Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBonita Glen MND1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Project Name: Bonita Glen Project 2. Project Location: Bonita Glen Dr, Chula Vista California 91910 3. Assessor’s Parcel No.: 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 A. PROJECT 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 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 2 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. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 1–6 are three stories with dwelling units and tuck-under parking at level 1 and dwelling units above at levels 2 and 3. Buildings 1–6 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. 3 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 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. 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. 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 alon g Hilltop Drive and Pepper Tree Road. Utilities 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. 4 The proposed project would include catch basins throughout the site to contain on-site runoff. Trash enclosures would be dispersed throughout the site. Project Access and Circulation 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 exiting the proposed project. A sign(s) stating “Dead End” and/or “No Exit” would be placed for 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. Parking The proposed project would apply the State’s Planning and Zoning: Affordable Housing Density 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 Units/Quantity Parking Rate Total Parking Spaces Required 6 studio apartments 1 space / dwelling unit 6 122 one-bedroom apartments 1 space / dwelling unit 122 42 two-bedroom apartments 2 spaces / dwelling unit 84 Total required: Total provided: 212 231 Source: Chen Ryan 2018b 5 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 Bonita Road (assuming 20’ per space) (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 project’s parking demand (Chen Ryan 2018b). Recreation and Open Space 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 as a children’s play area directly south of the park open to the public. The proposed project would include amenities such as a children’s play area, pool, spa, 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. Landscaping 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 planting–native grassland. Construction 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. 6 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 Construction Phase One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment Average Daily Worker Trips Average Daily Vendor Truck Trips Total Haul Truck Trips Equipment Type Quantity Usage Hours Site Preparation 26 0 0 Rubber-tired loaders 1 8 Off-highway trucks 3 8 Grading 22 0 500 Crawler tractors 1 8 Rubber-tired loaders 1 8 Off-highway trucks 5 8 Building Construction 160 6 0 Air compressors 1 8 Concrete/industrial saws 1 8 Cranes 1 8 Excavators 1 8 Forklifts 1 8 Pumps 1 8 Paving 16 10 0 Paving equipment 1 8 Rollers 1 8 Rubber-tired loaders 1 8 Architectural Coating 32 0 0 Pumps 1 8 Operation 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 Element’s average of 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. 7 C. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING AND PLANS 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 prop osed 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 desi gn. The CCD uses are those suited to the East Chula Vista-Bonita area and are the foundation of the Specific Plan. D. PUBLIC COMMENTS On July 17, 2018, a Notice of Initial Study was issued. On December 17, 2018 , a Notice of Intent was circulated to prope rty 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 . 8 E. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 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. F. MITIGATION NECESSARY TO AVOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 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 to health risks that exceed SDAPCD’s 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 be noted on the project’s architectural 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 units in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations for 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 requirement shall be noted on the project’s architectural plans. 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 9 installed filtration systems shall be the responsibility of the applicant or its successor. The City may enforce that the systems are in accordance with the manufacturer’s 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 10 and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan in conformance with the City’s biology guidelines 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 11 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 meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification 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. 12 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. 13 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’s (City’s) 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., Monday–Friday, 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’s final design to the satisfaction of 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 n oise 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. 14  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 environmen t. 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 Building Number Minimum Noise Attenuation Rating (STC) Building 1 25 Building 2 29 Building 3 25 Building 4 22 Building 5 22 Building 6 22 Building 7 22 15 HVAC noise would have the potential to exceed the City’s stationary-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 City’s stationary-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. 17 REFERENCES 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. 18 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK D E H ÄÆ54 B §¨¦805 Project Location Bonita Glen Project MND SOURCE: SANGIS 2017 Project Boundary FIGURE 1 Project Site !(^ Aliso Viejo Carlsbad Chula VistaCoronado Dana Point Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La QuintaLake Elsinore Menifee Murrieta Oceanside Palm Springs Poway San Clemente San Diego San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Temecula Vista Wildomar Ri v e rs i d e C o u n t y ÄÆ94 ÄÆ125 ÄÆ241 ÄÆ54 ÄÆ195 ÄÆ56 ÄÆ111 ÄÆ86 ÄÆ74 ÄÆ67 ÄÆ74 ÄÆ76 ÄÆ79 ÄÆ78 §¨¦805 §¨¦215 §¨¦8 §¨¦15 §¨¦8 S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y 0 2,0001,000 Feet 20 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E 1 3 4 8 9 11 12 15 16 20 75,090 SF 14,799 SF 14,799 SF 8,938 SF 30 33 34 40 44 45 49 50 5758 63 64 71 72 78 79 83 8488 89 97 H/ C H/C H/C H/ C 98 105 106 TYP. DRIV E AISLE WI D T H CLE A R WID T H 114 115 123 124 RA M P STAIR STAIR RA M P 132 133 137 138 143 144 149 150 155 156 163 164 173 174 183 184189 190 197 198 206 207 215 216 223 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 1 TY P . F O R B U I L D I N G S 1 A N D 2 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 2 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 3 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 4 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 5 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 6 4 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 7 ONE STORYPOOL BUILDING370 SF TOT-LOT PER LANDSCAPE PLANS SHADED AREA REPRESENTS CREEK R.O.W. PER DUDEK REPORT, SEE CIVIL PLANS EAST DRIVE TYP. PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS: 9’x18’ACCESSIBLE STALL DIMENSIONS: 9’x18’, with an 8’ x 18’ ACCESS AISLE SDG+E MAIL *ALL SETBACKS SHOWN ABOVE AREPROPOSED, ALL ARE TO FACE OF BUILDING. NOTES: 1. ALL TRASH AND RECYCLING ENCLOSURES SHALL BE DESIGNED TO CONFORM WITH CITY OF CHULAVISTA’S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. 