazards
or hazardous materials on the site that had the potential for a significant impact, they would
have recommended conducting further testing such as soil sampling. The experts
concluded no such additional testing was required.
N-21 The Spectrum Preschool at Spectrum Church is not within 0.25 miles from the
proposed project; it is only the far edge of the western parking lot that touches that
boundary, and not the school itself. In addition, the Spectrum Preschool is located only
approximately 237 feet east of Interstate (I) 805, where hazardous materials are
frequently transported. Therefore, even if the Spectrum Preschool were within 0.25-
mile radius of the project site, which it is not, with compliance with federal, state, and
local regulations, any hazardous material transported to and from the project site would
be similar to the types of hazardous materials already transported on the I-805, and
would not substantially increase the hazards exposed to the school.
N-22 The comment expresses concern for project usage of groundwater resources that was
not explicitly identified in the IS. The significance criteria for impacts to groundwater
the comment is referring to is whether the proposed project would substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
February 2019 RTC-130 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 494 of 836
Responses to Comments
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level. As stated in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, of the IS, the
proposed 170 residential units, which are estimated to house up to 486 residents, would
generate an insignificant demand for potable water57 acre-feet per yearwhich is
equivalent to 0.84% of the total potable water demand for the Sweetwater Authority.
The Sweetwater Authority procures water from the following four sources: (1) deep
freshwater wells in National City, (2) local runoff in the Sweetwater River with
subsequent storage at the Loveland Reservoir and Sweetwater Reservoir, (3) San Diego
Formation Wells in the lower Sweetwater River basin, and (4) purchase of imported
water delivered by the San Diego Water Authority and Metropolitan Water District
(Sweetwater Authority 2018). Considering the Sweetwater Authority draws from a
variety of water sources, and the proposed project would account for an insignificant
amount of water demand, the project would not have a significant impact on
groundwater resources. The Sweetwater Authority states that it is considered to have
the most reliable water resources of any district in the San Diego region, with resources
including imported raw water, imported treated water, four freshwater wells, 17 pump
stations, two dams, 25 storage tanks, a groundwater desalination facility and a water
treatment facility. The Water Authority has estimated a total groundwater storage
capacity of 973,000 acre-feet for this basin. According to Sweetwater Authority
records, water levels in production wells near National City have remained stable since
about 1950. In addition, the Sweetwater Valley Groundwater Basin has not been
identified in California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 as in overdraft
condition (Sweetwater Authority 2018). Sweetwater Authority receives a portion of
their water from the Metropolitan Water District, in which supplies consist of both
Colorado River and State Water Project supplies from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay
Delta. The Sweetwater Authority purchases approximately 21% of Metropolitan Water
Authority is not using
would not have a substantial effect on groundwater.
N-23 As stated in Section IX of the IS, according to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency Flood Map 06073C1914G, the northwestern portion of the site contains areas
in either a special flood hazard area titled Zone AE, or in other areas of flood hazards,
with 0.2% annual chance flood hazard. Zone AE areas have a 1% probability of
flooding every year-
stream located within the proposed project area is determined to have a 100-year peak
February 2019 RTC-131 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 495 of 836
Responses to Comments
flow rate of 51 cubic feet per second (cfs) (REC Consultants 2018). As discussed in the
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis referenced in the IS, which examined the
conveyance capacity of the ephemeral creek on site, a depth analysis was taken at the
southernmost structure (the proposed southern parking lot) adjacent to Bonita Glen
Road. It was determined that a 100-year flood would require a flow width of 15.61 feet,
which is greater than the maximum flow width available of 11.5 feet. As stated in the
Preliminary Drainage Study referenced in the IS, to mitigate the increase in 100-year
flood flows within the creek, the creek banks will be graded up to create a larger open
channel, capable of handling the required flows. Increasing the creek banks will ensure
that surface flows will not overtop the banks and flood onto the adjacent developments,
or worsen flooding downstream. As such, the potential for on-site residents to
experience flooding during a 100-year storm event would be less than significant. This
comment has been adequately addressed and no further response is required.
N-24 The City did evaluate project noise impacts compared to baseline conditions. The comment
erroneously asserts that the City assumes that a sound wall is being installed as a project
provided
mitigation and is not a sound wall. Rather, the MND is describing the fact that the project
itself, which includes apartment buildings nearest to Bonita Glen Drive, and the walls of
those units function not only as the exterior of the homes but also naturally acts as
acoustical shielding. No sound walls are proposed or required.
N-25 As stated in the MND, the Acoustical Assessment Report presented the locations of modeled
off-site noise receivers to analyze off-site traffic noise. As stated in the report, the City does
not have a specific noise criterion for evaluation of off-site noise impacts to residences or
noise-sensitive areas from project-related traffic. For the purposes of the noise analysis, such
impacts are considered significant when they cause an increase of 3 decibels (dB) from
existing noise levels or exceed the 65 A-weighted decibel community noise equivalent level
noise threshold. Based on the findings of the analysis, the maximum noise level increase
would be 0 dB (i.e., less than 1 dB when rounded to whole decibels). A change in noise level
of 1 dB or less is not an audible change, in the context of community noise, and is therefore
less than significant. There is no information in the MND that indicates the project will have
significant impacts on off-site receptors during operation of the project, and there is no
significant noise impact that needs to be mitigated. Therefore, CEQA requirements have
been met and no further response is necessary.
February 2019 RTC-132 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 496 of 836
Responses to Comments
N-26 For the same reasons specified in Response N-25, the City does not have off-site indoor
noise impact criteria. The Acoustical Assessment Report analyzed off-site traffic noise
impacts and determined that, based on the modeled receptors, off-site traffic noise
impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, CEQA requirements have been met
and no further response is necessary.