2. BUILDINGS 1 +2 ARE STORY OVER BASEMENT PARKING. WEST DRIVE NORTH DRIVE STRESS PAD SOUTH DRIVE BONITA GLEN DR. VIS T A D R . TRASH & RECYCLING POOL TERRACE P A T H O F C O L L E C T I O N T R U C K S OFFICE UTIL. BRIDGE BRIDGE SPA north scale1” = 30’ - 0” TY P . F O R B U I L D I N G S 5 A N D 6 TY P . F O R B U I L D I N G S 3 A N D 4 8,938 SF 13,485 SF 13,485 SF HOTEL GAS STATION RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL SECTION AT BLDG. 2 SEE SHEET A3.0 SECT I O N A T B L D G . 1 SEE S H E E T A 3 . 0 TRASH & RECYCLING TRASH & RECYCLING TRASH & RECYCLING Project Site Plan Bonita Glen MND FIGURE 2SOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 22 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exterior Building Materials Bonita Glen MND FIGURE 3aSOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 24 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exterior Building Materials Bonita Glen MND FIGURE 3bSOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 26 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PRIVATE PATIO(GROUND LEVEL): 5,505 sq. ft. BALCONY: 7,344 sq. ft. DOG PARK: 3,455 sq. ft. NATURAL PLAY: 5,704 sq. ft. POOL DECK: 5,150 sq. ft. AMENITY BUILDING: 375 sq. ft. COMMUNITY TRAIL: 12,410 sq. ft. OUTDOOR DINING PLAZA: 907 sq. ft. SIDEWALK ALONG BONITA GLEN DR.: 2,127 sq. ft. ENTRANCE HARDSCAPE: 1,142 sq. ft. PLANTING:33,258 sq. ft. - Entry and Residential Planting: 16,401 sq.ft. - Courtyard and Pool Planting: 1,550 sq.ft. - Riparian: 5,075 sq.ft. - Park and Edge Planting: 8,484 sq.ft. - Urban Garden and Orchard: 1,748 sq.ft. TOTAL: 77,377 SF Open Space and Recreation Areas Bonita Glen MND FIGURE 4SOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 28 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 2 3 3 3 9 10 5 4 21 11 12 13 7 8 6 14 1 6 8 20 19 18 17 17 15 16 22 22 22 22 17 1 1 22 22 4 17 11 20 23 23 23 23 10 ’ SETBACK SET B A C K 10’ STREET TREE - COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR STREET TREE - NEIGHBORHOOD SCREENING/EDGE TREE ORCHARD TREE COURTYARD TREE PLAZA/POOL TREE PLANTING ZONES TREE ENTRY AND RESIDENTIAL PLANTING COURTYARD & POOL PLANTING RIPARIAN PLANTING- STORM WATER GARDEN-EPHMERAL STREAM- PARKING LOT BIOSWALES PARK AND EDGE PLANTING DOG PARK-NATURAL PLAY- COMMUNITY TRAIL URBAN GARDEN AND ORCHARD SLOPE PLANTING-NATIVE GRASSLAND CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT ZONE PLANTING LEGEND BUILDING 1 BUILDING 5 BUILDING 4 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 6BUILDING 7 PLANTING NOTES WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES WUCOLS: Water Use Classification of Landscape Species is a OWNER of California Cooperative Extension Publication and is a guide to the water needs of landscape plants. CATEGORY/ABV. PERCENT OF ETo H - HIGH 70% - 90% M - MEDIUM 40% - 60% L- LOW 10% - 30% VL - VERY LOW < 10% LANDSCAPE CALCULATION NEW LANDSCAPE: 97,821 S.F. (INCLUDING TURF) EXISTING LANDSCAPE: 5,435 S.F. (EPHEMERAL STREAM) TOTAL LANDSCAPAE: 103,256 S.F.-45% OF SITE(SITE: 230,868 S.F.) REQUIRED TREE PLANTING AT PARKING AREA: 22 One (1) 24” Box tree per 3,000 SF parking spaces. TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: 68,000 sq. ft. 170 Units x 400 sf/unit Required = 68,000 sq. ft. TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 77,377 sq. ft. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 COMMUNITY TRAIL- washed aggregate concrete SIDEWALK- sand finish concrete STORMWATER GARDEN- riparian planting with rocks and boulders VISITOR AND TENANT PARKING- asphalt GARAGE ENTRY- concrete FIRE BOWL- gas supplied OUTDOOR DINING - concrete/concrete pavers OUTDOOR GRILL AREA - conccrete/concrete pavers DOG PARK- turf/artificial turf NATURAL PLAY- fibar play surface or sand and pour-in-place safety surfacing LEGEND 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE - ipe or other hardwood POOL- concrete SPA- concrete POOL HOUSE- refer to architect EXISTING HOTEL PARKING EXIT - updated with enhanced paving and specimen tree EXISTING CUL DE SAC TRASH ENCLOSURE - refer to architect COMMUNITY VEGGIE GARDEN - raised wood boxes with dg paving and galvanized metal planters with potable water supply EPHEMERAL STREAM CHANNEL “PROTECT IN PLACE“ 20 21 22 23 PEDESTRAIN WALK ENTRY - integral color concrete LOBBY - refer to arch PRIVATE PATIO - natural grey sand finish concrete REINFORCED CONCRETE PAD LIGHTING- parking single and double box LIGHTING- pool and pole light LIGHTING- tree uplight LIGHTING- pedestrian pole light LIGHTING- wall recessed light LIGHTING-wall recessed strip light LIGHTING LEGEND 10 19 Landscape Plan Bonita Glen MND FIGURE 5SOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 30 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK BONITA GLEN INITIAL STUDY 1 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 2 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 3 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 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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 q uality 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. As indicated in the City’s General Plan, Bonita Road 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. 4 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 5 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 he avy 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 vis ual 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 1–6 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 would have a metal guardrail, a wood trellis. Building 7’s façade would consist of pre- 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 6 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 conformance with the City’s Design Manual and Municipal Code, 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. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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 7 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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 s ite is designated as urban and built-up land (DOC 201 6). 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 t o a non-agriculture use; therefore, no impacts to farmland would occur as a result of the proposed project. 8 (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. Forest land is defined as “land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits” (California Public Resources Code, Section 12220(g)). Timberland i s defined as “land, other than 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 fore st products, including Christmas trees” (California Public Resources Code, Section 4526). A Timberland Production Zone is defined as “an area which has been zoned pursuant to 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 subdivision” (California Government Code, Section 51104(g)). 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 rezonin g 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. 9 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 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). 10 (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 City’s 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 City’s housing 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 associated with air quality plan conformance, the County’s Guidelines for Determining 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 growth projections that would not exceed SANDAG’s growth projections for the City, the 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 11 particulate matter (PM10; particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5; particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in 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 (PM10 and PM2.5) that may be generated during grading and construction 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 (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, and PM2.5. The 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 Year VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Pounds per Day 2018 5.51 71.60 29.64 0.12 3.38 2.24 2019 3.30 17.86 14.12 0.04 2.25 1.06 2020 42.17 8.27 12.85 0.03 2.05 0.86 Maximum Daily Emissions 42.17 71.60 29.64 0.12 3.38 2.24 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter Source: Dudek 2018. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from California Emissions Estimator Model. Although not considered mitigation, these emissions reflect California Emissions Estimator Model “mitigated” output, which accounts for the required compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings). 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. 12 Operational Emissions Operations of the proposed project would generate VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 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 would not exceed the City’s recommended operational thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Impacts associated with project-generated operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant. Table 4 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emission Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Pounds per Day Area 4.35 0.16 14.10 0.00 0.08 0.08 Energy 0.04 0.32 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 Mobile 1.42 5.53 13.81 0.04 3.43 0.94 Total 5.81 6.01 28.03 0.04 3.53 1.04 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter Source: Dudek 2018 The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from California Emissions Estimator Model. These emissions reflect California Emissions Estimator Model “mitigated” output, which accounts for compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings). (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 for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual 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 13 impact if the project’s contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative 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 designa tion 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 siz e 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 “sensitive receptors” are the most serious hazards of existing air quality conditions in the 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 As required by Policy E 6.10 in the City’s General Plan Environmental Element (City of 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. 14 Table 5 Roadway Health Risk Assessment Results – Unmitigated Impact Parameter Units Risk 9-year exposure duration Cancer Risk Per Million 49.00 HIC Not Applicable 0.07 30-year exposure duration Cancer Risk Per Million 60.19 HIC Not Applicable 0.19 70-year exposure duration Cancer Risk Per Million 64.12 HIC Not Applicable 0.21 Sources: Dudek 2018 Notes: HIC = Chronic Hazard Index. 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 have CO hotspot guidelines, the County’s Guidelines (County of San Diego 2007) CO 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 “E” and have peak-hour trips exceeding 3,000 trips. The proposed project’s traffic impact 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 15 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. Thus, the proposed project’s CO emissions 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 exceed the SDAPCD’s emission thresholds for any criteria air pollutants. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx are precursors to O3, for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The health effects associated with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. The VOC and NOx emissions associated with project construction and operations could minimally contribute to regional O3 concentrations and the associated health impacts. Additionally, it is not expected that the proposed project’s operational 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. 16 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 risks that exceed SDAPCD’s significance thresholds and to ens 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, t he applicant or its successor shall require the i nstallation of high-efficiency return air filters on all heating, ventilation, and air conditioni ng (HVAC) systems serving the project. This requirement shall be noted on the project’s architectural plan. The air filtration system shall reduce at least 90% of particulate matter emissions, such as can be achieved with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Val ue 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 anufacturer’s recommendations for 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 requirement shall be noted on the project’s architectural plans. 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 systems are in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations for the life of the project. 17 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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? 18 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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 Vegetation Community or Land Cover Type Existing Acreage Non-native grassland 4.9 Ornamental 0.1 Developed 0.3 Total 5.3 Source: Dudek 2018b. 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 19 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 Scientific Name Common Name Status: Federal/State/ Subarea Plan Primary Habitat Associations Status on Site or Potential to Occur Birds Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark None/WL/None Nests and forages in grasslands, disturbed lands, agriculture, and beaches; nests in alpine fell fields of the Sierra Nevada Moderate potential to occur. Suitable non-native grassland present and species is tolerant of disturbed conditions. However, the project site is surrounded by urban development. Sources: CDFW 2017; City of Chula Vista 2003; Dudek 2018b. 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 20 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 21 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 Jurisdictional Resource Potential Resource Agency Jurisdiction Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Length/Width (Feet) Area (Acres) Waters of the United States ACOE/RWQCB/CDFW/ City Non-native grassland Length: 210; width: 1 0.005 Waters of the state RWQCB only Non-native grassland Length: 39; width: 1; length: 289; width: 1.5 0.01 Source: Dudek 2018b. 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 22 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 incorpo rated. (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 carrying capacity of wildlife populations by including “live-in” habitat; and (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 represented by continuous patches of habitat or by nearby habitat “islands” that function as “stepping-stones” for dispersal. 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. 23 (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 the goals and objectives of the City’s Specific Plan. Additionally, the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Policy Number 576-05) 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. 24 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 ot her 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 in conformance with the City’s biology guidelines 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 implement ed 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 Engin eer 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 mitigatio n is required. 25 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. 26 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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 27 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 28 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 meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification 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. 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 29 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. 30 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) 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? d) 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? 31 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact e) 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. (a) (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. 32 (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 33 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. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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? 34 b) 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-year “project life.” Table 9 Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E Metric Tons per Year 2018 81.06 0.01 0.00 81.39 2019 220.57 0.02 0.00 221.02 2020 134.17 0.01 0.00 134.40 Total 436.81 Amortized Emissions 14.56 Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2E = carbon dioxide equivalent Source: Dudek 2018a. Total construction emissions for the proposed project are estimated to be 437 MT CO2E. Estimated amortized project-generated construction emissions would be approximately 15 MT CO2E. However, because there is no separate GHG threshold for construction emissions 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 35 disposal; and generation of electricity1 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 gener ation are shown in Table 10. Table 10 Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E Metric Tons per Year Area 2.07 0.00 0.00 2.12 Energy 178.49 0.01 0.00 179.28 Mobile 662.90 0.04 0.00 663.87 Solid waste 3.97 0.24 0.00 9.83 Water supply and wastewater 48.44 0.36 0.01 60.16 Total 915.27 Amortized Construction Emissions 14.56 Operation + Amortized Construction Total 929.83 Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2E = carbon dioxide equivalent Source: Dudek 2018a These emissions reflect California Emissions Estimator Model “mitigated” output and operational year 2021. As shown in Table 10, estimated annual project-generated GHG emissions in 2021 would be approximately 915 MT CO2E per year as a result of project operations. Estimated 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 CO2E per year. Using the estimated operational emissions of 930 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 CO2E per SP. This efficiency metric is lower than the significance threshold of 1.78 MT CO2E per person, which is based on the 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). 36 (b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. This section discusses the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s CAP, SANDAG’s Regional Plan, and CARB’s Scoping Plan. Consistency with the CAP The City’s 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 was performed with the City’s 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 with the City’s CAP. The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable measures within the City’s CAP. Consistency with SANDAG’s San Diego Forward: the Regional Plan Regarding consistency with SANDAG’s Regional Plan, the 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 project’s residents and visitors that facilitates non-vehicular travel, consistent with SB 375 and SANDAG’s Regional Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. Consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plan The Scoping Plan, approved by CARB on December 12, 2008, provides a framework for actions to reduce California’s GHG 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 37 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. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a si gnificant 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 38 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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) Imp air 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 39 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 Board’s website, “Geotracker,” 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. 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). 40 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 Hazard ous 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 on e-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 handl e 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 State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker website, the soil underlying the service station did not cr oss 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 project site is not located within the airport’s overflight zone, and Brown Field Ai 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 impact s would occur. (g) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or 41 evacuation plan. During construction activities, construction equipment staging areas would be restricted to on -site locations. All construction within public roadways would not impeded access or movement of emergency vehicles. As indicated in the City’s 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 Cit y. Areas in the City that are particularly susceptible to these fires, are designated as “very high hazard” areas as delineated on Figure 9.9 of the City’s General Plan: 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 “no designation.” Additionally, the project site is located within a highly urbanized 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. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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? 42 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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? 43 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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, sandba g 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). 44 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 “Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4” and “Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage,” as well as Site Design BMPs such as “Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features” and “Conserve Natural Area, Soils, and Vegetation” (Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering 2018). The proposed impervious areas inclu de 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 basins and discharge directly into the City’s storm drain infrastructure along Bonita 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 w alls 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 45 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 the biofiltration basins and discharge directly into the City’s storm drain 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 have a 1% probability of flooding every year, which is also known as the “100-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). 46 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 provided in the biofiltration basins and discharge directly into the City’s storm drain infrastructure along Bonita Glen Drive. The existing 33-inch public storm drain has a full flow capacity of 76.64 cfs based on the “as-built” slope of 2.1% (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 biofiltration basins and discharge directly into the City’s storm drain infrastructure along Bonita Glen Drive. The existing 33” public storm drain has a full flow capacity of 76.64 cfs based upon the “as-built” slope of 2.1%. 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” 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. 47 (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 discharge directly into the City’s storm drain infrastructure along Bonita Glen Drive. 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. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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? 