N-27 As stated in Section XIV, Public Services, of the IS, the proposed project would develop an
underutilized infill site served by the Chula Vista Fire Department and the Chula Vista Police
Department and would not adversely impact existing levels of fire or police protection or
create a significant new demand. The same is true for other public services, as discussed in
the IS and MND. The project would be required to pay the development impact fees at the
time of building permit issuance. The development impact fees shall be calculated to ensure
that the fees are assessed proportional to the impact created by the proposed project, and the
proceeds from the fees can only be spent on expanding or upgrading infrastructure that can
projects in the area would be required to pay development impact fees proportional to the
impacts created by those projects. The City designed the development fee system to require
all projects in the area to pay these fees, in order to ensure that public services have the funds
to expand services, if necessary. As such, impacts would be less than significant and CEQA
requirements have been met.
N-28
Annual Report, the City had 3.99 park acres per 1,000 residents in eastern Chula Vista in
2017, exceeding the threshold standard requiring 3 acres per 1,000. There is no parks-to-
residents deficiency. The Growth Management Oversight Committee had projected the
City to have 3.92 acres of parks per 1,000 people in 2018, and 3.94 acres per 1,000 by 2022
in eastern Chula Vista. As stated in Section XV, Recreation, of the IS, the proposed project
would include a swimming pool, clubhouse, and dog run, and would pay required
development impact fees for the provision of public services, including parks and
recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
N-29 The commenter claims a significant impact was overlooked in Table 19, Roadway
Segment Level of Service Year 2035 Base Plus Project Conditions (City of Chula
Vista), of the IS. Although Table 19 identifies Bonita Road from I-805 southbound
ramps to I-805 northbound ramps at Level of Service (LOS) E under Year 2035 Base
Plus Project conditions, the roadway was projected to operate at LOS E under Year
2035 Base Conditions. However, as shown in Table 21, Peak Hour Intersection Level
February 2019 RTC-133 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 497 of 836
Responses to Comments
of Service Year 2035 Base Plus Project Conditions, of the IS, the study intersections
ignificance
thresholds, roadway segments operating at LOS E are not considered impacted if the
intersections on either side of the segment operate at LOS D or better. As such, there
would not be a significant impact along Bonita Road from the I-805 Southbound On-
/Off-Ramps to I-805 Northbound On-/Off-Ramps. Therefore, CEQA requirements
have been met and no further response is necessary.
N-30 The City requires that all development projects within the City, including the proposed
project, prepare a Traffic Control Plan that ensures impacts on surrounding roadways and
intersections are minimized during construction. Furthermore, the proposed project would
be required to comply with Chula Vista Fire Department requirements and standards to
ensure that adequate access is provided. The proposed project would not involve the
permanent closure of any surface streets that would increase the response time for
emergency services. Additionally, the project will comply with all fire codes, and
emergency access will be maintained by foot and by truck. Therefore, with compliance
with local regulations, impacts to emergency access would be less than significant.
N-31 The comment expresses concern for peak wet weather flows and its
wastewater treatment facilities. However, the commenter has mixed up
wastewater facilities with stormwater facilities, as stormwater facilities handle peak wet
weather flows, not wastewater treatment or sewer facilities. The effect on
stormwater facilities is addressed in Section IX of the IS. As stated in Section IX, once
constructed, on-site peak flows would be collected through the biofiltration basins and would
ta Glen Drive.
Proposed biofiltration basins would collect runoff from the undeveloped areas connecting to
the proposed storm drain system (downstream of the basin). Runoff from the site would be
conveyed via the internal on-site storm drain toward the southern boundary of the proposed
project. The proposed project footprint would result in an approximately 47% impervious
area. In order to mitigate the impervious area, the proposed project includes three biofiltration
basins that are projected to treat 84% of the runoff. The other 16% would drain naturally into
the stream in the middle of the site (Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018a). As
concluded in Section IX, the downstream existing 33-inch reinforced-concrete pipe public
storm drain would be able to handle the mitigated 100-year flowrate of 55.11 cfs. The
stormwater from the project site would not cause or contribute to sewer overflows, as the
stormwater system is separate from the sewer system proposed onsite. As such, the project
February 2019 RTC-134 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 498 of 836
Responses to Comments
will not have any significant impacts to wastewater treatment facilities. CEQA requirements
have been met, and this comment has been adequately addressed.
N-32 As discussed in Section XVII of the IS, the Sweetwater Authority is projected to reach
a potable water demand of 6,773 acre-feet per year for multi-family uses in 2020
(Sweetwater Authority 2016). The proposed 170 residential units, which are estimated
to house up to 486 residents, would generate an insignificant portion of this demand
for potable water57 acre-feet per yearwhich is equivalent to 0.84% of the total
potable water demand for the Sweetwater Authority. The CEQA significance criteria
the comment alludes to is whether the proposed project would have sufficient water
supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. By
Authority has capacity for the proposed project. Also see Response N-22, which cites
the Sweetwater Authority as confirming it has adequate capacity. Therefore, CEQA
requirements have been met, and this comment has been adequately addressed.
N-33 the end of the MND. The
such as police and fire, traffic, parks and recreation, water, etc. These thresholds were
taken into account in the relevant sections of the IS, which thoroughly went through
the Appendix G checklist and provided both discussion and evidence for each issue
area, providing support for its checklist determinations. That is why the IS in the
Thresholds section refers the reader to the discussions above. No further response can
be provided as the comment does not raise any specific issue regarding that analysis
and, therefore, no more specific response can be provided or is required. The City will
include the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the
decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
N-34 s
Appendix G checklist, which did not include the standard Energy checklist questions.
Appendix G provides a recommended format, and jurisdictions such as the City may
use the Appendix G checklist as a template for the preparation of their CEQA
documents. Although the MND does not include specific energy checklist questions,
the discussion of energy consumption is addressed in the AQ/GHG Report referenced
in the MND. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) default values for
February 2019 RTC-135 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 499 of 836
Responses to Comments
energy consumption for each land use were applied for the project analysis. The energy
use from residential land uses is calculated in CalEEMod based on the California
Residential End-Use Survey database. The program uses data collected during the
Residential Appliance Saturation Survey to develop energy intensity values (electricity
and natural gas usage per square foot per year) for residential buildings. Energy use in
buildings (both natural gas and electricity) is divided by the program into end use
categories subject to Title 24 requirements (end uses associated with the building
envelope, such as the water heating system, integrated lighting, and heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning system) and those not subject to Title 24 requirements
(such as appliances, electronics, -
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations serves to enhance and regulate
referred to as the 2016 standards, became effective on January 1, 2017. The previous
amendments were referred to as the 2013 standards. CalEEMod 2016.3.2 includes
compliance with the 2016 Title 24 standards. The project applicant is committed to
exceeding the 2016 Title 24 energy standards. The proposed project includes
implementation of rooftop solar photovoltaic energy production, which will cover
energy use for all common area lighting. The proposed project also will include the
installation of electric vehicle charging stations, Energy Star appliances, and 100% of
the lighting fixtures on site will be LED.
The AQ/GHG Report evaluates energy consumption and energy conservation methods, and
confirms that the proposed project would not result in a wasteful consumption of energy.
N-35 The City acknowledges the comment and notes that it provides concluding remarks that
do not raise new or additional environmental issues concerning the adequacy of the
Draft MND. For that reason, the City provides no further response to this comment.
N-36 The comment requests that the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters receive a
copy of the Notice of Determination for this project. This has been noted and the City
will arrange to have a copy of the Notice of Determination sent to Nicholas Whipps of
Wittwer Parkin LLP for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters.
N-37 Please refer to Response N-7.
N-38 Please refer to Response N-7.
N-39 Please refer to Response N-21.
February 2019 RTC-136 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 500 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-137 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 501 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-138 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 502 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter O
Scott Olsen
January 14, 2019
O-1 The City of Chula Vista (City) acknowledges the comment as introductory remarks to
the comments that follow. The City is including the comment as part of the Final
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for review and consideration by the decision
makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Bonita Glen Project (project). No
further response is required or necessary because the comment does not raise an
environmental issue.
O-2 The City acknowledges the comment and notes that it expresses the opinions of the
commenter and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section
or analysis of the Draft MND. Note that the Bonita Glen Specific Plan has long planned
for development on this site of a density that would generate more traffic than is
proposed with the project. The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND
for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the
proposed project. No further response is required or necessary.
O-3 The commenter expresses concerns with hazardous roadways and parking in the project
vicinity. As discussed in the Draft MND and the Traffic Impact Analysis referenced in
the MND, all study segments are forecasted to operate at acceptable level of service
(LOS) (LOS D or better) under all assessed conditions, in regard to County roadway
segments. Existing roadway hazards are not subject to California Environmental
Quality Act review as long as the proposed project does not exacerbate the issue. Note
that as a project feature, the proposed project would include improvements to Vista
Drive between the Unnamed Cul-de-Sac and Bonita Glen Road. For more on traffic
see Responses A-1, B-2, B-4, D-3, and L-1.
See Responses A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, G-5, and G-6 regarding parking.
O-4 Please refer to Response A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, G-5, and G-6 regarding parking
capacity. The anticipated parking demand would be met on site.
February 2019 RTC-139 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 503 of 836
Responses to Comments
O-5 The City acknowledges the comment and notes that it expresses the opinions of the
commenter and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section
or analysis of the Draft MND. The City is including the comment as part of the Final
MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on
the proposed project. No further response is required or necessary.
February 2019 RTC-140 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 504 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-141 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 505 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-142 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 506 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter P
Mark Ramsey
January 18, 2019
P-1 The commenter expresses concerns with existing traffic, parking and roadways in the
vicinity of the proposed Bonita Glen Project (project) site. As discussed in the Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
referenced in the Draft MND, all study segments are forecasted to operate at an
acceptable level of service (LOS) (LOS D or better) under all assessed conditions, in
regard to County of San Diego roadway segments. See Responses A-1, B-2, B-4, D-3,
and L-1 regarding traffic, and Responses A-2, D-1, F-10, F-11, G-5, and G-6 regarding
parking. In addition, note that the project would include sidewalks, and the project was
found to have no significant impacts on the area roadways.
P-2 The City acknowledges the comment and notes that it expresses the opinions of the
commenter and does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section
or analysis of the Draft MND. The City is including the comment as part of the Final
MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on
the proposed project. No further response is required or necessary.
P-3 The City acknowledges the comment is of attached images to coincide with preceding
comments regarding traffic. The City is including the comment as part of the Final
MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on
the proposed project. No further response is required or necessary because the comment
does not raise an environmental issue.