48 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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. 49 (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 si te 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. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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? 50 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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 of the City’s General Plan. Mineral Resource 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 or within any areas containing mineral resources as indicated in the City’s 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 9-4 of the City’s General Plan (City of Chula Vista 2005a). Therefore, no impact would result. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 51 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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? 52 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 use–related 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 Receiving Land Use Category Noise Level (dB(A)) 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. (Weekdays) 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (Weekdays) 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. (Weekends) 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. (Weekends) All residential (except multiple dwelling) 45 55 Multiple dwelling residential 50 60 Commercial 60 65 Light industry – I-R and I-L zone 70 70 Heavy industry – I zone 80 80 Note: dBA = A-weighted decibels Source: Acoustical Assessment Report; Dudek 2018e 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 53 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 Leq when construction would take place at or near the project boundary. More typical construction noise levels at the residences to the east would range from approximately 66 to 72 dBA Leq (Dudek 2018e). Table 12 Construction Noise Model Results Summary Receiver Source/Receiver Distances (feet) Construction Phase Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Nearest Residences Nearest: 75 76 80 81 80 Typical: 240 66 70 72 72 Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent sound level; n/a = not applicable to this phase The City regulates construction noise by restricting the allowable hours of construction. Section 9.40.110 of the City’s Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the 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 are considered noise sensitive and would need to comply with the City’s 65 dB CNEL exterior noise level requirement.2 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 proposed project’s calculations to show compliance with City open space requirements. 54 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 barel y 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 Off-Site Traffic Noise Modeling Results Modeled Receptor Existing (2017) Noise Level (dBA CNEL) Existing (2017) with Project Noise Level (dBA CNEL) Buildout (2035) without Project Noise Level (dBA CNEL) Buildout (2035) with Project Noise Level (dBA CNEL) Maximum Noise Level Increase (dB) ST1, On-site northeastern corner 61 61 61 61 0 ST2, On-site northwestern corner 64 64 65 65 0 ST3, Residences west of project site 64 64 65 65 0 ST4, Southeast of project site near residences 65 63 66 65 -2 ST5, Northwest of project site (south of Bonita Road) 70 70 71 71 0 ST6, North of project site adjacent to motel 69 69 69 69 0 R1, East of project site rear yard of residences 72 72 72 72 0 R2, Northeast of project site front yard of residences 67 67 68 68 0 Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; ST = Station; R = Receiver 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 55 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, noise thresholds at the property line per the City’s noise control ordinance are measured on a 1-hour average. As previously stated, the City’s General Plan requires on-site outdoor areas such as proposed patios, balconies, and outdoor common-use areas are considered noise sensitive and would need to comply with the City’s 65 dB CNEL exterior noise 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) Modeled Receiver No. Floor Level 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 4th Level R3 – On-site pool area 56 n/a n/a n/a R4 – Building 2 NE side n/a (69) n/a (73) n/a (74) n/a R5 – Building 2 SE side 62 n/a (67) n/a (70) n/a R6 – Building 2 NW side n/a (70) n/a (72) n/a (73) n/a R7 – Building 2 SW side 65 65 n/a (69) n/a R8 – Building 1 NE side 59 64 n/a (67) n/a R9 – Building 1 SE side 58 61 n/a (62) n/a R10 – Building 1 NW side 64 65 n/a (68) n/a R11 – Building 1 SW side 63 64 n/a (67) n/a R12 – Building 3 NE side 62 n/a (69) n/a (70) n/a R13 – Building 3 SE side 58 n/a (65) n/a (67) n/a R14 – Building 3 NW side 55 57 62 n/a R15 – Building 3 SW side 54 56 60 n/a R16 – Building 4 NE side 57 63 65 n/a R17 – Building 4 SE side 57 61 63 n/a R18 – Building 4 NW side 54 56 59 n/a R19 – Building 4 SW side 58 59 60 n/a R20 – Building 5 NE side 57 63 65 n/a 56 Table 14 On-Site Future (Year 2035) Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Modeled Receiver No. Floor Level 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 4th Level R21 – Building 5 SE side 55 59 60 n/a R22 – Building 5 NW side 59 61 63 n/a R23 – Building 5 SW side 59 60 61 n/a R24 – Building 6 NE side 63 65 n/a (66) n/a R25 – Building 6 SE side 60 62 62 n/a R26 – Building 6 NW side 56 57 62 n/a R27 – Building 6 SW side 56 58 60 n/a R28 – Building 7 N side 62 64 n/a (66) n/a (67) R29 – Building 7 NE side 59 61 63 65 R30 – Building 7 SE side 57 59 60 62 R31 – Building 7 S side 58 60 60 60 R32 – Building 7 SW corner 61 62 62 61 R33 – Building 7 SW side 55 57 57 57 R34 – Building 7 W side 63 63 63 64 R35 – Building 7 NW side 63 63 63 64 R36 – Building 7 Deck* n/a n/a n/a n/a (66) R37 - Play Area 64 n/a n/a n/a R38 - Dog Run 65 n/a n/a n/a Notes: Bolded numbers represent interior receiver locations exceeding 60 dBA CNEL; these guest rooms will require subsequent interior noise analysis to verify compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL noise standard for habitable rooms. n/a = not applicable. A noise-sensitive receiver does not exist outdoors at this floor elevation or this area is not used for the useable outdoor area requirement. (##) = modeled exterior noise levels at locations where there is no useable outdoor space. These levels are used to assess the need for interior mitigation. * The Building 7 Deck has been removed from the project. 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 approximately 56 dBA CNEL. Because the Project’s proposed pool area is subject to the 65 dBA CNEL noise standard for exterior uses, the noise levels would meet the City’s noise 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 counted toward the project’s outdoor open space requirement, it would not be subject to the 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 require balcony barriers, have not been counted toward the project’s outdoor open space 57 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, the noise levels would meet the City’s noise standard, and thus would be less than significant. 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 recreational areas’ noises would be similar to typical residential noises and would not be 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 City’s stationary-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. 58 (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’s (City’s) 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., Monday–Friday, 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’s final design to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department. 59 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 noi se standard, and the noise impact will be less than significant. 60 Table NOI-1 Minimum Window and Exterior Door Noise Attenuation Ratings Building Number Minimum Noise Attenuation Rating (STC) Building 1 25 Building 2 29 Building 3 25 Building 4 22 Building 5 22 Building 6 22 Building 7 22 MM-NOI-4 To ensure that HVAC and other outdoor mechanical equipment would not exceed the City’s stationary-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. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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 61 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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). The City’s General 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 2010–2020, identified Chula Vista’s housing production goal of 12,861 more 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. 62 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. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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? 63 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant 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. 64 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. 65 Mitigation: No mitigation measures required. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant 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. 66 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant 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? 67 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant 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 Land Use Quantity Trip Rate Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % Trips % Trips Multifamily Units (> 20 DU/acre) 170 DU 6/DU 1,020 8% 82 (16-in/66-out) 9% 92 (64-in/28-out) Source: Chen Ryan 2018a. As shown o n 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 acceptabl e LOS C or better during AM and PM peak hours, under Existing 68 Plus Project Conditions. Therefore, based on the City’s and County’s significance 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) Roadway From To Classification Capacity Existing + Project Existing SI? ADT LOS ADT LOS Bonita Glen Drive Bonita Road Adrienne Drive 2-Lane non-CE 7,5001 4,025 A 3,005 A No Bonita Road E. Flower Street Bonita Glen Drive 4-Lane Gateway 43,2002 25,611 A 25,458 A No Bonita Glen Drive I-805 SB ramps 33,589 B 32,824 B No I-805 SB ramps I-805 NB ramps 37,236 C 36,726 C No Source: Chen Ryan 2018a. Notes: SI = Significant Impact 1 Reflects 2-Lane Collector LOS C capacity threshold. 2 Reflects 4-Lane Gateway LOS D capacity threshold. Table 17 Roadway Segment Level of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions (County of San Diego) Roadway From To Classification Capacity (LOS D) Existing + Project Existing SI ? ADT LOS ADT LOS Bonita Glen Drive Bonita Road Adrienne Drive 2-Lane Minor Collector 7,000 4,025 C 3,005 C No Vista Drive Adrienne Drive Ola Court Local Public Roadway 4,500 2,961 Under Capacity 2,859 Under Capacity No Pepper Tree Road Jacaranda Drive Vista Drive Local Public Roadway 4,500 2,640 Under Capacity 2,538 Under Capacity No Source: Chen Ryan 2018a. 69 Table 18 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay w/o Project (AM/PM) LOS w/o Project (AM/PM) SI? Avg. Delay (sec.) LOS Avg. Delay (sec.) LOS 1. E. Flower Street/Bonita Road/E Street 18.8 B 13.9 B 18.9/14.0 B/B No 2. Bonita Glen Drive/Bonita Road 16.7 B 19.7 B 14.7/17.6 B/B No 3. I-805 SB ramps/Bonita Road 15.9 B 26.6 C 15.7/26.5 B/C No 4. I-805 NB ramps/Bonita Road 23.1 C 23.9 C 22.6/23.5 C/C No 5. Hilltop Drive / Pepper Tree Road1 14.6 B 11.7 B 14.3/11.6 B/B No Source: Chen Ryan 2018a. Note: The project driveway is at the terminus of Vista Drive and has no conflicting roadway; therefore, it was not analyzed. SI = Significant Impact 1 AWSC – All Way Stop Control 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) Roadway From To Classification Capacity Year 2035 Base + Project Year 2035 Base SI? ADT LOS ADT LOS Bonita Glen Drive Bonita Road Adrienne Drive 2-Lane Non-CE 7,5001 6,020 B 5,000 A No Bonita Road E. Flower Street Bonita Glen Drive 4-Lane Gateway 43,2002 36,760 C 36,600 C No Bonita Glen Drive I-805 SB ramps 39,670 D 38,800 D No I-805 SB ramps I-805 NB ramps 47,860 E 47,300 E No Source: Chen Ryan 2018a. Notes: SI = Significant Impact 1 Reflects 2-Lane Collector LOS C capacity threshold. 2 Reflects 4-Lane Gateway LOS D capacity threshold. 70 Table 20 Roadway Segment Level of Service – Year 2035 Base Plus Project Conditions (County of San Diego) Roadway From To Classification Capacity (LOS D) Year 2035 Base + Project Year 2035 Base SI? ADT LOS ADT LOS Bonita Glen Drive Bonita Road Adrienne Drive 2-Lane Minor Collector 7,000 6,020 D 5,000 D No Vista Drive Adrienne Drive Ola Court Local Public Roadway 4,500 3,400 Under Capacity 3,300 Under Capacit y No Pepper Tree Road Jacaranda Drive Vista Drive Local Public Roadway 4,500 3,100 Under Capacity 3,000 Under Capacit y No Source: Chen Ryan 2018a. However, based on the City’s and County’s significance criteria, the proposed project 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 Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay w/o Project (AM/PM) LOS w/o Project (AM/PM) SI? Avg. Delay (sec.) LOS Avg. Delay (sec.) LOS 1. E. Flower Street / Bonita Road / E Street 16.0 B 21.7 C 16.0/21.6 B/C No 2. Bonita Glen Drive / Bonita Road 17.8 B 25.0 C 15.8/21.0 B/C No 3. I-805 SB ramps / Bonita Road 18.6 B 43.2 D 18.3/43.1 B/D No 4. I-805 NB ramps / Bonita Road 34.2 C 38.3 D 32.5/37.4 C/D No 5. Hilltop Drive / Pepper Tree Road1 18.2 C 11.5 B 17.8/11.3 C/B No Source: Chen Ryan 2018a. Note: The project driveway is at the terminus of Vista Drive and has no conflicting roadway; therefore, it was not analyzed. SI = Significant Impact 1 AWSC – All Way Stop Control 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 71 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. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the City and County’s level-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 City’s circulation standards, and would not create a hazard for vehicles, bicycles, or 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 indicated in the City’s General Plan, the nearest evacuation route 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 72 (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. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact 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? 73 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact 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 project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 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 74 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 75 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 PLWTP or 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 2009–2011 demands) (City of Chula Vista 2014). Therefore, the proposed project would generate 30,940 GPD of wastewater, which would account for a small portion of the Metropolitans Water District’s capacity. 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). 76 At this time, there is one proposed new landfill site in San Diego C ounty 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 project’s solid waste disposal needs. Impacts would be less than significant. (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. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. THRESHOLDS Will the proposal adversely impact the City’s 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% of “Priority One” 77 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all “Priority One” emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. ii. Respond to 57% of “Priority Two” urgent calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all “Priority Two” 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 Service (LOS) “C”" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) “D” may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Signalized intersections west of I-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS “E” or “F” during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. 