February 2019 RTC-143 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 507 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-144 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 508 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-145 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 509 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-146 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 510 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-147 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 511 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-148 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 512 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-149 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 513 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-150 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 514 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter Q
County of San Diego, Planning & Development Services
Eric Lardy, AICP Chief (Acting), Advance Planning Division
January 18, 2019
Q-1 The City of Chula Vista (City) acknowledges the comment as introductory remarks to
the comments that follow. The City is including the comment as part of the Final
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for review and consideration by the decision
makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Bonita Glen Project (project). No
further response is required or necessary because the comment does not raise an
environmental issue.
Q-2 The City acknowledges the comment as introductory remarks to the comments that
follow. The City and the developer have worked to address concerns about the
proposed project. See Responses A-1, B-2, B-4, D-3, L-1, and L-8 regarding traffic.
The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
No further response is required or necessary because the comment does not raise an
environmental issue.
Q-3 The Traffic Impact Analysis establishes that the proposed project would generate 624 daily
trips on the segment of Vista Drive between the Unnamed Cul-de-Sac and Bonita Glen
Road. However, the referenced segment of Vista Drive does not serve any cumulative or
cut-through traffic and is projected to operate well below its design capacity (Chen Ryan
2018). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to this
roadway. Improvements would be included as project features, not mitigation measures,
because there would be no significant impacts that require mitigation. In lieu of vacation
or annexation, the proposed project would include roadway improvements to the roadway
segment between the Unnamed Cul-de-Sac and Bonita Glen Road. As such, annexation or
privatization of the roadway would not occur.
Q-4 Please refer to Response Q-3 regarding the status of the segment of Vista Drive
between the Unnamed Cul-de-Sac and Bonita Glen Road.
Q-5 As indicated in the Priority Development Permit (PDP) Stormwater Quality
Management Plan, the proposed project is exempt from PDP hydromodification
management requirements, including a Vector Control Plan. Considering the
February 2019 RTC-151 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 515 of 836
Responses to Comments
ephemeral nature of the on-site stream, the proposed project would not include standing
water features capable of accumulating and holding the minimum 0.5 inches of water
for more than 96 hours necessary to support mosquito breeding and development.
Additionally, the proposed project is not located within 0.25 miles of an existing known
vector breeding source. As a result, the project does not trigger a potentially significant
impact under the County Guidelines for Determining Significance for Vectors
Act threshold checklist does not require vector control examination; therefore, analysis
was not included in the Initial Study. The comment does not raise an issue related to
the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the Draft MND. Therefore, no
further response is required.
Q-6 As indicated in the PDP Stormwater Quality Management Plan, pollutant control and
hydromodification management best management practices (BMPs) have been applied
comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or
analysis of the Draft MND. Therefore, no further response is required.
Q-7 The County of San Diego (County) has been provided with the updated project plans,
showing that the sewer line will no longer cross the receiving water. No significant impacts
would result from this change. Therefore, no recirculation of the MND is required.
Q-8 As discussed in Sections XIII and XV of the Initial Study, the proposed project would
require payment of development impact fees at the time of building permit issuance.
Additionally, the proposed project would be providing recreational areas including a
swimming pool, clubhouse, and dog run. With proximity to neighborhood parks,
inclusion of on-site recreational facilities, and payment of impact fees, the proposed
project would not adversely affect the provision of park and recreational facilities, and
impacts would be less than significant. Because the County does not have jurisdiction
over the proposed project area, improvement to County recreational facilities or
payment of development impact fees to the County is not required.
Q-9 The City acknowledges the comment as closing remarks to the comments that precede.
The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
No further response is required or necessary because the comment does not raise an
environmental issue.
February 2019 RTC-152 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 516 of 836
Responses to Comments
Q-10 The City acknowledges the comment as introductory remarks to the comments that
follow. The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
No further response is required or necessary because the comment does not raise an
environmental issue.
Q-11 Please refer to Response Q-3.
Q-12 Please refer to Response Q-3.
Q-13 Please refer to Response Q-3.
Q-14 Please refer to Response Q-3.
Q-15 Please refer to Response Q-5.
Q-16 Please refer to Responses Q-6 and Q-7.
Q-17 Please refer to Response Q-8.
Q-18 The City acknowledges the comment as closing remarks to the comments that precede.
The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND for review and
consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed project.
No further response is required or necessary because the comment does not raise an
environmental issue.
February 2019 RTC-153 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 517 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-154 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 518 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-155 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 519 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-156 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 520 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-157 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 521 of 836
Responses to Comments
February 2019 RTC-158 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 522 of 836
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter R
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse
January 16, 2019
R-1 The comment acknowledges that the State Clearinghouse submitted the Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) to state agencies for review through January 15, 2019.
The City of Chula Vista (City) acknowledges the comment as introductory remarks to
the comments that follow. The City is including the comment as part of the Final MND
for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on the
proposed Bonita Glen Project (project). No further response is required or necessary
because the comment does not raise an environmental issue.
R-2 The City acknowledges the comment and is including the comment as part of the Final
MND for review and consideration by the decision makers prior to a final decision on
the proposed project. No further response is required or necessary because the comment
does not raise an environmental issue.
February 2019 RTC-159 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 523 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-160 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 524 of 836
Responses to Comments
References
Chen Ryan. 2018. Traffic Impact Analysis: Bonita Glen. Draft. April 6, 2018.
City of Chula Vista. 2003. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Accessed July 2018.
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106.
City of Chula Vista. 2013. 20122020 Housing Element. Accessed July 2018.
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=5503.
City of Chula Vista. 2017. Public Safety Staffing Report. Accessed July 2018.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=15604.
City of Chula Vista. 2019. Street Sweeping. Accessed February 8, 2019.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/public-works/services/street-sweeping.
Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering. 2018a. Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water
Quality Management Plan. June 2018.
Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering. 2018b. Preliminary Drainage Study. Bonita Glen.
REC Consultants. 2018. Technical Memorandum: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis for Bonita
Glen Creek. January 2018. Revised June 2018.
Sweetwater Authority. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. Accessed July
2018. https://www.sweetwater.org/DocumentCenter/View/84/2015-Urban-Water-
Management-Plan-PDF.
27/About-Us.
February 2019 RTC-161 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 525 of 836
Responses to Comments
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 2019 RTC-162 Bonita Glen Project
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 526 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 527 of 836
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 528 of 836
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) was prepared by the City of Chula
Vista (City) for the Bonita Glen Project (proposed project or project) to ensure compliance with
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1), which requires public agencies to adopt such
programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures. This monitoring program is
dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation measures are identified and
additional conditions of approval are placed on the project throughout the project approval process.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2), the City of Chula Vista designates the
Director of Development Services and the City Clerk as the custodians of the documents or their
material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation identified
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and generating information on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes the following:
Monitor qualifications
Specific monitoring activities
Reporting system
Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The proposed project is 170-unit apartment development within six three-story garden-style
buildings (two 21-plex buildings, two 18-plex buildings, and two 13-plex buildings) and one four-
story, podium-style building (66 units). The development would consist of 6 studio units, 122 1-
bedroom units, and 42 2-bedroom units on approximately 5.3 acres. Total building area for the
proposed project is approximately 149,913 square-feet. The proposed project includes and total of
231 parking spaces: 101 covered spaces and 130 uncovered spaces. The project also includes
recreation areas including a swimming pool, clubhouse, and dog run.
The proposed project uses State Density Bonus provisions that promote affordable housing
through the use of density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions to development
standards, and parking ratios in accordance with Section 65915 of the Government Code and
Chapter 19.90 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The proposed project provides 9 affordable
dwelling units (5%) restricted for 55 years to lower income households (50% of the area median
income) in a recorded restrictive covenant.
Bonita Glen Project MND 10271
April 2019 MMRP-1
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 529 of 836
M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
The proposed project is described in the MND under Section B, Project Description. The
MND, incorporated herein as referenced, addressed all environmental issues listed in
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
The monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached MMRP
table. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City, the monitoring team should
possess the following capabilities:
Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in
working under trying field circumstances;
Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special
features found in the project area;
Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost-
effective mitigation options; and
Excellent communication skills.
Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved to
initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority of the participants.
Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed prior to any project
plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring effects.
An effective reporting system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts. All parties
involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted and these
mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those that would have
a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Chula Vista would include
the City of Chula Vista and its Mitigation Monitor. The Mitigation Monitor would distribute to
each Environmental Specialist and Environmental Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures
that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks and the appropriate time frame that these mitigations are
anticipated to be implemented.
In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring report (MMR)
forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form. Below the stated mitigation
measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the effectiveness of the mitigation measure.
The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with the Mitigation Monitor following the monitoring
activity. The Mitigation Monitor will then include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final
comprehensive construction report to be submitted to the City. This report will describe the major
Bonita Glen Project MND 10271
April 2019 MMRP-2
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 530 of 836
M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
accomplishments of the monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in achieving the goals
of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems, and provide a list of
recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition, and if appropriate, each Environmental
Monitor or Environmental Specialist will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the
Mitigation Monitor. The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring activities
of the monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status reports, as determined appropriate,will be generated from
the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e., memoranda, telephone
logs, and letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City to confirm the implementation and
effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on the project.
There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted
conditions of approval:
Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment;
Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action, but does not result in work
or task delay; and
Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or task delay.
There are a number of options the City may use to enforce this program should noncompliance
restitution, permit revocations, citations, and injunctions. It is essential that all parties involved in
the program understand the authority and responsibility of the on-site monitors. Decisions
regarding actions in case of noncompliance are the responsibility of the City.
Table 1 summarizes the mitigation measures identified in the MND and lists the monitoring efforts
necessary to ensure that the measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures
identified in the MND are conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language
appropriate for such conditions. In addition, during various stages of implementation the City will
further refine the mitigation measures.