78 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant 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 79 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant 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. Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact XIV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the 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.) 80 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. H owever, with incorporation of MM- BIO -1 through MM-BIO-3, potentially significant impacts would be reduce d 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 cu ltural 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 mitigat ion. (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 cu mulatively 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. 81 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 each read, understood and have their respective company’s authority to and do agree to the 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 Applicants’ and/or Operator’s desire that the proposed project be held in abeyance without approval. _____ ________________________________________ Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of [Property Owner’s Name] _____ ________________________________________ _ _______ Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Property Owner’s Name] _____ ________________________________________ Printed Name and Title of [Operator if different from Property Owner] _____ ________________________________________ ___ _____ Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Operator if different from Property Owner] 82 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 Agricultural Resources Mineral Resources Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation Threshold Standards Mandatory Findings of Significance 84 XXIV REFERENCES California Government Code, Sections 51100–51155. Timberland. California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended. California Public Resources Code, Sections 4511 –4629.13. Z’Berg-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. 85 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. 2012–2020 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. 86 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/rule s- 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. Sweetwater Authority. 2018. “About Us.” 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. 87 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK B R O A D W A Y R I N G R D E 3 0 T H S T N A V N 0 4 T H A V S W E ETWATER RD E 32ND S T F A V E I ST LO M AC I T AS LN B E E C H A V D ST E 28TH S T WH I T N E Y S T M E L R O S E A V C YPRESS S T 0 1 S T A V M I N O T A V D A V I D S O N S T E S T G R O VE S T S M I T H A V B O N I T A M E S A R D 0 4 T H A V KILE Y R D J A V M A V L A V K A V V A L L E Y R D N 0 2 N D A V S T O C K M A N S T R OBERT A V V A L L E Y V I S T A RD C ST H ST N A C I O N A V L O RILN S H A S T A S T E 24TH S T E M I L L A N S T G R E T C H E NRD P LAZABONITARD DOUGLAS ST E 2 6 T H S T I ST H I G H L A N D A V 0 5 T H A V J ST FLOWE R S T H O R TON RD E J ST D E L M A R A V G U A V A A V D A V 0 2 N D A V N E W B E R R Y ST C E D A R A V C E N T E R S T N G L OV E R A V F ST 0 3 R D A V C A G L E S T R A N D Y L N H A L S E Y S T C A R LA A V C H U R C H A V MAD R O N A S T G ST G A R R E T T A V L A N D I S A V A S H A V I A V T W I N O A K S A V F I G A V TH E H I L L R D E H STE L M A V B O N I T A R D F LOY D A VN O L A N A V D E N N I S A V A RTHU R A V KIN G ST C LAIRE A V EFL O W E R S T EQUITATI O N L N ÄÆ54 O T A Y L A K E S V A L L E Y H I L L T O P 24TH EUC L I D T ELEGRAPH CANYONL SWEETWAT E R H I G H L A N D C B O N I TA R E O 03RD 0 4 T H 30TH W I L L O W §¨¦805 Project Location Bonita Glen IS SOURCE: SANGIS 2017 Da t e : 8 / 3 / 2 0 1 8 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c b a t t l e - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 1 P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n . m x d n Project Boundary FIGURE 1 Project Site !(^ Aliso Viejo Carlsbad Chula VistaCoronado Dana Point Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach La QuintaLake Elsinore Menifee Murrieta Oceanside Palm Springs Poway San Clemente San Diego San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Temecula Vista Riverside County ÄÆ94 ÄÆ125 ÄÆ241 ÄÆ54 ÄÆ195 ÄÆ56 ÄÆ111 ÄÆ86 ÄÆ74 ÄÆ67 ÄÆ74 ÄÆ76 ÄÆ79 ÄÆ78 §¨¦805 §¨¦215 §¨¦8 §¨¦15 §¨¦8 SAN DIEGO COUNTY 02,0001,000 Feet 89 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE P R O P E R T Y L I N E 1 3 4 8 9 11 12 15 16 20 75,090 SF 14,799 SF 14,799 SF 8,938 SF 30 33 34 40 44 45 49 50 5758 63 64 71 72 78 79 83 8488 89 97 H/ C H/C H/C H/ C 98 105 106 TYP. DRIV E AISLE WI D T H CLE A R WID T H 114 115 123 124 RA M P STAIR STAIR RA M P 132 133 137 138 143 144 149 150 155 156 163 164 173 174 183 184189 190 197 198 206 207 215 216 223 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 1 TY P . F O R B U I L D I N G S 1 A N D 2 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 2 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 3 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 4 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 5 3 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 6 4 STORYRESIDENTIALBUILDING 7 ONE STORYPOOL BUILDING370 SF TOT-LOT PER LANDSCAPE PLANS SHADED AREA REPRESENTS CREEK R.O.W. PER DUDEK REPORT, SEE CIVIL PLANS EAST DRIVE TYP. PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS: 9’x18’ACCESSIBLE STALL DIMENSIONS: 9’x18’, with an 8’ x 18’ ACCESS AISLE SDG+E MAIL *ALL SETBACKS SHOWN ABOVE AREPROPOSED, ALL ARE TO FACE OF BUILDING. NOTES: 1. ALL TRASH AND RECYCLING ENCLOSURES SHALL BE DESIGNED TO CONFORM WITH CITY OF CHULAVISTA’S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. 2. BUILDINGS 1 +2 ARE STORY OVER BASEMENT PARKING. WEST DRIVE NORTH DRIVE STRESS PAD SOUTH DRIVE BONITA GLEN DR. VIS T A D R . TRASH & RECYCLING POOL TERRACE P A T H O F C O L L E C T I O N T R U C K S OFFICE UTIL. BRIDGE BRIDGE SPA north scale1” = 30’ - 0” TY P . F O R B U I L D I N G S 5 A N D 6 TY P . F O R B U I L D I N G S 3 A N D 4 8,938 SF 13,485 SF 13,485 SF HOTEL GAS STATION RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL SECTION AT BLDG. 2 SEE SHEET A3.0 SECT I O N A T B L D G . 1 SEE S H E E T A 3 . 0 TRASH & RECYCLING TRASH & RECYCLING TRASH & RECYCLING Project Site Plan Bonita Glen IS FIGURE 2SOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 91 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exterior Building Materials Bonita Glen IS FIGURE 3aSOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 93 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exterior Building Materials Bonita Glen IS FIGURE 3bSOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 95 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PRIVATE PATIO(GROUND LEVEL): 5,505 sq. ft. BALCONY: 7,344 sq. ft. DOG PARK: 3,455 sq. ft. NATURAL PLAY: 5,704 sq. ft. POOL DECK: 5,150 sq. ft. AMENITY BUILDING: 375 sq. ft. COMMUNITY TRAIL: 12,410 sq. ft. OUTDOOR DINING PLAZA: 907 sq. ft. SIDEWALK ALONG BONITA GLEN DR.: 2,127 sq. ft. ENTRANCE HARDSCAPE: 1,142 sq. ft. PLANTING:33,258 sq. ft. - Entry and Residential Planting: 16,401 sq.ft. - Courtyard and Pool Planting: 1,550 sq.ft. - Riparian: 5,075 sq.ft. - Park and Edge Planting: 8,484 sq.ft. - Urban Garden and Orchard: 1,748 sq.ft. TOTAL: 77,377 SF Open Space and Recreation Areas Bonita Glen IS FIGURE 4SOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 97 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 2 3 3 3 9 10 5 4 21 11 12 13 7 8 6 14 1 6 8 20 19 18 17 17 15 16 22 22 22 22 17 1 1 22 22 4 17 11 20 23 23 23 23 10 ’ SETBACK SET B A C K 10’ STREET TREE - COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR STREET TREE - NEIGHBORHOOD SCREENING/EDGE TREE ORCHARD TREE COURTYARD TREE PLAZA/POOL TREE PLANTING ZONES TREE ENTRY AND RESIDENTIAL PLANTING COURTYARD & POOL PLANTING RIPARIAN PLANTING- STORM WATER GARDEN-EPHMERAL STREAM- PARKING LOT BIOSWALES PARK AND EDGE PLANTING DOG PARK-NATURAL PLAY- COMMUNITY TRAIL URBAN GARDEN AND ORCHARD SLOPE PLANTING-NATIVE GRASSLAND CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT ZONE PLANTING LEGEND BUILDING 1 BUILDING 5 BUILDING 4 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 6BUILDING 7 PLANTING NOTES WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES WUCOLS: Water Use Classification of Landscape Species is a OWNER of California Cooperative Extension Publication and is a guide to the water needs of landscape plants. CATEGORY/ABV. PERCENT OF ETo H - HIGH 70% - 90% M - MEDIUM 40% - 60% L- LOW 10% - 30% VL - VERY LOW < 10% LANDSCAPE CALCULATION NEW LANDSCAPE: 97,821 S.F. (INCLUDING TURF) EXISTING LANDSCAPE: 5,435 S.F. (EPHEMERAL STREAM) TOTAL LANDSCAPAE: 103,256 S.F.