Bonita Glen Project MND 10271
April 2019 MMRP-3
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 531 of 836
M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Bonita Glen Project MND 10271
April 2019 MMRP-4
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 532 of 836
DR17-0040
Page 538 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
DR17-0040
Page 539 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
DR17-0040
Page 540 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
DR17-0040
Page 541 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
DR17-0040
Page 542 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
DR17-0040
DR17-0040
DR17-0040
DR17-0040
DR17-0040
DR17-0040
Page 561 of 836
07/11/18 3RD DRB Submittal
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
DR17-0040
Page 562 of 836
07/11/18 3RD DRB Submittal
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
DR17-0040
Page 563 of 836
07/11/18 3RD DRB Submittal
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
DR17-0040
Page 564 of 836
07/11/18 3RD DRB Submittal
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
DR17-0040
Page 565 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda Packet
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 566 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 567 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 568 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 569 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 570 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 571 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 572 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 573 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 574 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 575 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 576 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 577 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 578 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 579 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 580 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 581 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 582 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 583 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 584 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 585 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 586 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 587 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 588 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 589 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 590 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 591 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 592 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 593 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 594 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 595 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 596 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 597 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 598 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 599 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 600 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 601 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 602 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 603 of 836
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING THE APPEAL BY SILVERGATE DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND
ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
AND REPORTING PROGRAM IS-18-0001, AND APPROVING DESIGN
REVIEW PERMIT DR17-0040 TO CONSTRUCT ONE FOUR-STORY
BUILDING AND SIX THREE-STORY BUILDINGS TOTALING 149,534
SQUARE FEET, CONSISTING OF 170 APARTMENT UNITS INCLUDING
NINE RENT RESTRICTED UNITS FOR OCCUPANCY BY VERY LOW-
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ON A 5.3-ACRE SITE LOCATED SOUTH OF
BONITA ROAD, BETWEEN BONITA GLEN DRIVE AND I-805, SUBJECT
TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN
WHEREAS, onDecember 22, 2017, aduly verified application for a Design Review
Permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department bySilvergate
Development, LLC(Applicant); and
WHEREAS, the application requests approval of a Design Review Permit to allow
construction of one four-story and six three-story buildings totaling 149,534 square-feet
consisting of 170 apartment units including nine affordable units subject to rental and occupancy
restrictions for very low-incomehouseholds at 50% of the area median income for a period of 55
yearswith associated parking, recreational facilities and open space on approximately 5.3 acres
(Project); and
WHEREAS, by including five percent of the 170 units for very low-income households,
the Project is entitled to certain benefits, including a density bonus, one development incentive,
waivers and reductions in development standards, and specified parking ratios under the
provisions of ChulaVista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 19.90-Affordable Housing
Incentives and Government Code Section 65915(State Density Bonus Law); and
WHEREAS, the area of land that is the subject of this Resolution is an existing site
consisting of five contiguous parcels (APN’s 570-131-11-00, 570-140-40-00, 570-140-54-00,
570-140-48-00, 570-140-51-00)located south of Bonita Road, between BonitaGlen Drive and
I-805 (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has reviewed the Project for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-18-0001 in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the results of
the Initial Study, the Director of Development Services has determined that the Project could
result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the Project made by or
agreed to by the Applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Director of Development Serviceshas caused
the preparationof a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-18-0001 and associated Mitigation,
Monitoringand Reporting Program; and
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 604 of 836
Resolution 2019
Page 2
WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Planning Commission for
consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners
and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project Site, at least ten (10) days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista on March 13, 2019 in the Council Chambers,
276 Fourth Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. to hear public testimony and staffs’ presentation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Chair made a Motion to Approve the Project,
which was Seconded.However the vote failed 3 No votes to the Chair’s 1 Yes vote.The Project
needed 4 Yes votes for approval.Therefore, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code section
2.04.570(c), the vote resulted in a “Lost Motion,” meaning the Motion did not carry and no
action occurred; and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2019, Silvergate Development, LLC filed an appeal of the
March 13, 2019Planning Commission’s proceedingsfor Design Review Permit DR17-0040 (the
“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, the CityClerk set the time and place for the public hearing on the Appeal
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the City, its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundary of the Project Site at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and placeas advertised in the Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Counciland the hearing was thereafter closed;
and
WHEREAS, the City Councilreviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND IS-18-0001) and associated Mitigation,Monitoring and Reporting Program,
and Design Review (DR17-0040); and
WHEREAS, the City Councilhaving received certain evidence at the subject hearing, as
set forth in the record of its proceedings therein, recommends approval of the Project, based on
certain terms and conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista City Councildoes
hereby find and determine as follows:
I.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
That the City Councilof the City of Chula Vista, in the exercise of its independent judgment,
as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered the Initial Study of the Project
conducted by the Director of Development Services for compliance with the CEQA, and has
determined that the Project could result in significant effects on the environmentregarding
Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Biology. However, revisions to the Project made
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 605 of 836
Resolution 2019
Page 3
by or agreed to by the Applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point
where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Development Services
Director has causedthe preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-18-0001and
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program.
That the City Councilof the City of Chula Vista, in the exercise of their independent review
and judgment as set forth in the record of its proceedings, considered Mitigated Negative
Declaration, IS-18-0001 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP), in
the form presented, which has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the CEQA
and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and does hereby adopt
the same.
II.DESIGN REVIEW
1.That the proposed Project is consistent with the development regulations contained in
the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Government Code, and Chula Vista Design Manual.
The Project Site is designated Central Commercial (CCP)and is permitted for residential and
commercial use. The Project is in compliance with the Bonita Glen Specific Plan and Chula
Vista Design Guidelines and is consistent with the Government Code and Chula Vista
Municipal Code. The Applicantis proposing to build a total of 170 apartment units including
nine income restricted units for very low-income households. Pursuant to CVMCSection
19.90.080 (F)andGovernment Code Section 65915(e), given the provision of five percent of
the units as restricted for very low-income households, the Applicant requests a waiver of the
maximum 45 feet in height development standard of the Bonita Glen Specific Plan,which
would otherwise have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the Project. One
building is proposed with a maximum height of 56 feet. The requested waiver of height is
consistent with the intent of the State’s Density Bonus Law and Chula Vista Chapter 19.90.
The Applicant has requested and is entitled to the reduced parking standards as specified in
CVMC Section 19.90.080(H) and Government Code Section 65915(p). Consistent with
these provisions the Project is providing 231 parking spaces on-site, in excess of the required
212 spaces. Additional parking is available on Bonita Glen Drive. Open space and
landscaped areas are also provided in excess of the minimum required. The building design
orients balconies and patios towards the internal parking lot to provide for an urban
environment. Landscaping has been placed along the perimeter of the site and also around
the parking lot area. Enhanced architectural details are proposed along the street elevations
and the layout of the site provides for a pedestrian oriented design in accordance with the
Bonita Glen Specific Plan and Chula Vista Design Guidelines.The floor area ratio and
setback requirements are subject to the CCP and R-3 zone requirements. The Project meets
the zone requirements.
2.That the proposed Project is consistent with the design requirements and
recommendations contained in Bonita Glen Specific Plan and development standards of
the Chula Vista Design Guidelines.
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 606 of 836
Resolution 2019
Page 4
The proposed project architecture features a modern Spanish Mission architectural design
that is eclectic and exemplifies and contributes to the dynamic revitalization and vibrancy
alongthe segments of Bonita Glen Driveand Vista Drivethat arewithin the Bonita Glen
Specific Plan (BGSP)boundary. The building mass is articulated by horizontal and vertical
plane offsets, including balconies, which provide variety and interest and are highlighted by
accent colors and materials that break up the roof line. The building facades also include a
variety of building materials and colors, including fabric awnings, metalverticalsiding, fiber
cement horizontal siding, natural wood, patios and balconies, and varying building facades
and building offsets that were added along the exterior elevations to avoid a monotonous
design. The overall design, form and scale of the building fit within the guidelines of the
BGSPand Chula Vista Design Guidelinesand is complimentary to the multi-family
residential and commercial character adjacent to the Project Site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council, based on the findings above,
hereby approves the Projectsubject to the following conditions:
I.The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services, or designee, prior to issuance of Building Permits, unless otherwise specified:
Planning Division
1.The Project Site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans,
which include Site and Landscape Plans, Floor Plan, and Elevation Plan on file in the
Development Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Chula Vista Municipal
Code (“Municipal Code” or “CVMC”) Title 19.
2.Prior to, or in conjunction with the issuance of the first Building Permit, the Applicant shall
pay all applicable fees, including any unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit
account DDA0117.
3.The colors and materials specified on the Building Plans must be consistent with the colors
and materials shown on the Site Plan and colored materials sheet approved by the City
Council.
4.A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all first floor wall and building surfaces.
This shall be noted for any Building and Wall Plans. Additionally, the Project shall conform
to Section9.20.055 of the Municipal Code regarding graffiti control.
5.All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design.
6.All ground mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping.
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 607 of 836
Resolution 2019
Page 5
7.All exterior lighting shall include shielding to remove any glare from adjacent residents.
Details for said lighting shall be included in the Architectural Plans.
8.The Applicant shall obtain approval of a Sign Permit for each sign. Signs shall comply with
all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code.
9.Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit for the construction of the Project, the
Applicant shall execute an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City that includes terms
and conditions toensure compliance with CVMC Chapter 19.90andState Density Bonus
Lawfor a compliance period of 55 years. Such Agreement shall be recorded as a covenant on
the property with the restrictions binding all subsequent owners so that the commitment
remains in force regardless of ownership.
10.Prior to issuance of Gradingand Building Permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate
compliancewith all mitigation measures of MND IS-18-0001.
Land Development Division/Landscape Architecture Division
11.Additional deposits or fees in accordance with the City Subdivision Manual, and Master Fee
Schedule will be required for the submittal of the following items:
a.Grading Plans
b.Street Improvement Plans
c.Construction Permit
d.Lot consolidation
12.The Applicantshall enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to
issuance of any Grading Permit.
13.The onsite storm drain system and utilities shall be private.
14.Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Applicant shall dedicate 5 feet alongBonita Glen
Drive. Street dedication documents shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or
licensed Land Surveyor.
15.Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Easements on Vista Drive for access and public
utilities shall be provided.
16.Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a parcel map shall be processed to create (2) lots as a
condition of water service from Sweetwater Authority.
17.Prior to issuance of and Grading Permit or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, an
Encroachment Permit shall be obtained for any private facilities within the public right-of-
way or City easements.
18.The Applicant shall submit a detailed Operation & Maintenance (O&M) plan for all
permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs)as required by the City Engineer to preserve
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 608 of 836
Resolution 2019
Page 6
the intended pollution control and/or flow control performance of the BMP. Upon
completion of construction of BMPs/Project, the Applicant shall update/finalize the O&M
Plan to reflect constructed structural BMPs with As-Built Plans and baseline photos.
19.The Applicant shall provide public improvements to include a new 24 foot driveway and a
new 20 foot driveway along Bonita Glen including new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street
lights along the Project’s frontage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sidewalk shall be
designed and constructed with proper transitions to existing conditions.
20.All driveways shall conform to the City of Chula Vista’s sight distance requirements in
accordance with Section 18.32.080 of the Municipal Code. Also, landscaping, street
furniture, or signs shall not obstruct the visibility of a driver at the street intersections or
driveways.
21.All proposed sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian ramps, and disabled parking shall be designed
to meet the City of Chula Vista Design Standards, Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
Standards, and Title 24 standards, as applicable.
22.The construction and completion of all improvements and release requirements shall be
secured in accordance with Section 18.17.040 of the Municipal Code.
23.PAD Fees for Multi-Family projects: The addition of 170 multifamily homes generates
parks obligations per Municipal Code Chapter 17.10.
West Chula Vista –Multi-Family PAD Fees
Fee ComponentFee per Unit # UnitsFee
Parkland$3,707170$630,190
Acquisition
Parkland$5,859170$996,030
Development
Total$9,566170$1,626,220
st
Note: PAD fees are adjusted annually on October 1to reflect the industry’s current
Construction Cost Index, and the above noted costs are subject to change at that time. PAD
fees are due as set forth in CVMC 17.10.
12.The Applicant shall submit full Landscape and Irrigation Plansfor review and approval by
the City’s Landscape Architect.
Fire Department
13.For 75,090 square feet of Type IA & VA construction, this Project will require a fire flow of
3250 gallons per minute for a 3-hour duration at 20 p.s.i.
14.Based upon the required fire flow for Type IA &VA construction type, a minimum of4 fire
hydrants are required to serve this Project.
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 609 of 836
Resolution 2019
Page 7
15.Where a portion of the building is more than400feet from a fire hydrant on a fire apparatus
access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of thebuilding, on site fire
hydrants and mains shall be provided.
16.Fire Hydrants shall be located and spaced in accordance with California Fire Code, Appendix
C.
17.A fire service study shall be performed that includes a hydraulic water flow analysis. This
analysis shall show the actual flow and pressure for all hydrants and riser stubs. The Hazen
Williams formula shall be used in the determination of these flows and pressures. The
analysis shall show that the required fire flow is available at the hydrants and that
independently the sprinkler demand is available at the most demanding sprinkler riser.
Fire Department Access:
18.Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility or building and shall extend to
within 150feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first
story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building.
19.Fire apparatus access road dimensions shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and have an
unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches.
20.The Applicant shall perform an Auto-turn Analysis with Chula Vista Fire Department
(CVFD)truck data/dimensions to determine if proposed on site roads are adequate
21.Dead endfire apparatus access roads in excessof 150feet in length shall be provided with an
approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
22.Grades for any access roadway shall be restricted to the following:
Asphalt < 11%
Concrete =/> 11%
Fire Department Web Page:
23.Chula Vista Fire Prevention Division maintains an up-to-date web page, which contains
required details that shall be required prior to Building Permit issuance.
II.The following on-going conditions shall apply to the Project Site as long as it relies on
this approval:
24.The Applicant shall install all landscaping and hardscape improvements in accordance with
the approved Landscape Plan.Landscaping shall be maintained by the owner and successor
in perpetuity, including any street trees in the right of way.
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 610 of 836
Resolution 2019
Page 8
25.Approval of the Design Review Permitshall not waive compliance with any sections of Title
19 of the Municipal Code, nor anyother applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time
of Building Permit issuance.
26.The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council members, City Councilmembers, officers, employees and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the
City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Design
Review Permit,(b) City’s approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated on the Project
Siteand (c) any environmental determinations for the Project. The Property Owner and
Applicant shall acknowledge their agreement tothis provision by executing a copy of this
Design Review Permitwhere indicated below. The Property Owner’s and Applicant’s
compliance with this provision shall be binding on any and all of the Property Owner’s and
Applicant’s successors and assigns.
27.This Design Review Permitshall become void and ineffective if not utilized within three
yearsfrom the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.600of the Municipal
Code.
III.GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020(d)(1) NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 90-
day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction
described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and anysuch protest
must be in a manner that complies with Government Code Section 66020(a) and failure to timely
follow this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void or
annul imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions does
not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing fees or service
fees in connection with this project; and it does not apply to any fees, dedication, reservations, or
other exactions which have been given notice similar to this, nor does it revive challenges to any
fees for which the statute of limitations has previously expired.
IV.EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines provided
below, indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read, understood and agreed
to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, this document
shall be signed and returned to the City’s Development Services Department.
_______________________________________________________
Signature of Property Owner Date
_______________________________________________________
Printed Name of Property OwnerDate
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 611 of 836
Resolution 2019
Page 9
_______________________________________________________
Signature of Applicant Date
_______________________________________________________
Printed Name of Applicant Date
V.CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the City shall have the right to consider in a noticed public hearing
conducted under Section 19.14.270 of the Municipal Code whether to revoke or modify all
approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny,
revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals
herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions
or seek damages for their violation. Failure to satisfy the conditions of this permit may also
result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
VI.INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Councilthat its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the
enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event
that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed
to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect. However, in such an event, the
Property Owner/Applicant shall have the right, by paying applicable processing fees, to bring a
request for a Conditional Use Permit without the “invalid” conditions(s) back to the discretionary
body which approved the Permit for a determination by that body as to whether all of the
findings necessary for the issuance of the proposed permit can still be made in the absence of the
“invalid” condition(s). Such hearing shall be a hearing de novo, and the discretionary body shall
have the absolute right to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed Permit and the
condition(s) contained therein.
Presented by:Approved as to form by:
______________________________________________
Kelly BroughtonGlen R. Googins
Development ServicesDirectorCity Attorney
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 612 of 836
City of Chula Vista
County of San Diego
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT
LOCATOR
Silvergate Development, LLC
APPLICANT:
PROJECT
Bonita Glen Drive
ADDRESS:
SCALE:
FILE NUMBER:
DR17-0040
No Scale
NORTH
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 613 of 836
L:\\Gabe Files\\Arcmap Locator Template\\Locators\\DR170040.ai.01.18.18
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 614 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 615 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 616 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 617 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 618 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 619 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 620 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 621 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 622 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 623 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 624 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 625 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 626 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 627 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 628 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 629 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 630 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 631 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 632 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 633 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 634 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 635 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 636 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 637 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 638 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 639 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 640 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 641 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 642 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 643 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 644 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 645 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 646 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 647 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 648 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 649 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 650 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 651 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 652 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 653 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 654 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 655 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 656 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 657 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 658 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 659 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 660 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 661 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 662 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 663 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 664 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 665 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 666 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 667 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 668 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 669 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 670 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 671 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 672 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 673 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 674 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 675 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 676 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 677 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 678 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 679 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 680 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 681 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 682 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 683 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 684 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 685 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 686 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 687 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 688 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 689 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 690 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 691 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 692 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 693 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 694 of 836
2019-06-04 Agenda PacketPage 695 of 836