-45% OF SITE(SITE: 230,868 S.F.) REQUIRED TREE PLANTING AT PARKING AREA: 22 One (1) 24” Box tree per 3,000 SF parking spaces. TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: 68,000 sq. ft. 170 Units x 400 sf/unit Required = 68,000 sq. ft. TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 77,377 sq. ft. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 COMMUNITY TRAIL- washed aggregate concrete SIDEWALK- sand finish concrete STORMWATER GARDEN- riparian planting with rocks and boulders VISITOR AND TENANT PARKING- asphalt GARAGE ENTRY- concrete FIRE BOWL- gas supplied OUTDOOR DINING - concrete/concrete pavers OUTDOOR GRILL AREA - conccrete/concrete pavers DOG PARK- turf/artificial turf NATURAL PLAY- fibar play surface or sand and pour-in-place safety surfacing LEGEND 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE - ipe or other hardwood POOL- concrete SPA- concrete POOL HOUSE- refer to architect EXISTING HOTEL PARKING EXIT - updated with enhanced paving and specimen tree EXISTING CUL DE SAC TRASH ENCLOSURE - refer to architect COMMUNITY VEGGIE GARDEN - raised wood boxes with dg paving and galvanized metal planters with potable water supply EPHEMERAL STREAM CHANNEL “PROTECT IN PLACE“ 20 21 22 23 PEDESTRAIN WALK ENTRY - integral color concrete LOBBY - refer to arch PRIVATE PATIO - natural grey sand finish concrete REINFORCED CONCRETE PAD LIGHTING- parking single and double box LIGHTING- pool and pole light LIGHTING- tree uplight LIGHTING- pedestrian pole light LIGHTING- wall recessed light LIGHTING-wall recessed strip light LIGHTING LEGEND 10 19 Landscape Plan Bonita Glen IS FIGURE 5SOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 99 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 1 4 FRONT ELEVATION SAND FINISH STUCCO COMPOSITE WOOD TRELLIS ON PAINTED METAL KNEE BRACES PAINTED METAL GUARDRAIL FABRIC AWNING ON PAINTED METAL FRAMEVINYL FRAME WINDOWS CEMENT FIBER HORIZONTAL SIDING (PAINTED) PAINTED METAL FASCIAS / GUTTERS 30” C.I.P. BOARD FORM PATIO WALLPAINTED FIBERGLASS FRENCH DOOR (FROSTED, GLASS AT ALL UNIT ENTRIES) COMPOSITE WOOD RAILINGSON PAINTED METAL FRAME SIDE ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ - 0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ - 0” SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ - 0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ - 0” 10 ’ - 0 ” 1 0 ’ - 0 ” 1 0 ’ - 0 ” 3 ’ - 6 ” 10 ’ - 0 ” 1 0 ’ - 0 ” 1 0 ’ - 0 ” 3 ’ - 6 ” 10 ’ - 0 ” 1 0 ’ - 0 ” 1 0 ’ - 0 ” 3 ’ - 6 ” 10 ’ - 0 ” 1 0 ’ - 0 ” 1 0 ’ - 0 ” 3 ’ - 6 ” Buildings 1-6 Elevations Bonita Glen IS FIGURE 6aSOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 101 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK VA R I E S : 1 3 ’ - 0 ” - 1 8 ’ - 0 ” VA R I E S : 1 3 ’ - 0 ” - 1 8 ’ - 0 ” 10 ’ - 0 ” 10 ’ - 0 ” 10 ’ - 0 ” 10 ’ - 0 ” 10 ’ - 0 ” 10 ’ - 0 ” VA R I E S : 5 ’ - 0 ” - 8 ’ - 0 ” VA R I E S : 5 ’ - 0 ” - 8 ’ - 0 ” PRE-FINISHED METAL SIDING PAINTED METAL FASCIAS / GUTTER PAINTED METAL FASCIAS / GUTTER COMPOSITE SIDING ON METAL STRUCTURE - STAIR ENCLOSURE CEMENT FIBER HORIZONTAL SIDING (PAINTED) SAND FINISH STUCCO COMPOSITE RAILINGS ON PAINTED METAL FRAME EXPOSED BOARDFORM CONCRETE OR PATTERNED CMU EXPOSED BOARDFORM CONCRETE OR PATTERNED CMU PAINTED METAL SCREEN PAINTED METAL SCREENSTOREFRONT PERGOLA FABRIC AWNING ON PAINTED METAL FRAME FABRIC AWNING ON PAINTED METAL FRAME PAINTED METAL GUARDRAILPAINTED FIBERGLASS FRENCH DOORVINYL FRAME WINDOWS PAINTED FIBERGLASS FRENCH FOOR 1 2 WEST ELEVATION - A WEST ELEVATION - B SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ - 0” SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ - 0” Building 7 Elevations Bonita Glen IS FIGURE 6bSOURCE: Latitude 33 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 103 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK V A L L E Y V I S T A R D 0 1 S T A V R I N G R D B O N ITA RD E J ST E I ST G ST F L O W E R S T E H S T MADRO N A S T D ST CYPRE S S S T I ST M I N O T AV E ST B O N I T A M E S A R D L Y N NDALE L N M E LRO S E A V R O B E R T AV H ST C L A I R E A V PEPP E R T R E E R D C A R L A A V G R E T C H E N RD PLAZ A B O N ITA R D C R E L A S T SWEETWATER RD 0 2 N D A V FAIR L O M A S R D CENTE R S T F ST C O R D E L L E L N V A N C E S T D E N N I S A V E L M A V D A V I D S O N S T E SHAS T A S T E WHI TNEY S T E MA NKATO S T M Y R A A V SHA STA ST AL P I N E A V GEORG I N A S T C T E M A R I A A V EQUITATIO N L N EFL O W E R ST ÄÆ54 SWEETWATER - Lower Sweetwater - La Nacion SWEETWATER - Lower Sweetwater - Telegraph §¨¦805 Hydrologic Setting Bonita Glen IS SOURCE: SANGIS 2017; USGS 2018 Da t e : 8 / 3 / 2 0 1 8 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c b a t t l e - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 7 H y d r o l o g i c S e t t i n g . m x d 01,000500Feetn Project Boundary JurisdictionalWaters Hydrologic Unit - Area - Subarea FIGURE 7 105 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Biological and Jurisdictional Resources Bonita Glen IS SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2016 Da t e : 8 / 3 / 2 0 1 8 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c b a t t l e - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 8 B i o l o g i c a l a n d J u r i s d i c t i o na l R e s o u r c e s . m x d 0 10050Feetn Impacts (Limits of Grading) Project Site Boundary Vegetation DEV - Developed NNG - Non-Native Grasslands ORN - Ornamental !(Data Stations Jurisdictional Resources ACOE/RWQCB/CDFW City of Chula Vista RWQCB FIGURE 8 107 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! V A L L E Y V I S T A R D 0 1 S T A V R I N G R D B O N ITA RD E J ST E I ST G ST F L O W E R S T E H S T MADRO N A S T D ST CYPRE S S S T I ST M I N O T AV E ST B O N I T A M E S A R D L Y N NDALE L N M E LRO S E A V R O B E R T AV H ST C L A I R E A V PEPP E R T R E E R D C A R L A A V G R E T C H E N RD PLAZ A B O N ITA R D C R E L A S T SWEETWATER RD 0 2 N D A V FAIR L O M A S R D CENTE R S T F ST C O R D E L L E L N V A N C E S T D E N N I S A V E L M A V D A V I D S O N S T E SHAS T A S T E WHIT N E Y S T E MA NKATO S T M Y R A A V SHA STA ST AL P I N E A V G EORGI NA ST C T E M A R I A A V EQUITATIO N L N EFL O W E R ST ÄÆ54 §¨¦805 City of Chula Vista MSCP Reserve/Conservation Area Bonita Glen IS SOURCE: SANGIS 2017; City of Chula Vista 2017 Da t e : 8 / 3 / 2 0 1 8 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c b a t t l e - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 9 C i t y o f C h u l a V i s t a M S C P R es e r v e _ C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a . m x d 01,000500Feetn !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!City of Chula Vista MSCP Project Boundary FIGURE 9 109 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Project Traffic Study Areas Bonita Glen IS FIGURE 10SOURCE: Chen + Ryan 2018 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ M N D 111 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK